Tell you, you're not gonna have a war
with me and you're not gonna have a
third world war with me. That I can
tell you.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours breaks
free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Sunday, 03/01/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. Definitely important
follow-up. There's a lot of stories that we
were covering yesterday that are very important to
follow-up on and make sure we're seeing the
developments.
A couple of quick points to make in
the beginning. There's important things that we discussed
yesterday. One, Khamenei being killed. The reporting has
clearly continued in the direction of that he
has been killed. We'll touch on that as
we go through on the other parts we
may, you know, that I may discuss on
on different thoughts of, you know, continued objectivity.
And, as well as the, make sure I've
just wanna get these out right in the
beginning.
There was the other example that I wanted
you guys to hear in regard to, oh,
well, I guess I put it in the
title in general, but to know that the
offer, the the offer of a ceasefire was
reported by the Israeli media.
And it was something it was just a
title,
character issue. It ultimately wanted to include that,
but the point being that this is something
that Israel has reported. And I find that
to be more relevant than usual because of
the way the Israeli media operates with most
of the stuff today. But what we're gonna
be covering today is the continuation of the
attack on Iran,
the continuation of the coverage of the illegal
reality of all of it and what it's
leading to. Now there's a lot there's a
lot of other,
I guess, considerations
in this conversation that we're gonna get into
today
about
the the questions that we should always be
asking about things that might be false, about
manipulations
deeper than just what we can see, about
whether, for example, Donald Trump is being tricked
or forced or coerced or
strong armed into this action. And then on
top of that, whether this action itself might
be Trump saving us from something.
It's certainly an interesting thought.
Now what I would argue is that even
if that is where we are, it shows
you two things. That, like, we've all been
telling you that Israel is clearly controlling this
government and dictating policy. So as you have
Republicans who are now saying that it was
Trump, Trump didn't have a choice because it
was a nuclear threat.
Oh, okay then.
Well, that's exactly what we've all been telling
you. Right? And it's not about one person.
It's not Trump versus Biden, and that's the
game that's played. It's about Israel influencing policy.
They make it about Trump. So what's interesting
first is that that what's be that's what's
being highlighted. But then two, it clearly shows
you that Israel, or at the very least
that Trump, is vulnerable to
the
pressure from Netanyahu in particular, or the idea
that simply that Donald Trump is
can be
pressured from a foreign government to take actions
that will put Americans at risk.
And
how is that America first? I think it's
very important that we consider the evolution of
the narrative, not just what's being put in
front of us in the moment. And how
I often point out the lies and how
they evolve and how clearly Israel more than
anybody these days, how clearly that shows you
what we're looking at. But if that is
the case, it's important it is an important
moment for Americans
to truly understand where we are,
that a president of The United States can
effectively be blackmailed, threatened, coerced into a position
where not only we're on the cusp of
a major I mean, let's be real. We're
already within a major war. Call it what
you will. It meets the metrics as I've
said for years,
have have a world dynamic.
But that Americans will continue to fight these
wars for these foreign powers, and it will
continue a cycle
if we allow the two party illusion to
continue, if you understand where I'm going, that
will never end. Because if, like I mean,
right now, we're in this kind of interesting
point where a lot of things are changing.
And I'm seeing a lot of things that
are changing as I've been trying to highlight
that are really just about ensuring that the
people, the entities, the, you know, whatever you
wanna think is ruling factions here to continue
that control.
Put under your guise that that's changed, and
that's what everything we see today.
And there's a lot of other important information
we're gonna get to around the the nuclear
allegations, the
partisan game, and the lies that are just
unprecedented
coming out right now. And where you know,
where and, really, I think on top of
that, where this will go outside of all
of the partisan conversation.
What what is the outcome to all of
this? What should have been thought about beforehand
and not just some argument that we'll get
this done quick or, you know, whatever the
the the same things we hear every time.
What does this look like?
Let's just say they get what they want.
Does that make the world a better place?
Ask look at Syria. Look at Iraq. Look
at every I mean, these these are objectively
worse situations than the way they were before.
Not, of course, if you listen to the
US government, who will always rationalize its destructive
and chaotic actions.
Well, that's where the Shah comes in. That's
where the NEK come in. All these very
objectively bad people who are now being put
forward as the possible solutions. By the way,
the Iranian people don't want it all.
So let's start, of course, with a couple
of points I don't want you to miss
that is always how this
goes. As this is continuing, as the world's
distracted, whether it's a Christian holiday or some
other bombing dining, whatever it is, something Israel
notices is gonna distract Americans,
they intensify their disgusting actions elsewhere in the
world. In this case, with settlers in the
West Bank and in Gaza. Now he said
this at the end of the show yesterday.
They immediately went back to basically a full
on you know? I mean, to be clear,
they never stopped what they were doing in
Gaza.
But they at least announced a repositioning
of the worst parts, you know, the the
complete military control of the area or whatever
they called it.
Hadn't really changed, to be honest, but they're
now at least feeling the the momentum enough
to be able to state that or at
least use the momentum to hide that or
however you would look at it. The point
is, they're now claiming right back to square
one in Gaza. Now here in the West
Bank, and I'll read what they wrote about
it, a threat of today's just today's settlers
attacks on Palestinian town of Douma. Around eleven,
settlers invaded Bedouin community with their goats, all
while Iranian missiles are flying overhead. They were
armed with guns, batons, pepper spray. Now in
case you're confused, this happens every single day
over there. But what I wanna show now
is that it's ramped up to a degree
that I haven't seen. And there's a lot
of I'm forgetting the guy's name.
I should've I should've grabbed him for this.
He's somebody that's been in the West Bank
doing a lot of good work. He's kind
of an activist, like, just high doing his
blonde hair. He got beat up in one
of his time. Basically, he's out there showing
this, and he's been demonstrating an increase in
all this as well. But on top of
that,
breaking the silence points out, yesterday morning, we
woke up to rocket alerts. Israel began bombing
Iran.
As often happens when the media attention shifts,
Israel sees the moment to intensify its attacks
against Palestinians, and here's what happened while the
world was looking the other way.
And, you know, and you can I mean,
it's worth understand? I mean, it's just the
same stuff we're always reporting.
Every single thing you could talk about. I
mean, the Israel will ramp up its aggression
against Lebanon. It'll ramp up its aggression against
what it's doing in Syrian in two Syrians
in Syria.
It always goes the same way. And it
frustrates me that it's that obvious and yet,
like everything else, it continues to be debated
and argued and you know, which I mean,
let's be fair. We should always be debating
and but the idea
that we're talking about something that is something
even Netanyahu has admitted to or, like, some
examples like that or what's going on with
Gaza for crying out loud that we can
even pretend like we when we like, for
example, we can clearly debate whether it meets
the metric of genocide.
That's a that's a that's a fair argument
because we may have a subjective difference on
what we think that, but
they're killing people. It's against the law, and
we can all see that. And every I
don't know anybody arguing they're not doing that.
So it's important to just break through all
the nuance of the conversation when it comes
to things that we're understand, like, basic realities
of the situation.
Now we talked about this on yesterday. US
Israel illegally bombed Iran killing over a 100
school children. Now that was one of the
things I was gonna include to start in
case you missed the rest of the show,
is that ultimately,
the bombing of the school
has been verified. And it in my opinion,
it was very easily shown early on that
they lied about how it went down, trying
to blame it on Iran. But now bay
based on geolocation, it's pretty clearly shown that
this was exactly what it was originally discussed
as. And let's be clear, it was also
reported from not that mainstream media makes it
true, but a lot of what what anybody
in the mainstream conversation would call reputable media
telling you that that's ultimately what happened.
And they're still lying about this. And this
was the beginning.
This is a choice to bomb a school
full of children.
In the beginning, the first act, guys,
bear keep that in mind as we go
through all this as we take one quick
point to discuss the AI discussion and the
from that bombing point things we discussed yesterday.
But think about what that means.
I mean, what are they telling the world?
What is Netanyahu trying to demonstrate?
I mean, they know we're paying attention. Right?
They know we're looking more than ever, in
fact. And his first move is to bomb
a school full of children?
I mean, we have I mean, I don't
even think I need to explain. Whatever the
message would be, it sends a very clear
feeling. Right? We can do what we want.
We want you to know that we can
do what we want. We're gonna go so
as as far as to just murder a
bunch of children to make that statement. And
then so Iranians know too. If you do
anything else, we're gonna kill more children. And
they sit back and just lap up The
US blind
coverage of how that works. Now in the
AI point of this,
that we you know, that understanding the reality
of how immersive AI is in the foreign
policy discussion, but also just everything that The
US and the West largely are driving into
the world. And, like, I should reality being
it's gonna happen. China's doing the same thing,
but just from the western perspective,
it's important to understand
where this played a factor in the recent
bombing. Now I'm I really wanna talk about
this a lot, and I've been putting off
the anthropic AI US government point in the
conversation,
I mean, for probably a week and a
half. And it's been going on much longer
than that, but it, like, it jumped on
my radar when when it was being discussed.
And I was thinking, I can't believe that
they're actually trying to force this company. Whatever
you think of them, whatever you think their
guidelines are, it's a company. They could do
it. And they're saying, you have to do
this or this or this way because we
The US Government demands it. National security. And,
of course, when you look into the story,
as we'll read right now, it turns out
that they're real demands from the anthropic side
where we don't want you to use this
to kill people or make autonomous AI weapons.
Oh my god. What a bunch of woke
monsters. Right? And then you could read what
their actual charter thing said that they're all
complaining about.
I mean, do we not realize that people
have different views in the world? The idea
that what you can read in that and
then argue that, first of all, even means
woke? To argue that you care about other
people's perspectives? I'm not even gonna say I
agree with the way they frame that, but
to call it woke is just dumb. It's
lazy.
But on top of that, then it doesn't
mean that they're, therefore, some kind of radical
leftist, whatever they turn that into. But on
top of all of that, has nothing to
do with the fact that they don't want
the US government to use it for the
reason for the purposes that Israel's using it
for now in Gaza.
And that's their red line, and you call
them bad for that? Instead of acknowledging the
fact of that, you call them woke and
ignore even if they are woke, that doesn't
remove the fact of what you're talking about
and trying to accomplish. And so, on top
of all of that, they then used
anthropic
during the bombing of Iran.
After they just told the world that there
was a woke, disgusting company that we don't
need,
we don't care about, and we're gonna demand
that they stop, and we're gonna blacklist it,
and then they use it.
I mean, if it's not just a perfect
example of exactly who we're dealing with, whether
it's Trump personally or Biden or the government
as a whole, these people have no scruples.
They have no nothing is sacred to them.
It clearly was necessary, so they said, who
cares?
US government used AI tools from Anthropic during
the air attack launched on Iran. Now this
has been widely reported to Wall Street Journal,
plenty of others, after declaring that it would
stop using technology from AI startup
from Anthropic. As per a report by the
Wall Street Journal, commands around the world,
including The US command center in The Middle
East, used Anthropic's clawed AI during the Iran
attack.
Of course, right after Elon was making his
whole big point about why his grok was
the only one that made the right answers,
but then they used the woke one. It's
funny how that works. So clearly, it's not
that important.
And, you know, or there at least your
warmongering agenda was more important than caring about
woke stuff. Right? Funny how that works out.
Reportedly
oh, in case you missed my facetious
tone,
you know my opinion about this, guys. I
don't think the woke point I don't think
any of them, Biden or Trump or any
of them care truly about the woke,
like, the points of pronouns. I mean, some
of them within the politics sphere, political sphere
do. They they buy into these things, and
I don't think most of them are truly
in the know of what's going on. But
at the end point,
do you really think that they're fighting wars
for woke pronouns? Do you really think they
that this is a means to an end,
and it's things like this that make that
point for you? So if the reverse point
is Trump's fighting those things, then why would
it be cast aside because of their interest
now?
Because it's not important. It's all a bunch
of it's it's stuff to divide you amongst
yourselves. That's what it comes down to. That
That doesn't mean they're not that point is
not relevant or important in a general
sense. Of course, we shouldn't be forced to
say things or use, pronouns that they demand
or whatever it is or or transgender conversations.
Like, it's not the same as saying those
things aren't important in our lives, but the
governments and whether they care about that accomplishment
versus using it to meet their ends is
the point.
And it's everything.
I mean, and in every conversation, I mean.
Reportedly continuing, the command used Anthropic's AI for
intelligence assessments,
target identification,
and simulating battle scenarios with, you know, of
course, with their woke slant. Of course, that
was okay. I'm done joking. Prior to the
Iran attack, another Wall Street Journal report had
revealed that Anthropics AI was also used
by the Pentagon during the capture of Maduro.
So clearly,
they totally do want it. They totally do
need it, and they just wanted this again,
it's a it's a layer of of just
petty dishonesty within the larger dishonest narrative, which
is that they instead of going, well, we
want this group, but they don't wanna meet
our demands, so we're gonna move on to
something else, which is what an adult would
say. They don't get their demands, and so
Trump stomps his feet and goes, they suck
anyway, and they're woke, and we don't care,
and then uses them. It's just it's you
have to laugh at that. It's embarrassing for
him. We don't need it, he says. We
don't want it, and we're not gonna do
business with them again, and then use them.
This was, what, so many days ago or
recently.
There will be a six month phase out
period for agencies like the Department of War
who are using anthropics products at various levels.
Now, obviously, that would mean that they are,
in a way, you know, their six months
where they would still be using it. So
that's why. But my point is still the
same. Is that if it's about the woke
point, it shouldn't matter. Especially if you're arguing
it's some kind of invasive
Democrat, you know, whatever they're trying to make
it out to be as opposed to a
whole of government problem.
Pentagon and Anthropic had had been arguing for
months over how the company AI models are
used in national defense. The AI startup said
that it had allowed the US DOD to
use anthropic technology for purposes with two exceptions.
And this is the only issue, guys. The
only real issue. Because they were happy to
use it as before. Right? They're all making
a big issue about their woke mindset and
then why they didn't care until this red
line was drawn. Funny how that works. And
it says there are two exceptions, mass domestic
surveillance, Palantir's totally okay with that, and America
and fully autonomous weapons. Palantir's also okay with
that. And so the problem becomes they won't
allow us to use their AI to to
murder people and to break the law. So
they're bad people,
and they're challenging national security.
I mean, guys, this is almost embarrassing today
how ridiculous all of this is. It's always
been like this where they're lying about what
they're doing and you know? But it's just
at a level where
it's either because these people are so shockingly
incompetent they can't even deliver lies properly, or
somebody wants to see all this. That's what
I would argue makes the most sense, but
I'm sure there's more to consider.
Anthropic has also challenged The US designation of
of a company of the company as a
supply chain risk. Why would it be a
supply chain risk because they don't want you
to use weapons AI weapons to kill Americans
or to kill people or autonomous weapons or
surveillance? How would that be supply chain? Well,
there's one easy answer to that because their
supply their where their their chain
is based on it the let's put it
this way to make that not confusing. The
industry and the way this government and the
world seems to be going is AI and
surveillance
and technology.
And that means what they need this for
is their supply chain.
They need this everything else is probably side
discussions now. They're building their AI world. And
that's I think that's what Trump sees as
his kind of, I'm gonna create the new
global order around my AI control structure.
Funny how that's exactly what we were all
fighting thirty seconds ago.
But I'm gonna talk about that a lot
more. I have tons of stuff to pull
into it, but it was very relevant to
today, you know, and thinking about the lies
around a lot of this and how it
does play a factor. Now another point about
AI that I'm really not gonna take much
time on because it appears more and more
that this is some sort of a weird
anomalous point that's not relevant
to the real,
let's just simply say, to Iran's bombing of
Trump or of the US government. But I
there's something about this that I find just
simply interesting,
whether or not it's relevant. But on top
of that, that there's I get a sense
that there's,
like, there's another rare real agenda around whatever
we're touching on here.
And and that is whether it's just AI
manipulating video and audio and whatever else or
deep fakes or whatever. Those are all very
real and important conversations.
So when this came up, I thought this
was fascinating. Oh, you know what I forgot
to grab?
It's in the it's in yesterday's show, but
the woman who basically broke this down, and
she's pretty much the only person that was
the one that get carried this this conversation
saying that this video was AI.
It was a deep fake. Now let's see.
And I I I had no other indication
other some some interesting things she pointed out
to think that, and I thought it was
relevant to bring it up yesterday.
And it still seems to be sort of
weirdly confusing today based on even what Grok
will say. So let me show you this.
Now this again, this is
really just interesting to me, and I wanna
stress that. I'm not I don't even really
think this is, in a real sense, some
kind of a deeper point about Iran, like
it's not really happening or whatever else. Would
consider those things. But more so to make
it simple that maybe this was something, if
this is the case, that they do all
the time because Trump was tired. And I'll
make that point at the end again. Seems
like they just put out another recorded video.
So maybe this is about something like that.
Or maybe because they're all vain and petty,
they made the video, edited it, and then
brushed up his face.
I'm dead serious, by the way, or whatever
else. And then Grok and whatever else gets,
oh, it looks like that was AI or
altered because it was technically manipulated. See my
point? But all that aside, eight minute video
came out of Trump telling you all the
things he told you about Iran. Now a
lot of people have sent me this stuff.
Because after yesterday, I went over this, and
they they're getting the same responses. So first
of all, somebody
asked, is it AI? And Crockx said, no.
No. It's not. It's a real video from
president Trump. And then they respond asked again,
like, well, I have other AI sources saying
that they are. You sure? Croc responded, upon
double checking with additional sources and analyzing video
frames, strong indicators that it was an AI
generated video. Now this is not for you
to verify since it's just a screenshot somebody
sent me, but I'll go into more of
it. But I showed this yesterday, and I'll
show the links to it. And what I
find interesting about it is one, again, just
in an interesting kinda secondary point is that
this, at Grok and the rest of these
things are so ridiculous and subjective and manipulated,
and that's often why I include it for
the point of showing how it is used
in a partisan way, but ultimately still completely
subjective.
But still interesting. Right? It's like pointing to
another source saying, well, they disagree with you.
I'm not gonna blindly trust the source. It's
just one more data point. Right? And what's
interesting is that you can manipulate this. You
can kinda work through it and get it
to make certain arguments, and people make abuse
that. But all that being said, there's still
something about this that sorta stands out to
me. So I asked it again today. Now
look at my last show. Alright. It's all
included. This is another one that I said
is just using his tweet. And I said,
is this the full eight minute video? Is
it AI? And I said, yes. The video
in that ex post appears to be AI
generated or at least heavily manipulated
deepfake.
Now, again, that literally could just be that
they brushed up his face or, you know,
made it an AI thing because he didn't
wanna do it. May maybe nothing more than
that. Right? And that's something they can do,
and that would mean it's really just a
nothing burger. Right? But they listed all the
same things, inconsistent lighting and natural jerky movements
and blah blah blah. Okay. I thought that
was interesting. So it's jerky
movements, and blah blah blah. Okay. I thought
that was interesting because people are being told
it says no. Then I asked it again.
Oh, I I asked, is there anyone talking
about the fact that Trump's recent late night
Iran speech was a deepfake? And it says
no. There's no real engagement.
And then I asked it, but was it
a deepfake? And I said, no. I was
like, I literally just asked you this. And
I went I'm but right here, you just
told me that it was a deepfake, and
it says, that's not true and basically denies
that. I said, well, no. This is exactly
what you said. It's right there. Yes. It
is a deepfake. And he goes, Upon review,
I see what happened. It says this is
a real point, but it was because it
was a single clip that I misread. And
I said, no. No. No. You didn't. That's
not true. You actually literally showed the whole
thing. And I go on it's just weird
to me. Now, again, I just find this
interesting.
All of it to the end of the
point was I said simply again,
it's not it was not a specific clip.
It was the full thing. Why are you
base basically said, why are you wrong about
your own responses? And at the end of
the day, it simply said, oh, well, there's
you you know, it says, you're right. It's
fair to question this. There it was a
bit odd. I'm not gonna dodge that. So
I'm like, what a weird response. Right? And
you go through read all if you wanna
take the time.
My thing on all this is I get
the sense that there's something, maybe not even
connected to Ron like I'm saying, but something
more about what's going on here. And that
Grock is grappling with trying to give you
an answer that it can't, maybe because it's
broken, maybe because there's somebody behind the scenes
manipulating things. I don't know. I found it
very interesting. And then I saw this today,
politics and poll tracker, a new prerecorded address.
And remember Trump's, eight minute video? There's a
there's a cut. And they tried to make
it clean, but you could tell. There's a
there's, like, a edit. Not an AI thing,
but, like, an edit, which to me speaks
to, like I said yesterday,
less likely to be an AI. But a
edit. So maybe that's what it's picking up
on, right, or whatever else. And it says,
a new prerecorded address to the nation. Trump
says military operations in Iran will continue until
all our objectives are achieved. Now I'm gonna
come back to that point later in the
show. I just wanted you to see the
point about the clip the edited video.
Seize. Take back your country.
So
I find it interesting. Now I I wanna
include that just for getting it on the
record. We can come back to it later
because we are gonna get into a world
of AI everything, deep fake everything. I mean,
we're basically there, and I don't think we
even notice it yet. So I'm wondering what
we're picking up on here, but I'll leave
it there.
Now and just in case you missed all
of that, the the evidence right now seems
to to point
to that it's a real video, which I
don't even think was necessarily debated for most
of you, but it's important to put that
out in case you didn't get what I
was saying and all that. I'm not claiming
that it's necessarily deep fake. My gut tells
me it's more that it was somehow altered
in some way and that's what we're picking
up on, but who knows? Now, Kamini was
the other point about him being killed. Now,
yesterday, remember, it was in the middle of
the show. And at at that point, there
was, I think it was the foreign minister
was saying he's alive as far as we
know, and that other Iranian media, which by
the way is, you know, Durant is is
just
infiltrated all over the place with US,
you know, voice of America, Iran, or whatever
it is, or you know the diff or
Israeli fake or there's a lot of fake
Iran headline, you know, with the Iran banner
that are completely not Iranian media. Same everywhere
in the world, by the way. Same thing
here. But that's to say that the the
reporting was coming out, and so we should
question it because they've reported they've killed him
before, and they lied. They reported they've killed
a lot of people before, and they've lied.
Baghdadi, for example, I don't think they ever
found his body last time, and that was,
like, the seventh time they said that. The
point, though, is that we should always be
objective like that and make sure we're careful.
And then I saw somebody told me in
the chat, Robert reported it, and I to
me, that made
a lot more in my mind likely that's
the case. Then today, I even saw another
report coming out saying that he that somebody
was claiming he was still alive. But it
looks like it was maybe of a late
report.
But so we're at where we're at right
now. It started yesterday when I I read
the first report that said he was moved
somewhere secure,
which suggests that he wasn't in the location
that was bombed with all of them. But,
of course, that could have been a lie
because they wanna make sure people don't you
know, it's all about maintaining
the the the idea that you're strong. Right?
But so all that said now today, most
of these people involved with this are saying
that he was killed, including main Iranian accounts.
And the only thing I wanna add to
this is that the other than it'd be
most likely that he was killed, like, 99%,
is that that right now,
it's interestingly possible to me as an anomaly
that maybe he didn't get killed and he's
just
keep using this as a tactical tool until
something is take is you know? It'd be
really interesting, wouldn't it, if a week from
now, it turns out that he wasn't killed
and it gives them some kind of strategic
advantage?
Think about that. But all that to say,
just for sake of consideration,
if Saeed, Mohammed, Randy, and and even the
Khomeini account themselves are are telling you that
he was killed. We've always been prepared for
martyrdom, and we stand against the corrupt Zionist
Epstein class. That's going around quite viral right
now, by the way. I find that very
interesting. The Epstein wars and Epstein class. Think
about how frustrating that is for Trump and
the rest of them. Now
the fact that they killed him has to
be pointed out that, you know, we're talking
about under the guise of peace talks.
Just like last time, just like in Lebanon,
just like Soleimani,
these are these are vile people we're talking
about. I mean, there's nothing sacred. That means
nobody anywhere will ever have any faith in
any kind of peace talk because they're willing
to just go, hey. Everybody come together,
and then bomb them all. Soleimani, they literally
offered a peace talk and they bombed them
in the Iraqi airport. In Lebanon, they offered
an agree a a deal where they had
to come together to meet the new demands,
and then Israel bombed all of them in
that room. Same thing last time where Trump
offered a deal
and Iran came together and then Israel bombed.
Now this time
I honestly don't know why everyone's still falling
for this, quite frankly, but this time, it
seemed there was a little bit of difference,
but they were being very careful. And then
Trump,
the same thing, said there is a deal
where they need to address the details, and
that's when Israel attacked. This has all been
covered. It's been they're bro boasting about this.
And so what we're talking about is people
who are using what is supposed to be
some kind of a sacred middle ground for
somebody to have these are these are the
belligerence, guys. The fact that every single time
Iran comes to the table and tries to
even if they're doing it dishonestly, and then
what you see is the other side taking
advantage of that. That's what they were just
saying yesterday, is Iran is recognizing that their
restraint is only gonna be used as weakness.
So, they've effectively created the world that they're
telling you they're trying to stop.
Probably by design, so they can forever point
to the other side and say, They're the
reason we're always in this forever war. And
if it's always forever war, then we'll never
know for sure. And it only benefits the
people who want war.
And show me where Iran sees conducting war.
Show me where they're invading other countries. Show
me where they're doing any of the things
they're talking about. You could I mean, I
would even challenge you to prove to me
that they're, in fact, doing any of the
things they claim they're doing. I mean, like,
they this even the fight the proxy element
conversation. There's allies. Sure. And I'm not even
gonna disagree. They're probably doing what they claim
in regard to support or weaponry, which is
what everyone in the world does.
But it's just wild to me that they
can assassinate this man or the guys at
peace talks who whatever you think he is.
On top of that, the point is the
Western world is supposed to be demanding evidence,
a trial
that were not like them. They just kill
people with suicide attacks. Well, what what's no
different, guys?
Then you go into the other part of
the conversation where there was other people that
were killed. One of them,
well,
was the
I forgot I put those in there. Was
the Iranian president, former president.
You know what that means?
That means he was a civilian. That means
they murdered a civilian because, you know, he
he was formerly in the government.
Think about that for a second, and we'll
come back to it. Now this the Comenie
account, the the the original, like, not the
secondary media accounts, but his actual account,
He says on this on the seventeenth, the
island of corruption is one example in regard
to the Epstein Island. There is much more
of this. Just as this was not apparent
and then became exposed,
there are many other things that will soon
come to light.
And then he was assassinated under the cover
of peace talks by the Board of Peace.
Just in case we're unclear about that.
Right? The reality that this man was killed
after telling you now who knows? Maybe that
he was just suggesting
that he saw that coming too.
Or maybe there was more. Maybe there was
another reason on top of every other reason
they drove take maybe this was what got
Trump moving. You know, in a in a
historical situation, Israel's been trying to drive the
US government to doing this my entire life.
And even Trump in the past has, you
know, done a lot but waffled, and maybe
this was the driving factor.
They're gonna expose your connections to Epstein.
Let us do what we want.
Just a thought.
Now here's what Trump had to say about
this. Now think about how crazy this is.
Trump just assassinated
this leader,
illegally, in ever possible sense, but even within
that, just dishonestly, in a way that was
manipulative under the guise of peace talks, so
there is no legal justification for any of
this, even if everything they say is true.
And it's not, by the way. And then
Ducey decides to throw him a softball, and
who knows if it's even true, and says
they're which probably is because look at what
they're doing. Imagine what Republicans would be saying
right now if they had done the reverse
and they had killed Trump. Right?
So he goes, they're they're they're saying they
wanna kill you.
What are you gonna do about that? So
listen to what he had to say, and
then and then and then we'll talk about
how insane it is. They just said this
after what just happened.
Iran,
and their proxies will threaten to retaliate against
you and your team by killing you guys
or taking out the whole time.
Well, they haven't done that, and
that would be a terrible thing for them
to do. Not because of me. If they
did that, they would be obliterated.
That'd be the end. I've left instructions. Oh,
interesting. If they do it, they get obliterated.
There won't be anything left. Got that? So
if they do exactly what Trump just did,
Trump will nuke
the country or, you know, bomb them into
obliteration
or whoever left anyway. And they shouldn't be
able to do it. And Biden should have
said that, but he never did. I don't
know why. Lack of intelligence, perhaps.
Correct. He never said it. He makes sense.
If that happens to a leader
or close to a leader, frankly, if you
had other people involved also
Yep.
You would call for total obliteration of a
state that did it. That would include Iran.
Is he that ridiculous, or is that actually
what they're trying to drive to happen here?
I mean, think about that. He just literally
said that if they were to do the
thing he just did,
that he would then or he's left instructions
to annihilate the country.
So, right there, it clearly shows you that
under even his logic, then they would be
that they have the legal right to respond
in that way, even though they're screaming terrorism.
Secondarily,
what we're talking about here
think about what we're talk so we're talking
about an action, though Trump gets killed. That's
hypothetical. Right? So he's saying if Iran were
to do that
so they take they take Trump out.
And his standing order would be to take
us immediately to World War three and just
bomb everything.
Sounds like Israel. Sounds like the Samson option.
But the point is that that is that
good for Americans?
Well, clearly, that's not what he wants. He
wants, avenge me.
Murder everybody because I
am selfish. Because I am a narcissist and
because it's about me and in my name.
It's the first thing we should be considering
is whether that's in the interest of Americans.
If if if they killed him and that
was the end of it, we you know,
think about what is that does that mean
like, it's the same thing in reverse. From
Iranian's perspective,
if this would actually be done, they might
very well just try to walk this back.
I doubt that's gonna happen because, clearly, they
have been
pushed into a corner their entire life, it
seems. And, ultimately, right now, they're it seems
like they're fed up, and we're gonna get
to the point of them
are arguably denying the c the ceasefire that
Trump put forward, which says quite a lot.
But I just can't get past that. The
idea that he would say that. And then,
you know, at the end of the day,
it's they're I mean, I think they've even
absorbed and don't even realize that they're doing
it. The actual mindset that it's okay when
we do it, not when they do it.
Because we're the good guys.
Right? You know? Like, that's what they feel
like. Obviously. Right? Because we're not the bad
guys. We can do those things. And that's
literally been the US government mindset my entire
life.
It's not illegal when the president does it,
Nixon said. You know what I mean? Like,
it's very clear that they have this mindset,
and that's simply not the reality.
So they killed the former Iranian president, and
here is what that he saw. And it
say Trump murdered Mahmoud,
I'll probably mispronounce his last name, the former
president of Iran, who, whatever you think of
him, was a civilian,
not in the military. And so it was
murder, plain and simple. Now let's even be
clear on top of that, guys. If this
was if just because you're in the military
does not mean that you're immediately a military
target.
If you're in your home with your family,
you're not a military target. But Israel doesn't
think that clearly even though that's the case,
or they know that but just don't care
is the right way to say that. But
so it doesn't just there are people being
killed all over the place that are in
the military that are actually still war crimes.
But in this case, he was quite literally
a civilian.
And so it was murder.
As legal, as illegal, and as murderous as
Iran bombing and killing, say, George w Bush
in his home in Dallas.
But they would all
use to rush us to war.
Even though right now, based on the exact
same thing in reverse, they're claiming Iran's actions
in any way are terrorism.
Just think about how stupid that is. Like,
if you could very least argue, well, they
have the right to respond, but they're terrorists,
and we're still gonna try to take them
out. But they don't even do that. They
act they act like we're that stupid that
they were their responses are unprecedented
and unjustified.
They're actually saying that.
So Trump, in the same video, will, not
gonna play it, but we'll point you more
in a in a later part. Trump says
Iran's entire military command is gone. You know?
So who knows at this point?
So far, at least the Khomeini point seems
like that's fleshed out, but they've lied about
this stuff. They I mean, let's put it
this way. It's policy in my mind that
they lie about
projecting absolute strength in the middle of warfare
even though we know it. And, you know,
the mindset being if we can just trick
a few people into thinking we're stronger than
they are, then may then it gives them
some kind of edge. They lie every single
time. They lie about it every single time.
But that's not the same as saying that
it might also be true. My point is
whether they even know it, they would come
out and say that. That's the way think
of it like this. Before they even get
the information about what's happened, they rush to
the microphone and give you what they want
you to think. And then maybe if ends
up being that, maybe something else. That's just
that's what they do. Now, on this on
the point of Netanyahu fleeing, these are all
points from yesterday that are up in the
air.
What's interesting is it has been shown that
the the it's called the Wing of Zion,
Israel's state aircraft, has flown to Germany and
was parked and they claimed for safety in
the Berlin Airport. Now the reports are rather
more specifically the air airline,
what's the right term for it? You know,
the the the airline like, the maritime mapping,
the airline,
GPS mapping
showed that they they went to Cyprus and
got turned away,
then went to Berlin. Now that shows me
something. That shows me and on top of
that, we now have allegedly attacks from Iran
hitting Cyprus.
I I want right. I wanna say right
now before we even get into the bombing
part of this, I think it's worth very
much so it behooves us to think
to ask whether everything happening is in fact
bombings from Iran.
Like, right now, I think there's obvious examples,
and Iran made it clear. They stated that
these are belligerents. And legally speaking, by every
definition of the term, they are. They've allowed
them to to to fuel. They've allowed them
to bomb from their locations. So any of
the countries that are involved with allowing what
US and and and Israel just did are
legally
belligerent, meaning they have the legal right to
bomb them back.
That's just a fact.
But doesn't mean that well, like, so some
of them, I think, that I've already seen
hit don't seem to line up for me
like that. But maybe that why it wouldn't
surprise me that Iran just did it because
they're angry.
But it's also possible that we have Israel
or The US creating chaos in other places
so they can, you know, mixed in with
what's happening, so they can go look at
how crazy they are. Look, they just bombed
that hospital over there. Look, they just did
this. Right? Question those things. As always, don't
blindly assume. Iran is just as capable of
doing evil like any other government in my
mind. So my point in all this is
that the flight seems to have gone. The
question is whether or not Netanyahu fled. Now
like last time, he did, guys. That was
shown. This this person is a coward. He's
fled in many examples where people are left
there to defend what he created.
But we can't prove that. Maybe it was
just the plane. But why so why they
just wanna save the plane? Maybe.
I guess.
But I guess we'll find out as he
goes forward. So that's where that's at at
this point. The the plane seems to have
been confirmed, but whether he was involved or
on it is was hard to know. Because
he can still do videos. In fact, we'll
get to one where he he claims he's
on top of a building in in Tel
Aviv, but we can get to that in
a second.
Straight up Hormuz.
There's so much nonsense flying around. It's kinda
crazy to me. And here's what's wild.
This is not some only mainstream alternative media
thing. What we're actually seeing is the true
mechanism here. What the mainstream alternative media just
does a it's here's a good a good
kind of analogy or rather comparison. Think about,
like so we're talking about the new media,
the mainstream alternative versus the mainstream.
Compare that to the current reality of the
Trump administration to just our US government and
how they're all corrupt. Right? They're all criminals,
but there's a special kind of stupid incompetence
in what's currently going on Trump's administration. And
I think that's just where it's naturally declined
to. In the same way, I think you
can see the mainstream alternative media emulating the
mainstream, but doing it in a clumsy, ridiculous,
incompetent way so it just becomes too obvious.
Funny how that looks the same, doesn't it?
So in this case, my point is that
you got a lot of this reporting that
was false, but it's not just them doing
that in a clumsy way. You actually have
the corporate media reporting things that are false,
but that's not new to those of us
that are paying attention.
Oil price is expected to surge after Iran
strikes and straight before moves to closure.
Now it's not entirely well, I I think
it's inaccurate to call it a closure at
all, and I'll show you why. But this
was reported yesterday, and it was provably not
closed. It was stated,
and yet this is still how it gets
reported.
It says the price of oil expected to
soar on Monday as The US, Israel, war
on Iran, an effective closure effective.
See, not what it that's not what it
says in the title. So this is not
closed. Even by their own admission right now,
and I'll show you what they mean.
The effective closure
just really quickly. That's the effective closure right
now. That's the Strait Of Hormuz. K. We'll
come back to that.
The effective closure of a critical Strait Of
Hormuz rattles investors despite major producers' pledges to
increase their output. It says Iran's revolutionary guards
reportedly told ships on Saturday that passage through,
reportedly, the passage through the Strait Of Hormuz
was prohibited. I haven't actually seen that. That
wouldn't surprise me, though. I'm actually surprised they
haven't done this in the past. It says,
in effect, shutting in effect, shutting the key
choke point and prompting the halt of some
oil shipments.
It says the closure of the Strait Of
Hormuz would
disrupt shipments from Saudi Arabia and The UAE,
Iraq, Kuwait, and as well from Iran, leading
to shortages and higher energy prices and tons
of other things we can include.
Okay. Well, funny how that contradict, you know,
if and when it happens, sounds like sort
of a different point. Okay. So here's the
reality, guys. Based on what I can find
out, based on my research on this, it
seems as if Iran stood up and said,
you're not allowed to come through the Strait
Of Hermos.
Like, right when this first started.
Didn't do anything necessarily shut it down. I
mean, look. I mean, let me show you
again really quickly.
Here are military ships.
And what you're gonna see is US ships
sitting right there
inside. Right? Like, so inside
the,
cove here, like, past Strait Of Hormuz.
There's one there. I thought there's another one,
but there's one there. So my point being,
that's not shut down. If everybody is, you
know, coming and going, and ultimately what you
can see is that normal traffic is clearly
represented in all this.
That's that's right now. This is a live
reality, but it's the time.
So
when they stood up and said, we're gonna
do that, it did have a response.
And many people then said, well, we're not
gonna do that, or we're gonna hold back
on our shipments. So in effect,
their statement did have a reduction
of traffic,
but you can clearly see that there's still
traffic.
So I think what we're dealing with is
either one of two things, that this was
their statement with the kind of meant to
be sort of a,
you know,
stating it has an effect, but, like, a
threat too. Right? So it's closed, but then
people still come through. So that is an
effect having some kind of a a a
reverberation,
but then it's more of this, you know,
the threat being we will actually do this
if you keep going. And even the statement
has caused effect. You see my point my
point in saying it like that is that
they recognize that it's sort of like, we're
already doing it to a degree, but we'll
go further.
Or
as as we should always consider that there's
something bigger going on. There's, you know, a
larger global
illusion taking place. And in Iran, and everybody
else is playing some kind of a game
to manipulate prices or oil. So I I
don't know because I just don't get why
it'd be done this way, but I don't
have all the details. I don't know what's
in their minds and what Trump has said
behind the scenes. So it's always worth just
being objective and and waiting to see what
happens. But the main point is it doesn't
appear to be closed at all. And, I
mean, every mainstream alternative media person told you
yesterday, absolutely 100% closed because that's what's circling
on Twitter, and they all just repeat each
other. It's pretty embarrassing.
But overall, I think this is gonna have
an effect, and they're gonna use that point
to argue Iran's doing this to the world.
I and and the last point on the
top of that is I think that might
be one reason they would hold back from
doing it because they know it'll be framed
that they're, in effect, hurting more than just
Israel and United States.
So an important point in all of this
was the preplanning,
and that is interestingly now being sort of
scrubbed and covered up. Bronco
Marcetic here is the one that seems to
have caught it.
Oh, a rider for you oh, that's interesting.
I didn't know that. I I like that
platform. But, you know, objectively, there's plenty of
things I could disagree with. But the point
is this scrubbed Reuters line is now partly
backed up by, the at Axios report. Actually,
I should have read this first. The line
where the Israeli official says the date had
been decided weeks ago that we reported day
before yesterday, I think, has been scrubbed.
Why would they do that? Then he follows
up and he says, and I'll show it
to you. They scrub the they scrub the
rotors line, but then Axios
referencing that before they scrubbed it, I love
how that works sometimes, is in fact still
backing up the argument.
So here is the original.
And we showed you this in the last
show.
I forget who show who we somebody else
caught it and we were we're sharing their
work on Twitter. I forget who it was
off the top of my head, but it's
cited in the last show. An Israeli defense
official said to Reuters that the operation had
been planned for months
in coordination with Washington
and that the launch date was decided
weeks ago. Now that's important because of the
way they say that. Not that we were
planning
potential dates for maybe situations, but that we
had picked a date
weeks ago.
And right now, guys, to be very clear,
pretty much everything we're seeing is backing up
the fact that they knew this was gonna
happen.
They they planned it and then lied about
it. Just like and and on top of
everything else, historically, like I just said, we
saw them do that with Lebanon. We saw
them do that with Iran before. We've seen
them do this many times. So it shouldn't
even be shocking that they would be potentially
doing that. Meaning that they're faking peace talks
in order to let them lower their guard,
and then in some cases, you see them
just respond later when they're just thinking nothing's
coming. Right? But this is even worse. This
is a peace talk setup where they're pee
they're coming to discuss it under the guise
of diplomacy.
So they come into the room. That's never
supposed to be broken. And they bomb them
in the room that they're supposed to be
discussing it. That's just
I don't I mean, there's nobody with any
scruples, any principles, any integrity should act like
that makes sense.
Now and and, of course, if your argument
is always is, well, Ryan, they're evil monsters.
Don't shouldn't you just take advantage. Okay. Fine.
You can make the argument, but then wouldn't
you then argue that we are better than
them or that we're, you know, a better
moral guidance that we so we would not
do fall to their level. Yes. Always making
that point.
Doing the same thing
makes you the same, guys.
Everything else is just your equivocation, rationalization.
Now they deleted this.
You can check the original article. It's gone.
They just removed the line.
So Axios, though, reported this.
Two months, two tracks.
How Trump chose war with Iran.
So too late. It's already been seen. Simple
point. Over the following weeks, the Mossad director
visited DC twice,
followed by the Israeli military intelligence chief and
the IDF chief of staff, all coordinating
what would become operations Epic Fury and Roaring
Lion.
So the bottom line is that it's very
clearly outlined that they discussed this. They met.
They planned it out.
A week before the Geneva meetings, The US
and Israel agreed on a potential window
for launching the attack.
The coming Saturday, when Khamenei held a routine
meeting with his top aids at his government
compound.
Based on the fact, again, that they were
offering this deal, guys. That's the point. That's
the only reason that that exact thing happened,
and this is what they do every time.
So knowing that they were planning this, it's
important to think about how this all went
down. Right? The lies that were put forward
in the front of everybody, screaming peace president,
and decensored news really did catch a good
example here. This was on New Year's Eve,
guys.
Two days after Trump met with Netanyahu in
Mar A Lago.
Right?
Well, we just saw what happened. We knew,
and now we're here with it. This was
and let's also not be dishonored with ourselves.
Netanyahu's been screaming about this his entire life.
Also, as we'll get to, he just publicly
said to the world, I promised you I
would do this for forty years. But we're
we're being told he's reacting to bad. No.
He's been pushing The US to do this
his entire life. So here is what and
and also here's Trump saying something about peace.
Here another example to add before I play
it is Melania,
arguably, the the the background conversation is that,
you know, that they're not really doing so
well,
and that she tends to, you know, shuck
him and, you know, buck him here and
there. So I think that is relevant to
her reaction here, just to consider that she
would be willing to react like this in
front of other people. Or it could mean
nothing. You can decide.
So, Kate, the volume's low. He asked what
his New Year's resolution was, and he said,
peace. Peace.
And you I mean, guys, you clearly see
her eyes like shock. She turns it in
shock. Why? Because she probably knows that's they
already planned not to do that. That's my
opinion entirely.
All that we can all that that's reportably
as fact is that she responded that way.
You can decide. I just think it's relevant
with what we're discussing.
I mean, wow. That's I mean, that's pretty
crazy. Her eyes literally go big, like, they,
you know, wipe.
So continuing.
Here is
what Trump was saying back in 2024. I
I opened it, but we'll play it again.
I I started with this. You know, it's
just
there's no way that you argue this somehow
makes sense. Now here's an important thing that
I've been saying my entire career doing this.
I never argued that it wouldn't you know,
that like, if we're talking about knowing that
this would happen, Iran war, whatever.
And now and and Trump back here going,
you're not gonna have a Iran war with
us. Okay.
I didn't say
it wouldn't happen with bad with just without
justification.
I didn't say that there wouldn't be a
reason for it. I said that it's going
to happen. Right? And so now that it
happens and the people that were screaming it
won't happen because Trump, their argument's like, well,
but it's justified, Ryan. They did if things
have changed, the stories changed. Okay. Well, when
we did we discuss that? No. We just
simply said, you said it wouldn't. I said
it would.
That's it. And so always what happens is
they yes. They provide you, these days, with
a very flimsy, but with a justification.
So it's not about whether it was ever
gonna be justified. It's about whether it would
or not, guys, and you know that. It's
the peace president. It's not the peace president
asterisk unless it's necessary. That's not how that
works. You know? It's just bad. It's it's
embarrassing. That's why I used the classic Steve
Carell or,
was it Carell?
Suddenly blanking on his name. But from the
office, you know, just like just that's cringey.
Like, that's crazy.
So now let's talk more cringey. Let's talk
about what the, like, I mean,
desperate flailing
does not do it justice. The partisans out
there who are making the rounds I mean,
might as well. You got Clay Travis here
and the rest.
He is
oh,
he might as well be John McCain.
How embarrassing that must be. Clay Trav, you
guys all act like you're the rebels fighting
the deep state. You literally are the people
telling us that they're gonna cheer us on
after the Iraq invasion.
How do you guys know? I mean, here
you either don't recognize how that what that
that you're doing the same thing, or you've
always been a part of the lie.
He says, from Iran to Venezuela to Cuba.
Oh, great. So more Cuba war coming soon,
guys. But America first. We are witnessing a
new birth of freedom
under president Trump. I mean, in what discernible
way?
I mean, any I mean, look. You you
could you could try to argue that all
of this will end up that way, but
there's nothing but examples, and mostly conservatives are
calling it out, of the opposite.
More government, more spending, less control, ignoring the
constitution.
All over the place.
Freedom?
I mean, and look, let's just even talk
about the reality of what we're doing, Iran.
What you're doing is chaos. You're working with
a government that is openly committing genocide. And
here they are going, Hooray!
Freedom.
He says the modern day collapse of the
Berlin Wall. Guys, these people are making fun
of you, or they're just this stupid.
When it says, that, they just reload the
same propaganda
every time, and the morons eat it up
every time. The collapse of of, you know,
tsunamis saying, oh, they're gonna meet us as
welcoming heroes.
Never the case. Right? I mean, can we
not learn from our mistakes? Look at Iraq.
They none nobody wanted that other than the
people that they paid to do that.
And the screaming mobs that they got yes.
They lied. And then we look back and
we go, clearly, Iraqis hated that. We can't
consider I mean, see, I I shouldn't even
say that. I'm I'm of the mind. Most
of us already are. I'm just trying to
make it clear that people like Klay Travis
and the rest of them are just,
again, either blind or dishonest.
And here's what and speaking of blind and
dishonest and stupid, here's James Woods. America is
great again.
This is as stupid as what's her name?
McCann
McMahon saying,
this is what peace through strength looks like.
Well, it's not over yet. We're in the
middle of the of the chaos, war part
of it. So how can you argue as
peace through that peace is happening when you
haven't even gotten to the end point yet?
Because they know the talking points, guys.
This is with you're you're pointing at JD
Vance and Rubio, Hegseth, and Trump as if
that's great people. Guys, this is embarrassing. This
is straight up pandering, cheerleading BS,
which is why I posted the ghost squad.
I mean, because that's all they're doing.
These are, like, I mean, historically unpopular people
within their own team because they're ridiculous.
Rubio hated Trump. Fans hated Trump. Hegseth will
do anything he's told. It's just lazy, But
they're supposed to do it. America's great again.
And then on top of that, why is
it great again right now? Why? What happened?
Was it great to start with Stargate and
and all the lot those are great things
or did it just suddenly become great because
he bombed a foreign country illegally?
These people are showing you what they are.
They're either really just, like, bad, like, the
people that will cheer illegal actions and more
and murder and chaos, or they just don't
care because team sport politics.
Remember when James Woods used to be, like,
funny and edgy and, like, he the outside?
No. He is literally a mainstream team player
at this point.
Katie Miller comes out and says, too soon,
and literally posts a Greenland map that's an
American flag.
Why would you even post that right now?
Why? Because the indication is we're going full
authoritarian
colonial
conquering. That's what they're talking about. They've already
been making that clear, but to post this
right now in the midst of what's happening
with Iran, you're simply going do that next
because that's what Israel wants. Katie Miller, Stephen
Miller, Israel, that's what they're doing. That's what
they want.
Sad.
Here is Lindsey Graham
saying Arab world will join us.
They'll they'll welcome us as liberating heroes. I
mean, they just recycle the same things, guys.
I think the Arabs are going to join
the fight. Well, yeah. They're gonna fight you.
That's objectively clear right now. I think you're
going to see a coalition between The United
States and the Arab world. Now what they
mean is all of the puppet regimes they
put in place in the governments of the
Arab world who are broadly
disliked. Look at Egypt. Guys, you can check
these things for yourself. They're it's I mean,
frankly, I think the world is changing in
that direction, but they're wildly unpopular, the governments.
The reason I say that is because our
government's wildly unpopular. Most governments, I think, because
people are changing their minds. But
in these, more than usual,
they overthrew Egypt and put Sisi in place.
Where's my favorite dictator? Trump famously says, because
they put him there. And they hate Israel,
but Sisi was trying to make deals with
it because they that's they're not working for
the people, guys.
The fact that we're going to work together
potentially with the Arabs to liberate the Iranian
people is unbelievable.
I just this person is such a disgusting
and I nobody likes this guy. Republicans hate
this guy. But Israel loves him, so he
stays in power. You know how that works.
Here's Ted Cruz.
Here's Mamdani, by the way, who says today's
military strikes in Iran carried out by The
United States and Israel mark a catastrophic escalation
in an illegal war of aggression.
Bombing cities, killing civilians, all of which very
clearly happened, opening a new theater of war.
Americans do not want this, which is so
shockingly clear and more so today than ever
for Republicans. They do not want another war
in pursuit of regime change, and that's why
it's so embarrassing to watch the Alex Jones
and Knicks orders and, like, they waffle, but
they're
supporting it.
More so the one, like, the Knicks types
are out there going, yay. I'm so proud
of my country. But the Joneses are trying
to bury uncomfortably walk a line right now
where they go, I know Trump's doing the
best he can and I think he's doing
the right thing, but then out there criticizing
the objective.
And, you
know, find some path, man. Call it out
or don't. The the lazy middle ground argument
is just call you're exposing what you're really
doing. You know, you the reality of what
Trump is doing, fine. You can give him
the benefit of the doubt if you think
he's being blackmailed, but how does that describe
or or
remove all of the other things we're talking
about?
He's an active player in this manipulation, and
we all see that by now. But the
point is, mom Donnie was calling it out.
I don't support him. I think he's part
of the manipulation, quite frankly, in a lot
of easy ways to point out.
But here's what's interesting. Ted Cruz says, you're
a communist who hates America.
And I said, oh, that's interesting. Well, then
why did Trump just support him?
Saying there's no
difference in party. There's no difference in anything.
And we're gonna be helping him,
to make everybody's
dream come true, having a strong and very
safe New York. And congratulations,
mister mayor. Wow. How weird. So is Trump
a communist then? Is that how that works?
Or is it only bad when they say
things you don't like? Or, you know, he's
literally called him MAGA in that meeting. I
showed you this discussion. He's basically MAGA. They
literally told you. After telling after the entire
right telling you this guy was, like, the
most alarmingly evil communist
monster and that we have to fight him
because the Trump says he's great. The Clintons
are good people. You know? It's just it
never it never ceases to amaze me the
willing blindness of the partisan sides. So Cruz
is just doing that because the game right
now is to support Iran or the bombing
of Iran.
So you have to you you either
recognize that it's all nonsense and that they're
all or
I mean, I just don't know why people
continue to take part in how
the, you know, the the what's the word
I'm looking for? Like, that it's this clear
that they have nothing they actually believe in,
and people just continue to flock to it.
But that is diminishing, as I think we're
always pointing out. Kennedy girl says, I don't
give two s h I t's if you
love or hate Trump.
When The US is engaged in military battles,
you set politics aside and get behind the
damn American flag. Oh, is that what you
do? God. People are so stupid today. All
in for America. That's it. You can't do
that, Massey. Just shut the f up. That's
what she's saying. And, you know, it's it's
insane to me how many of these people
who are just giving you the the most
boot licking, blindly stupid arguments are the ones
that get all the attention. Or people right
now who just blatantly lie to you, will
come out and just make, you know, North
Korea said they're gonna give them bombs. Nope.
Literally didn't happen. But that's got a million
views, and Elon shared it. And it's also
got, like, 300,000 followers on that account. But,
you know, that's this this platform quite literally
benefits people who spin BS all day long.
But so she's just saying that apparently you
should ignore what you care about and your
integrity and your principles because you're an American,
so you're supposed to blindly follow the team.
That's actually what she's saying. And what Heinrich
Heinrich Flick says, that's what Hitler would have
said.
Right?
That an authoritarian is gonna say you have
to support the well, let's just even say
I mean, let's just say, hypothetically,
that Trump was actually doing everything that you
think he's not, Republicans. Let's just even say
he was Hitler.
Not saying he is. Let's just say, hypothetically
speaking, that Trump was out there doing every
possible bad thing you don't want, kinda where
we are, but hypothetically.
So would it then be okay to go,
well, I don't agree? How about Kentucky girl
here? Kentucky girl. If Trump was out there
and he he just bombed your home, killed
your entire family, was literally invading your hometown
and was locking everybody up in in cages,
will you still go, too bad. I'm 14
because that's what Americans do.
Would you do that? Or would you go,
well, he's doing bad things, so I'm no
longer gonna support him? Well, if we can
acknowledge then you'd probably go, yes. I'm gonna
find him in that. Then you can take
a step back and go, well, other people
have opinions too. And I may not agree
with those opinions, but they can make their
own opinions about whether or not that line
has been crossed.
That's a call that's called being an adult,
Kentucky girl. You might wanna figure that out,
that recognizing that other people might disagree, and
they have a right to say, I don't
stand with that, that we used to call
an American value.
It's just mindless. And on top of that,
we have the person,
Theodore Roosevelt, who historically said I'll just bring
it up since I that one word will
bring it up here.
I always bring this up not because I
support him or anything else, but because it's
a logical statement. He says to announce that
there must be no criticism of the president
or that we are to stand by the
president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American people.
Let that sink in for what she's saying.
Morally treasonable to the American people, and this
is what she's saying. I I think I've
got an image right here somewhere.
Maybe not.
In the past I downloaded the,
oh there it is.
Just the image. Just the, you know, to
make the point so people could read it.
Because that's what they're doing.
Now here is Kamala Harris, one of the
most hated people in politics.
I agree.
Donald Trump is dragging The United States into
a war with, with the American people do
not want. Oh, you mean, like, Israel and
Gaza like you were involved in or every
other war you've always supported? These people are
ridiculous. They'll always take the moment to gain
some political points even though they agree. Like,
man,
Jill,
Stein.
Or no. Excuse me. Elizabeth Warren is what
it was. Not Jill Stein. Elizabeth Elizabeth
Warren came out online and said bad Iran
war and then clapped for Donald Trump.
But she says, let me be clear. I'm
opposed to the regime change war in Iran.
Oh, unless she was in power. Then she'd
be giving you reasons why it needs to
happen. And our troops are being put in
harm's way for sake of Trump's war of
choice. Well, that's not incorrect, but I would
argue she'd be doing the same thing. Carl
says, you idiots unfroze 16,000,000,000
to Iran, which was their money. If you
care to look it up, it's actually very
easy to verify. They simply froze their resources
and then eventually gave them back.
They don't they they can't even be honest
about that. You could still make the argument
and say, well, they shouldn't get it because
they're terrorists, but they can't even be honest
about the fact that it was something they
stole from them. But on top of that
and he says they used it to make
nukes. No. They didn't, bud. Did not. And
nobody, the evidence does not back that up.
You can make the argument, maybe it's true
somewhere that we don't see.
The evidence doesn't back it up. It's so
frustrating how continually these people this is Newsmax.
That might make it make sense for you.
But here I mean, look. Tulsi Gabbard, again,
literally told you in March 2025, they are
not seeking a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic
Energy Agency said that in 2024,
2025. They'll probably say it again when they
get the opportunity
Because they go in there and they they
check this, and their job as the international
entity is to tell you that. They could
be lying, of course, but they've historically been
very amenable to Israel's agenda.
Until Amano was in there, who was the
Japanese fellow that was in the leadership of
that group until he was killed. Excuse me.
He died mysteriously from some rapid cancer that
he argued somebody was trying to kill. But,
you know and, of course, he was also
calling out Israel and their lies, and they
were threatening him and, you know, but that
totally doesn't line up. Here
is a point to be made. I'm attacking
Iran because they have nuclear weapons. It's a
meme. It's not even worth getting into for
the podcast. But it says the response, why
don't you attack Russia?
Are you crazy? They have nuclear weapons.
Okay. So the point obviously being within the
joke. If the argument is that it's dangerous
for Russia, why would it be different for
Iran?
Because they know they don't have nuclear weapons.
Isn't it funny how that works out? And
the same thing with North Korea. Well, we're
gonna take you out if you get nuclear
weapons. And the second they actually claim they
have them, that stops being a point. So
if you have any consistency in your logic
or your, you know, critical thinking, you would
go, okay, then it only seems consistent that
they do that to groups that don't have
them.
And then you start to understand the reality
where they want you to think they do
and they use it to rationalize their choice,
but they know they don't, so they continue
to do it knowing there's no risk of
nuclear weapons being used against them, by Iran
anyway.
On top of that
oh, this is a different one. I've wrote
this to I wouldn't forget. Oh, yeah. Just
simply the point being
that another kind of analogy or rather, you
know, statement to be made within that kind
of logic is that we're talking about them
saying we're gonna bomb Iran
because they have dangerous weapons. Right? They have
nukes and dangerous things, or at least they're
getting really cool. Okay.
Then, now after it's happened, and this happens
every time, you get the same politicians and
the same media entities that come out and
go, they're so weak. They know they can't
beat us. And they don't know that's why
they're not doing the things we said they
would do before because they can't even do
it. Well, that completely contradicts what you said
to start of why we need to do
this. And it but you already know why
that's happening, guys, because these are dishonest people
who are driving you to war for a
foreign country.
Now here's what even Grok had to say,
all info taken into account. And as always,
guys, Grok is a coin flip. It will
be wrong. It'll lie to you. It'll be
manipulated by Elon Musk. But I still find
it interesting that it will show you an
answer that most of the Republican people who
point to these things on using Twitter will
will tell you they're wrong. And you don't
need Grock to tell you that, and it's
not true because Grock says it. It's true
because you can verify it a thousand other
ways. Does Iran have nuclear weapons? All info
taken into account, does it have nukes? And
are they seeking to make them? And no.
Based on their assessment, no. Iran does not
have nukes. And realize when you're asking this,
it's taking into account Israel's claims and their
evidence, taking into US claims and their evidence,
taking into International Atomic Energy all of it.
Are they seeking to make them? Prevailing consensus
from Western intelligence
and the International Atomic Energy Agency is that
they are not actively pursuing. Okay. So what
are we talking about here, guys? Even their
platform will tell you that's not the case.
So what do we make it what are
we dealing with here? If everyone knows that,
then what are we talking about? We're talking
about a country that has been taken over,
guys.
I'm tired of I mean, I'm I'm not
like I've been mincing words about that for
a while. And to be very clear,
I've never missed words about that. My understanding
of the situation has evolved over the years
to the point that, you know, when I
was at a point where I recognized Israel
was influencing policy, you can go back a
decade. I was outright saying that. And it's
only become more and more clear to this
day. Now to be on clear on top
of that, there's people that have been saying
it a decade more than me. I mean,
no way suggesting I was the first one
getting here, but it's obvious out there.
And the whys
just never stop. And I back to the
point about the platform. Here
is a GPX account. Never even heard it
before, but it's got almost a 170,000
followers.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said if
Iran wants, we can give them missiles against
Israel, one will do.
And didn't happen.
Best as I can tell, didn't even happen.
Now, again, these things can turn out later
and maybe tomorrow, grok and roll, whatever. This
isn't this is just their fact checking community
note. But you can read the articles, and
I don't believe that actually happened. But the
point is, it just never stops. These accounts
all like, check check this account a week
from now. It'll probably have 250,000
followers. It just it just grows
and grows because it is being insulated. It's
being collected. It's being used
by whatever this platform is made to do.
All the people that continually get caught lying,
every single story we cover continue to grow
and influence on this platform,
which must not must be clear. That's no
different than before. It's just the same problem
in a little different way. I argue it's
the same problem just getting worse and worse
and worse.
Now Matt Walsh,
to talk about some of the partisan absurdities
here,
responds to George Conway saying per and this
is an excellent
point. For and not like it's new, but
perhaps the terrorist state with a nuclear weapon
is, checks notes, The United States Of America?
Okay. Well,
yes, guys.
They absolutely have nuclear weapons, and they have
been the ones using the threat of that
warfare against everybody and sanctions and invasion and
I mean,
ever since I've been alive,
and way before that too.
So he responds to that very obviously logical
point to perhaps you are a check's notes
retarded.
Okay.
Well, that's embarrassing. And I said, that's what
you got, Matt? Really?
I can only imagine the snide retort that
you would cook up should someone dare to
respond to such a clearly valid and legitimate
point with lazy and revealing name calling.
Try addressing the point.
Ah, but therein lies the issue.
He has one. He clearly has a point,
but that's what this this is just gaslighting.
That's embarrassing, man. That what this shows to
me because I don't think Matt Walsh is
a stupid person. I find it to be
pretty insightful and intelligent in ways where he
chooses to show you that, and he is
being manipulative right here. That's dishonesty.
That's my opinion.
So here is another response to this. Now
first, this was day ago or so, and
the argument is sort of like you know,
all of them are rationalizing and pushing back
on people who genuinely recognize the problem here.
But here, today, suddenly, he has a response
or rather a statement that is, what are
we gonna do next?
Well, gee, Matt, maybe we should have thought
of that before we bull rushed into supporting
an Iran war. And he says, what exactly
is the endgame?
Quote, the Iranian people rise up and take
control of their government. Okay. What does that
even mean exactly? Which people? How are they
taking control? What happens after they do take
control? And these are valid points to make.
Right? Are we sure the the new people,
whoever they are, will be better than the
old people? How are we going to make
sure of that? How are we going to
make sure of it while also not putting
boots on the ground?
This isn't had not been explained. It needs
to be.
Who's who's we, Matt? Are we talking about
we, the Iranian people, and their their democratic
process we all pretend that you guys are
fighting for? Or are we,
the US government, deciding for them regardless of
what they want? But
democracy,
I mean, that's just stupid. On top of
the fact, what you're saying is
basically rationalizing
why boots on the ground need to happen.
Any anybody even surprised?
Now Bricksu says endgame is that any Iranian
government that doesn't continue the current government's practice
of attempting to build nuclear not happening.
That you see, this is they're all lost
in their own BS cycles, guys. Now or
funding terrorism through proxies. Are you talking about
Israel here? Both those meet Israel. No. No.
Not them. So what they're saying is what
the only endgame that we want for Iranian
democracy is whatever the US government wants, or
rather whatever the MAGA team says we should
want.
What how can you even, in the same
conversation, pretend you want democracy or they're their
leader, what the Iranian people want, that's what
they're all cheering for, and then have conversations
like this, where it's only what works for
us. And whether we like who's in charge,
well, think of Venezuela, think about Bolivia, think
about everywhere they're doing this because they don't
care about what peoples in the countries want.
Are we even actually still having that conversation
with all the evidence we have with this
is what what people like Matt do? He
goes, and why do we think that they'll
end up with that kind of government? Meaning,
one that's not what they don't want.
What happens when they don't do that?
Go to war again? You see the point?
And then and then again?
Just keep bombing them until the right people
magically end up in charge? Lay it out
for me. So what he's really doing is
acting like he's criticizing, but what he's doing
is justifying why they just have to take
control and put who they want in there
and make sure it stays that way. That's
what he's literally doing right there. Now what's
funny is somebody rightly points out, which is
what drawed my attention to it, maybe Trump's
buddy should do that, should be there. This
is what we're talking about. You think Matt
Walsh isn't aware of the Syrian al Qaeda
Hayat al Sham monster, who they literally put
in power in Syria? And in this video,
Trump says, I essentially put him there and
he's doing a great job. A guy who
was in behind killing of US troops.
Systematic kidnappings, rape, forced marriages.
The government had a $10,000,000 bounty on his
head.
And now we're gonna quibble about the right
people being in charge? Have you made that
comment about Syria, Matt? Oh, maybe he has.
But all of that aside,
how then can we argue that we why
are we supporting any of this? If this
was the conversation that they never mapped out
for you, why were you guys going, yes,
let's do this, supporting what Trump wants to
do?
I think you know exactly why.
Ben Shapiro has a very clear I mean,
the reality of now Matt has pushed back
on him plenty of times. But the reality
of the big picture, I think, is quite
obvious. This is what Israel wants, so that's
what they want. I'm not even suggesting that's
a conscious thing that they do on that
they know of. It might well be. But
that's what this happens to be every time
I look at it. And I just have
to really stress again.
Why do you or anybody other than the
Iranian people have the right to decide what
their government should be? You see how this
works where they just deem themselves the deciders
for the world because they're the most moral?
No. They're not. They're the worst people like
they're objectively some of the worst people on
the planet. And I'm talking about the governments
here.
So why would they get to decide?
Because what he what they ultimately do is,
well, like, Hamas can't be there because they're
bad guys. So we want democracy, but it
has to be the ones we like in
that dem so it's not democracy.
And then even and on top of that,
they pick somebody who's not Hamas, and you
just still don't like them. You'll just say
no. We want somebody else. So ultimately, you
want what you want, and you call it
democracy. And in every other case, we point
to the people that you wanted, and they're
all terrible people.
To a t, guys.
These pea people like this need to start
being called out
for lack of integrity, lack of consistency,
whatever it is.
Here's Anna Paulina Luna.
How Iran was before Sharia law, communism took
over in 1979.
Sharia law. I mean, come on, guys. Like,
these people don't even understand what they're talking
about, first of all. But over the the
big point to be made
is I mean, you already know. 07/1979
was the Iranian revolution
after operation Ajax, which was The US and
Israel overthrowing the country.
Now what they always love to do, and
this is the video they're talking about,
is go look at how wonderful it is.
Look. It looks like the West. Well, you'll
see the the women
and the people that they're
here. Just jump ahead. Yeah. Because the crown
prince of democracy totally makes sense. Right? Look
at them all in their jeans and their
short skirts. Well, guess what, guys? There's people
in Iran and women in Iran right now
that look like that.
It's not hard to if you care to
look Pete, and it's funny how often people
that wanna go, that's not true. Never even
take the time to to look.
There's tons of tons of tons of media
and people in Iran. There's women that do
videos like this walking down the streets. Now
just like in other places, there are there
are areas where it's there they have their
religious
mandates that are enforced, just like in Israel,
by the way. Like, plenty of Israeli Orthodox
women are forced to wear head coverings, just
like in Iran, by the way, in those
certain locations. But it is not broadly mandated
for everybody in Iran. It's just not despite
their current laws being stated.
It's you I mean, you have to be
able to prove these things for yourself. On
top of all of that to understand, as
Robert's covered historically, and in fact, this next
thing will say this for us, that there
there there's an the reaction to a lot
of this was because of what they did
to the country.
And they saw the going back to the
more traditional mindset as a pushing back on
the western cultures. Now I would argue that
plenty of those religious, more more extremist people
would then take advantage of that. I don't
support any of these governments. But the reality
is always and has been what the people
of Iran want and what they then drive
them to do because of their response because
of their illegitimate actions as the US government.
But so what they wanna say is, oh
my god. Look at how they look western
and great and everything.
Well, that's a lie because what we're pointing
to here is the oligarch
eat elitist inner circle of the Shah.
Not everybody else in Iran. They despised most
of them because they did not want them
there. And it's easy to prove. In fact,
I'll do it in a second.
But also recognize that before that, it was
not what they claimed it was. Mosaddeq was
the person that they removed from power. As
I said just yesterday, he was very, very
much enamored
with Western culture. It was written about. He
has pictures next to the Liberty Bell. It's
what he wanted. It's what he's talked about.
They didn't like him because he was not
willing to bow to whatever they wanted at
the expense of Iranians.
So they got him out of the way
and put someone in power that was willing
to do whatever they wanted at the expense
of Iranians every single day.
And people like this who are either too
dumb to know that or don't care were
willing to lie to you about it.
And here is what Grok had to say.
And I simply said,
was the video that she depicted and this
is interesting that even Grock even Grock would
say this, and you could look up on
Wikipedia for crying out loud. It'll sell you
this. Is the video they depicted the reality
for the majority of Iranians?
And be before 1979. Because her argument is
after that is when it became the Muslim
chaos. Right? It's not true. It says this
was not the reality for the majority of
Iranians.
Very important.
Economic inequality.
The but benefits were uneven, concentrated in urban
elites.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Social and political repression.
Suppressing dissent, sounds familiar. Torturing opponents, sounds familiar.
Limiting political freedoms.
Secret police.
And this is interesting, guys. The sa the
the SAVAK, the secret police, that was under
the Shah. And that is some of the
and these people were trained by Israel. That's
all on the record. This is all the
the consistency is so shocking everywhere in the
world. Development indicators.
Their life expectancy dropped about 55 to 60
years. And it says the revolution in nineteen
seventy nine had broad support
partly because many resented the Shah's perceived elitism.
Guys, it's just so crazy. Western puppet status,
which they weren't happy about, so I I
I broke there. It says that they resented
they broadly supported this happening, the return to
Iranian rule, resent because they resented the Shah
and his perceived elitism, the Western puppet status
because of his CIA backed coup, inequality he
created, and cultural alienation.
Despite real progress in modernization and economic for
parts of society, is what Brock continues to
say. The point is, yes, they did do
those things, guys, but it was in a
select area for select people. Think apartheid in
Israel, South Africa. It's what they do.
But they seem to not care because, in
fact, what I think is these Trump's all
of these inner circle people want that. They
want the world where they're treated like kings
and everybody else suffers.
How I mean, can we not see that
in the world everywhere these people are operating?
And I'm not even suggesting that there's anybody
else that doesn't want that. I should hope
we should hope for that. We should leave
the opportunity open for somebody who seems to
suggest they you know, a group that tries
to fight for that even if they might.
My point is that we should hope for
that.
But I don't think any government's demonstrated that.
Not truly. And I think that's why my
point has always been that government seems to
be the larger problem. But again, I digress.
We're not even close to there yet, but
we're getting there.
Here's Naley Wolf.
She comes out and says, I'm not supporting
war,
in quotes, whatever that means. In this case
of Iran, regime change is necessary,
just as it was with Germany post World
War two. You see, even that, by the
way, fails to take into consideration the reality
of the picture of what that was, the
reality of the Rothschild's involvement or the US
government behind the scenes working with peep the
groups in in in Germany or the end
point where they absorbed all the worst parts
of both Japan and Germany. Pop operation paperclip,
and the reality of how that went forward.
I mean, the reality, though, is that this
was all something that was manipulated
from all sides and that the eugenics programs
being put forward by Germany, in fact, began
in The United States. But all that aside,
the idea that it was justified to regime
change in any sense today, regardless of what
you think about World War two, is ridiculous.
It's not the case because it's built on
def
verifiable lies, first of all. But, secondarily, why
is it their right to be able to
just decide who gets removed?
Like, you could've argued at a different point
in time that that's just how the world
worked. Today, it maybe still works that way,
and I think that's the reality that we
don't want to be the case, but they
at least pretend
that we live in a different world of
modern society.
Right? Where there's international law. Don't Trump and
everybody else continue to pretend like that's what
they get guided by?
So under international law, they're not allowed to
just go, you're out of power because I
don't like you or because you're a criminal.
That's supposed there's supposed to be a legal
international process.
Do they I mean, you don't think no
Naomi Wolf knows that?
Or so or is the argument because this
is so important, we should ignore the law,
but just us though? Now it says The
United States has a right to defend itself.
Come on, man. I mean, right there, it's
embarrassing to me.
Okay. First of all, so does everybody else.
Can we just stop saying that? That's a
token propaganda point.
From Syria's national security threats. Oh, so we're
just supposed to blindly assume that a government
has lied to us about Iran our entire
lives suddenly is honest about a preemptive attack
for national security that we can't divulge? Come
on, guys. We're not this naive.
And as a woman, I do not think
that anyone serious can be an apologist for
a regime that enslaves half the population. That's
not what's happening.
You can disagree with
me, but at least take the time to
try to look through. Because what you're gonna
get is
State Department,
Israel Media,
MEMRI, which she shares all the time, which
is literally run by Israeli intelligence.
On the record, by the way. Also importantly,
I'm reading United United in Hate, the Left's
Romance with Tyranny, because Lefties are terrorists, guys.
I'm just tired of people that present themselves
another way. And as Derek says, yes, you
are just repeating state talking points and following
for the latest empire expansion. Now other she
she, oh, I think I might have it
right here. Yeah. She responded saying, not to
me, by the way, other cases where I
made similar points. Funny how that works out.
But I said, will you debate she says,
will you debate live? If so, contact me.
And he responded saying, yes. I will. So
we'll see if that actually happens. Frankly, if
you read the comments, it seems pretty clear
that everyone's like, this
I I argue it would be worth it.
I think it's important to just to show
some of this stuff. But I think at
the end of the day, most of the
comments are like, why even waste the time?
Like, I think people are just starting to
see that there's a one-sided argument coming from
very specific people.
Now here, here she is retweeting Elon Levy,
by the way. One of the most objectively
dishonest people in the entire conversation around Israel
who got fired
from a propaganda position because he was that
obvious about it. Or that's my opinion about
it, but he got fired from a position
working for Israel to propagandize everybody because he
in my opinion, he continued to get caught
lying.
And he says, retreat if you want if
if you wanna visit a free Iran.
You mean like you can right now? You
can fly in there right now. I know
friends that backpack through there, who wandered freely.
And he his name is Brian, by the
way. I interviewed him when he came back.
He's not attached to any kind of group.
He's just a guy who went to travel.
You You could do that right now. But
they want you to think that's not the
case. Just like they want you to think
that every Middle East country that you wanna
fight is all barbarians and caves. Iran is
very technologically advanced. And she says, I can't
wait. As an American, as an American Jew.
And I said, you see, everyone?
Consistency.
It's all about consistency.
Call out the hypocrites. Right? I mean, the
idea that there there's a there's a
a lack of consistency in the argument here.
If you're gonna defend like, you could make
these points about any other of, you know,
Russia, Ukraine, other points where people admit they
make different arguments.
Iran and Israel always seem to expose the
pretenders.
And here she is sharing Brigitte Gabriel, one
of the I beg your pardon. This woman
is ridiculous. And sharing MEMRI.
And she says and the point was, where
are all the feminists?
And she's literally again arguing. Sharia is spreading
in The United States and leftists remain silent.
No. It's not. And she says, right here.
And the only work done on Islamist abuse
of women has been by feminists. Now I'm
not claiming there's not abuse of women. It
happens all over the world. I don't agree
with it. She says where is anyone else
who is supposed to care about women? This
approach is so wrong. The whole thing is
they're sharing a clip from a platform that's
created and run and operated by his law
by his Israeli intelligence. That's a fact. You
can look it up on Wikipedia. And the
reality being
that one,
they often and have been caught, even on
Wikipedia will say this, using assets to present
these things and framing them as representative of
Muslims.
But on another point, guys, there are radical
Muslims, just like there are radical Jews and
radical Christians. And they can find those clips
and find those people and go, Look at
how all Muslims are. If an American comes
out and says, I wanna kill every Jew,
does that mean every American thinks that? Why
would anybody believe something stupid like that? But
that's what they do right here. This guy
says things, therefore every Muslim!
We have to see people that do that.
And I said, MEMRI
was founded
and is currently run by Israeli intelligence. Easily
verifiable. The platform has been repeatedly caught lying,
but I'd like to think you already know
that. The idea that Sharia is spreading in
The United States is an embarrassingly false claim.
And if you wanna look into it, you
can ask rock, you can look up news
reports. It's not true. There's no single verifiable
example of any anything.
Even a proposed legislation that says produce
initiating Sharia law. In fact, on top of
it, it would be unconstitutional,
wouldn't it? Not that they even care about
that in the government, but people do. But
you can watch the video. I go through
it very carefully, showing Laura Loomer sharing it
and how, you know, the evidence going back
to source material, written articles, corporate media,
Wikipedia, all telling you, literally run by current
Israeli
intelligence. But that that doesn't matter, apparently.
And here's JK Rowling saying, if you claim
to support human rights, yet can't bring yourself
to show solidarity for those fighting for their
liberty in Iran, you've revealed yourself. Now, my
gut would tell me this is somebody falling
for what they think is the reality. But
who knows?
My point is that why do you think
you know what's going on in regard to,
like, other than what we can generally prove,
which is what I'm operating on? As I'm
gonna show you in a second, there's people
in Iran that do want this to be
happening, as I've always told you. But it
seems pretty clear, based on everything we can
see, that the majority of people are not
in support of what this is, Historically. As
far back as you wanna look. And so
that being said,
the only place you're getting this from are
places like the State Department.
Like the kind of media that are pushing
out the ideas. This is all what and,
like, this is my point. If I can
show you yesterday, which I did,
whether it's using rock or anything else that
says, look. This is
a false depiction
saying, look at all the protests. And turns
out, all of them were actually protests in
support of Iran against their actions, and people
lied about it. So if you have to
constantly lie about those things, it's pretty clear
that that's not the accurate depiction.
Right? I mean, I think it's pretty self
explanatory. But it says you don't give a
damn about people being oppressed and brutalized.
Well, we do though because it's obvious it's
happening in other places. Like, let's just take
it personally. I'm talking about Israel. I'm talking
about Venezuela.
I just think you're incorrect about Iran. And
the reality is that we see them lying.
Aren't you the one calling out the lies
of the government and other examples?
But Brian here,
Baruletic says, read The US's own policy papers,
which path to Persia, which we've talked about
so many times in this platform, is all
about The US starving Iran to death,
funding the army arming terrorists to destroy it
from the inside, making fake deals to frame
Iran as the bad guys, and duping the
public into accepting related US Israel strikes on
it from abroad.
Literally, guys. That is this document. We've talked
about this so many times. 2009,
which path to Persia? That's like
Patrick Clausen saying, how do we get to
war with Iran? They're gaming how to make
this happen. And if you wanna get into
it in-depth, watch our previous shows. I'll include
oh, I I linked to it in these
one of these tweets.
The discussion of that. Let me just see
if I can grab it here so you
have the
there it is. The article instead of just
the link within the tweet.
This this was written by, Brandon Turbville, 2018.
The path the path to Persia and the
ongoing plot to destroy Iran.
It's worth truly understanding this, guys. Here, I
might as well just share this out too.
I forget if I did earlier, but it's
worth it.
Because this has been a long shot plan,
guys. A long shot plan.
So here, he continues, they admitted all throughout
the document that they need to lie to
the public to build consent for regime change.
You know, so these are obvious realities that
they manipulate what we understand. They lie about
what's happening. They pray false flags.
They kill civilians and blame it on the
country. That's not the same as saying Iran's
not capable of doing it themselves. Both can
be real. Both can exist.
But as an American, it's important that I
make sure you understand that the US government's
been caught shooting civilians and blaming it on
Syria,
blaming it on Russia,
blaming it on any number of examples. That's
not to say that those groups aren't capable
of that.
So
Oh, that's right. I forgot this just to
point this out. I thought this this this
is the kind of thing that frustrates me
about this, is that people come out and
basically make the argument trying to downplay.
Right now, I don't see very many people
making the nonpartisan
argument other than the groups that we associate
with. Most of the mainstream alternative media
is, you know, either like I mean, as
usual, one diametric's, you know, opposite side of
the other. But it says, basically, that I
never talk about which path to Persia.
And because I don't, that makes me, an
Israel Hazbar agent, aside from the fact that
I do. Now, what I think this is
is somebody who is trying to muddy the
waters about the work we're doing. So people
then get scared away who otherwise think, you
know, who are rightly on guard for what's
going on. I think this happens all the
time.
This is an important one, by the way.
This is somebody something that somebody commented. Now,
the name is included down there because it's
publicly posted on my website, but I the
email is removed. And I thought this was
very important to share because what I'm I've
and I've said this many times over the
years. It's it's not all one thing or
the other. Robert's made this point as well.
So this person wrote to me. And and
the reason I'm sharing this is my gut
I could be wrong. My gut tells me
that this was a genuine comment, that he
meant what he said. So take it as
that for the sake of the point. He
says, hi, mister Christian. I am an Iranian
listener since 2020.
First, I would like to thank you for
your unbiased and informative reporting during COVID. You
saved my family and I. However, you are
incorrect about the Iranian situation. Iranians are rejoicing
the fall of this abusive theocratic regime, which
has appeased the Iranian,
I think oppressed is what he meant to
say,
oppressed the Iranian regime since 1979.
Or, the oppressed Iranian people,
since 1979.
In in Iran as an Iranian, he says,
I can assure you, your take on Iran
and its government is incorrect.
He says, please reconsider your sources. Perhaps Robert
Demlakash is not the best source for real
info for Iran. I disagree. And Iran are
are and that these, where that's topics are
concerned.
Although, it says I'm not a supporter of
the current attack on my former country.
I I know firsthand the majority of Iranians,
including my own friends and family here in
Iran and past parts of Europe, are all
are are all happy with current,
occurring, are not happy. I feel sad for
all the innocent lives.
Are all happy. Wait. Let me read that
again. It says, I'm not a supporter of
the current attack on my for former country.
I'm not. I know firsthand that the majority
of Iranians, including oh, so he is saying
that I'm not a supporter of the attack,
but he's saying I know firsthand that is
it he's claiming that the majority of Iranians,
including his friends,
are happy with the current occurring, which is
my point from before.
Whether it's school children being bombed or just
bombing the country and killing Iranians. That's the
equivalent of Republicans going, I know that they
that, you know, they just bombed our own
people, but it's okay because we're getting what
we want. I don't think that's what honest
people are thinking.
You see what I'm saying? Like, what that
is what people who have an agenda are
thinking.
It's okay to sacrifice them. Like Trump is
saying, more Americans are gonna die. But it
says, I feel sad for all the innocent
lives lost. And this is again, thank you
for all you do for humanity. You're an
amazing soul. May you god god protect you
in these crazy times. Here's how I responded.
I said, thank you for your support and
your honest opinion. However,
I have far more Iranians,
both living and in Iran and elsewhere,
telling me the opposite. Now that in no
way means that's the reality. That's just my
my insight into what people that I've come
across over the years and who I talked
to. And
it says, I I I believe to some
degree that both are true. All I can
do is report what I can prove and
give you my thoughts. Either way, what the
government, the US government is doing is illegal,
regardless of what he thinks.
That matters to me.
I appreciate you giving me your thoughts, and
I will take them to heart. So I
want you to think about that. Right? The
point that there are, and I guarantee it,
there are Iranians that are in Iran that
I don't I'm not gonna say support killing
Iranians and bombing children, but support
the overthrow of the current government.
Even to the point where they would support
Israel and The US taking action.
But the idea that we're there we'd be
standing on the dead bodies of Iranians, not
speaking about this person because it seems like
he's not even in Iran.
He's he's talking about his friends and family
that are still there, that they're standing in
a place where you just watch civilian because
I'm gonna get to the point where there
are civilian locations being bombed objectively. You can
see it. There are it's obviously happening.
And so the point
being that that would be something I would
think Iranians would be unhappy with. Like, even
to the point where they go, well, I
still want the government gone, but I don't
agree with the way this is happening. Like,
that I could take. But that's not what
you're getting mostly online. But But I want
you to think about the fact that there
are people that do support that, but I
think it's clear based on what I'm saying
and all the rest of the factors that
the majority, in my opinion, of Iranians do
not feel that way even though there are
some that do. But please
seek out the information and come to your
conclusions on it.
On top of that, this could very well
be a, you know, a a kinda what
I used to what they call it, an,
an Oreo or what do they call it?
Like a basically, where you start with a
positive, you give them the negative, then you
just end with a positive. Or yeah. So
you kind of you you bunch it with
two net positives so people are more open
to hearing the negative, you know, Sam's. Or
it could be a lie in the first
place. Always possible. But again, like I said,
my
gut was that this was a real comment,
and they just wanted me to think and
know that they think that that's incorrect.
But we can eventually you know, the facts
will flesh out to some degree, and we
will find out, I think. I think right
now, if you're looking at the facts objectively,
it's a very clear picture. But it's not
completely definitive, like, in most cases. But here's
DDGeopolitics,
one of many examples, and you'll find examples
out there, far fewer than you may think,
by the way, of claims of massive protesting.
And most everyone that I check is either
from old or some example, like I just
showed you, of all six of them going
all around the world. All of them. I've
I've showed you the last show or the
one before, are
a protest actually chanting against it.
Now it says, we will fight, we will
die, we will not compromise.
Chance in the streets of Tehran.
Now what's frustrating, by the way, what they're
saying is these are people that are chant
you know, basically protesting against
the the action. What's funny is when you
post this on Twitter, it only gives you
the Shah flag, which I find interesting.
Now Sputnik,
protests resume in Baghdad's green zone amid Iran
escalations. Now there are protests
in other places as well against US occupation.
And I think that's important to think about.
In Iraq, in other places in the world,
your feet like, people are rushing the embassies.
And and and, of course, they the the
people online make that out to be some
kind of a, you know, Arabs or monsters
or whatever. But at the end of the
day,
the world is standing up. What they're doing
is illegal. Most of these bases are not
wanted by pretty much all the countries they're
in. It's about strong arming and forced and
and, you know, their launch pads and what
they're using it for. And now you're seeing
people that are starting to make that clear.
Now that could still be the majority or
excuse me. That could still be the minority
Who I who who can tell? But it's
worth pointing out that there are groups that
are taking the time to stand up and
protest in the midst of what's happening. No
one will probably be shot at. It's worth
considering.
Here's another example. Clashes between protesters and police
have broken out in at the US Embassy
in Baghdad.
Now on the bombing side of this, guys,
I thought this was a
a good visual for the point.
As Primo Radical says, don't blame me. I
voted for kudos. He says, which US president
illegally bombed the Middle East? Well, the trick
question is that they all did. And I
think it's important point that the person makes
here. Every country The US has attacked in
the twenty first century and which presidents authorize
the strikes. Now that's not even close to
the full list, by the way, but it's
important for the, like, the mainstream ex acknowledged
ones. But if you look very clearly,
Afghanistan,
Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump.
Iran, just Trump. Iraq,
Bush, Biden, Obama, Trump. Libya, Obama, Trump. Nigeria,
just Trump. Pakistan,
Bush,
Obama, and Trump. Somalia, Bush, Obama, Biden, and
Trump. Some Syria, Obama, Biden, and Trump.
Venezuela, just Trump.
Yemen, Bush Obama, Biden
and Trump.
Anybody note the consistency, the one consistent factor
in almost every one of those?
Trump.
I mean, this is actually incredible to me
when you look at it this clearly. That
you can argue whatever you want about, like
I said, the rationale. Well, he needed to
because of blah blah blah. Well, that's maybe
so. The argument was no more wars. The
argument was peace, president. What if not not
except unless it's necessary. That's not what you
said. So here we are, where Iran, Nigeria,
and Venezuela in this case. Venezuela is more
of a nuance point, but I it it
turns on how what you would argue are
the kind of actions we're dealing with, but
just direct bombing like this, Trump has taken
it to a new level,
starting new wars.
And we just have to come to terms
with that. So my but the main point
was, it's not left and right, guys. Not
Trump versus Biden. Our entire government is part
of this problem.
Taliban Ahmed pointing out that the US government
is striking the
state broadcasting headquarters, which, by the way, is
not a military target regardless of what they
wanna claim it's used for, and the endpoint
is that they're censoring.
Now what's funny is they're always talking about
them restricting access and so on, which they
do because of what's happening. But then you
have things like this where they bomb infrastructure
and they bomb the you know, broadcasting
and say they're censoring and they're restricting access.
Well, it's both to some degree. But overall,
these are crimes.
As he says, rightfully so, this is straight
from the regime change playbook.
And here is a bigger example Max highlighted.
Today, the US Israel Coalition
attacked the following civilian targets in residential areas
of Iranian cities.
IRIB offices targeting journalists and media workers for
exposing war crimes,
the Gandhi Hospital, so here we go again,
the Abu Zar hospital in Ah Avaz, and
two apartment towers.
The consistency of their war crimes is kinda
baffling
by the fact that it just continues to
happen. So we're talking about hospitals.
And, of course, when we get to the
point about the other the the children being
bombed, it's always the same thing.
How dare you? That's not true. And then
they go on to bomb a bunch more
schools. Or like like they point out about
the all the origi the bombing of of
the was it Ali Hospital in the very
beginning of that. And they everybody. Oh, that's
not true. That's not they lied about it.
Everyone's getting missed it. And then they wanted
to bomb every other hospital and they said
they did. But, you know, because tunnels or
whatever. Well, then why did you take so
much time? Couldn't you just send tunnels in
the beginning? Because it never had been okay
before that. Tunnels or otherwise. And it's still
not now. But they just literally drag the
conversation into an acceptable point where it's okay
to bomb 400 innocent people to allegedly maybe
get one person and turn out not to
be there.
That's what Wolf you know, talking to Wolf
Blitzer.
I can't believe how clearly they've been moving
this along. And the reality is, like, it's
everything else we're seeing everywhere.
Every conversation, they're trying to drag us further
into a new reality of how things operate.
Drop site news, new strike damages, eighth eighth
hospital
or emergency base in two days of The
US Israeli attack on Iran.
Eighth.
Photos and videos from inside the Gandhi hospital
show debris scattered across floors, nurses evacuating newborn
infants in safe to safer areas. What does
Trump think about this?
Images released by Iran's health ministry show at
least two children in body in black body
bags inside the facility. An overall casualty tool
was not available.
It just it just never ceases to amaze
me how clearly
they're trying to make these things happen.
He said 21 patients, including ICU cases, were
transferred by 30 ambulances.
For the first time in my life, he
says,
never even saw this during the Iraq Iran
war.
So interestingly, we have, an argument that's being
debated disputed
that the Iranian strike on The UAE location
actually took out six CIA officers.
Here's the actual report that's citing from the,
what is it? Tasnim Agency.
Let me oh, it's right. I'm sorry. Translated
it. It says according to the defense reporter,
Tasnim News Agency, they basically said that they
missile attack in in The UAE
on one of the CIA residences
of the US government in the location. And
it says, as a result, senior CIA officials
were killed. And the reports are are developing
elsewhere. The point overall that they killed CIA
agents. Just anything that's relevant as it goes
forward as they're denying it. Also showing you
that they're absolutely operating in this field and
which is not a secret, but still understand
that they're out there conducting intelligence operations and
lying to everybody everywhere they can.
Then the White House post, which seems to
come directly from True Social, which is embarrassing,
says,
destroyed nine Iranian ships. Now I haven't been
able to fully verify this, but just like
every other point, we should take it with
a grain of salt because they lie about
this stuff all the time. And it very
well may be that Trump is the one
being lied to by Israel, which has happened
before, where they use him to put out
false information that makes him look dumb, and
they get what they want out of it.
And he never calls it out. He says,
quote, I have been just been informed.
See? So who knows if that means our
government
military, which would be interesting, that we have
destroyed and sunk nine Iranian naval ships, which
is a huge deal if that's the reality.
And then, I mean, ask yourself why this
would not be immediately
like, you think this is gonna amount to
them doing nothing?
I mean, this is full scale war, guys.
This is Trump committing full scale war with
an unjustified
act. There's not a response. This is not
a preemptive anything. This is an attack on
a foreign country with no legal justification, and
then you're just continuing.
They respond and you keep going further because
Israel wants this to go further. And it
says some of them have relatively large and
important. We're going to going after the rest.
You're even stating out loud that we're gonna
keep going to all your ships. Okay. Why
wouldn't Iran be bombing everything they can right
now?
Like, from a legal perspective, like, what would
you think the US government, when sitting back
when Iran says we're gonna go after every
one of your ships, we're bombing them right
now. What do you think Trump will be
doing? Trump will be bombing Iran in every
way he can. Why isn't Iran doing that?
I'm not advocating for that at all. But
I think it's an important question to be
asking.
We're gonna come back to that in a
second.
Raising the bar. How the IDF gained air
superiority in twenty four hours. A same thing.
Now, there are ways to be able to
check more so, but I know that they
have ways to circumvent GPS and whatever else.
The point though is that take it with
a grain of salt. But they're reporting that
they have taken control of the air, which
if this is all true, which doesn't seem
to make it necessarily make sense with what
we're still seeing.
Meaning that it feel it feels like these
are what they want you to think is
happening based on what was going on right
now. I feel like we would be seeing
different reactions if this is actually what happened.
But, again, it very well could be. Like
with Syria, a lot a lot that went
down there happened so quickly, and I didn't
think it was the reality, and it happens,
you know, and it it's about building this
into the point. What they've been doing has
been building to this point as we're gonna
show you where Netanyahu literally tells you, I've
been telling you where we're gonna get to
here.
But if they gain superiority of the airspace,
meaning they control the airspace, and they bomb
nine of these ships, well, that would be
very, very, very bad for the Iranian government,
and they might well be being, you
know,
removed from power.
I wouldn't have argued that's the case if
that's what's happening. I wouldn't have thought that
was what was legitimately the circumstance.
There's been a lot of blustering. But again,
we'll literally have to wait to see how
this ends up because everyone in the partisan
game loves to scream about what they think
they know in the midst of when this
is happening and how often it turns out
to be the opposite or false or none
of it. It just baffles me how they
keep doing it.
Now, this is interesting on top of it.
The Cradle reported that the US government
said the US Embassy in Beirut
has announced its closure starting tomorrow.
Well, that's interesting seeing as how they talked
about the diplomats in Israel, and then then
we saw action, which in the past is,
you know, it's never a full
guaranteed indication that something's gonna happen. They love,
you know, Russia removed their diplomats, and Jones
will scream about it for two days and
nothing happens. Like, they they that happens, and
it is an indication that's not it should
ignore it. But it doesn't always mean that
something's about to happen. It could just mean
that they send something or could mean they
want you to think that. Right? But so
in this case, based on what we just
saw and what they're already doing,
my mindset was okay. This is they're they're
I mean and by the way, Israel is
currently illegally occupying Lebanon right now,
and they've been continually violating the ceasefire that
no one talks about. And on top of
that, they've been bombing Lebanon and trying to
overthrow them and take their their territory
forever. They already have plans to take the
areas over and turn them into Israeli settlements.
They have maps for
it. And I mean, they as in the
Israeli government, people like Smotrich and Ben Gavir,
rather more so, Smotrich, I believe, but openly
talking about this. Okay. And then the IDF
claims
today,
sirens sounding in Northern Israel falling projectiles from
Lebanon.
How interesting is that? So two things to
think here. One is either that Israel is
claiming that because they want to create justification
to do what they already say they're what
we already seem to get indication they're gonna
do and, by the way, have already been
doing, or it was an a a bomb
that had nothing to do with the current
circumstance and it's just the ongoing part of
their engagement, I guess, three things, or what
I think is probably more likely is that
Lebanon
saw them going, closing that, you know, tomorrow,
something's gonna happen. And Lebanon said, we know
what's happening.
Take the first step.
Because they do, guys. It's obvious what Israel's
been doing. It's not a secret. It's just
the game has always been about whether it
makes sense within the global conversation. With what
Trump and The US and Israel are doing
right now,
that game is over. They're they're like, there's
no logical reason for them to care about
the UN, to care about international law, which
is where Trump and Israel have driven us
to. On the edge of genuine chaos
that I mean, to the closer point that
I've ever seen in my life because they
claim they're the bad guy, the other side.
And as they're continually trying to I mean,
it just didn't it's showing you that they're
either
that Trump's being dragged or that and and
Israel is making this happen regardless or that
they both want to bring us here.
Saeed Abbas, the foreign minister of of Iran,
says we've had two decades to study defeats
of the US military to our immediate,
to our immediate East and West, we've incorporated
lessons accordingly.
Bombings in our capital have no impact on
our ability to conduct war. That's what they're
claiming is they've obliterated everything. Decentralized mosaic defense
enables us to decide when and how war
will end.
Of course, he could be just saying that
to project strength. Right?
But we'll see. And it's worth considering that
maybe I mean, it makes sense. Right? They're
not stupid. And they recognize what they've always
done. And so they've effectively, by his argument,
if that's true,
what they're doing to the point to where
they can't cut the head off the snake
with a bomb in a certain location. Makes
sense, doesn't it?
Now, what was this one? One more note
for myself. The last one I think, oh,
it was the one I was gonna say
earlier.
Right. And that's what I said I was
gonna come back to you. And I think
it's an important point to think about. Like,
okay, first of all, from a legal
international law, military just, standpoint,
they were just attacked.
And every international body has been clear. That
was unprovoked. It was a it was a
crime, but I guess that means nothing because
no one's doing anything about it. So it
was an unprovoked illegal attack.
And that means they have a right to
respond whether it was an attack, whatever kind
of attack. International law is very clear. They
can respond. And by the way, let's just
stop calling that self defense. It's not self
defense to respond to an attack. Self defense
would be defending yourself from that attack.
It's a small difference, but I think it
matters. And I'm frustrated that we use their
terms, whether Iran or Israel, because they always
go, I have a right to defend myself,
and then initiate an attack. Even if it's
in response to an attack that took place
the days before. That's not defending yourself, guys.
Let's just stop playing these games.
But it is still a legal justified attack
based on international law, not necessarily my opinion.
The reality being that it's stated clearly that
if you're attacked,
you have the right to respond. And that's
where the belligerent point comes in. They have
the legal right to respond to the belligerents
involved with that. The UAE, the groups that
have allowed them to make this happen.
So the question becomes, with that legal reality,
which is the it's clearly stated fact,
why has Iran not bombed The United States?
I hope that doesn't happen. That's the last
thing that anybody should be calling for. But
it's true. There's many points we made within
that question.
They have a the I mean, The US
is great this moment bombing them in Tehran,
in the middle of their capital. So why
wouldn't they go
bomb back their capital? Because that would be
legally justified. Right?
Because they know that that's going to spin
this further. That's my opinion. They know that
you the Trump is either blindly being driven
there or a part of it, and Israel's
belligerent to the point to where if they
take further action,
they will take further action even more. And
it shows you that what you're dealing with
are people that are playing basically nuclear chicken
and they're willing to take it all the
way. And so who is the bad guy
in that situation? Who is the belligerent? Who
is the maniac? The one who's
trying to walk it back or the one
that's trying to not let it happen even
though they're the have the right to respond?
Or the one who's constantly poking and driving
to where they make that the reality?
What do you think Israel would do? Israel
would have already responded. You know what they
would do. And and if there if this
was the reverse situation, the same way.
And so, on top of that, it's it's
what it highlights for you is the restraint
that Iran is in this position, has the
legal justification to do damn near anything at
this point. I shouldn't say it like that,
but, you know, they could make it justified
based on what Israel's been saying forever,
and they don't.
And instead, they selectively bomb certain locations, which
seems to be very carefully made out to
where they're bay barely hurting any civilians if,
like, as far as I could tell I
mean, there's disputed reports, but disputed is all
you're getting about civilians.
May very well may may be that none
of them have been killed, and only those
three US servicemen that we're talking about, and
then I believe it was one person in
Israel.
And that's think about what they're talking about.
With all the bombings that have happened, and
that's the fallout. And over here, you just
got a h first attack, a 100 children
killed. And it's only gotten worse. So that,
to me, is a deliberate effort to bomb
military targets while you're being targeted. They're bombing
civilian locations.
I mean, all it's showing you is that
Iran's government is not what they continually tell
you they are because they've have opportunities. They've
got legal cover to do terrible things, and
they didn't.
I mean, there could be another reason why
they didn't do those things. Maybe they're just
biding their time. But you have to consider
that. And, I mean, this is just one
of a thousand points constantly showing you these
people are not what they're being shown to
be.
Now
Israel radar says Trump realizes Iranian regime will
not fall immediately.
Aims to end military opposite, operation soon, and
the proposed cease fire. Now here's where it
comes from. This is Ynet news. We mainstream
is, Israeli media. Trump seeks swift end to
Iran operation.
Now in my experience, what Israel reports
tends to be the reality, especially when it's
embarrassing for the US government. That happens often.
That doesn't mean always.
But it says, on the eve of the
strike on Iran,
US officials envisioned a four to five day
operation that would return a weakened Tehran to
the negotiating table. This is always such a
classic
that when has that ever happened?
And if it's and then if that happens,
all you're really doing is saying, we bombed
you to weakness to where we can get
whatever we want. Why would you why wouldn't
you just keep bombing them into nothing then?
From their perspective. The end of the gate,
they they always claim this is about to
negotiate. It's not, guys. It's about war. It's
about power and control and using that military
might to force people to get what you
want.
To and and and on top of that,
I don't think they ever wanted to negotiate
here. Definitely not Israel. Because as we just
showed you yesterday,
they were about to make a deal, as
Oman, the foreign minister told you. And the
moment they were saying we're willing to accept
all of your demands, Israel created justification to
bomb, or rather they had always planned to,
and then they just did it on the
back of that agreement. Because the reports are
saying that they had planned that ahead of
time. But it says according to one source,
an American official
conveyed an even more immediate proposal
through a mediator, apparently Italy.
He suggested reaching a ceasefire agreement today or
tomorrow.
Iran
rejected the idea outright. Now that is not
I mean, think about what that means for
you if you're Donald Trump.
If this is the reality, which I believe
it is,
you create this or Israel drags you into
it, and you don't want to be doing
this because it's hurting you in every possible
way, every possible way.
And so you try to make a ceasefire
agreement. And Iran, who's usually the one that's
willing to go to the table even as
you threaten
threaten and cajole and lie, and they just
flatly
reject it. I mean,
to me, if I'm Trump, I'm going, oh,
crap. Okay. That means they are this is
going this is they are decided. They are
peace is off the table because of what
you did.
And, of course, they're gonna spin around and
go, see, they never wanted peace even though
that's so stupidly not the case. And every
example shows you the opposite, but they're same
old screamers. We'll pretend that's the reality.
And I think it shows you that a
dangerous point has been met where Iran
is flirting with dangerous options that they have
the legal justification to carry out because of
what the US government and Israel have created
here. Oh, wait. There was another
point at the bottom I forgot about. So
it says down here.
Damn it. Come on. There we go. The
attack on Iran is oh, that's right. This
the the this is an Israeli media report.
An attack on Iran is highly unpopular in
The United States. Just hope that's being felt
by the people who keep pretending that's not
the case,
both among Trump's critics and his staunch supporters.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the current operation
marks an unprecedented
peak,
high point, in US Israel alliance.
That is true in terms of military cooperation.
In other words, the US government is doing
Israel's bidding. It is not true in a
broader sense, it writes, because the alliance is
not between Israel and America as a whole,
but between Israel
and the sitting president.
Yeah.
That's true. But it's also the whole government.
But make the point that just here even
these really media is saying Trump's the one.
He's the reason we're getting what we want
right now. And it says, for The United
States, this is a war of choice.
For Israel, it's a war of necessity. Well,
no. It's not really. It's a war of
choice for you too. But think about that.
They're literally going, Trump's doing it because he
wants to. We have to.
So if you're an American and a pea
peace president and no more wars and Israel's
going,
Trump wants to do this. I think that
just has to mean something to you.
Now, this is an important point because
it brings in a very
interesting element to this about whether I mean,
that Israel is controlling US policy. What I
think this represents is a
you know, either it it just is the
reality
or that this is the the the Trump
team trying to create a narrative that then
help that lets them not completely fall to
this lie they just or rather whether it's,
you know, a lot of things, Epstein and
everything included, but because this is so shockingly
unpopular
that they create a narrative that then makes
it sound like Trump was the the forlorn
hero that had to do the bad thing
because Israel's so evil.
But then what's happening is you have the
Republicans ultimately admitting that Israel is evil and
controls US policy because they have no other
choice, because they need to take back support.
So let's play the clip first, and it's
John Kiriakou making this argument. And I don't
agree
with some points, and I'll wait till the
end to share it. And then I'll read
what JD had to say as well.
The reason that Donald Trump decided to bomb
Iran was that the Israelis said, if you
don't bomb Iran to take out these deep
bunkers, we're gonna use nuclear weapons. And they
had never threatened that before. And so Trump
said bombing Iran might actually save us from
the start of World War three.
Sorry. They did threaten that before, by the
way.
If it keeps the Israelis from using nuclear
weapons. So according to your source, the Israelis
told the president of The United States that
if he did not use The United States
military power to bomb the nuclear facilities in
Iran, Israel acting on its own would use
nuclear weapons. Yeah. Do you see why there's
a problem with that statement, John? Yeah. Because
they've never admitted that they've had them. That's
right. So you're telling me that they just
admitted to the president of The United States
that they have nuclear weapons and we still
do not have them in the IAEA treaty.
I mean, if What's funny to me is,
like, this is, like,
edgier seat gripping. It's, like,
this is publicly available information for fifteen years.
But but I get it. There's a lot
of people that are just coming around with
the conversation. But But it's just funny to
me that this this young new podcaster is
apparently super now you know, it's just funny.
This to me is a controlled release of
information. Doesn't make it false at all. In
fact, it makes it very real and important
rather just Israel influencing policy. I'll get to
the more nuanced discussion of what's being said
here. But isn't it interesting? Like, do you
see the problem there, John? That they've got
news and we all know yeah, man. They've
they've actually admitted that casually before. Netanyahu has
been caught in, like, three different meetings basically
admitting that and looking smugishly stupid or sheepishly,
you know
I think it's funny. Anyway, sorry. I should've
stopped
it. That they've had that. That's right. So
you're telling me that they just admitted to
the president of The United States that they
have nuclear weapons and we still do not
have them in the IAEA treaty? I mean,
if Israeli nuclear
are to be believed, yeah, they've started working
on them in the fifties. They got them
around the late sixties or the early seventies.
It's called nuclear ambiguity, guys. There's literally a
term for what it is. I mean, it's
just it's funny to me that he would
even equivocate about that. But we should question
John, CIA, like everybody else, but he has
an information that's relevant. It's like the point
we make about Tucker. You know? I I
believe that there's a level of that that's
sort of released information, but he makes points
that I still think are valid. I'll still
point to him. Or Massey, for example. It
should not be about the person. It should
be about the content, guys. But the person
matters, though. Right? There's a secondary point, and
it does make a difference, but the content
is what matters.
And so what we're talking about here
is an interesting development, isn't it? Oh, and
just sorry. I just had to laugh at
that. You know? The the
it's all, like, serious, and it's like the
missile. It's just funny to me. Like, it's
recapturing
the momentum of something that's been there forever.
And who knows? Maybe it's genuine. Maybe that's
just a good way to frame it to
where you get momentum. You know? Tweets are
own. You can decide for yourself. But just
know that you've heard us talk about that
for a decade.
But this is what he had to say
about this, and I think this is important
to think about. But because of what I
said, then I'll make that point again at
the end about just, you know, Israel and
what the Republican party seems to be doing
here. JD
writes, listen to me carefully.
Well, this this support is not as important.
He just I know John, and I trust
him, I guess, basically.
Where was it?
The feds tried to kill him and, you
know, whatever. I mean, you should you shouldn't
trust anybody. You should consider the information, question
where it comes from. Maybe he was deceived.
Right? It's just like any other situation. But
it says, Kirakau here confirms what I've been
telling you for months.
Israel has a nuke to our heads.
Now I agree with that.
In a very real sense, that does not
mean that Trump or Biden or anybody else
is not in some way in line with
that agenda because you can see it elsewhere.
But, guys, you can go back and argue
that that in maybe from the very beginning,
day one, each one of them have been
threatened and blackmailed. And maybe and look, to
be very,
like, no, I guess
sorry word for it. Like, just to be
honest, this would make them it it it
would suggest to some degree that they might
not have done this otherwise.
That's the most accurate way to say that.
I think these people are pretty clearly the
kind of people that we've seen them. I
mean, they show you this in every point
of their life. Okay?
But that doesn't mean that they would have
done this if it wasn't for the Israel
threatening or forcing or whatever else or Epstein
files, for example. Right?
But just because that then lessens, let's say,
the responsibility, it doesn't change the fact that
they're still accountable for what they've been doing,
for the fact that they don't like, right
now, I mean, what do you think with
that position? Would it be the right thing
to do to just
let war happen and kill innocent people because
otherwise Israel does something worse?
I mean, I don't know. That just it
doesn't make sense to me. That's in that
that is a zero that's an always it
ends up in the same way every time.
We're only bad that's that's the lesser of
evils on a global foreign policy dynamic. Do
you want nukes, or do you want everyone
being killed? You know, do you wanna run
war, or do you want us to threaten
new it just I don't want either of
those things. And if Israel is going to
do that, guys, then that's something that needs
to be called out.
You see, understand that Israel right now can
it's called the Samson option. Seymour Hersh called
this out. They are willing to bomb foreign
countries
if they feel like they are nukes, by
the way, if they feel like they're about
to be taken out.
And that's allies included as far as I
understand it. And so what we're talking about
is the fact that they could do that
anytime they want. They could launch nuclear weapons
anytime they want.
So the idea that you would let them
then threaten that even though everyone else has
them too and let that be the deciding
factor for why you then go to war
for them,
how does that work out in anybody's minds?
Wouldn't Trump then immediately stand up and say,
Israel's threatening nuclear weapons right now? Because they
can stay it doesn't change the reality that
they could do it whenever they want. Call
it out. Try to stop that.
Try to remove that ability from them. Try
to you know, I it's just it's and
you can also add another layer to this.
And I do not think this this is
q and on level territory because there's zero
that backs this up, but maybe Trump is
behind the scenes
carefully trying to dismantle their ability. And then
suddenly, it'll all come out. Save Israel for
last, and all of it gets exposed. Damn,
if that happens, I would love to see
that. And I would be the first person
to stand up and go, I love Q,
and I'm glad it all worked out even
though I thought it was false.
But I do not think that's gonna happen
because the facts don't back that up. But
he says since 1973,
they've had The US over a barrel to
either support their bloodiest agenda in the region
or face the prospects of nuclear war. We've
been their hostage. You see, now I don't
necessarily disagree with that. I don't think we
can prove that's exactly how it went down,
but I do agree with the sentiment, whether
it's blackmail or nukes or whatever else. And
according to Kirakow, Israel told Trump plainly, I
don't know how you would know this. Like,
a source can tell him, but it's also
it's third,
generation of or rather, how would you say
it? Like, third person removed information.
Consider it though. Then he says bomber on
or we will do with nukes.
Now why wouldn't they have done this
any other situation? Like, couldn't they have made
the same threat to Biden or Obama or
Bush? Why wouldn't they have done it then?
They're far weaker now. They're wet. Like, right
now, the whole world sees them. They could've
done this under Bush or Obama, and they
would've gotten away with it.
This doesn't make sense to me, guys.
Not not that it's the situation's real, but
that they're doing this now. To me, it's
more likely that Trump is in line with
his agenda, that they're or that he's being
blackmailed with the Epstein files. It would make
far more sense to me. And my point
is not that nukes are not relevant, but
rather that's not the deciding factor in all
of this. But it says, this is the
Samsung protocol, he writes. And I told you
about it over and over.
That psychopathic war cult is playing a game
of nuclear chicken with us. And with that
in that, we agree. You've got to understand,
he says. Every nuclear expert on Earth conceived
that if one nuke flies, they all do.
Now that tends to be the kind of
prevailing logic, but I don't know if that's
the case. I mean, if you think it
through,
the argument is the whole self assured destruction
idea. That's why that, you know, they're there
and everyone fires. I mean, Israel doesn't seem
to care about any of that.
But then if a nuke flies, the argument
is that they are able to detect that.
But then I don't understand. I mean, I
would argue that the the the,
flat the path, what's the word I'm looking
for, the, you know, where it's going, would
ultimately be able to
be
deciphered.
And so I would argue that it wouldn't
be some immediate response that just everybody launches
nukes because, I mean,
thirdly, because that would mean they all know
that what we're doing is killing ourselves, that
everyone's like, okay. We're all done.
I just don't think that lines up. I
mean, for a lot of reasons. But, I
mean, it's sound in the sense
that that people would react, especially if we're
talking about protocol. And it's really just a
military reaction, which is another reason why that's
a the reality of that is not in
our interest. But all of it aside,
I do believe that Israel is using coercion
to force this government into action.
Blackmail, nuclear threats, otherwise. But in no way
do I think that should remove accountability to
all the presidents that have allowed this to
happen. But it says it is highly unlikely
there could ever be a one-sided nuclear strike.
I would agree with that, but it says
that's not how the world works.
Israel is playing with the lives of every
person on Earth because they worship, and he
says, demons.
Our biggest problem is not Islamic extremism.
Their biggest our biggest problem is Israelis with
nukes strapped around their nation's waist like a
Jewish suicide vest. And if you don't think
that little godforsaken desert trailer park hasn't made
the greatest nation on Earth their proxy and
vassal state, you're wrong. So, you know, whatever.
Take an opinion for what you will.
The reality is, I think that there's some
truth to the threat,
but I also argue this is being used
right now to make Trump look like he's
not the problem.
But like I said to start,
there's only two ways you can or one
really way you can take that is that
then proves that one, Israel's a maniac willing
to kill everybody to get what it wants,
and two, that it is influencing rather dictating
US policy through Trump at the very least,
but I think it's the whole government. So
we're realize where we are, guys. We're at
a point right now where everyone in this
country is being forced to come to terms
with that reality, even grudgingly so because they
don't wanna be seen for the criminals they
are.
Do you know why that's happening? It's because
of you. You made that happen.
Now, on the bombing of children,
it seems to just be, you know, which
one, Ryan? Gaza, Syria? Yeah. It's a good
question. The one that they just killed in
Iran.
Hundreds of children.
People buried under rubble
came out, and Max here came out and
lied about it. And so did other people.
And they put out a fake image that
you can immediately show was not even close
to the location that it actually took place
in. Because in that location, there was no
snow in the mountains. And in the picture
they shared, there's snow in the mountains. That
was easily identifiable in the beginning.
Now, that's that's that specific location, by the
way. Not just everywhere in Iran. It's a
big country. In this case, even Grock said,
nope. That's not the place they say it
is. It's actually an older picture. Now, then,
you got these same people that came in
and said, oh, actually, the whole thing didn't
happen. It was actually an old video for
Afghanistan.
And then, oh, other way people said Pakistan.
Both were actually false, by the way, but
this is what you get from partisans, guys.
And I simply said it never fails with
these monsters. They kill children, and their minions
online rush
to lie about it. So following up on
this story, what we got is the same
people you expect. Here's Noa Berg, one of
the most prolific manipulators on this platform for
specifically Israeli agendas, and she says, breaking. The
regime in Iran has now confessed that they
had bombed the school. They did not. And
the account they're pointing to is a classically
known manipulated propaganda campaign that pretends to be
representing Iran opinions. But on top of all
of that, this has been
proven
multiple ways, including the one I showed you
first. Citizen journalist says, no. They didn't. But
it turns out you're another idiot who will
happily regurgitate
anything that fits with your narrative. I think
she's knowingly lying, but cites what we had
seen earlier in the day.
Geo confirmed
statement regarding our post about the bombing of
the girls elementary school reportedly resulting in the
deaths of over a 100 girls. Because many
readers still misunderstood our post on how geolocation
verification works, I will explain it as simply
as possible. The girls' school was located next
to a military base, which does not make
it a military target, and according to multiple
sources, even within the perimeter of the base.
That wasn't true. However, this does not make
it a legitimate target under the law, even
if it was in it, but it was
not.
Even if it was within the premises. The
school was not in Pakistan or Afghanistan, as
some suggest, because the location is geo confirmed.
The footage is not old. In Iran and
by the way, he's repeating it, but you
can go through and he goes through this
two specifically, and I'll show you that too.
It says, in Iran, schools are open Saturday
to Thursday.
Fact, the school located in Manab
was destroyed based on the footage.
Number two, the claim that the explosion was
caused by a failed Iranian missile. The widely
circulating footage, and it says get no support
at this time, no evidence because there's not.
Circular the widely circulated footage to support this
theory originates from a location approximately 1,300 kilometers
away from the school. It is impossible that
a missile failure visible there caused the bombing
at the so it didn't happen, guys. There
is no possibility where there's an overlap for
that based on the evidence, but you could
keep going further if you truly wanted to
keep going with the reality is clear from
the very first point.
The obvious reality, guys, is these people lie
about everything all the time. Richard Theiss, MP
from The UK, comes out and says, turns
out Iran killed these children.
Yeah.
And gets 500,000
views on it.
You see what I mean? Like, this is
what the pervade this this platform is leaning
into the carefully constructed or I take it
back. Only lazy, clumsy argument that they think
aligns with their agenda. But that's what they
do.
Now last few things to finish with here
important, boast about the killing of American citizens
and the people they want to take control
of Iran.
US Central Command came out and said that
three Americans have died. Service members, military. Right?
So there's no place in which you can
call this terrorism. There's no place in which
you can call this anything other than military
engagement. Because they started the fight, they bombed
Iran, killed a bunch of innocent innocent people,
and then Iran seems to have carefully responded
to military targets. Because what we're getting, unless
they're lying about it, which they might because
they don't wanna look weak, is three Americans
were killed who are military. And apparently, unless
it's changed since I last checked, one Israeli
was killed.
And we're talk in every possible sense, what
we're talking about is the opposite of indiscriminate
indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets.
So as I said, the US government is
almost entirely responsible for their deaths. Almost entirely.
Because clearly, Iran did launch the bomb, so
they're responsible for the bomb being launched. But
the reality is the US government is what
made this happen, knowing that military targets would
then be
legal
targets. Not illegal, legal targets under international law.
So I said, in what world
is that America first?
In any sense,
anything they're doing right now. Well, you already
know the answer. I, in fact, I don't
even need to make that point because I
think most Republicans are already coming to this
term. But the reality is you're putting American
lives at risk, and then you're coming out
and going, you know what?
Oh, wait. This is the wrong one.
Oh, that's just the, the this is the
same post. Trump pledges to avenge fallen US
service members as tensions with Iran intensify. In
fact, I think that just updated. Was this
one?
Okay. No. That's the one. So this one
first.
Pledge well, actually, let's do this first because
that's the actual point. So the argument being
that Americans were killed, and that's because of
their actions. And then Trump comes out and
says, there will be more US deaths. That's
actually what he said.
In Iran before the conflict ends.
US service members, just in case that was
unclear the way I said that. More Americans
will be killed.
Well, I mean, why is this America first?
Why is this the peace president? Why is
this no more wars? Yeah. It they are
still relevant despite the fact that everyone sees
it.
Israel launched multiple strikes
on Lebanon's capital Beirut after the Lebanese military
group fired missiles. Yep. See how that works?
Which, by the way, they've been doing back
and forth forever, so now this gets turned
into, see, Iran made that happen. No. It's
been going on for a long time. And
every time, in regard to Lebanon and Israel,
there was engagement, really, Hezbollah.
Not every that wasn't every single time because
of Iran over there, even though they always
make that argument. It was because Israel's invading
Lebanon. Israel's occupying Lebanese territory.
But now, because people are stupid, apparently, it's
gonna become Iran just bomb them from Lebanon.
Even though you could argue that Lebanon did
that because they're in solidarity with Iran, but
it's not the same thing. And it says
the Israeli military said it intercepted a projectile
across the border saying nothing happened because
they always do.
Now, there was a point that is updated.
Let's see.
Well, I wanted to read that part, but
I don't know how far down it went.
It was simply just that he's claiming that
more will die. So let's just wrap this
up in general because I wanna get the
MEK part. He says, Trump pledges to avenge
fallen US service members. So let's let's remember,
he reached out and tried to do a
ceasefire, and they said, absolutely not. And so
now he's all gung ho, bounties, you know,
with they I don't think they wanted you
to hear that, by the way. That was
Israeli media that let that slip out. But
so now he's out there banging his chest
going, oh, we're gonna take them all out.
But you just meekly tried to call for
a ceasefire, if that's accurate. I do believe
it is.
As tension and what what this shows you
is they are going to continue. What do
you mean avenge them? You bomb them. They
responded.
That's an even playing field now. Avenging them
is you going back and attacking again. That's
not a that is you being the belligerent.
Everyone can see this right now, guys.
And what really
takes the cake?
This is debt Netanyahu coming out, and you
can see it on the right you can
see, this is what I promised.
Benjamin Netanyahu speaks from the roof of the
IDF headquarters. Again, I the I've who knows
if that's a fake background? They they would
they to me, the fact that he did
that seems to make you think he wants
you to believe he's there. He very well
could be. But if it's considered that he
flew out already, that may be them trying
to make you think that. Interesting. Right? But,
anyway,
says the war in Iran is about to
intensify
so much
that, quote, painful days are coming.
So Trump's going, more US members are gonna
die. Netanyahu is saying, this is gonna get
a lot worse. So why do Americans want
that right now? What is in the interest
of Americans in any of this?
Netanyahu says he will unleash the force the
full force of the IDF
that the world has never seen before.
Okay.
To what? On what or to the response
of you attacking them? Like, isn't it wasn't
the argument that they were gonna do this
to bring this to peace or to reduce
the no. This is Netanyahu. Like, once it
starts, we're going all the way out no
matter what because bad guys.
So all it shows you is that what
they said beginning was not true. There's no
error in that conversation. They lied to you
about what they wanted, and then when they
got the opportunity, they bull rush into it
because Trump is gonna let them do what
they want.
Netanyahu
has says he has waited forty years
for this moment.
This is what I promised.
How do you misunderstand that?
They've been trying to make this happen for
forty years. The tree's been manipulating the US
government for forty years. And then he's told
you, I will get this done, but recognize
it's in Hebrew.
You know why? Because
this is not a message for Americans. It's
a message for Israelis. Look at what I
did. I got the US government to do
this for you. I've been telling you for
forty years I would get them to do
this for you, and here we are. I've
been waiting for this, and we did it.
Think about that, guys. And now we're at
a point where they're trying to tell you
no. This is a reaction to evil Iran.
They just did this because they're defending themselves
for forty years. Right?
It was a preemptive attack for something for
forty years ago.
This is how dumb that they think we
are. They're laughing at you. Preamtive attack, flying
over forty years.
It's insulting to our intelligence.
Adam Cochran
shows what Dan Pfeiffer here says, and it
says, this is something disturbingly surreal. This is
that clip I showed you earlier.
That after launching a regime change war in
The Middle East,
Donald Trump openly speaks to the nation through
hastily edited video statements released on state run
media platforms. So, again,
they released a prerecorded
me address to the nation.
Trump says the operations will continue until all
objectives are achieved, Showing you it's not ending.
This is going full blow until Israel gets
what it wants.
Trump's calls on Iranians to seize the moment
to take back their country. Think about that,
guys. That's blatant. That's that is interference. You
are calling for insurrection.
Can you imagine what he would do if
the same thing was happening in reverse? Okay.
So, Adam says, they also had no officials
on Sunday sh shows.
Something's wrong. I agree. They're like, wrong or
just different?
No one's trying to address the people. Trump's
administration's not going on the show. There there's
something weird happening.
I agree. I don't know exactly what that
would be flushed out as, but the truth
is, I think that they're playing this really
close to the chest because I don't I
think what we're being presented with is not
even close to the reality. Well,
one of the things we discussed very well
may be that reality, that Trump is being,
you know, forced into this, doesn't make him
a good guy. My guess was the expect
that it that the expect that he expected
a smoother operation,
and that would cook that it would quickly
fold Iran. Despite warnings from top generals. Right?
Which same thing I argued. That Iran is
not gonna just be toppled immediately. It's not
as weak as they pretend they are. Now
they are realizing they've just galvanized the same
regime and have no choice but to over
commit to save face instead of admitting a
screw up.
Worth your consideration.
I agree there's something definitely weird going on.
This is the reality though, whatever the reason
is.
They're putting out prerecorded things. They're editing these
things. They're not speaking to the American people.
They're not going on the shows. Well, we'll
wait and see what happens, but I do
agree that something feels a bit off. Now
in regard to what may happen next,
and if I'm gonna give you my just
kind of gut feeling right now, I honestly
don't think this will amount to the changing
of the go the government. I think that
what we're gonna see is the effort to
do so, and it's so shockingly unpopular that
it's going I think that it's going
to be an ongoing exchange. Well, I mean,
I don't wanna get too far into predicting
it, but what I think based on that
point would be ultimately that there'd be continued
bombings.
And that Trump at some point is gonna
have to pull back on this because people
nobody here wants that, and that that will
force Israel into some kind of repositioning of
the situation. And it and just like we've
seen many times in the past where they
assassinate a scientist or they kill somebody and
then they they readjust and things continue.
And they go right back to the same
arguments about Iran and the missiles and the
same thing.
I I I if this comes if this
turns into another Syria, guys, there's no misunderstanding
this. This is the Greater Israel Project. They're
taking over countries around them. Lebanon's next. They're
telling you Turkey's coming after that, and Trump
wants you to tell you this is peace.
Well, the people that they wanna put into
place, just like in Syria, like Jelani, by
the way, are monsters.
As I told you before, directly from it
from basic like, surface level information,
the Shah created an oligarchy.
He created a despotic reality for almost everybody
other than the western elitist Iranians and and
Israelis and and US entities and, you know,
whatever, western entities.
Pahlavi, Jerusalem Post reports, that's the Shah's son.
Iran is not Iraq, he says. Nation will
hold free elections. Establish ties with Israel.
Right. It sounds nice, you know, Israel is
the point. Free elections? Come on, guys. You
mean, unless we like, it's it's like with
Palestine or anything else. An election, unless The
US doesn't like what happens, and then we'll
make well, you know, you can have a
free election amongst these four people, you know,
or whatever they do. It's just pathetic. They
they're not you think Iranians are gonna elect
the dictator that they I mean, it's just
the reality is not what they're presenting.
What I'm trying to highlight for you is
that this is who they want you to
think is gonna be the leading the country
in one example.
Now otherwise
well, actually, I forgot if this was included
as well. Miriam Adelson is currently sitting together
with the Iranian crown prince at Mar A
Lago.
This is right now, or rather the recent
picture. They're watching Iran get bombed.
How do we miss this, guys? How do
people not see what's really going on in
the world?
Now here's another example, and this is somebody
we've talked about for a long time.
Miriam Rejave,
The cult of Rejavi.
This is just the news reporting, and this
was the twenty eighth. It says the National
Council of Resistance on Iran and an anti
Iranian regime group announced on Saturday a provisional
government to transfer sovereignty
to the Iranian people and and establish a
democratic republic after The United States and Israel
launch strikes against the regime. You know, sort
of like the democratic prop the you know,
whatever it is. Like, one of the group
the semi Syrian democratic forces fighting for dema
you know, those are terrorists guys. They were
supported. Those were the moderate rebels.
They just they use these words because they
think that makes them you know, what we're
talking about is the MEK, as you're gonna
see. These are very dangerous people. And it
says, the organization also publicly outlined a 10
plan for the country's future, after The US
and Israel will destroy the country apparently. In
these difficult circumstances, they write, I call for
all of you, especially the courageous youth of
our country, now very unpopular in Iran by
the way, to call for civilians and the
general public, particularly children of the elderly.
Protect them and help one another. Now is
the time for solidarity, you know, unless you're
Iranian people and we hate you. Or people
that support the Iranian government and they wanna
murder them and they carry out terrorist attacks
and they bomb. Not a joke.
I don't believe for a second that she
means any of this. This is according to
Miriam
Rajabi.
The 10 plan includes, this is what they
write, freedom of speech, freedom of political parties,
freedom of assembly, freedom of the press. This
is just a go to of what everyone
loves to pretend they're doing. Ask Bukele. It's
all freedom unless we don't like you when
you go to prison. We remove your civil
rights and remove judges, but we'll pretend all
those things. Ask Donald Trump. It's all free
speech. Ask Elon Musk. It's all free speech.
And then they censor people, and they lie
about it. Like, the the all the autocrats
in the world, they love to pretend they
care about free speech and political parties. They
don't, guys.
You can look at the MEK's own information,
and they do not believe in any of
this. And it says,
as the as well as the dissolution of
and disbranding disbranding of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps and just everything that's wrong right now.
And it says, the group plans call for
commitment to individual and social freedoms and the
rights in accordance with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Sure. Sure. Sounds great, right? Well,
let's take a look at what they do.
Then this is this is the MEK. This
is what they're like they're one of the
many acronyms for this group. Now, this is
just from the surface. This is Wikipedia,
guys.
The carefully cultivated,
surface level, state controlled conversation.
So let's take a look at even what
this has to say. There is so much
in here, by the way. I tend to
think a lot of these kind of groups
are buried with, like, over information. Like, this
goes on forever. I think that's by design
so that you don't you just no one's
like,
I'm not gonna let let me get into
some of the points I think are relevant.
So first
oh, I think this one's first actually. Right
here.
I guess that was the first one. Okay.
Under the cult.
The MEK has been described as a cult,
because it is, by the way, and has
also been described as a cult by the
US government.
According to Iran Corporation
report
for the US government,
during Rajavi's and this was Masmoed Rajavi, one
of the family members, and the the during
the ideological revolution,
members were required
to give
near religious devotions to its leaders.
So forced devotion religious practices. Also, according to
Rand, the MEK had, quote, many of the
typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian
control, confiscation of assets, sexual control, including mandatory
divorce and celibacy,
emotional isolation,
forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited
exit options. You know, the good kind of
group. Right? The freedom democracy groups that call
for free speech.
This is a group that they've been arguing
should be in power as long as I've
been doing this. And even right now, by
the way, Newt Gingrich is right now saying
they should be in charge.
But so is Rudy Giuliani and and, you
know, John Bolton and and plenty of other
people that have talked about this forever and
Donald Trump, by the way, way, more than
once. So it says in 1990, the MEK
leadership ordered all couples to divorce,
forbade them from remarrying, and children were sent
away, apparently, because they were distractions.
Critics often describe the MEK as a cult
of rejave, arguing that it revolves around the
husband and wife duo.
Members reportedly had to participate
in regular
ideological cleansings.
According to Rand, again, a report from a
US entity put on by the US government
or commission,
members were lured
in to the group through, quote, false promises
of employment,
land,
and aid in in in applying for asylum
in Western countries.
They're they're taking advantage of of of vulnerable
people.
Sounds like the FC network. And it says,
and then preventing them from leaving.
Now, ma, Masmod Bazin,
Banisar, the how do you say that last
name?
Banisator,
a vocal former member,
there's many of them, by the way, suggested
that the MEK had become a cult in
order to survive.
So foreign policy perspectives,
it says in in 09/28/2012,
the US State Department
formally removed the MEK
from its official designation as a terrorist organization.
Isn't it funny how often that happens? Jelani's
a good guy now. We told you he
was terrible, but now we want him in
charge. Saddam Hussein's a good guy, oh, now
he's a bad guy. Osama bin Laden, he's
our best ass, oh, now he's a bad
guy. Well, historically, they've been the assets until
they become the bad guy. Maybe we should
start wondering why that's so convenient, so consistent.
Even because these are not what they pretend
them to be. Now, I don't mean not
bad guys. I mean that they were always
on the side of the government pretending to
fight them.
But in this case, it was removed, as
I've told you over the years, by Hillary
Clinton.
We this is written from Caitlin Johnstone 2018.
That time, Hillary Clinton removed John Bolton's favorite
terror cult from the terror list.
So Hillary Clinton
removed them from the list.
And now some Republicans are like, that's the
team we want. Even though they're very much
left and very much woke in a lot
of ways. But funny how that doesn't matter
when it comes to the Israel agenda.
Secretary of state Clinton said in a statement
that the decision was made because the MEK
had renounced violence.
Even though they went on to commit violence
every possible way you could find after that,
and had cooperated in closing their Iraqi paramilitary
base.
It was reported that MEK was removed from
The US list of terrorist organizations
after intensive
lobbying.
Gee, can you put that one together?
The MEK adv advocated for to remove itself
from the list of the foreign terrorist organizations
having paid high profile officials
in the US government upwards of $50,000
to give speeches calling for delisting.
They've literally paid them to get off the
list.
And it says, the National Iranian American Council,
the now this is what I mean by
the way, to being sold out to the
highest bidder. Our people these are sociopaths trying
to enrich themselves and gain power. And our
government, I think, has been lost to that
for a long time now. And that's what
you get. People that are just like, whatever,
you know, you can buy me like, you
know, a NASCAR advertisement as I think it
was Robin Williams famously said.
The MEK advocated to remove itself from the
list, having paid $50,000 to people in the
US government. The National Iranian American Council denounced
the decision
stating,
quote, it opens the door to congressional funding
of the MEK. Yep. That's exactly what happened.
To conduct terrorist attacks in Iran.
Yes, exactly.
And makes war with Iran far more likely.
That's the
National Iranian American Council.
It says Iran State Television also condemned the
delisting of the group, saying that The US
considers MEK to be, quote, good terrorists because
The US is using them against Iran.
Exactly.
Now under foreign relations, it says the MEK
became close with secular left groups in and
outside of Iran. I this is just humorous
to me with what's going on. In 01/07/1986,
the MEK leaders sent a 12 page letter
to the comrades of the Central Committee for
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union asking
for temporary asylum and a loan of $300,000,000
to continue their revolutionary
anti imperialist actions.
Israel's foreign intelligence agency, Mossad,
maintains connections with the MEK to this very
day dating back to the nineteen nineties.
Just a coincidence, I guess. Until 2001.
Just another year. Right? The MEK received support
from the Taliban.
You could piece all this together very easily.
The MEK was also among the opposition groups
receiving support from the Gulf nations such as
Saudi Arabia.
It's a perfect little circum right there. In
April 2012,
journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the US Joint
Special Operations Command
had trained
MEK operatives
at a secret site in Nevada from 2005
to 2009. According to Hersh, MEK members were
trained in intercepting communications,
cryptography,
weaponry, and small unit tactics at the Nevada
site up until president Barack Obama
took office in 2009.
Now that's I don't even believe that means
anything other than just when they lost track
of the reporting.
But think this is this is surface level
reporting.
And this is a group that right now
a very predominant and very influential Republicans
want in power.
Now here is Miriam Rejabi
on the today.
The message and it's in another language, but
but message to, says, Comenese's death is the
death of the religious tyranny and the end
of the regime.
I mean, you just kinda you got it's
interesting to me that this doesn't get very
much reach.
Here's Newt Gingrich
literally pointing to that group and saying the
this is the now the the article we
read right here. The nine the nation's council
of resistance of Iran. That's that's Miriam speaking.
Saying, you know, the provisional government transfer sovereignty.
That's Newt Gingrich. And this guy says, this
is what you're advocating for. That's an actual
picture. That is that is that's Miriam Javi
right in the front, right there.
Look at these people.
And that that you're all screaming about head
covers. Look at what you're looking at right
there. These people don't care about any of
this, guys.
Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's
nuclear scientists.
US officials tell NBC that's from, was it
twenty fifth 2012?
That's the MEK.
But they renounced violence, we're
told. Here's Whitney Webb 2018.
Former MEK official exposes Saudi Arabia's covert funding
of Iranian terror groups. So they're literally funding
the groups they point to to justify what
they're doing. That's still happening to this day,
guys.
And whether or not those are Iranians who
are doing that or not doesn't change the
fact that it's not representative of the Iranian
people as a whole.
Hillary Clinton removing them from the list.
CIA plot plots Iran coup, partners with terrorist
groups. That's Daniel McAdams from 2018.
The same group, MEK. They're plotting with them
to overthrow the government. John Bolton famously said
in 2019, even though he was wrong or
in 2018,
that by 2019,
there'd be regime change in Iran.
So are why are we able to pretend
that this is some reactive thing when they've
been telling you this was gonna happen
ever since this I mean, I've never not
seen this conversation. And they will publicly get
up and do this.
US US is Iran regime change plan. Hit
economy,
orchestrate protests, engage MEK cult to chant democracy.
2018.
You the this is 2020. US coalition kills
30 Yemeni civilians, and The US backed Emmy
Kaye exposed as Colt.
And this is just more and more and
more is coming out about them.
And, of course, this is a clip that
you can watch. This is an old clip
from James Corbett.
And he goes on he addresses Miami k
and Miriam Bujave in this video. And it's
very it's very powerful. And these people are
not what they're we are told they are.
And so I will end today.
I wasn't in with the Trump clip, but
I think I'm gonna give you this one
because I've I've played it many times, but
it seems important to play right now. And
that is a Rudy Giuliani telling you that
they're going to starve Iranians to death, and
that that's how you get a good revolution.
And that they've been doing this with the
MEK I just showed you.
Now right this moment, there are people in
the MEK that are in the streets of
Iran who are shooting civilians, who are burning
people alive, who are doing all the stuff
we're seeing. Now that doesn't mean there's not
Iranians out there doing it too. Like any
like with January 6 or anything else, p
there's average people that just do what get
caught up in things. Some of them are
bad people. Some of them just don't care.
Some of them don't know that they're doing
it, aren't aware of what's going on. But
the point is never like, the evidence is
what matters. And we can prove that they
train people like this to create those kind
of responses. We can prove they got caught
doing that in Venezuela where they were going
there were there were the the people fighting
the government and they were got caught throwing
Molotov cocktails and bombing a a an aid
truck that turned out to be full of
barbed wire and wood. That's a real story,
guys. The US government got caught lying about
that. They got they've exposed that they shot
people in Syria to justify that Assad did
it. The same thing came out in in
in Ukraine.
The Azov movement publicly said that.
So here we are where we're doing this
yet again.
And and the reality is they're working with
these terrorist groups to create the pushback in
Iran, but I'll end with the point of
Giuliani. And I think it was in, you
know, 2010,
2012, where he's speaking to them, because he
got paid, by the way, while they were
still a terrorist group, to speak to them
about why this is all gonna happen. Now,
in fact, let me let me double check
real quick.
No. I take that back. The the year
I don't believe I take the back the
point of while they were a terrorist group.
I believe they'd already been taken off the
list regardless.
He's speaking to you about what they're gonna
accomplish, about how they're gonna manufacture starvation, and
why that's how they can create regime change.
There's just no way you can't see that
in what we're talking about today.
You could argue Trump doesn't know that. You
could argue Trump has been driven here without,
you know, without wanting to.
But that doesn't,
you know, explain
Stargate program, vaccine, support of Operation Warp Speed,
the the double crossing of all the health
discussions. I mean, any number of many, many
factors.
And then, you know, or or you could
take RFK Jr. In Israel. The the argument
was he's bought he's probably being blackmailed. Again,
I said the same thing. Maybe
that would make sense to me. But it
doesn't change why you wouldn't
I mean,
I guess the point would be that you
don't wanna say something because then they'll use
that blackmail. Right? They'll call you out for
it.
So there's a point at which you can
go like I said, maybe he would be
doing something different if he wasn't in his
position.
But I think the most important thing is
just to point out that we don't know
that's for sure. We don't know. We can't
prove that's what's happening. So it becomes this
moment where we go, I want that to
be the case. So I'm gonna lean into
that because I know that's not true. Oh,
well, now now we're assuming. Now we're using
emotional opinions to guide what we want to
be the case. It could be, and it
could be that he doesn't that he hates
your guts and doesn't care about Americans. It
could be either of those things or somewhere
in the middle.
Wait for the facts.
At the moment, they're breaking the law. Forest
for the trees. Remember? They broke the law.
The US government is killing people as we
speak.
Biden did the same. Put him in jail
for it. I agree. But right this moment,
we have to start addressing the reality. We
can't get caught up in the in the
clouds about what may or may not be
happening. We can we should be considering and
talking about those things, but we need to
focus on what's happening.
100 children being killed in a school has
to matter. And if they do it again
and again and again, eight hospitals being bombed
after what they did in Gaza, how does
that not matter? You know that it does.
You know that they see
it. Help me draw attention to this. Thank
you for tuning in. Appreciate you all, guys.
I couldn't do this without you. You are
the last American vagabond. This wouldn't exist without
you. And all the points we're making and
the momentum that's happening, again, this is because
of you. You out there making this happen.
My show can be here, but if no
one if it's not being engaged with and
shared and documented, it means nothing.
You guys are the reason this stuff gets
out.
So recognize that. Takes a moment to realize
what you've done and how much has actually
changed, and then get motivated to keep going.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
So now tell me that you're not a
serious threat.
It's the regime we're trying to overthrow sees
us as a threat. You are a threat.
It is a reality. The protests are getting
worse. I don't know when we're going to
overthrow them. It could be in a few
days, months, a couple of years, but it's
gonna happen. They are going to be overthrown.
The people of Iran obviously have now had
enough.
The sanctions are working.
The currency
is going to nothing.
They're where Russia was. They're where Poland was.
We see signs of young men and women
saying, give me some food. We saw a
sign of a man trying to sell his
internal organs for 500 American dollars,
probably a fortune in Iran today.
This is truly pitiful.
These are the kinds of conditions that lead
to
successful
revolution.