Because I'm running for the presidency. I'm here
because
I'm personally tired of seeing this great country
of ours being ripped off. But as far
as Trump is concerned, our allies are only
part of the problem. The real culprit is
Iran.
Why couldn't we go in and take over
some of their oil, which is along the
sea? How would you do that? Would you
send in the marines? Would you take a
chance in a war? Let them have Iran.
You take their oil. That that's what I
How? How? I mean, do we want a
war? What do we mean you take their
oil? You go in. You're gonna have a
war by
being weak. Okay. How do we go in?
What do we do? Excuse me. Yeah. You're
going to have a war, and it's going
to start in The Middle East. What if
the Soviet Union said you do this to
Iran, we're gonna come in? I don't believe
they'd do it. The next time Iran attacks
this country, go in and grab
one of their big oil installations. And I
mean grab it and keep it, and get
back your losses because this country has lost
plenty because of Iran.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality reality reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection
of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Monday, 03/30/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. I'm sure
you've all seen that clip going around. What
you may not know is that that was
posted by Trump, which was today,
after it was posted yesterday by somebody who
called him out. I find the timing very
interesting of that, but no comment posted on
true social, the exact clip you just saw.
So I don't think that that cut was
somehow us editing that a certain way. It's
exactly what they posted.
Very interesting, isn't it? We'll touch on that
to start today. But the main thing that
we're gonna talk about today is something that
I thought needed its focus. A study that
was shared with me that is or rather
an article discussing research that shared about
a field of research that I'm very
concerned about. It makes me uncomfortable. Like, the
the direction it's going in, especially with the
way the world is today and the seemingly
increasing
inability of the average person to see even
the most basic of things our government are
involved in today. And that has to do
with what's called longevity research or life extension
research.
Now, this is something that's gotten very prominent,
but in the same way, almost
more quiet as that's happening. And I don't
mean quiet in the sense that it's not
being pointed to. It's in corporate media, but
it's just not being
but
it's just not being discussed. It's not being
it's not being and I think there's a
very clear effort to make sure that's the
way this goes.
So you get the controlled people in the
media, the people in the and I mean,
controlled list in the sense of sort of
influenced or controlled, but mainstream alternative,
government, and ultimately just never really engage with
this in in an earnest way.
And and there this point is really to
cut to the chase of the article about
putting about, basically, growing human bodies.
One for the use of organs for rich
people who, like, ran out of every dystopian
movie we could talk about, and then even
to the point of creating full human bodies
without brains
for the potential of that same purpose, but
then maybe even being able to put your
brain into a new body. Now this is
stuff that's in the this is ongoing research.
And I even just saying it out loud,
I guarantee there's somebody who's hearing this going,
that's just crazy conspiracy theory. Not only is
the research real, not only is the direction
very, very
highly funded and with very, very influential and
adamant people about this topic, it's very real
and it is happening.
The research has gone in a way,
I I don't wanna say dark,
but it's gone to a location where there's
really no oversight,
at least in in the category that I'm
gonna discuss today. My concern is not just
it the whole category of that work worries
me about what it's going toward, who's involved
with it, and what it almost always leads
to when you know, anything like that when
developed.
But but the the focal point specifically of
how that problem overlaps
the overlap between that problem and what I
see as a very clear
engineered
transition.
And the,
I guess, overlap between the people involved in
that transition and what they want for the
world and what they're driving and the wars
that they're
currently conducting,
and and and overlap with them and this
alarming research and what they may see
that used for. And it just really worries
me where this all goes. Now I'm trying
to make it as sort of, you know,
general as possible just to keep it's important
not to be flavored by other things. I
mean, you you know what I've talked about,
when when it comes to the idea of
the network state agenda, about Prospera in particular.
And I think it's a concerning reality. Not
to say that there's not that there's there's
probably people that are doing things there that
you might find important, that maybe they have
the best of intentions for. It's about the
larger over over the umbrella
of influence over all of it and what
I think it's, in my opinion, doing and
plans to do to the world in a
governance sense, as well as a lot of,
you
know, very weird scientific experimentation
that's being publicly discussed in certain ways that
is happening. Many circle is one that's very
public, and this gets into the realm of
the genetic manipulation,
as well as the kind of stuff we've
talked about in the past that overlaps with
the gain of function cap category. And it
it's interesting that the group
that can be the the primary group, anyway,
that can be so adamant about why that
is a problem
is predominantly
involved with the group that now seems to
be leaning into that aggressively from a from
a private perspective, which is way, way worse
on ultimately, in my opinion. But a lot
to get to in this conversation today, and
I think one the the we're gonna start
with some updates that I just wanted you
to see. I I waffled on whether I
was gonna include them, but I do think
it's important with what's going on in the
world for you to see the quick updates
on what's going on with some points I
wanted you to see about Iran. Hopefully, do
that very quickly, and then we'll get right
into the main point today, which is about
that overlapping connection and, you know, where I
see this going and and and where that
dovetails with five g, six g, what that
may also add to. And, you know, these
these are things whether or not you
I mean, I don't even wanna say believe
because it's it's fundamentally obvious that you you
can see that these things are being worked
on, but whether or not you are concerned
about them or not.
It's, it's important to understand from a very
core level of this that these things are
inherent in many ways inherently dangerous. Just take
five g, for example.
This is very clearly
I mean, as far as I can tell,
basically not even truly studied from a government
perspective about the dangers that we all know
are there. I'll cite Derek's
excellent research on that toward the end. And
and how we know that, and I mean
know that, sort of like fluoride and the
rest, not the crazy game we play where
we can all know the evidence and yet
we still have to battle with these ridiculous
partisan or government people that just yell that
we don't know or you're taking the wrong
side's narrative or you're on the left or
the right or it's Iran. Even though it's
all there, we can see it. Right? Fluoride's
bad for you. Our own government is basically
telling us that today, but the current administration
doesn't care. Glyphosate's killing you. COVID nine I
mean, go down the list. We know these
things, and I don't see that lightly.
My point is that we know that these
technologies, where they started from military technology,
are hurting people and or and if that's
undeniable, and we just been shoved right into
the six g level with Donald Trump.
We need to see that these things have
their own inherent danger, that on top of
that, what that will lead to. So
two quick things before we go back to
the clip from Donald Trump, just because I
find that interesting to talk about. I I
noticed this from yesterday very quickly, for those
that are tuned in.
This as always,
even with a platform like this that we
know very well has censored aggressively throughout the
years and still does, could just be a
glitch. Right? But I found it interesting yesterday
with the focal point, which I'll point to
this show at the end today as it
relates to the connection,
about the as the title, Trump releases White
House app with dangerous spyware and Israel's spyware
quiet spyware's quiet comeback under Trump. Now this
this was if you have not watched this
show, this is incredible.
Absolutely unreal, what they're doing. And, again, maybe
they don't even know what's happening. Maybe somebody
did this through them, and Trump's administration is
not even aware that they basically I should
even say basically released an app that is
spyware.
And and then what I did is I
went through and showed you the, I mean,
undeniable overlap of Israeli spyware companies like Paragon
Solutions, NSO Group, Pegasus, kind of the, you
know, same conversation
that overlap with US
spyware and and technology.
Two two of them, AI, AEI and Red
Lattice are groups that are a US Virginia
based company that blended together with the NSO
Group Elements or rather, excuse me, Paragon Solutions
specifically.
And now it operates out of Israel still,
but it's considered a US company. And this
is my point, though, is that you could
argue that these things are the same. Either
way, what this app was was incredibly alarming
and invasive and is spying on you every
second, is using your phone to access your
storage, things that'll blow your mind that they're
not even addressing as far as I can
tell. The point was I did this show,
and as of right now, YouTube is acting
like I haven't even gone live, even though
it was live. I double checked with multiple
people it was streaming on there. As you
can see, it just says waiting for this
platform to start streaming. So I guess they
just removed it, I guess, or it was
a glitch. The only reason I don't think
it was a glitch is because interestingly enough,
and I wanna be clear, it did stream
on both these platforms and everywhere else because
and I can prove that right now,
is that it's also like that on BitChute,
which I find frustrating. It's the same thing,
acting as if I didn't go live, and
I did. Now I guess it's possible a
glitch from you say you used Streamr to
stream all of them simultaneously, and it went
to everyone else and these two because it
did stream but didn't show up, makes you
wonder what's going on. Could just be a
multi multi platform glitch for the two only
these two out of all the rest that
work. I I don't even think that makes
sense technologically.
But what I think is frustrating is it's
happening on this topic in particular. But just
consider, wanted to point out to you as
always. I will note, by the way, that
I'm I I still will I will always
support Bitchute for the most part as long
as they uphold their mission of no censorship.
And I and I believe and support the
people who built this platform. I, however, have
a very negative opinion right now of the
people the person at the very top. The
person who I was recently doing a podcast
with who kicked me off the show because
he didn't agree with the opinions that I
was stating. A platform that's supposed to be
no censorship. And I got the same sentiments
from people that work around him that that's
what he was doing, even hinting at deleting
comments, by the way, came directly from one
of the people they worked with. All that
to be aside, the point was, worries me
that this may be what drives something like
this. And I I haven't commented on that,
by the way. It's something that's not as
important, but I was doing that show and
ultimately made some comments about how Zionism is
involved with what's going on, how technocracy or
the idea of, you know, these kind of
deep state elements, rather than just unelected power
structures, very clearly are part of the conversation
and didn't like that, apparently. And I brought
it up again on the show, and then
it just decided to kick me off, to
the frustration of everybody else. Still have very,
very, very,
serious respect for
Bruce and Dennis, by the way, for those
who know the show we're talking about. Anyway,
the point was, though, that these are suddenly
not being there, not played. I I think
that's worth noting and I wonder whether we're
getting more into the old style of censorship
while we're dealing with the algorithmic manipulation.
Now to start back with the clip,
this is probably not the first person that
shared it
but it is, somebody who shared it on
March 29.
4,000,000 view 2,400,000 views. Excuse me. Probably the
first person seeing as how much engagement it
got, but this is somebody whiplash three seven
four, looks like, yeah, a 146,000
followers, says, that's it. I give up. Donald
Trump is a time traveler. Well, a weird
way to frame it as a positive thing,
seeing as how all you really have to
note is this has always been his opinion,
and the truth is he's been lying to
you about that up until now, and now
he's going back to doing what he always
wanted to do. That's not don't need to
be a d b d no. Don't need
to be a time traveler to work that
little Gordian knot out. The reality is clearly,
he has always been the person. This it's
also another point to make to start. Like
I keep saying,
Trump did not change, guys. This this narrative
about, I I don't even recognize him anymore,
are people who either never really saw what
he was or just don't admit that they
were fooled. Because the truth is, and if
we were calling it out then in the
last administration, yes, there's examples of things that
have gotten crazier or that I also think
that Trump is sort of being cornered right
now, whether it's a combination of him realizing
he is in a way being played by
outside forces. It doesn't make him the good
guy or not, you know, innocent,
but he's realizing that to some degree. My
point is I feel like he's cornered right
now. His propaganda is catching up with him,
and so that's what you're seeing, I think.
He sort of I I see him sort
of as a like a toddler having a
tantrum right now and lashing out at everything
around him. That's not because I hate Trump,
and I'm a they're
both. Trump, Biden, left, right, all ridiculous. The
point is that you have to acknowledge that
who he is right now and what he's
doing, as you can clearly see, is who
he's always been, guys. And, also, it's funny
that Barbara Walters can't be like, you mean
a very, very public and obvious war crime
is which is what you're describing?
Even then, you can't acknowledge just seizing the
oil is not what that's illegal, guys. The
Geneva Convention has always been illegal.
Same thing it is now. My point is
that they posted this on the twenty ninth,
and then Trump just posted it with no
comment the next day.
That is not something that you should praise.
That's that's a that's a weak move
to act like somehow you own like, this
is, you know, you're posting it like it's
your thing. Now the commentary becomes Trump posted
this, not that somebody else posted it, and
he tried to post it to sort of
hide the fact that that was going around.
I don't think he wants you to see
this.
But that's what you do. You own it.
You scream the word loudly that you weren't
so you you know, you said something wrong
that people hated you for, so you scream
it aloud 17 more times. That's what Trump
does every time. This is who he is.
I think that's a sign of weakness. Either
way, that's what he always thought. Guys, that's
the real point. And I think that's very
clear today. And guess what? He even doubled
down on this very sentiment
just yesterday with Financial Times. Donald Trump says
US could take the oil in Iran. It's
just, like, perfect timing.
And and realize, here's what's funny about this.
This is why that clip came out because
he said this yesterday. He posted that clip
on his own social today.
So it says Donald Trump and so, I
guess, you could argue if he wanted to
point that out, he would have, right, until
after the fact. Donald Trump has said he
wants to take the oil in Iran and
could seize the export hub of Kharg Island
at the end as The US sends thousands
of troops to the Middle East. US president
told the Financial Times in an interview on
Sunday that his preference would be to take
the oil.
You you understand. Like, I'm not saying you
have to care about international law, but at
least acknowledge that in other conversations and make
sure you're consistent with your logic and don't
gasp when you claim Iran violates international law.
Right? The point though is that you if
you do and you believe that it should,
in some way, you know, guide or at
least influence directions of governments around the world,
women seizing the oil with no real justification
outside of, you know there are legal pathways.
In this case, in a legal war starting
with no justification,
or even after warfare, the reality is you're
not supposed to just seize the resources of
another country because you can.
Now at today, what did what did Higgseth
and and all the rest tell you? We're
powerful and we can. Well, that's you could
agree with that, again, but then don't gripe
when you see another country doing that to
you This is what just happens. They're not
allowed to just take us and bomb us
and do that. Well, you set the table.
If you're gonna act like you can do
this, well, they can do it right back.
Now it says and I'm not advocating for
that. I find that to be insanely stupid,
but that's what you know, making sure we're
consistent with our logic. But he says, My
preference would be take the oil, comparing it
to a move to Venezuela.
Yeah. Thank you, Donald Trump, for highlighting that
you were also breaking the law with Venezuela,
which anybody who's not a child will already
acknowledge because that's what they've been doing their
entire lives, Where The US intends to control
the oil industry indefinitely.
I mean, he just said that out loud.
So that's in the interest of Venezuelans? Like,
my point, like I've been saying over the
last couple weeks, they're not even trying anymore.
They're not even trying. They yelled democracy and
then just put someone in place and just
go forward.
Is Delce was was she elected by come
on, guys. They put the person there that
was amenable to their interests and even said,
if she doesn't line up with the way
we like, we'll pick somebody else. And yet
they call that democracy. And I'm not joking.
They literally say, democracy. We're we're saving the
Venezuelan people
while stealing their resources and controlling their government.
It's
insulting to our intelligence.
Same thing. Where The US intends to control
it indefinitely following its capture, he's saying that's
what I wanna do in Iran. Yes. Thank
you for admitting the crimes on the record,
but it's not like the international community is
gonna do anything about it. Trump said, quote,
to be honest with you, my favorite thing
is to take the oil in Iran. But
some stupid people back in The US say,
why are you doing that? But they're stupid
people. He's got this, like, same mantra he
does with every time he okay.
There's stupid people that say burning the flag
is is, you know, it's unconstitutional to to
make that illegal. Well, it is. It's been
uphold upheld
countless times by the Supreme Court. But he
said, people that say that, they're stupid people.
Well, no. They're actually correct people, and they're
not stupid if they're correct. You're either lying
or incorrect, but you call them stupid because
you don't want that to be the case.
Okay. He said, we need to shut down
the Internet with Bill Gates and a lot
of they're doing bad things on the Internet.
Remember that? 2016?
And he said, there are people who will
say, oh, free speech. Those are stupid people
or something like that. Stupid was one term.
And so are they stupid? No. They're correct
because that would be a free speech issue.
But he said it because he's either lying
or doesn't know he's wrong, and he keeps
doing it. So in this case,
they're stupid people for saying that you can't
just illegally take the oil. You understand. There's
in my opinion, they're not saying don't take
it. They're saying don't do it like that.
At least give you some kind of a
legal framework.
Such a move would involve seizing Cargillan through
though
which most of Iran's oil is exported. And
it's this game in playing where that's sort
of been floated but not, and I can't
tell whether it's a head fake, but it
seems likely.
Maybe we take Cargillan, he says. Maybe we
don't. Oh, you're so crafty, Trump. We have
a lot of options. It would also mean
we had to be there in Cargillan for
a while. He says, asked about the state
of Iranian defense in Cargillan, he said, I
don't think they have any defenses. We could
take it very easily. Well, no, you really
couldn't. You could probably take it. And then
they would nonstop rain down missiles on you
like they're like Robert clearly outlined. And then
you would call them terrorists, I guess, but
you'd be seizing their territory. And I you
know, I even it's I I would argue
this is probably even likely it's gonna happen.
But I that means he doesn't care about
the interest of Americans or or any other
thing other than his,
I guess, inch or doing what Israel says
he should do. I'm not even sure how
he frames that. And same with everything else.
As now, he's floating potential attacks on desalination
plants, which are crimes. We'll talk about that
next. And like Robert already outlined for you.
It's it's very clear. In Iran has built
themselves in a position where even if they
attack one of their main locations, it barely,
barely affects the long term
feasibility of what they're doing or, continuity.
However, in reverse, most of the places where
Iran can bomb can take out one location
and basically destroy their ability to have fresh
water, at least in a couple of main
locations. And he he did a great job
breaking that down. But here he is telling
you we're gonna at least I mean, he's
at least floating the idea. He could be
trying to trick them. He says, quote, we've
got about 3,000 targets left. We bombed 13,000
targets and another couple of thousand to go.
Totally in the midst of negotiations, clearly. He
said a deal could be made fairly quickly.
I mean, the game that anyone is pretending,
like, saying, you better hurry up and make
a deal, and we're gonna bomb you, is
in any way negotiations.
No. That's that's at the barrel of a
gun. So let's just even say they go,
fine. Fine. We'll make a deal. Well, you
did it at the barrel of a gun.
So it's not technically any kind of legal
deal under any standard in the world.
And it says and, again, so he's saying
13,000 targets. Well, who else told you this?
Israel told you that. Last week, they said,
we've got four weeks more of bombing planned
out. Not to say it's gonna end in
four
weeks. So and they said, we're gonna keep
going. So clearly, whether Trump says one thing
or the next day, he seems to constantly,
no matter what he says, be on the
track of whatever Israel's doing. So we can
yell, we're gonna do a peace deal tomorrow.
Tankers this day. 10 over there. But then
we come back, finally look back, and then,
oh, well, exactly the same time frame Israel
said. The same bombing targets Israel pointed to.
So either he doesn't know that he's on
their track or he's just pretending like he's
in charge while he's literally Maggie stealing real
in the Simpsons.
Last week, he said that Iran had permitted
10 Pakistan flagged oil tankers to the Strait
Of Hormuz. Let's not forget, by all means,
all accounts, GPS and otherwise, literally didn't happen.
And yet, we can't have an honest conversation
about how we obviously lied about that or
he was misled
or somebody simply told Trump that they were
going to, and then he just off the
cuff said it happened already because that's what
he's known for. I shouldn't even say known
for. That's just the kind of stupidity that
he does or
I guess he's known for.
But it continues, and the number of tankers
had not been doubled,
had
last week, he said they permitted 10.
The number of tankers had now been doubled
to 20, he told him. And that's not
actually true. Now maybe he misquoted that to
them, What he originally said and what leave
it followed up with today, which appears to
be nothing involving them,
is that they did 20 more.
So it's funny. It becomes total of 20
when what he said was eight that became
10, that eight plus two, for whatever dumb
reason he keeps saying that, and then later
said they sent 20,
not added 10 to the total. I mean,
this is so ridiculous. The fact that we
even have to, like, wade through this and
try to make sense of it, is anybody
anywhere of the mind that this is an
honest conversation?
Now it could turn out down the line
that he's been working with somebody, but we
know, provably, he's been lying about most of
this.
It says they gave us 10, he said.
Now we're given 20, and the 20 have
already started. They're going right up the middle
of the straight. No. They're not, man. They're
absolutely
not. Now the 20 we're gonna get to,
he pointed to, are a deal that Iran
actually made, or rather just a conversation with
Pakistan
to do I think it was two a
day up to 20.
So you can literally prove what he's talking
about is something that they're dealing with in
regard to just letting ships through. Like I've
been telling you, it's not closed.
Take note of everybody who's been telling you
that. It has been heavily restricted
by them. And The US and Israel screaming
to the world that it's been closed, which
has caused its own restrictions,
but it has not been closed. They've been
letting people through as I've been showing you
since the beginning.
Many people just were afraid to try it.
That's because of The US and Israel threatening
that they would do that for them, apparently,
even though they did not say other than
bombing The US and Israel and enemies.
And so in this case, they're going up
the middle of the strait, he says. Well,
that's not true because what they were talking
about was some over the process of days.
So he just either lied about that or
he didn't even know what was going on.
Somebody relayed information to him, and he just
vomited it out thinking he knew what was
going on.
Trump added that Mohammed Bagher,
Galabaugh,
Iran's parliamentary speaker and one of the country's
top wartime leaders had authorized the additional tankers.
Yeah. That's the same guy that's literally saying,
yeah, there's nothing happening. There's no negotiations. Trump's
making this up. He's trying to fool you.
He's been tweeting about it. Now could he
be lying? Of course. My thought originally was
maybe they are making a deal, and this
guy's going stop tall saying it, Trump. You're
gonna get me killed.
I actually think it's more likely today he's
trying to get him killed, and he's not
actually working with him. I think what we're
dealing with, just a guess, but the way
it's starting to feel to me is that
they're literally because remember, the Israeli,
Times of Israel said on the record that
they that this is the guy Trump was
speaking to. Israel said that. Before that, we
only had insinuation from people online this was
the guy. Right? Well, now
Trump added that Goluboff
is the one who authorized the tankers.
Okay. So now is that because Trump heard
that from his people, or is that because
Israel told him that? Now it started to
look more and more like Trump is being
played by everyone around him, and I don't
think he's even capable of truly engaging with
that. Think about that for a second, what
that would mean for him.
And on top of that, the point would
be though that this or, I guess, you
could add that the idea is to get
this person killed. Somebody who clearly seems to
be influential and is important in the conversation
and to they think they can just go,
we made a deal with him and Ron's
gonna go kill him because they guess that's
who they think these people are. No. They're
not like you, guys. That's the truth. They
may be just as bad like all governments
can be, but they have continually demonstrated that
they don't do the kind of things that
you do reflexively.
Violence and belligerence with no justification.
Look for yourselves. Don't listen to what the
state department says. Take a look. My point
is they could have tried,
hoping they would get that done and it
didn't work.
Sounds like a
half thought out Trump plan to me.
Then it says, he's the one who authorized
the ships to me, Trump says, to me.
Every other account shows you that he didn't
even speak to them. It says, remember, I
said they're giving me a present, and everyone
said, what's the president? BS.
When they hear heard about that, they kept
their mouth shut. Negotiations are going very well.
He is just doubling down on this nonsense.
The son is either dead or extremely bad
shape. He keeps saying this. Is that the
same guy you told us was dead?
Now he's kinda dead maybe or just in
bad shape, or is he hiding somewhere? Thirty
seconds ago, you told us he was irrelevant,
and you were speaking with somebody entirely different.
Then the next day, you presented that same
group, him as the leader, with a 15
plan that he denied.
How many times can we not I mean,
the the he should be laughed at in
front of people in his rooms, but yet
you get these bootlicking following, you know, how,
you know, what how do you feel in
getting at your trip? What kind of shirt
are you gonna wear tomorrow? Like, the dumbest
kind of things, and it's that's actually a
little bit over the top. They get some
they get questions that are engaged, but it's
just, like, nonsensical.
Like, you could clearly ask questions that would,
I mean,
would completely dismantle what he's doing. They don't
because they'll never be welcomed back into those
rooms. Access journalism for you.
Yeah. Just making sure that was the end.
Yeah. So continuing. So remember, this is the
guy on the twenty third who said no
negotiations have been held. It's fake news, used
to manipulate the markets. That's exactly what happened.
Literally, the same five day period that we
predicted is exactly what happened.
Now we, meet the individ everybody. Now I
that wasn't even me. I was reporting on
somebody else. I think it was James Lee
who made that point. But as the independent
media or just people on Twitter were like,
what do you bet it's gonna come down
to that? And sure enough, well, here he
is today.
The United States Of America is in a
serious discussion with a new
and more reasonable
regime. Oh, okay. But it's still a regime,
though. It's still an evil terrorist regime, but
they're just a little bit less terrorist regime.
Okay. Got it. The the Russian regime is
supposed to be a derogatory thing. Maybe he
doesn't know that. Either way, now we've gone
from
we're dealing with a random guy
that Trump is now literally telling us is
Goluboff, apparently. That's the guy who's giving you
the tankers.
That's this is all come this is from
yesterday on Financial Times. Yesterday. He gave me
20 tankers, apparently. Okay. He denies that. Then
for whatever reason, after the first 10, he
makes an offer for a 15 plan that
the administration, he just told you, we're all
dead, just denied. Okay? And then he said,
they better get serious or we're all gonna
go to war. You just said you were
about to make a deal, but now you're
threatening them?
I mean, it's just it's just it's it's
impossibly embarrassing.
And then
after that, he comes back and says, now
I'm dealing with a new regime, a new,
more reasonable responsible.
Okay.
Is this a third person?
Is it the same government? Is he making
it all up? Is he talking to Israel
on different phones? Who knows? But this is
just sad. Now look. It may very well
turn out that this is something that, you
know, it he turned out to be the
master dealmaker and and, you know, egg on
our face. So how are you gonna look
at it? Sure. Possible.
There's no there's literally no reason to think
that's the case. The evidence everywhere you look
counters what he's doing. So it wouldn't have
been smart to assume
based on what he says, even though he
lies all the time, even if it turns
turns out to be correct. Always the parts
the stance is always to stand with the
facts in front of you, even if it
turns out to go the other direction after
more was added. So right now, there's nothing
to indicate any of this, and every part
other than his team has denied this.
And it says, great progress has been made,
but if for any reason
a deal is not shortly reached,
it will
which it probably will be, which no one's
agreeing with, by the way, and if the
strait is not immediately open for business, which
it is other than for you guys, we
will conclude our lovely stay in Iran by
blowing up and completely obliterating all of the
electric generating plants, oil wells in Cargill and
possibly all desalination plants.
Jesus.
Good god.
Which we have purposely not yet touched. Yeah.
Because those would be crimes, Donald Trump, like
everything else you're doing. So I guess it
doesn't matter for him. Right?
But think about this. We're doing so great.
And he talks in front of people. Oh,
we're making a deal. They're just they're giving
me everything I asked for. They just love
me. They said, here. Take more oil, Trump,
because we love you. We agree with you.
And then thirty seconds later, you can't, will,
better, do it. We're gonna blow up everything.
Why would you even need to say that
if what you just said was true before
that? See, it I don't I don't I
feel like I'm wasting breath even going through
that.
Does anybody not see that? I mean, seriously,
it's a real question because I can't believe
we can't recognize this from one second to
another. And if we do, then I should
just stop talking about it. But I feel
like there are some that seem to get
to get lost in this.
Just in case you missed it, though, those
are crimes. No way around it.
This will be in retribution, he says, for
our many soldiers. Oh, because so your soldiers
died in your legal war, so you respond
by illegally bombing civilian locations. Sounds like a
US war to me.
And others that Iran has butchered and killed
over the forty seven year of reign forty
seven year reign of terror.
That's stupidity.
Do you realize I mean, this is like
like Caitlin Johnstone laughed about. Funny how we
never even heard of this forty seven year
war until March 6 or whatever the day
was.
Technically, before it's February 28 is what it
was. The point though is that you all
of a sudden, it's a twenty forty seven
year war forever, nonstop, that we never heard
about.
It's just obviously not true, guys. I mean,
it's embarrassing. And it says, thank you for
your attention to this matter. Okay.
So this is a note tweet from Goluboff,
which says, heads up. Premarket so called news
or truth is just often a setup for
market profit taking. Basically, it's a reverse indicator.
Do the opposite. If they pump it, short
it. If they dump it, go long. Don't
always do that. See something tomorrow? You know
the drill.
So press news says Trump is predictable. He
did exactly as Golovoff said.
He did.
So here we are again, threatening war crimes,
but apparently, it's all going well.
If you listen to him on that show
over there.
Well, as the typical red light holy crap
morons come out and say, whatever Trump said,
which is that Trump just revealed that Iran
is sending 20 more oil boats through. Well,
that's not what he said, by the way.
What he said was I watched them go
through, which would have been yesterday,
which I guess this is technically twenty hours
ago, but that didn't happen.
You could check for yourself. That literally didn't
happen as a sign of respect. Oh, so
as a sign of respect, they sent you
20 boats full of oil, millions and millions
of dollars, but yet they're not making a
deal? You have to threaten them with war
crimes?
And from what I can tell,
and I'll read it next directly from the
Pakistani government. This this this has nothing to
do with Trump.
Next level gaslighting.
Here here's the clip from them. He's speaking
with part of the White House or it's
on, Air Force One, I believe.
And I just wrote that it this is
sad because Pakistani officials, which you could look
for yourself, have publicly confirmed that Iran agreed
before this to allow 20 Pakistani flag vessels,
roughly two per day.
See, that's quite different than watching eight run
through the middle or 20 go right through
the middle when Trump just happens to mention
it.
Through the strait as a confidence building measure
tied to regional talks hosted in Pakistan,
not as anything directed at The United States
or involved with The United States or having
anything to do with Trump's claims.
So they all said.
I mean, how much more can we laugh
about that? I mean, at what point do
you just stand back and go, he's just
blatantly lying or somebody's lying to him?
At what point does he realize that if
he's being lied to?
I mean, so again, we can talk about
the reality of this and how what, you
know, the true that the truth has always
been,
wherever that was,
of course, right there,
is from and look, this I really wanna
stress this again. I've said it many times.
From the very beginning of this, what did
I tell you?
Because, you know, you could look and you
have eyes,
whether tankers are not, because the tankers are
the main point. And if you wanna make
it only about tankers, well, based on their
reaction to what The US and Israel said
was the reality,
pretty much everybody paused.
But the point was it was open, and
I showed you that the day it was
going on. And Iran was very clear.
It said, as I just showed you,
Hormuz is only closed for Zionists,
or the reality being closed to close to
enemies.
That's what he said. And then you want
there just recently, Spain was going through with
oil. We saw and and the point was
in the beginning, that's what they were saying.
Now look. Is it possible they were lying
about that? Sure. But I'm not seeing them
bomb any tankers. The only tankers we saw
bomb were The US and Israel right in
the beginning.
Why would they have done that? Clearly, they
didn't Trump pretended he didn't want it to
happen this way, and then they made sure
the oil crisis became an issue because they
needed that choke point. They needed this to
be an issue so they could try to
drive the world against Iran. That's what I
believe. That's why I believe they thought they
would break the straight down immediately, and they
did not. They didn't take the bait, so
they pretended they did. And they said there
was mines. There were not mines. Do we
remember that lie? That went by real quickly,
didn't it?
And now they are just go now they're
letting people through. That's important.
I'm of the mind that they're genuinely going,
anybody can go through here who is not
fighting us at war right now, just like
the Houthis who did the same exact thing
with Israel.
Now look. At some point, you have to
look at the consistency, whatever the rhetoric is,
and then recognize they're not what the people
claim they are.
So here's what he said in his
press briefing.
He may be alive, but he's obviously very
seriously
in trouble.
So that it's really low, so I won't
I won't talk after this. But what he
said basically is he, you know, he may
be he may be, maybe not dead, but
he's in serious trouble.
The leader, right? So just one day after
day, it becomes a little bit more and
more, oh, he's in trouble.
Like, I'm a school mom. You're in trouble
now. You know? I mean, really, the point
is that he hasn't. There's been no indication
anything he ever said was happening. They just
acted like they the point was always selling
you on this idea that Iran was thirty
seconds away from collapse. They're all hiding in
their tunnels with their phones, in their woods,
with their fires, like Jesse Waters told you.
And then, yeah, here we are, where they're
increasing their bombings.
And Trump seems to be desperately seeking a
way out. But keep listening to those guys
who told you to start to shut and
still pretend like it was shut closed all
the way the entire time. Sir,
he may be alive, but he's obviously very
seriously
in trouble. He he seriously wounded. You You
you had offered that 15
plan to Iran. Did they ever come back
with with a response? What did they say?
They gave us most of the points.
Oh, they gave you most of the points,
did they? You mean aside from literally none
of them? You can go through that and
laugh at that, guys. I went through it
in the last show.
They didn't I mean, see, here's what I
really think is part of this, what he's
trying to lead to, but Iran is just
not allowing it to take place. You see,
in the past, Iran has been very
passive in the in the narrative side of
it, where Trump can come up and be
like, we win, and we did it, like
like the so called twelve day war. They
really didn't push back that much in regard
to the lie he spun about what because
I think they wanted this to stop. That
was why I think they sort of made
agreement. We'll bomb you bomb. We'll back away.
And Trump said, we win.
And, really, if you look at the damage,
it was clear that I think Iran came
out on top in regard to what they
did with Israel. You could look for yourself,
look back. Same thing we're we're seeing right
now. And so I think part of this
is him expecting that he can just yell
I won, like always, and think they're not
gonna push back, but they're not letting it
happen. So in this case,
you know, they gave us 15 plan. They
gave us most of it. One most of
I think the first two two of the
main three revolved around not having nuclear
weapons. So, my point is, I think he
was gonna say, We did it. They they
agreed, like he already said, not to have
a nuclear weapon, knowing that they never actually
planned to, knowing the evidence showed they didn't
have one now, and acting like that we
did that.
That seems very Trump if you understand how
he's always operated. To take the like, to
use the lie he knew was a lie,
to to can in to go to war
for Israel, and then try to wrap it
up by claiming that he made them not
do the thing they never did in the
first place.
And all the life that was killed just
for
that. My opinion.
Point plan to Iran. Did they ever come
back with with a response? Back on the
fifteenth point. They say. They gave us most
of the points.
Why wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't they? Maybe because you're murdering your
families? I don't know. You make it sound
like they've made some concessions. Can you identify
those? They're agreeing with us on on the
plan. I mean, we
asked for 15 things. Okay. So, again, now
the other side of the possibility. They're agreeing
with you on the plans.
So, again, he could just be lying. But
with that kind of a statement, doesn't it
make you wonder whether he really is talking
to somebody? I get that sense half the
time. And if that's the case, then he's
being played, guys. Somebody's on the phone acting
like whether it's I mean, look. As again,
guys, Kushner and Jared Jared Kushner and Witkoff
are the people who are allaying this to
Trump. He's not in that room. He's admitted
that. So and and these are people who
have been publicly called essentially Israeli assets. That's
a quote from the diplomats in the room
when they're dealing with Iran. I mean, diplomats
in regard to like, there's foreign minister for
Oman. There's people from multiple points of the
conversation,
and they they they didn't they didn't wanna
say who they were. It was two diplomats
involved with the conversation. The point, though, is
that you can clearly see that reality. And
then you can see that Israel is doing
the same to Trump from the very beginning,
driving this into reality, Trump admitting that they
did this and they had to rush because
Trump was gonna stop. Come on. You have
to think about this possibility.
And then he and now even if he
maybe even senses that could be happening, what's
he gonna do? They're gonna he he turn
around and blow up his his own agenda?
He would go to jail. I mean, right
now, he could go to prison for the
illegal war if he turns around and pushes
back against what the Israel side is doing.
His thoughts. For the most part, we're gonna
be asking for a couple of other things.
And just to prove that they're serious, they
gave us all these votes. When I talked
about four days ago a present, I said
they gave me a present,
but I didn't think I was, at liberty
to say what it was.
What it was was eight plus two. It's
10
massive boatloads of oil.
And Which by the way, according to everybody
within with in for like, the GPS, with
I mean, it didn't happen.
They said they're right
when he said that, there nothing happening. There
was no eight boats that went through today,
didn't happen. I mean, you can look for
yourself. I reported it the day it happened.
So are we just gonna Today they get
don't know that that's a lie, or are
we gonna question whether or not he's being
lied to as well? Gave us another present.
They gave us 20 booklets and all that
sucks. Alright. So even right there. So why
would you then frame it on financial times
the day before as 10 more and make
it 20 total? He just clearly said 20
more. Right? Big ship. It's kinda like when
he talks about the ships and were sank
from Iran, how the number seems to change
every single day. And the first three days,
we took down 45. In the first three
days, we took down 60 ships. The first
three days, we took down 20, all other
ships.
The clip's going around. Watch for yourself. Tomorrow,
we're having very good meetings,
both directly and indirectly, and I think we're
getting a lot of very important points. Sir,
what are you planning? Sure. And he's been
saying that for two weeks now. And Ron
says that's not true and keeps bombing locations.
And by the way, regardless of what Trump
says, when they were supposed to right now
be pausing infrastructure, as I showed you yesterday,
they were bombing infrastructure,
both US and Israel, largely Israel and specifically
nuclear infrastructure.
And so Trump lied or is not in
control. I mean, there's really no other way
to look at that.
Oil US oil takers flying packed flags. Iranian
embassy rejects Trump's claims.
So, you know, it's all public.
I really don't see how there's any other
possibility here.
He's either just so concerned with how embarrassing
this is for him that he'll just lie,
like,
himself into the ground, or he is of
the mind this is really going this way,
and he's being played by somebody. Those are
the two most obvious possibilities to me. That
I I mean, unless there's some major part
of information we're not seeing, it had in
my mind, it asked me one of those
two things.
Or I guess or you could say on
top of that that he is speaking to
somebody, but there's been a thousand reasons why
like, you know, or little points within this
that show you that he there's, like, there's
something that doesn't add up. But that very
well could mean something other than he's being
lied to. We'll include that to be objective.
Now here's what tankertrackers.com
put vessels, meaning all categories, which is important,
by the way.
But,
but as far as tankers are concerned, it
says it is still around two a day
oh, sorry. This is just percent is saying
seeing more and more ships go through Hormuz.
And this says vessels, according to them, means
all categories. But as far as tankers are
concerned, it is still around two a day.
And half of those are carrying Iranian oil
and refined products. Now this is from the
tanker tracker. Now what we're what I'm showing
you is percent, which I'll show you clip
next, is saying we're seeing more ships go
through. But that doesn't appear to be the
reality, and I'm not saying it's because Iran
is stopping them as I keep showing you.
I think, my opinion, is that they're only
hindering people who are fighting them. So one,
why are they first pretending like it's been
shut down? We addressed that. Two, why would
he suddenly be saying more is now going
through even though it appears to be the
same it's been the entire time? Where they
could, but because of the threats and what
either the people are hesitant.
Well, I think that's obvious because Trump said
they're happening. So the narrative becomes, well, we're
going through, but they weren't, and it's never
really been closed in the first place. We're
living in this, like, shadow game of just
complete nonsense right now. Where it it's wag
the dog stuff. Or and we we wouldn't
even call it wag the dog. They're just
whole cloth making up stories. That's what I
think we're dealing
with. All the man who kind of beef
up whatever Trump happened to
off the cuff say that day. Right? He
just randomly says something and all the rest
don't have to shuffle around to make sure
his story looks like it's actually happening. I
mean, it's probably more complicated than that, but
I just think it's interesting how clear we're
being lied to. And, again,
Iran has been clear up until right now
that they're only stopping enemies.
Here's what Pacint just said. Coming right over
the top after everything we just heard. We're
making deals, and we're talk and and this
is what percent comes out and says.
Deals with the Iranian regime for the time
being. But, you know,
over time, The US is going to retake
control of the Straits,
and there will be freedom of navigation
whether it is
Retake.
Implying they ever had strategic control over the
Strait Of Hormuz. They did not. Now I've
never argued that Iran should even legally have
sole control since there's other land masses that
sort of, you know, are in that situation.
But
the only reason this has always been an
issue, and the only reason they've always talked
about what they might do should this come
to pass is because everybody knew in a
strategic sense, Iran controls the strait
as they're demonstrating right now. Right? It's it's
not about whether they should or not. It's
just what the reality was. And so this
idea that they would regain control,
that's never been the case. At least not
in, you know, living memory with what we're
dealing with. So it's a funny way to
frame that. It's just this is these you
know, you need to think about. It's not
these are not just accidents and language. These
are deliberate, deliberate mis dishonesty, my opinion. The
US is going to retake control of the
straits,
and there will be freedom of navigation,
whether Again, there is now for people that
are not illegally bombing foreign countries. It is
through US escorts or a multinational escort. Which
nobody agreed to. And it seems that still
nobody wants to despite how they tried to
claim that was happening. Right? Remember, at first,
he said that and nobody agreed to it,
which was kind of embarrassing. Then he came
back around and said, we got all these
nations, and you got this kind of weird
push from the typical red light holy crap
guys where they were, oh my god. All
all the Democrats were embarrassed because 75 countries
signed on for Trump's initiative. Not that I
can tell. You You got a lot of
people that signed on for sort of a
general sentiment conversate.
As far as I can tell, that was
a misrepresentation
of countries that were involved with the ongoing
conversation towards Iran, but did not in any
way sign on to escort military or excuse
me. Militarily
export. I can't
talk.
Militarily
escort
ships through the Strait Of Hormuz, which is
a very different thing, you understand, because that
is something that would be very one, they'd
be seen as copiligence for The US Government,
and they would be legal targets going with
what's going on, And they would also then
be restricted to the straight.
That's why they all pretty much said no.
But don't forget how the fake mainstream alternative
media patriot MAGA movement wanted you to believe
it was all coming down because Trump said
it that day. So you also are you
concerned at all about the Houthis getting involved?
They shelled Israel? The real the real name
is the Ansar Allah movement. Remember that? With
two two, two rockets, you worried about the
Red Sea?
Not not not as much. The Houthis have
been very quiet so far. Yeah. Yeah. Right.
Because you guys technically have a ceasefire right
now with them, which we they're not gonna
tell you because they don't care about any
ceasefire agreement. They do, though, and the Houthis
have maintained that. And what they just said
is we're now gonna enter this war on
the side of Iran. And if you bomb
us, you're breaking the ceasefire. We're not gonna
bomb you. We're only gonna be focused on
Israel.
I guarantee they'll bomb them when they want
to. Now and and recognize though that he
is worried because they got utterly destroyed in
the sense of strategy in regard to what
they did in the Red
Sea. They didn't kill anybody. They didn't sink
any ships. The only bomb in a in
a, in a,
hindrance capacity didn't sink any ships, didn't kill
anybody, didn't steal anything, but effectively stopped them
from bringing things to to a large degree
to Israel, and
they called them pirates.
Even though you have our government, the US
government, bombing and, you know, without any investigation,
without rather any, you know, process,
they can claim they investigate. I frankly don't
even believe that. But just murdering boats and
ships and things all over the world, but
they're but these people who were helping the
people being genocide and who were stopping the
people who were supposed to be arrested in
the world, didn't kill anybody, didn't steal everything,
and didn't sink a ship, but they're the
pirates. Got it. Got it. Meanwhile, here's Saudi
Arabia who's illegally occupying their territory, working with
a foreign government to steal things from Yemen,
starving the entire population and bombing them periodically.
But, yeah, tell me again while the Ansaral
movement are the
terrorists and pirates while they're supported by the
majority of people in Yemen. It's like every
other story, guys.
This is who we deal with.
Now in regard to the conversation, I'll include
the two shows that we, you know,
the recent ones, Trump's claims of an Iranian
defector on the twenty fifth, belied the twenty
fourth, really, but the fifth conversation
belied
by new US proposals for current Iranian leadership.
That's when he said, here's my 15 plan.
And I said, well, that doesn't make any
sense. And here we are. And the follow-up
was the simply trose foe trose Trump's foe
negotiation.
Here again is what he said.
Serious discussions with a new, more reasonable regime
to end the military operations.
Oh, wait. This is the one, yeah. We
read this a second ago. And the point
was a new, more reasonable regime. And then
he posted again on the White House account.
The United States Of America is in a
serious discussion with a new and more reasonable
regime. Okay. So how do you take that?
What do you mean new and more reasonable
regime? That's that the Iranian people have an
election?
Okay. So then you're just handpicking individuals that
you want to be in power? Yes. Yes.
As always. You called it a regime.
Now why would we think that what say,
what happened to the guy you were just
just talking to? What happened to the deal
you just gave them? What if they accepted
that? On top of all of it,
the
new, more reasonable regime that you that you
wanna put in power, why why wouldn't we
consider that that's literally the Shah
or the MEK?
Which by the way, the very provable thing
is the the reality is that Iranians despise
both those groups.
So I guess we'll find out. Or he's
lying about all of it or somebody's lying
to him. Here's what Levitt had to say
today.
Ron, the president has said that the administration
is talking to, a new or and more
reasonable regime.
How confident are you that they are legitimate
and have enough grip on power? Marco Rubio
said earlier that he's not sure, and it's
not clear whether they will be in power.
So are you also talking to to other
factions? As a president is trying to make
a deal, how do you ensure that you're
making a deal with people who can actually
implement it? Well, that's part of the ongoing
process that's taking place and the ongoing negotiations,
of course, anything that they say to us
privately
will be tested, and we will, ensure that
they are being held accountable to their word.
And if they are not, the president has
laid out the military consequences that the Iranian
regime will see. If they don't hold true
to the words that we are hearing privately
behind the scenes. When the president says more
Okay. So here's an interesting thought.
Hypothetically,
should he be being played by Iran
or, excuse me, by Israel?
And but but he's of the mind. He's
talking to Iran, and they go, we promise
all of this.
And she said, well, if they don't follow
through, then we'll bomb them.
How easy would that be for Israel to
simply manufacture Trump's bombing of Iran to drive
what they want out situation? Don't forget, their
own media yesterday and today are publicly saying
that if this goes to ground troops, which
it already is, by the way, that Israel
will not be doing that,
like we all told you.
Going process that's taking place and the ongoing
negotiations of
said that the administration is talking to, a
new or and more reasonable regime.
How confident are you that they are legitimate
and have enough grip on power? Marco Rubio
said earlier that he's not sure, and it's
not clear whether they will be in power.
So So, again, that's what I wanted to
play again right there. Just think about that,
the idea that we're not clear if they're
in power. So so what does it even
mean? Why would you even negotiate with somebody
who, again, you understand Witkoff, they're in the
maroon with the Iranian government. The ones he
keep they keep pretending like they're dead, and
we don't know what they are. They're not
even in power, except we sit down with
them every day and have negotiations.
They're lying to you guys.
Thousand ways they can prove for yourself if
you're not completely stupid.
Are you also talking to to other factions?
As a president is trying to make a
deal, how do you ensure that you're making
a deal with the people who can actually
implement it? Yeah. Yeah. Who can actually follow
through with that. Why? Because, well, they'll militarily
force in whatever they decide is in the
interest of them,
otherwise known as what they pretend is for
the Iranian people, what they for them, for
what they want. We will force in militarily
what we want in this situation and call
that democracy.
Welcome to US foreign policy. Well, that's part
of the ongoing process that's taking place in
the ongoing negotiations. Of course, anything that they
say to us privately
will be tested, and we will,
ensure that they are being held accountable to
their word. And if they are not, the
president has laid out the military consequences that
the Iranian regime will see. If they don't
hold true to the words that we are
hearing privately behind the scenes. When the president
says more reasonable, again, these folks are appearing
more reasonable behind the scenes privately in these
conversations,
than perhaps some of the previous leaders who
are now no longer on plan. So your
response when she asked what that means is
to simply repeat that it's more reasonable. Very
very well done, Leaven. Because I don't think
they even know what they're talking about right
now. I don't even think she has any
frame of reference on the group that they're
even referring to.
Right? So the question to what what do
you mean? More reasonable? What what what's with
the group? Has laid out the military consequences
that the Iranian regime will see, if they
don't hold true to the words that we
are hearing privately. Says more reasonable. Again, these
folks are appearing more reasonable behind the scenes
privately in these conversations,
than perhaps some of the previous leaders who
are Meaning more reasonable they'll give up everything
they want for you. Right? Who cares with
Iranian people? Take whatever you want. Just let
us rule. Yes. More reasonable. Now no longer
on planet Earth, because they lied to The
United States. They? And they, strung us along
in negotiations, and that was unacceptable to the
Oh, wait a minute now. So what are
you talking about? The only people that we
know of that have been killed
are the people that were in the middle
of negotiations
while you bomb them.
Let's not let's not pretend let's not let
her muddy the waters here, guys. This is
important.
World Day War, they literally murdered them in
the midst of negotiations.
They did that again
with Khamenei. They did it again. Like, this
is their tactic. They did it in Lebanon.
They did it with Soleimani. So, realize, that
was all before this. Since then, we've had
this weird game of I'm dealing with Iranians,
but doesn't seem to be happening. Then, we
have the weird defector point with a new
guy, maybe Goluboff.
Talk with him. Then, next day, back to
Iran's government. Now, a third group, what's more
reasonable, apparently, we're talking to them. But so
what are you saying? That we you're saying
you murdered people for not for lying to
you and not and stringing along negotiations? Well,
where would that have possibly taken place? Did
you murder people that we're not aware of?
Or are you trying to pretend that when
you illegally murdered the group of Iranian negotiators
who were not military targets while they were
literally about to agree to everything you asked
for and Israel murdered them, that that was
you bombing them because they lied to you
and strung you along, maybe because Israel lied
to you about what was actually happening. Seeing
as how we can literally prove from the
foreign minister of Oman that what they agreed
to was to give up everything.
One, what they already were doing, no nuclear
weapon, but they were willing to give up
their enriched uranium even for civilian programs. They
finally agreed that never before.
And that night, Israel bombed them.
You can't miss how this goes.
President,
which is why many of the previous longer
on planet Earth, because they lied to The
United States,
and they, strung us along in negotiations, and
that was unacceptable to the president. Also point
out that apparently in Trump's mind, it's it's
legal to just murder somebody because they said
something that you thought wasn't true.
I mean, let's just make that clear.
At this point, what we're talk we're not
talking about a legal war. There's no declaration
of war. There's no imminent threat. So what
you're saying, you could just literally murder people
anywhere because they lied to you?
I guess so. I don't I I am
I'm actually baffled they even say these things
out loud anymore. I I don't get it.
Where is there an international commute? Peep these
people should be in prison, guys. I mean,
so should Biden, so should the rest of
them, but this is insane how blatantly obvious
this is. Which is why many of the
previous leaders were killed. So, again, this is
another historic opportunity for Iran to do the
right thing,
to rid themselves of their nuclear ambitions.
Right. To rid themselves
of their nuclear ambitions. You mean what they
already agreed to give up before you started
this illegal war?
You you just can't make these people are
desperate, and they're dishonest. I mean, I'm of
the mind that even leave it knows they're
making this up just by the way that
they're returning this information.
And to come to a deal with this
president in the administration,
or, again, they will, see the grave consequences
of the United States Armed Forces, which they
are Yeah. So we'll murder you. We'll we'll
militarily act if you don't give us what
we want. That's called negotiation in Trump's mind,
apparently. Continuing to see every day throughout this
operation.
Wow.
So
here's Trump, a new, more reasonable regime. Right?
Well, here's Rubio
contradicting that to a degree.
Today, we have to see if these people
end up being the ones in charge, seeing
if they're the ones that have the power
to deliver. We're gonna test it. We are
hopeful that that's the case. There are clearly
people there talking to us in ways that
previous,
people in charge in Iran have not spoken
to us in the past. Now what I
think is hilarious about this, the same thing
they do with Delsey Rodrigues. What did he
say? And I'll just note the little inconsistencies
between the way he frames it and Trump
frames it.
They said, well, we're gonna see if Delsey
does what she says she'll do.
If she doesn't, we'll get rid of her.
They I mean, they're just they're not even
hiding it. That was, I mean, basically, maybe
one word difference, paraphrasing exactly what Trump was
saying, and Rubio.
So we're being told, you know, people save
Iranians and democracy, and then we'll we're gonna
give her a chance to see if she
does what we want. Basically, without I mean,
that's it's exactly what he
said. And that if they don't give us
our interest, that we will get somebody else
in place. And even insinuated, they could just
take her out, kill her. That's what they
said. And he's doing the same thing right
now. Well, we're talking to them, and we'll
see if they can go as we want.
And if they don't get as well, we
could take action.
These are terrorists.
Just well, it's not mince words. This is
what terrorism look like. Terrorism looks like. The
things they're willing to do, some of the
things they're saying they're willing to do. Obviously,
they have to go do it. We're gonna
test that proposition very strongly because we always
prefer to settle things through negotiation and diplomacy.
But we also have to be prepared for
the fact that that effort might fail, that
we are dealing with a forty seven year
old regime that still has a lot of
people involved in it who aren't necessarily big
fans of diploma. Right. Right. Right. Okay. We
get it. So Trump tells you it's all
good. It's a great it's more reasonable. Great
regime. We're gonna make a deal, like he's
told you last three days with different people.
And he comes in and says, we're dealing
with an old regime, and it's got a
lot of unreasonable people.
Perfect.
So here is what he says about the
Strait.
The world should take note of Iran's threats
to set up a system in the Strait.
I commented on this. The the Iranians are
threatening that that when that they're going to
set up some permanent system in the Straits
Of Hormuz where they get to decide who
goes through international waterways. That will never be
allowed to happen. By the way, the rest
of the world should take note of that.
They have more at stake there than we
do. We get very little of our energy
in this country coming through the Strait Of
Hormuz. The rest of the world gets a
lot more. Oh, well then, I guess, thank
you for admitting fully that you're doing this
for Israel entirely, seeing as how you have
an interest and why are you involved for
Israel, clearly. Thanks for clearing that up. But
the point
oh, did I,
oh, how did I forget that? There was
maybe it was over here. Nope.
Shoot.
It's, there's it's not necessarily important. It was
a it was a a meme that somebody
shared. But some of the point I wanna
make here, as Daniel says, guess when Iran
wasn't talking about such a system
before you launched a sneak attack against them?
Idiots.
Right? So first point, as everything else they're
doing is, well, they're now doing something
that justifies their action. But they're only doing
that thing because you started this illegal war.
So you attack them illegally, they do a
thing, and then you go, that's the thing.
That's the reason we're war at war with
them. That's how this is working. Now, like,
for example, similarly, people are saying, well, we're
at war to keep the straight open. Yes.
Now this is different. This is about the
toll, but the straight wasn't closed before you
did this, and it's not closed now. It's
restricted to you guys.
But what did I
say?
This was on the twenty fifth.
Now the point is not to forget, guys,
that oh, I I say it right in
this tweet comment, really. I said watch as
the usual suspects frame this, the toll, the
conversation,
as either unprecedented, like he's trying to do,
or an act of terrorism, which he's also
doing in some conversations,
even though it seems to be common practice
just about everywhere else in the world.
Looking for yourself. Straits, canals, Panama, Suez,
they all charge. Now you may argue, well,
in some cases, those are unique to one
location. Well, most of them are not, by
the way. They just have agreements.
Well, what about, like, for example, in in,
like, the, you know, the area like, the
waterways between Mexico and The United States?
You know, the the the what does he
call it?
What did he change it to? I don't
even know. The point
is you know as well as I or
Cuba, for example. Didn't Donald Trump just restrict
Russia from sending oil to Cuba? But you're
gonna tell me it's not okay for Iran
to do you see, it's it's a it's
a double standard.
But my point is always is we know,
as we've all acknowledged, which is why this
is happening, that Iran has had strategic control
over the strait this entire time. They're demonstrating
that now. So my point is why every
other strait in the world seems to be
okay. They'll charge, like, a million dollars for
some of these gigantic ships.
Iran has never done that as far as
I could tell. Now, yeah, the bad guy.
Right? And it's I'm not even making it
good, bad, but the point is for them
to frame them as the evil one, and
yet they're the ones that haven't been extorting
people. It just kills me. So my point
again is that we now can see them
playing this role as expected
as what you could easily predict, that they
just find an opening and they go, oh
my god. They're trying to threaten us with
fees, but, like, everywhere else. And as Daniel
points out, well, they weren't before you illegally
attack them. Idiot.
Exactly. Just
crazy. Now I'll include this as always straight
forward move so you can look for yourself.
What I want let me check real quick
and see where the tankers are. I found
it interesting that there were a couple that
were even US tankers.
Oh, look at that.
Right there. Now, technically,
I'm actually for unfamiliar. I think the circle
as is like an extension of so if
you remember these little gray lines, that's the
territorial waters for, you know, The UAE right
here. Or, for example, on the other side,
that would be for Iran. Right? And that's
why you can argue that they you know,
that side would be theirs, but they can
control it from the island here. Right? And
bomb anything comes through. That's the argument.
But here we have tankers. These are oil
tankers. Here's two right there.
And this one is
what's the
details? Let me just make sure I'm not
misread Marshall Islands.
Two of them. And, weirdly enough, a US
tanker right in there.
No more that I can see. But, you
know and this is going this is changing
all day long.
So that that's not what we're hearing. I
mean, anyway, the point simply is that this
is technically open, and it has been from
the beginning. And tankers are the main conversation,
but if you wanna just look at generally
speaking, clearly, it's open.
So and this is a live map.
Now before we get into some quick partisan
points and then just finish with the however
long it takes with the rest of the
point, obviously, that took longer than I wanted,
but I still think it was important to
make sure we're updated on that.
Just to really think about that. You know,
the the the the lies that we can
see. And I I'm not gonna say I
know what it means. I don't. Like, for
sure, like I said, it could be that
he's being misled. It could be that he's
just lie him lying to you seems to
sort of be like Occam's razor. It seems
to be the simplest explanation.
But I feel like there's parts to it.
It could it's a mixed bag, you know,
where maybe he's lying to you, but then
maybe he's also over here being played by
somebody else, maybe his inner circle. Maybe, you
know, maybe it's even, like, personal agendas within
his administration. I don't know. And you see,
it's not it's not
in our interest to assume.
Wait for facts,
converse,
theorize, discuss.
So right for me right now, though, I
just think it's in painful
to watch how these people are trying to
sort of gaslight you into thinking,
one,
that they just are
succeeding by falling back into the situation that
existed before they started this. And all that
really got happened was that the Israel got
what they wanted to a small degree or
they tried to out of Iran and essentially
failed. What they are doing is gaining ground
in Lebanon right now, which nobody wants to
consider as part of the same conversation, apparently,
even though it's always been part of the
greater Israel agenda, which is what this is.
But just question this stuff. Call out the
partisan people that we're gonna point to now
really quickly because this is all they're doing
right now. Now I almost didn't include this
because I key I pointed this last couple
of days, and I just had to because
of the last thing that I saw. But
it's just it really quickly, just to continue
the same point, if you guys have been
following the last couple of shows, is we
always get this stuff from partisans. They come
out and go well, a lot of different
things. You know, a hype story to get
you to go, oh my god. Look at
that thing, and it never goes anywhere. Right?
Many most times, stories that I care about,
things that I do wanna see accountability for.
Obama, Pelosi. I do think they should be
in jail. Maybe not for the same reasons
you may think out there, but I do
agree. I think they're criminals.
So what's frustrating and funny and and alarming
at the same time is how often these
people come out and it will play old
videos or hype this idea in a general
sense. Right? But then right now or in
certain circumstances, what I see is that it
just explodes.
You know, like when they're uncomfortably being seen
to lie about an Iran negotiation or when
the Epstein files are very uncomfortable for them.
You get these massive pushes where the typicals,
you know, the Glenn Beck's and Jones, the
Nick Sorters, the the
Benny Johnson's, they all
I mean, I almost identically
share things
that are like, look at the now Jones
do the whole red light holy crap thing,
not always, but they're all generally selling the
same sentiments, and I think that's very clear.
And it's about trying to convince you that
one thing is happening when something else is
going on. So same thing here. And this
is the same guy that seems to be
doing this constantly, and it just says, did
Tulsi Gabbard is actively investigating
the Ukraine officials paying Biden. Yeah. They're good.
Arrest him. Pretty sure it's clear you can
see that there was corruption going on there.
Why isn't he in jail, though, Eric? If
you care so much and you post this
every thirty seconds, don't you then also get
frustrated that this is regurgitated information from a
year ago, that we are clearly aware this
has been going on?
Right?
Now there's there's new stuff coming out about
this, but this story is not new. And
even if it is, why isn't there action?
It's not.
There is not action going on. There's nothing
in this direction. Now look. I hope it
does. And if it happens tomorrow, I'll be
the first to say, oh, I was wrong.
I'm glad it's happening. But it's not happening
right now. As this person says, you, Lewins,
post one of these official groundbreaking breaking news
investigations three times a week. Everyone seems to
see it. If you look at the comments,
it might say the thing I just said
and watch as nothing happens as always. And
all these teams who are politics players won't
say a word, but they'll sure as hell
hype the next hollow claim that Obama, Gaetz,
and Pelosi are going down with a couple
of red lights. Well, here's even Ana Paula
Luna Luna who shares this guy's post without
due diligence. Well, I guess, really, just they
all share the comment. It was Russia collusion.
It was Dem collusion. Or it wasn't Russia.
It was Dem collusion and USAID.
And now watch as nothing happens about it.
Same old story. So just continue to know
these people are hyping this story even though
nothing is going on about it, just like
they did a week ago and a week
before that and a year before that.
So you can you can stand back and
go, well, maybe they care about it, but
wouldn't they be angry that this the team
they fight for is doing nothing about the
people that they were sworn they they were
trying to kill our family and, you know,
destroy our party? Well, here's the same thing.
Luna doing the same thing from the Obama
side of it. New evidence from ODNI confirms
what many suspected. She literally wrote she is
in congress, guys.
This is her congressional account,
and she posted new evidence.
This video is from 2025.
Check for yourself.
2025.
We're talking about an old video
that is relaying what that because it's based
on the the Tulsi Gabbard thing that came
out
last year, where she's like, big bombshell report
about how Obama did that. Good. Arrest him
then. I'll support that.
But they
didn't. Tree
Miller and Trump
Trump even called him a traitor.
Treason was used.
There's not far, I could tell there's not
even legal processes going on. He's not nothing's
happening.
He should be a Jew.
Same thing here.
This SCIF, most of these accounts are 100,000
followers, so on. I think this one's
300,000.
It says our greatest enemies come from within
and the Russian collusion and the same thing.
And the old video about Tulsi Gabbard and
Obama.
You'd think you'd be outraged that nothing has
happened, seeing as how that video is from
2025. Does it not bother you that the
government you support pretends to arrest these criminals
then does absolutely nothing?
It should if your interest is in accountability.
But they just keep doing it over and
over and over. Here's another one. This one
I found even more interesting because it makes
the point even more clear that Trump is
doing it too.
So then, hey. Liz Crokin shared it. Isn't
she part of the the most transparent administration
Epstein file effort?
Well, March 30,
this person posted a screenshot
that shows Trump sharing this and says, traitors
who commit treason belong in prison.
Oh, big tough words for the big tough
MAGA fake team. Well, guess what?
Trump did post this
back in,
July 2025,
and they're just talking about it. Among one
of the things he posted was this image.
This it says until this happens, nothing will
change, and it shows Obama and
and and,
oh, what's his name? It was Clinton and
the brothers. I'm blanking his name all of
a sudden right here. What is it?
The creepy Pizzagate related brothers. I forget his
name all of a sudden. But, you know,
all the different Democrats. Right?
None of which are in jail.
None. So my point is, if Trump posts
this,
which he did, who knows when because the
point is they give you a screenshot, then
he's playing that game too. He wants you
to think he's doing it, but here we
are. Right?
What there was 2025 from the article.
And it's been a year. Okay, Trump. Okay,
SCIF. What why aren't they arrested? Don't you
guys care? Well, you get the point.
They don't care. If they care, they'd be
screaming about this right now. The ones that
care have already changed, you know, have started
calling out the people who don't do what
they're calling for. Podesta, thank you. The people
that you know, like like, for five times
August, for example, was supporting the team until
he realized they were lying to him because
he's not a moron. And he came out
and said, you guys are ridiculous, and I'm
gonna call you out. And he has ever
since because he has principles, guys. That's the
point. These accounts don't care. Liz Crokin, Eric
Hatterty, Benny John, they are go along, get
along fair weather manipulators.
It's what they do.
Next show, by the way, we're gonna make
a point about Alex Jones suddenly going, oh
my god. Look. They fund Al Qaeda. Like,
he's mentioned in the past, but, like, it's
a bombshell.
And or pointing to what Trump is doing
in Iran and calling it the new world
order.
He is such a fair weather
how embarrassing. He I he must be so
uncomfortable right now. He literally just told us
to double down with Trump three days ago.
He just told you Trump was fighting the
new world order and globalism, and here he
is now going, Welcome to the new world
order.
These people are spinning out, guys. And I
I I hope they find their way to
the truth if that's even possible for them,
like an honest path.
Oh, one last little point on this, which
is just funny to me.
If you go back and look at this
coverage, you know, most of many of them
are being honest about the claim, which is
500 different groups, which collectively have an annual
revenue of $3,000,000,000
which is a very different thing than saying
that the no kings protest were funded for
$3,000,000,000
Right? Even though that's how a lot of
people in the broken new media reported it.
Well, they put out a a a page
with which, by the way, I I guarantee
there's probably things that aren't even accurate in
that, but it's not the point. The page,
they're all circulating showing the finances, which, by
the way, shows you that they publicly post
this stuff, which means it's not trying to
be hidden from anybody. But let's make that
but but then the dark money side of
the Republicans' effort was steal stop the steal.
That's the one you could trust. No. You
can't trust any of them, left or right.
But he says, Kevin Sorbo, even though he
keeps getting anyway, just I did the same
thing again last time. How many times can
he support this until he realizes they're not
doing it for him? I guess one more
time. He's doing the same thing. Go after
Obama.
Showed in old videos.
I don't know why I don't he didn't
strike me as a dishonest person. I just
like to think they could eventually see through
how obvious this is. But he says, we
now have a list of no king's financiers,
and he lists off those same ones we
showed you yesterday.
And he shows you a shade under $300,000,000,
which if you remember do you remember what
we talked about yesterday? And they stopped the
steal was about $300,000,000.
How funny is that? It's and there was
only one. There was plenty of others as
well. So the argument becomes that it looks
like that was something about the same.
Shocking, I know, because it happens on both
sides, and both sides do it. And we
should concern ourselves with both. As I wrote
here, Tom Wren says, if no one goes
to jail, why does it matter?
Now I reading it now, you could argue
he's simply saying, like, in a general sense,
if nobody ever goes to jail anywhere, why
are you even griping about it? I I
completely agree with that. I'm glad he's calling
that out because Kevin does that a lot.
But if he was suggesting that somebody should
go to jail for that,
I thought this was a good point to
make. I simply said, look, Tom. I'm right
here I'm right there with you about the
concerns over manipulation taking place via billionaire funding
of protest movements
on both sides. We all should care about
that. But what exactly are we suggesting is
the crime here?
That feel this feels like a trap to
undermine people fighting government overreach in a time
when it's never been more necessary, by the
way, which is our right.
All I'm saying is if if if I
you know I'm concerned about what they're doing
and how they're manipulating through this. But if
they're if there's not what's the crime here?
Point to the manipulation. Acknowledge it. But if
we're if it ends up being, well, you're
not allowed to coordinate efforts against calling out
the government, well, guess what? That very much
works in the interest of the government. Worth
considering.
Okay. Took longer than I wanted on that
first part, but I I don't know. You
guys tell me. I feel like that stuff's
important to keep up on even over twenty
four hours because you missed some. But let's
talk about this.
This, guys.
Beyond the pale. I mean, this this is
just incredible to me.
MIT Technology and Review.
Inside the stealthy startup that pitched brainless human
clones. Orwell sent me this. This was today.
It came out today.
03/30/2026.
Almost used that picture, actually. It's a weird,
creepy looking picture.
Inside the stealthy startup that pitched brainless
human clones. Isn't that crazy? I mean, just
the idea of this feels, you know, like
you your your your I don't even know
what you call it. You just your but
your instincts are like, that seems crazy. Right?
Like, I just you know, that's something someone
tried to fool me, but, no, this this
seems to be really ongoing.
In an interview with Wired, it's r three
the group is r three Bio. It's the
name of the company. R three listed three
investors.
Billionaire Tim Draper,
the Singapore based fund, Immortal Dragons, that's one
that I'm gonna focus on, and life extension
investors Long Game Ventures.
There's more to the story, and r three
doesn't want that story told.
MIT Technology Review discovered that the stealth startup's
founder,
John, I think it's, Schloendorn,
also pitched a startling,
medically graphic,
and ethically charged
ver vision for what he's called, quote, brainless
clones
to serve the role of backup human bodies.
Now what we're gonna go through here is
the connection to
some very alarming movements that are driving, I
think, the reimagining of our society right now
and the network state agenda, same conversation.
But all and and the connection to the
political drive and the current administration.
But just this this overlap. I mean, we're
one of the weird things that constantly jumps
out at me is that we're talking about
people that are that are largely right now,
and I think it's just because this is
always these billionaires that are sort of above
nationality, above political sides, like, just dump money
and whatever sides will gain them influence in
the conversation,
which is why we saw Palantir dump on
both sides. Now they just shy. You know?
It's what happens, guys. It's it's the same
game. The point is that what I keep
seeing here is that right now, again, maybe
just because of that, but you see a
ton
of these
technocratic transhumanist
longevity freaks in this movement who are pretending
they're Christian right. And, you know, we believe
in Christianity, you know, and yet what they're
doing in here is inherently
anti religion.
I mean, this is borderline
becoming like, this is about creating a circumstance
where you can live forever, where you can
create life or even we'll get into whether
you wanna even call it life. But, technically
speaking, we're talking about living things that don't
have any brain process,
human bodies and otherwise.
I'm willing to bet you without question that
the vast majority of people who are genuinely
of the Christian perspective
are and on the right in this sense,
would be outraged
about this conversation and would be outraged to
find out that it's very close to r
k junior and Donald Trump, the one that
are, you know, acting like we're saving you
from all these terrible things, and all of
which is aggressively close to the larger conversation
for the global direction we're talking about.
Now it says, imagine it like this,
a baby version of yourself
with only enough of a brain structure to
be alive in case you ever need a
new kidney or liver.
There's there's, I've heard the name of the
movie,
which Scarlett Johansson, I feel I believe, or
movie like that, where the the movie starts
with the people inside of this kind of
weird oh, it's called the island. That's right.
Where they're inside of this weird little place
they live, and they're told this fake story
about where they have to grow up and
they can move to the island. But there
really turns out well, spoiler alert, in case
you wanna watch it, take a second to
pause.
Ultimately, it turns out where they're clones that
are grown for very wealthy people that are
kind of kept on the edge of their
you know, as soon as we get your
number drawn, we'll send you out to the
world, and they want their number is drawn
once they need to kill them for their
organs because they got a car accident or
whatever. And it's just this creepy overlapping movie.
And, guys, that's it's
it's not to say that every single thing
like that is always the case or can
be, but you have to realize, first of
all, technologically speaking, scientifically speaking, at least based
on what they're presenting here, that's very possible
already.
We'll get into that. There's dispute on that,
but you'll see what I mean. And so
the point is, let's just even say you
get to the point beyond this where it's
very much possible.
Just because they wanna tell you it's not
something we're doing or because we see ethical
boundaries,
the the point is once that line is
crossed,
maybe they're not even the ones making those
decisions anymore. Maybe they lied to
you. Or maybe another thousand possibilities where this
becomes just the norm and then and then
we're then it's too late. Happens with everything
we do. In most cases, I'm arguing they
knew it was gonna go here, and they
just gaslit you into supporting in the first
place. This is what our government has done
my entire life with everything we're dealing with.
I mean, look at what happened with the
COVID nineteen shots from left and right. The
point is that I'm guaranteeing you that the
point the direction, if not already taking place,
is the darkest versions of what you see
in this.
Historically, we're at we're absolutely right in worrying
about that.
Now it says, or alternatively
well, I guess my point to be more
clear is that if we open that, we
cross that line. Well, even like for the
AI conversation.
It shouldn't be about whether we which way
we do it. We should be having real
conversations about whether we even wanna cross these
lines.
Because one and the because the the point
is from these kind of billionaires, they drive
with their media manipulation, their forceful opinions that
that's just what it is. Wait. It's inevitable,
so we might as well pick this because
we have to beat China.
And, you know, there's logic to these arguments.
But it seems as if they're just kind
of gas you know, bull rushing over whether
we should be doing it in the first
place. At the very least, we should have
that conversation at the highest level, and they're
not allowing that. Same with five g and
all the rest of these conversations. They just
rush it forward. And then once it's there,
it's too late now. We have to. Like,
start a solutions, for example, and all the
rest of these things. That's the the way
they bull rush this in.
So it's an imagine like this, baby version
of yourself, should you need the organs.
Or, alternatively, he he has speculated,
you might one day get your brain placed
into a younger clone.
That could be a way to gain a
second lifespan, which is what these older billionaires
are desperately seeking,
through a still though through a still hypothetical
procedure known as a body transplant.
The fuller context of r three's proposals as
well as activities of another stealth start up
with related goals
have not previously been reported.
They've been kept secret
by a circle of extreme
life extension proponents
who fear that their plans for immortality
could be derailed by clickbait headlines and public
backlash.
Well, that's a surefire way to make sure
we're very skeptical is to keep it secret
and pretend like we don't understand. Right? I
mean, guys, it's quite obvious that there's a
re the reason they don't want us to
be public is because they know that people
are out would be outraged by this. One,
because it's alarming
and well beyond control. But, two, because
most of the people that are supporting their
agendas right now are connected to the Christian
right, in my opinion.
It says, and that's because the idea can
sound like something straight from a creepy science
fiction film. What do you mean sounds like?
It's quite literally exactly the premise of a
scientific science fiction film. One person who heard
r three Bio's clone presentation
and spoke on the condition of anonymity was
left reeling
by its implications
and shaken by,
slow and slow and dorns
slower how would you say that properly? I'm
gonna decide right now and go forward.
Slow and dorns
enthusiastic delivery. The briefing, this person said, was
like a close encounter of the third kind
with Doctor. Strangelove.
It says, and he's talked and he's talked
about how to grow a clone.
Since artificial wounds don't exist yet, so we're
told, brainless bodies can't be grown in a
lab. So he said the first batch of
brainless clones would have to be carried by
women
paid to do the job. So one thing
I wanna get into early, keep in your
mind, because it does go there in this
conversation,
is in the overlap of these kind of
unregulated
network state CEO run
technocratic hellscapes,
like Prospera.
These are the kind of things they could
be doing right now, and I argue they
are doing right now. Whether this exact thing,
which I'm gonna get into like I said,
with ManyCircle, you can look at what they're
doing, look up the name, look at the
kind of stuff they're working on. It it
and with no regulation,
there's a thousand ways this stuff could hurt
the entire planet.
I mean, we're talking about genetic manipulation, things
that could potentially I mean, we talked about
this when it came to, like, this the
overlap of the,
like, Monsanto and the seeds, for example. And
that's what they they literally made these things
that could just blow into your field, and
and then they patented your seeds. I'm gonna
get into this I'll play a good clip
at the end that makes a point from
that. But the problem is you get into
this manipulation that has even, like, different point,
but the gain of function overlap, like with
the COVID nineteen time frame. These are things
that have shown to have cascading effects that
they can't foresee and they can't control.
Then the question becomes, is that part of
the plan? Creating something that becomes out of
control to be able to use to you
know, this this is where the start of
solution point. This is about the idea of
the, Insect Allies conversation, which is the same
self spreading point from an insect perspective. That's
all DARPA technology. We've talked about all of
this. For you know, if you haven't heard
and seen any of the stuff that we
talked about in the past, that might sound
crazy to you. These are all documented government
programs. Just look up Insect Allies. In fact,
here. Just just to make the point for
those that haven't heard of any of that,
because I believe this is a,
yeah, this is a independent article. Military plan
to spread viruses using insects could create new
class of biological weapon,
scientists warn.
And I think we did a
yeah. Right here.
The article on it.
Scientists accuse DARPA of genetically modifying insects for
bioweapons spread agricultural viruses.
And that's this is, you know, this is
the I mean, here is
a video that I feel was, you know,
why not? Seeing as how it's
relevant to the larger point. Now coming back,
we're talking about genetic side of this, but
there is an overlap to this and how
these things can you know, even if you're
talking about from mother to to offspring. Right?
Same kind of idea. These things have effects
that go forward. This is the overlap with
the insect allies that then bled into becoming
the self spreading vaccine conversation. Again, you've seen
this clip. This is from 2020. This was
a or 2019
and or in the overlap. And I think
it was a this was EU, and and
it was a massive symposium that included the
United States government that had discussed about
this.
Since the outbreak of COVID nineteen, the word
virus has been dominating media headlines as well
as our daily lives.
Did you know that one approach that has
been proposed to control virally transmitted diseases is
by releasing a virally transmitted vaccine?
Unlike traditional vaccines,
infectious vaccines do not require any individual consent.
Infectious solutions are also being developed for food
and agriculture
and are currently making their way through the
regulatory approval process
However, do we really want to intentionally
disperse these modified viruses outside the lab?
Is this the forward march of science or
a mistake?
Join our live event at the twenty twenty
EuroScience
Open.
So it was 2020.
But, you know, so again, that's self spreading.
That's, you know, gain of function level, but
there's an overlap, guys. And my point is
about what the thinking of something like that.
Like, you could just make it a different
conversation about vaccine
technology.
That they're in a location where there's
they've created a situation where there's no real
accountability.
There's no real regulation. They can do whatever.
CEO run country, they can decide what's in
their best interest, and that's probably profit related.
And what happens if that ends up becoming
something that rolls over in the town next
to them, the state next to them? You
know? And and there there is a level
of understanding here that needs to be like,
it's not about you know, there it it
comes down to things that very well are
dangerous or, like, gain a function that I
think world around, we acknowledge is something that
is almost playing with God. Now, that that's
a bad way to go with it or,
like, playing God, excuse me.
A bad direction to go with it because,
you know, it it overlaps the religious perspective.
But I do think it makes sense for
you to understand that these are things that
I just I argue we shouldn't even be
involved in. And now going back to the
genetic side of this, you know, if there's
a clip we played a lot, I'll play
at the end today, that really does go
back to when this first started, when they
were starting to clone things and and patent
life.
And I think this is where this is
going. And now, you know, this is kind
of the the meshing of that into a
kind of free for all location and building
out of this direction
to the point to where now we're talking
about cloning, I guess, use like, bodies they
can use for future reference.
And at this point, saying back to the
point that women would have to be paid
to carry these basic clones, I guess. You
know? And so then at what point does
this overlap? That was the point with the
whole Christian point. So so it doesn't this
from a Christian right perspective, doesn't this feel
like
a violation?
Resna, you're you're you're make this woman is
giving birth to something that you engineer, that
you then pack up for pieces that you
might need. Pretty sure that doesn't align with
most values.
Last Monday, the same day it announced itself
to the world in Wired, r three Bio
sent a sent Wired,
Technology Review
sent a they sent r three sent Technology
Review a sweeping disavowal of our findings. So
they reached out and basically said they called
them out for what they were saying.
That they doubled down because they have the
evidence to prove what's going on. It said,
Schlow and Dorn, quote, never made any statement
regarding hypothetical, non sentient human clones. He literally
did. That would be carried by surrogates. The
most overarching of these challenges was its insistence
that, quote, any allegations of intent or conspiracy
to create human clones or humans with brain
damage are categorically false.
But
even Schloendorn and his cofounder, Al Alice Gilman,
can't seem to keep away from the topic.
Just last September, the pair presented at abundance
longevity.
The longevity is the word that tends to
kind of mask this whole endeavor.
Remember that because it's longevity is like, you
know, life extension.
So it says the pair presented at abundance
longevity, a $70,000
per ticket event in Boston organized by the
antiaging promoter, Peter Diamandis.
Although the presentation to, although the the presentation
to about 40 people was not recorded and
was meant to be confidential,
say, they would they were under the mind
and this was not something people saw, a
copy of the agenda for the event shows
that
Schloendorn was there to outline his, quote, final
bid to defeat aging in a session called,
quote, full body replacement.
According to a person who was there, both
animal research and personal clones for spare organs
were discussed.
During the presentation, Gilman and Schlowendorn were e
were even stood in front of an image
of a cloning needle.
Pressed on whether this was a talk about
brainless clones, Gilman told us that while r
three's current business is replacing animal models,
quote, the team reserves the right to hold
hypothetical futuristic discussions.
So essentially admitting that, yeah, we were, but
we didn't wanna admit it when you asked
us the first time. MIT Technology Review found
no evidence that r three has cloned anyone
or even
animals bigger than a rodent. What we did
find were documents, additional meeting agendas, and other
sources outlining a techno lot a technical road
map for what r three called body replacement
cloning
in a 2023
letter to supporters.
So here's what I get from this, which
we'll get into more in this article. I
believe we're dealing with a a
a pay like a pay per v or
an,
like a paid service for billionaires,
where this is not something that people know
what's going on. Sort of like when Peter
Thiel tried to do his ambrosia thing, which
was pumping young blood into into billionaires, which,
like, I think I even had that to
come up. Hold on.
Yep. Here it is. For those that wouldn't
wanna believe it because I know it sounds
crazy, the start up harvesting the blood of
the young, this was Peter Thiel. It it
stopped,
but I argue it really didn't because there's
a market for this, which is horrifying to
think about, but it does exist because they
and and look. There is evidence showing that
there's ways you can scientifically use this to,
in some way, better
give yourself longer life.
So in this case, I I believe what
we're talking about is an industry that is
building and possibly even booming, where you're dealing
with this kind of work, whatever they're able
to do now, but happening in places where
there is no regulation. Like, I feel like
a lot of this is being set up
to to create a circumstance where they can
go over to Prospera or,
Praxia or whatever these these new locations are
to do all of this stuff for them,
for billionaire elitists.
And so what we're talking about here is
the body replacement cloning letter they sent out
in 2023.
The timing is interesting to me especially.
And the idea of that they haven't cloned
anybody bigger than a rodent. Even though they've
had this technology for a long time, I
I just don't find that plausible.
It says, though he holds a PhD,
Schloendorn is a biotech outsider who has published
little and is best known for having once
outfitted a do it yourself lab in his
Bay Area garage.
You know, like that one they closed down
that was owned by that Israeli guy.
Kind of half
kidding. Still, his ties to the experimental fringe
of longevity science has earned him a network
in Silicon Valley and allies at a risk
taking US health innovation agency known as
ARPA H.
Fantastic. So
the,
manipulate like, basically, the one that was started
before that she that I think it was,
Melania Trump just moved the H around so
they could pretend like it was their own
thing. It was HARPA before, now it's ARPA
H. Same thing. And ultimately, Whitney and I
talked about this as well. So a government
program, literally, the US government, Trump's administration, who
was involved with this program, which I I
find pretty hard to believe because of you
know, I I would have, let's say,
before.
But today, it seems like they don't even
care what they're showing. They're just bull rushing
forward in hopes that we're not paying attention.
That's insane to me.
So he's still and on top of that,
the point is this is a guy who
seems to be regarded in the field or
just in scientific fields, which we used to
say what that means these days, as sort
of a out you know, he's he's kind
of a what they call a what's the
word they used? Fringe. Outside,
you know, the the respected circles.
And, you know, and the point is that
I think we have so many billionaire elements
that are so so over focused on making
sure they can live forever. This is a
science field that they're dumping so much money
into. So this guy is in his garage
literally becomes this major ARPA age connected billionaire
funded program.
Together with his success at raising money for
his investors, this signals that the brainless clone
concept should be taken seriously
by a wider community of scientists, doctors, and
ethicists, some of whom expressed grave concerns. Or
at the very least, they're gonna try
desperately or otherwise, no matter what anybody else
says. And so US government evolved, Silicon Valley,
high level people, all of which ties directly
back to the US government core today.
It sounds crazy in my opinion, said Jose
Cebelli, researcher at Michigan State University,
says, he describing the whole thing to him,
the brainless clone idea. He said, how do
you demonstrate safety?
Right? What is safety
when you're trying to create an abnormal human?
And and again, the the convert the question
of of
morality,
of of religion comes into play for people
that, you know, that matters for. Twenty five
years ago, Cybele was among the first scientists
to try to clone human embryos.
Twenty five years ago. But he was trying
to obtain matched stem cells,
not make a
baby. Quote, there is no limit to human
imagination and ways to make money, but there
have to be boundaries, he says. And this
is the boundary of making a human being
who is not a human being.
Right? It's a creepy thing to think about,
and I want I'm I'm of the mind
this is happening.
Feasibility research.
Since Dolly the sheep was born, and I
referenced this many times over the years, in
1996,
Born.
A clone. Researchers have cloned dogs, cats, camels,
horses, cattle, ferrets, and other species of mammal.
How come we haven't heard of that? I'm
sure it's out there somewhere, but I'm willing
to bet you ask anybody.
Most people probably heard of that sheep they
talked about. But when why did we and
I always say that, and then we heard
no more about it. Courses, cattle, ferrous species.
Where is all this? Is it only one
example? Are we talking about herds and cattle?
Or or and and and, you know, and
and, you know, herds of these things? I
don't know. I find the court pretty damn
alarming that this is something in 1996 they
claimed they did, claim is fair enough to
say, and that we just never talked about
it again? Not really in any main conversation?
Doesn't that in and of itself almost tell
you something's going on there?
Should, anyway, make you consider that?
That's just alarming to me. 1996.
Those grave risks are why we've never heard
of a human clone. Because they go on
to say that there's all these issues of,
you know,
the defects, deformed
stillbirths,
and that's why, you know, we never heard
of a human clone. I find it interesting
the way they frame that. Even though it's
theoretically possible to create one, are we really
gonna tell ourselves that they have had the
ability, but no one's done
it? Does anybody believe that with what we
know about the world? I don't.
But brainless clones flip the script. That's because
the ultimate aim is to create not a
healthy person, but an unconscious body that would
probably need life support. Okay.
Feeding like a feeding tube to stay alive.
Because this body would share the DNA of
a person being copied. Its organs would be
a near perfect immunological
match. Okay. Well, here's an interesting point to
overlap with.
Kind of also showing you the the manipulation
of the political things they tell you. What
are we hearing from people today? Well, we
you know, we're talking about the idea well,
actually, what's interesting now another thought to it.
You get Elon Musk telling you, we're having
a shortage.
We need to have we need more kids.
Okay? Well, part of the people a lot
of people forever have been telling us that
we're overpopulated.
I believe that was also very clear manipulation.
But there you can go back and look
at the population bomb and how many years
they kept moving that out. It's like climate
change, same thing.
There's levels of truth to all these things,
but there's a manipulation within both. The point
here
is that what you're saying is we're creating
we could, in the future, create clones for
this. Well, wouldn't that create, like, a doubling
of society or at least a a doubling
of the people who could afford it? Which
would then require life support and resources for
people that are just, you know, it seems
like an almost
guaranteed
infeasible scenario.
And this is because the body would share
the DNA, perfect match. Backers of this broad
concept argue that a nonsentient body would be
ethically acceptable
to harvest organs from.
Ethically for
for, acceptable to who exactly? To whom?
Yeah. I mean, from a religious perspective, it
doesn't change anything just because they're not sentient.
I mean, maybe it does. I mean, people
gather their own opinions. But I think well,
I mean, ult or maybe you look at
it like they're not even human because it
wasn't created by guys. It's a weird it's
a very, very unnerving reality that I believe
we're already in.
It says some also believe that swapping in
fresh young body parts known as replacement
is the likeliest path to life extension since
so far no drug can reverse aging, so
we're told. In this case, harvesting organs. So
what it's gonna get into is a weird
overlap to this about whether these things would
even technically be
non sentient
in a in a legal sense or in
a biological sense. And it says, and there's
the idea of a complete body transplant.
Certainly for the cryonics patients, that sounds like
something really promising.
It says,
prominent
Swedish
transhumanist and expert in the ethics of future
technologies,
he notes that many people who opt to
be stored in chronic chambers after death choose
the less expensive option of head only.
So there might be a market for having
an extra cloned body.
Because there is a market for real wealthy
people to have their bodies frozen and there
or possibly just their heads, showing you that
they all believe this is something coming.
MIT Technology Review first approached, Schoellendorf two years
ago after learning he'd been he led a
confidential online seminar called the body replacement mini
conference.
And over here, pushing back on whether he's
even talking about this, that that makes you
sense that they know there's something off about
this, in which he presented recent lab progress
towards making replacement bodies. That's a quote.
According to a copy of the agenda,
in that 2023 session also included a presentation
of a cloning expert,
Young Guy Sheung.
And there was another expert, another from,
Jean Hiebert,
who was then a professor at the Albert
Einstein College of Medicine and is now a
program manager at ARPA h.
Yet, one one thing I want you to
really see is this alarming kind of incestuous
overlap between this very field and our government.
And then interestingly, the very technocratic side of
it that applies just to the larger transition
that is just immersed in this current this
current administration,
where he oversees, in ARPA h, a project
to use stem cells to restore damaged brain
tissue.
Hubert popularized the popular popularized, excuse me, the
so called replacement solution to avoiding death in
a 2020 book called Replacing Aging.
R three now appears on the ARPA h
website
on a list of prospective partners for his
program.
Our three bio making
what we're talking about is on the US
government, ARPA h website.
Just to really make it clear. Now it
says, quote, there are a lot of variations
on this where they're trying to find a
socially acceptable
form, says George Church,
a Harvard University professor who advises startups in
the in this field. But Church says gestation
gestating an entire body is probably taking things
too far, especially since nearly all patients on
transplant lists are waiting for just a single
organ, like a heart or a kidney.
There's almost no scenario where you need a
whole body.
Worth pointing out, by the way, that who
we're talking about there is George Church, who
is mentioned in, you know, there's overlapping connections
to funding
and work that he that f Epstein was
doing at Harvard. George Church is a pretty
prominent person at Harvard.
It says, even so, replacement technology has found
a fervent base of support
among a group of self described
hardcore
longevity ad adherence
who follow a philosophy called vitalism.
And that's actually something I should have saved
on the on the tags. Vitalism is a
newer one to me. I'm I'm these these
terms evolved to kind of hide the real
point.
Vitalism
I mean, you're it's this is life extension.
You know? So vitalism is, I guess, the
name for the more hardcore longevity life extension
or,
adherence, which holds that society
should redirect resources entirely from everything we care
about.
Well, I just I I mean, that's I
I read it as re redirects resources to
me says, you know, redirect them from what's
currently happening, redirect them toward achieving unlimited lifespans.
And, of course, I mean, think about this.
I've said this this is what anybody,
that I've read on this topic that talks
about this from a point of of, insight,
like there are scientists, for example, or involved
with the kind of projects.
Or will tell you that, you know, if
if this comes to
pass, it's going to be very clearly you're
it's not gonna be free for all.
Everybody can live forever. Hooray. That's not what's
going to happen.
Or even if it's extension because one, it's
gonna cause a very clear issue for the
government
because that's all they care about. But on
top of that, the point is that it's
gonna be wealthy people. It's not gonna be
something handed out to everybody. So what you'll
get is wealthy people, influential people will live
a lot longer than people who are not.
And then what you get, rules forever. Like,
Trump is literally building his emperor for life
new global order because he wants to live
forever and guide it. You think I'm joking?
I'm really I think these people genuinely
this is connected to his current administration.
I mean, to a degree, kind of being
facetious. That's a thought that just came to
my mind. I've been thought, like, mapping this
out. But I I that does make sense
to me. I think that these people are
very much in this mindset.
And it says vitalism, which holds society should
redirect all of its resources to unlimited lifespans,
the growing influence of this movement achieved through
lobbying,
investment, recruiting, and public messaging,
we was detailed earlier this year in MIT
Technology Review.
One vitalist group, the Longevity Biotech Fellowship
creepy.
They see themselves that that many of these
groups, I'm not gonna speak for the Longevity
Biotech Fellowship.
But
there is a weird overlap to, like, a
religious perspective of this, where they see themselves
in a lot of ways becoming gods or
becoming the new, like, prophet class of the
technocratic world.
This is why we're talking about this stuff.
One day looking back, hopefully, once we're beyond
this,
people will see more clearly why we were
so adamant about where this was going. Or
even before me, look at David Icke or
James Corbett or people that have been telling
you what was going on, Catherine Austin Fitts.
Hopefully, it's not looking back from within this
problem going, gee, we tried to tell you.
I hope not. But this is my my
point, though, is that there is this overlap.
And if you if you understand what they're
saying I mean, people that are, like, in
the like, the Yavin Kerwin Curtis Yavin inner
circle kind of stuff are very much of
the mind that they're like some kind of
profit class of this new age.
Now what where we get to to end
this, when we get to a second, is
exactly what I'm worried about written by people
involved,
telling you we're transitioning society right now.
Just hoping people can pay attention.
Hoping that some hoping that somebody out there
who can maybe actually get something to go
viral in this broken, engineered, algorithmically controlled world,
you know, get in front of Tucker. Maybe
you'll talk about it. Maybe we'll actually see
it and solve the problem. But because people
like us are not allowed to have these
conversations beyond people that already see them, I
doubt that will happen. But you know as
well as I that if this conversation right
now was on Fox News, it would be
everywhere in the world. You know as well
as I, it would be ever every mainstream
alternative would talk about it. Tucker would have
a show on. They'd have interviews about it,
and maybe we could stop it.
Or maybe not.
I sure sure wish this was an organic
field where that could happen anyway. Right? Anyway,
they reckon that a proof of concept human
clone
lacking a neurocortex
would cost $40,000,000
to create,
A tiny amount, relatively speaking.
Of course, they would say that.
$40,000,000
being, like, you know, whatever. You you know,
just
that's an think of so idea being that,
at least in the beginning, that's something that's
wildly outpriced to anybody other than wealthy, wealthy
people.
Its report cited the existence of two stealth
companies
working on cloning whole,
non sentient bodies
right now.
And we and, again, this goes back to
2023 if you understand what they're talking about.
And this is although it took care not
to name them.
Why not?
If these companies' activities became public,
quote, there will be a huge backlash.
People will hate it, the entrepreneur Chris Borer
said while presenting the road map at a
French resort last August.
So, look. Okay. Isn't there I mean, look.
I just how do you even take that?
So these inner circle billionaires are very aware
that most people would be outraged by this,
but they're quietly secretly doing it, in many
cases, with your overlapping tax dollars alongside it,
public private partnerships and all? Yes.
I mean, look, guys. That's my point about
what's going on in this administration.
There's tons of money flying out into the
hands of Palantir and Peter Thiel. These are
people who are guiding this movement.
As as this as we talk we'll just
point out again in a second. When Jim
O'Neil joined the RFK's right as right RFK's
right hand man, people like Peter Thiel, as
they in this article, they've rested. Pete Marc
Andreessen, they were super excited because O'Neil is
a transhumanist.
He speaks at events about this stuff.
This is inherent this is in the core
circle of this current administration.
So they took care not to mention this
because, you know, if people heard about it,
they'd be outraged.
Quote, there are a ton of dystopian movies
and novels about this kind of stuff. Yeah.
I wonder why.
That is why I don't talk about any
of the companies working on it. They're trying
to hide for public attention. Yeah. That sure
makes you feel better about it. So not
only are they hiding for public attention, they're
going in places where they can do this
stuff without regulation because that makes it all
make that makes it feel better?
You just wouldn't understand?
People who know,
Schlo and Dorn describe a die dynamo like
presence who is a 100% dedicated to the
goal of extreme life extension.
Extreme life extension. He also well he's also
well connected. In an interview, Aubrey de Grey,
the influential and controversial fundraiser and prognosticator
who cofounded SCNS
called, called Schloendörn,
one of my proteges.
And around 2010,
Peter Thiel reportedly invested $1,500,000
in ImmunePath, a company started by Schlow and
Dorn, to develop stem cell treatments, though it
soon failed. The point is, though, there's always
been an overlapping connection there with the interest,
with the agenda, with the ideology,
and funding. A representative for Peter Thiel did
not respond to a request to confirm the
figure.
Now remember, my point is that it's always
been happening. But right now, especially today, because
of how much they know we're paying attention,
this stuff has gone largely dark. There's a
lot of money flying around these days that
peep they're they're just going through channels to
make sure it's very difficult to see.
By 2021,
Sloendorf had moved on, founding r three Biotechnologies.
In 2023,
letter to stakeholders signed by Sloendorf begins by
saying, quote, that body replacement cloning will require
multi component
genetic engineering
on a scale that has never been attempted
in primates.
2023.
So you could argue that they
you know, that's my point. They they went
from there, which is what this entire article
is stressing. And remember how it started,
where they were trying to kind of gaslight
and deny they were even going in this
direction even though you could prove that.
And he says, would it work? Well, there's
one way to find out, the letter says.
Weiying, the investor at Immortal Dragons,
says he put money into r three after
it showed him it is possible to create
mice without complete brains.
Quote, there were imperfections,
but the resulting mice survived, grew up, and
to me, that's a pretty strong experiment. He
says it was evidence enough for him to
fund R3's attempt to replicate results in primates.
Remembering Mortar dragons, that's an important point of
this. The R3 document refers to a birthing
fix. It developed to future improve to further,
excuse me, improve the cloning success rate. Well,
and so at this point, are they just
a bunch of deformed clones wandering around? Are
they killing these things after the fact? This
whole thing seems wrong to me.
While MIT Technology Review didn't learn what R3's
process entails, we found a reference to it
on a LinkedIn page of
Maitreary
Matana,
a scientist who cosigned the 2023
letter to our three stakeholders and is former
a former research assistant to Hiebert.
We were unable to reach
Mahat Mahanta. Excuse me.
Now here
is what we're gonna read in a second,
but I think it's important from LinkedIn.
It says, like several other people interviewed for
this article, De Grey made a resourceful effort
to avoid
directly confirming the existence of R3 when we
spoke. Seems weird, doesn't it? While at the
same time freely discussing theoretical aspects of body
cloning technology.
For instance, he talked about ways to shorten
the weight for your double to grow up
to size to suitable size for organ harvesting.
A further genetic mutation could be you added
to cause, quote, central precocious
puberty
in the clone, he said.
This condition causes a growth spurt,
even pubic pubic hair
in a toddler.
I mean, there's no way I mean, if
you if you don't feel uncomfortable about what
this is showing, then I I question where
your mind is at.
I mean, what's here's what's crazy to me,
especially since we're talking about the very same
people who are all about everything the Republican
team is pushing right now. You know, right
well, for example, the trans conversation.
Not the same thing, mind you. But we're
talking about human growth elements that are you
know, what you're you're altering this weird I
I don't even wanna get into it. This
is just insanely disgusting to me. It makes
my skin crawl.
Cloning dictators is the last category it says.
And it says who would clone a body
and pay to keep it alive for years
until it's needed?
Well, the first customers for this costly technology,
if it ever proves feasible, would likely be
the ultra rich and ultra powerful.
And the last, most likely. Do you really
believe they're gonna allow themselves to basically potentially
live longer, if not forever, and then just
let everybody else gain that power? Guys, that
is a power to rule
forever.
Or at the very least, rule seeing as
how you live longer than everybody. You'll gain
more knowledge. You'll gain more influence and money.
That's what these people covet.
And, again, this is not some hypothetical, guys.
This is technology and review. MIT recently covered
this. This is really what they're doing. And
the point is that this will not be
handed down to the average people
unless it's some kind of, like, moderated smaller
version to give you some it's it's just
this is not the way this will work
and never
has. As, again, as John Rappaport will tell
you, there's a a thousand different patents they
have in many ways that they utilize that
they just never allow the human species to
engage with.
Biotechnology
is continuously developing it. Right? Human organs can
be continuously
transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you
become. And you can even achieve immortality,
said Putin, apparently, through an interpreter in a
recent conversation with Xi.
Of course, the article is trying to insinuate
that they're the they're the dictators. Right? Like,
they're like, like, somehow, weirdly enough, because China,
Russia, then dictator, even though what our governments
are doing somehow democracy.
That's It's just so sad where we are
in the world that we all collected. Like,
the mainstream just can't get past this childish
view that somehow because they just say the
right words that they're not murdering children all
over the world. But, you know and look,
in my mind, all of these governments are
illegitimate. All of these governments are dictators. But
it's just funny to me that that's how
they frame it. Anyway, some predict
that in this century, humans will live to
a hundred and fifty years, Xi responded from
China.
There are companies working on this, it writes.
They are in the stealth.
We can't reveal too much about them. But
the general concept on this is if you
didn't have any ethical qualms,
you could do most of it today,
says Will Harborne, chief investment officer of Long
Game Advisors.
Basically saying
they have the ability to do it right
now.
And this was this was last year.
So again, I argue, do you really believe
that there what we're the people we're talking
about, if not just the world we live
in, that this somebody somewhere would not have
tried?
You can decide for yourself. If we were
the dictator of some country and wanted a
clone yourself, you know, like The US and
Israel right now, you would already go grow
one.
You can create a clone embryo of yourself.
You can get a surrogate to carry out
the term. You can you can grow a
body until age 18 with a brain. And,
eventually,
if you were a dictator, you could kill
them and try to transplant your head on
their body.
Just casual conversation on this podcast. Good times.
In order to make the body and remember,
this is this is the guy involved with
the program, guys. This is Will Harborne and
chief investment officer of Long Game Advisors.
It says, in order to make the body
replacement process ethical, the clones' brains need to
be stunted, so it lacks consciousness.
Okay.
Well, you tell me.
So you have a body
born from a woman. Apparently, that's how it's
gonna start.
Who they just engineered, manipulated
into not having a consciousness, I guess. How
in the world, by the way, you could
ever truly verify that?
Okay?
So
whether you're religious or not, do you find
that to be
acceptable?
Right? That you can have this this
this human body born of a woman.
That they you know, it's it's like any
other thing in in in in the environment
with crops that they could just just tweak
in a lab. Does that then make it
no longer a seed? Does that make it
no longer a plant?
And suddenly, this is just not a human
because we say so. And we can just
chop it up and take pieces from it,
or do whatever we want to. Okay? There's
there's just something evil about this.
My personal opinion.
It says, of course, the most extreme version
of the replacement dream isn't just to take
organs. It's to take over the body entirely.
Oh, okay. Well, then what happens?
Okay. Elon Musk and all the rest who
are all Christian right and all using all
of these things to make you think they
care about what you care about. He's adamant
about this. So is Peter Thiel telling you
as a libertarian Christian. Guys, they don't care
about any of this stuff. Peter Thiel could
barely bring himself to say the human race
should continue.
Guys, the what we're talking about here is
when you then hypothetically
put your brain into a new body, your
consciousness into a new concept,
are you then still who you are? Does
your soul remain? I mean, all these questions
about whether religious or not are things that
people want. The idea is what then happens.
And, again, my point is in a broad
sense, but speaking for people that seem to
be largely supporting the people driving this agenda,
doesn't that contradict what you believe?
Think about that.
They told me and they can also think
about how with any side of this, left
or right, that these billionaire elitist will tell
the group in front of them whatever they
need to hear to believe that they're on
your side.
Elon Musk does it every other year. It
seems he just reinvents the the same thing
with any of these people, guys. They just
constantly feed you. I mean, Trump's done it
numerous times.
Seems like he's doing it again right now.
They told me they were looking at a
head transplant on a two or three year
old.
He says,
I stopped short.
How could you even conceive of that?
The biomechanical
capability is not there.
You have to wait until at least 14
years old, and I and I would say
16.
It was very clear to me, he says,
that these guys were not surgeons.
They're biologists.
Slip that sink in for a second.
Sergio Canavero,
a controversial Italian surgeon who was
has proposed head and brain transplants.
They told me they were looking at a
head transplant
on a two or three year old.
And he simply said, it's clear to me
these are not surgeons. These are biologists. This
is this is Nazi level experimentation, guys. Now
I wanna reiterate that this
is on MIT techno oh, excuse me. MIT
MIT Technology Review. It was recently on Wired,
was the other article before this.
Now you whatever you think about the platform,
this is not some fringe conspiracy theory platform
or whatever you wanna call it. It's just
as likely to be wrong as anything else.
But I really wanna stress how alarming this
is.
So what does this mean? Are we talking
about a a clone grown without consciousness, and
how do we know that? And that you're
now chopping off another thing to put on
this three year old cloned body? Or are
you telling us that you're trying to do
this to a living three year old that
maybe is dying? Or I I don't know,
guys. Or maybe you're already dead.
This this you know how uncomfortable this is?
This is where this is pushing us into,
and this is something that should be discussed
before we just jump into this.
Now remember this part
because it matters to me.
If this was hypothetically happening, where do you
think that would possibly be able to go
on?
Even in even in, you know, like people
like, China, for example.
Anywhere else where The US for we we
perceive it as probably going on.
It's not it's it's China, Iran, Russia. There's
very similar, at least, feigned, just like in
The US, restrictions.
What I think is you're talking about places
in the world
that are unregulated.
And ask yourself whether or not this, as
we just showed you, being possible since 2023,
is already happening.
And this guy's literally telling you. He's speaking
to them, and they said
they were looking at a head transplant of
a two or three year old.
But if you want to use a clone,
it says,
it must be a nonsense clone sentient clone.
Otherwise, it's murder or homicide. Well, that's a
pretty interesting distinction.
So you can just tweak this here, genetically
alter that. Suddenly, they're just not human anymore,
at least not sentient. Well, okay. If they're
not sentient, they're still human, though. Right? So
now why why wouldn't it be murder?
Right? I mean, there's just this this this
ethical black hole.
Then at what point do you then overlap
this with some other conversation that justifies them
killing all sorts of things or taking organs
from people? I mean, overlap that with with
Israel's practice of stealing organs from Palestinians. I
mean, there's a market here that this suddenly
opens
up.
Now keeping this in mind, and I'm sure
we'll come back to this,
Immortal Dragons backs unlimited bio.
So there were three main investors. Immortal Dragon
seems to be the primary one as far
as the article was framing.
Immortal Dragons,
10/22/2025,
a $40,000,000
longevity fund announced its strategic investment in Unlimited
Bio, a biotechnology
company developing comb combinational therapies to address
the multisystem
nature of aging.
It says Unlimited Bio's platform integrates gene therapies,
biologics, plasma based interventions, cell therapies, and small
molecular programs targeting complementary mechanisms across organ systems.
Aging is not a single pathway, but a
multisystem failure involving independent biological networks.
It says extending functional lifespan of both natural
and engineered tissues.
Creepy.
So, you know, now you're getting what so
and what if it's all engineered tissue? What
if it's a clone extending the lifespan of
clone? You know, it just becomes
it blurs the line between what is and
is not human or
sentient.
Further clinical validation will proceed
through
special economic zones,
specifically
Prospera, utilizing
surrogate endpoints in healthy volunteers
to enable cost efficient trials meeting high safety
standards. Oh, so they told us. Tell us
this. So the CEO run company tells us
with no real accountability or oversight.
Fantastic. So in case you're confused, what they're
saying is that the clinical validation that we
were just talking about, at least from their
perspective and what they're involved in, will be
done from Prospera,
utilizing surrogate endpoints
in healthy volunteers. So if you're talking about
a woman bringing to fruition some weird clone
body that they can use, well, that's what
they're talking about.
And it says, looking ahead, Unlimited Bio's near
term priority
in the first in human clinical study combining
two gene therapies in healthy participants.
Gene therapies planned for late twenty twenty five
to early twenty twenty six. Hey, we're right
in the midst.
Pending regulatory and ethical approvals, which don't seem
to exist on Prospera.
The study is described as the first clinical
evaluation of a dual gene therapy combination in
healthy individuals as a as and is aimed
to serve as a proof of concept demonstrating
the safety and synergistic
synergistic
rejuvenative
potential
of multi gene interventions.
So the real point is to understand that
their
clinical validations are taking place inside of this
unregulated,
unsupervised
Prosperazidi.
I think that matters.
And, again,
let's not forget
that in this current administration, which I'm about
to show you is immersed in that agenda,
we have the reality of Jim O'Neill, who
is
RFK's right hand man and is an adamant
transhumanist
longevity expert.
And if you read into
this, as it'll tell you,
although much less a public figure, O'Neil is
quite well known for his increasingly well funded
and tight knit longevity community. His acquaintances include
the pro the prominent longevity influencer, Brian Johnson,
who we've discussed, who describes him as a
soft spoken, thoughtful, methodical guy, and, of course,
the billionaire entrepreneur, Peter Thiel, who, again, many
articles discussed how excited they were that he
was going to be in the administration.
Now, we also talked about the fact this
was the same conversation. This was the one
about Jim O'Neill, but they were building a
freedom city in Gaza, which is relevant for
what we're going to show you to wrap
up here.
What we were just highlighting is just the
concerning
research happening on that field.
And then I overlap that with a concern
that in many cases, I believe it's taking
place in areas that are deliberately created so
there's no one paying attention.
And they used the idea of libertarianism to
trick people into thinking that's what they're fighting
for. You're being played. I'm telling you, if
you're out there thinking in any way this
represents what we're fighting for, you're being played
by billionaires who want you to think that's
what they're fighting for. I hope I'm wrong.
In this case, Gaza Freedom Cities
being supported by the very people who fought
harder than anybody to stop Freedom Cities. Or
excuse me, to stop Smart Cities, which are
the same thing
in every possible way. Talking about the tokenization,
the digital money, the surveillance,
everything about this is identical.
And now it doesn't matter because it's in
Gaza, apparently. Well, it gets worse than that,
guys. So first,
I'll include these, the network state conversation, because
that's where this overlaps to. And I think
what we're not talking about in a separate
conversation is this great reset overlap. This is
part of the same conversation.
I believe this is the same conversation.
And this is about reimagining,
redesigning, building back better the system of governance
to what we just heard, or rather just
the the the world in which that's the
style of governance and that kind of stuff
can happen. So this is a conversation I
had about this, literally what they call tech
Zionism, by the way. Shruti Desan, the former
CTO of Coinbase, he wrote a book about
this, and many others used the exact term
calling this tech Zionism. Freedom cities, charter cities,
network state, same conversation.
Also, this one about specifically Prospera, which is
the first one that caught my eye. The
technocratic regime change or the guise of freedom
techno tech technocrats
are slowly taking control.
So what's important to overlap with all of
this,
this appears to be the first example I
can see of an attempt or rather,
maybe not the attempt, but the current example
of the attempt to start the first
freedom city
in The United States, which I hope I've
made clear, which, actually, I should do this
first.
Let me come back to this. Actually, that's
why I had the I realized I organized
this wrong. We'll come back to this. So
this is polls show support for transporting Bell
Island into a global spec special economic zone.
This is the same point, guys. Connected to
the same people. This is about the idea
of the network state agenda. But here's the
important parts of this.
2025.
Startup groups or startup city, another phrase for
the same thing. Startup city groups say they're
meeting Trump officials to push for deregulated freedom
cities.
Very important.
So this was 2025 in March.
03/11/2025,
tech execs are pushing Trump to build freedom
cities run by corporations.
Says a new lobbying group dubbed the Freedom
Cities Coalition.
I remember this because this ties right back
around into Prospera, Peter Thiel. And, I mean,
you'll see it's a perfect circle. You can't
miss how all these things are the same
conversation.
Still don't think everyone's grasping that. The new
lobbying group dubbed the Freedom Cities Coalition wants
to convince president Trump and congress to authorize
the creation of new special development zones within
The United States.
Many of them revolve around sort of using,
parks and other, you know, government controlled areas.
But what I believe is it's gonna be
stuff like this, where it's sort of like
a recapturing of certain locations.
But it says the Freedom City Coalition is
a project
of Niwei Capital, also important,
a company that has been centrally evolved in
development of Prospera. So right there is an
obvious connection to the idea of what they
wanna do in this location.
Right? The Freedom City effort, which Peter Thiel
is supporting of, Prognolis Capital involved with for
this country,
which is the same conversation of Prospera where
they're doing those experiments.
Continuing, it says Prospera is also part of
something called the network state
movement.
Wired reports
on the efforts of the Freedom Cities Coalition
to encourage
president Trump and congress to enshrine their project
into federal law.
Currently, they're still trying to do this. And
it says Trey Goff, the chief of staff
of the startup nation known as Prospera,
tells Wired that he and other Prospera representatives
working under an advocacy group called the Freedom
Cities
Coalition
have been meeting
with the Trump administration about the idea in
recent weeks. He claims the administration has been
very receptive.
Now I believe he was very adamant about
it. People just didn't there wasn't a lot
of response. People push back. And you have
to essentially seize territory. And so there was
also a lot of other things he was
dealing with. But I believe this has been
slowly building.
March 12, the next day. What are freedom
cities? Billionaire CEOs'
plan
could reshape America.
A coalition of campaign groups opposed to regulation
has called for the creation of, quote, freedom
cities across The United States. And the idea
is backed by some of the most high
profile billionaires, including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen.
And it still keeps going. We haven't even
connected the full circle yet, but the point
is to realize how this is all the
same thing. It's a global effort.
Over here, it's called one thing. Over here,
it's called something else, but it is the
same push.
And it says the Freedom Cities Coalition, a
think tank pushing for the creation of unregulated
areas in every state in The United
States says that it had informed the White
House about the use of interstate compacts to
create the cities.
Another organization
pushing for the concept is Prospera, which is
supported by Pernomos Capital, The group we've covered
pretty extensively, which is very clearly the funding
mechanism through Thiel and everybody else in regards
to the focal points of this, I argue
there's more than just them.
A venture capital firm, which is in turn
backed by Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen.
Thiel already has close ties with Donald Trump
administration and has supported Vance, JD Vance, especially
why he exists, a political career since he
ran for senate in Ohio.
So Pernomos Capital, this is an important show,
I argue, and the rapid transition to a
techno feudal state is is about the funding
mechanism that seems to be leading. And we
get into all apraxia. Like, every major example
of this in the world seems to tie
back to them and people they work with.
So in this case, this is remember, this
this this article was March 12.
04/10/2025.
Next month, Freedom City's push on public lands
gains visibility under Donald Trump.
So here,
March 25, you know, same month really, or
same, you know, 2025.
So my point was simply to show you
the overlap and connection between all the different
agendas and how those people were court dating
financially and every other way to push Trump
to make this happen in this country.
Now before we read this last article coming
back to this point,
March,
Bell Island Freedom City.
What the now what they're claiming is that
there's a majority of support. That's hard to
say these days whether you could I mean,
I don't I don't I can't I I
can't take any poll of face value ever.
Consider it. Maybe they want it. I'd argue
if they want it, they're being misled about
what it means for them, my opinion.
But that they support they want this island
to be turned into a freedom city in
Detroit.
Transform the 982
acre island in the Detroit River between Detroit,
Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada into a Special
Economic Zone.
In order for the Special Economic Zone to
be created, it would require passing of legislation
by the United States Congress,
in the state of Michigan, and the city
of Detroit, which I doubt they'll do that.
I'll probably just force it in. But reality
being is once you pass legislation, will you
open this door? And I think that's what
they're pushing for.
So simple point is they're trying to do
this. You can find very clearly that the
the the the very group, Charter Cities,
rather,
Rodney Lockwood sat down
with Charter Cities podcast,
which is very inter the the the point
is that there's a clear connection between Prospera
and the agenda. Now I'm not saying this
is necessarily the same exact group. From what
I can see, it's the very same political
agenda and that they sat down and discussed
what they're trying to accomplish, and it's all
the same kind of point. It's not necessarily
in my mind whether we're talking about every
point of control, but so much but more
so about the transition of the way things
are governed.
And so, sure, from their perspective, the go
if they can get this to start happening
everywhere, it simply opens the door for this
governance to shift. And I think that's what
this is. That's why they sat down with
this podcast directly connected with Prospera and had
an entire conversation about why Bell Island would
lead to the same agenda. Watch it. Listen
to it for yourself. And I think what
it leads to is exactly what I'm worried
about.
Now let me make this point even more
clear. 2025,
the rise of freedom cities. This is posted
by Robert Mugga.
And and that you can this is somebody
immersed in the same conversation. This is a
person who's adamant about this agenda and very
clearly
sees the same thing I do. But for
my like, this is about promoting this agenda.
And Aaron, this is,
where was it again?
Let me do this just in case I
lose my highlighting.
I was just gonna get go to his
profile.
Founder, entrepreneur, advisor to governments, companies, and international
agencies, keynote speaker.
Where was the
senior consultant for the World Bank. Just wanted
to show you that this is an influential
person
in the sense of, you know, the global
technocracy,
technical specialist, fa
faculty.
Any sense? Okay. So the point
and I I find this very interesting.
The rise of freedom cities.
There's a lot that you should read, but
I wanna cut to the chase.
It says, Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist behind
California Forever, which is originally what, like, what
drove me to this, which was another effort.
By the way, right around the same time
frame of when this was really this push
was starting about this technology, Andreessen was pushing
to create a Freedom City, a
special autonomous zone, all the same words you
wanna use for it, called California forever.
And he offered to, Mark Andreessen
was behind California forever, has offered a more
grounded vision. In 2023,
Andreessen announced plans to build a new city
in Solano County,
funded by a consortium of Silicon Valley investors.
It is the same agenda, guys. They've been
trying everywhere they can. California forever reflects the
same techno libertarian ambition. It's not libertarian. That's
just the name they gave it to try
to glom on. It's the same thing to
do with Bitcoin and everything else. They're trying
to get they're trying to glom on to
what they think you like.
But as freedom cities.
Here's what he writes.
Needless to say, freedom cities come with significant
risks.
Breathless promises of streamlined governance could just as
easily lead to weakened control quality controls,
regulatory oversight, labor protections, and increased social stratification,
as has been the case with so many
smart cities. It's the same conversation.
There are also political risks.
If freedom cities become enclaves
for the wealthy and technologically
technologically elite
as some of their supporters fully expect, they
could exacerbate exacerbate
social and economic inequality rather than alleviate it.
The shift from democratic to corporate governance
raises questions about accountability and re representation.
If cities are run like companies, who holds
the executives accountable? Will residents and not corporate
backers and shareholders
have a say in the rules and regulations
that govern our lives? Well, they made that
clear already.
They just pretend that the screaming jackals around
them that cheer on whatever they say represents
what everybody wants. I don't think most people
even remotely want something that
completely reimagines the world we live in in
a way that you have no I mean,
look, let's not pretend like they care about
your inherent constitutional rights. But at least it
exists, and at least we can at least
it forces them to pretend they care and
acknowledge it. And the this point is they're
just going, who do we solve it? Just
give power to a CEO who can decide
your future because that makes sense. Guys, that's
literally you've owned nothing and you've and you've
and you've never been happier. That is the
WEF plan for globalization. It's the same
conversation. It says, ultimately, the success or failure
of freedom cities in The United States could
have global implications.
If they thrive,
they could provide a template for future techno
enabled urban development,
challenging the dominance of the nation state, which
I believe is what's on the table right
now.
Yet, the truth is that Silicon Valley's embrace
of charter cities
and network states reflects a broader ideological
shift.
The belief that technology can replace traditional political
institutions
is gaining traction among America's economic and intellectual
elite.
Yes.
Freedom cities are not just about building new
urban centers. They represent
a test case for a new political order.
That's what I've been trying to stress to
people, and I know you guys are getting
it to watch this show.
I mean, I don't even think this is
debatable. Now it may not succeed. I certainly
hope it doesn't, but my god, look at
the influence.
I mean, we're talking about Peter Thiel. That's
Palantir. We're talking about the influence, the overlap,
this global thing that is exploding.
And as such, he's just one person in
all of this. Marc Andreessen is wildly powerful
in a flood and these are just two
people. I mean, this is a massive thing
that's happening right now. And I believe it
is a test case for a new political
order, legitimately, that they're trying to redesign the
way this stuff operates.
Right? Challenging the dominance of the nation state
order, which, you know, I don't believe the
government per situate. I I'm I'm not I
don't support government in general. But that doesn't
mean that I want some new form of
CEO run dictatorship.
I want personal freedom.
So I really do think that's obvious.
Now lastly,
just a quick point out the door to
overlap this with where this goes technologically speaking.
Especially with all the weird things we're dealing
with, it's also important to recognize that as
he writes point points out in this clip,
president Trump takes action to win the six
g race twenty twenty five. This is to
ensure America's leadership in six g development.
Six g networks will provide the foundation to
operate cutting edge technology of the next decade,
including AI robotics, implantable technologies, and many other
advancements. It will also deliver dramatically faster connection
speeds, ultra low latency, so six g, rushing
into it before we even know what's going
on now.
Or at least until they admit it, what's
going on now, sort of like fluoride and
all the rest of it. As he says,
Trump signed the directive to push this forward,
six gs, which will enable
AI brain chips known as biological interface system
to cortex. This paper thin brain chip
merges with AI.
And I've been talking about this direction for
quite a long time. Right?
And I think what we're talking about is
the opening this door to the merging of
these things. This is a connection to the
conversation because of the opening to put your
brain
in the cloud, like, to transition who you
in their minds, what they think you are
into some new
body, new shell, new location.
It's it's, in my mind, very much in
the same conversation of the way they see
the longevity con like, more maybe on Elon
Musk's side of this where he's talking about
the the putting your brain in the cloud
kind of a thing. But I I very
much think this is where it leads, guys.
And I'll I'll overlap that, by the way,
with this conversation from yesterday.
The idea of of the what there's what
they're siphoning from you and and tracking you
and monitoring everything.
You know, there there's this there's something very,
very alarming taking place and whether that's about
trying to make sure I mean, you could
you could very easily find the connections.
It worries me.
And on top of that, what these things
are doing to you. And I'll leave you
with Derek's
amazing documentary back from 2025,
the five g Trojan horse. And I believe
that this is from before that, actually. This
is he's reposted more than once. Also include
our conversation for 2020,
where Trump was quietly signing five g law
under the co under the cover of the
coronavirus conversation,
which by the way was the episode that
got our platform deleted from YouTube. Over a
100,000 followers on on subscribers on YouTube.
And we were only talking about the fact
that Trump was signing five g five g
law where everyone's distracting with COVID. They and
they shut that down right away.
Here is the focus point, clip of it.
Does a newly published study prove the five
g COVID connection? Or no. This was a
different one. Either way, the point is you
all five g conversations. But
now Trump is rolling out the six g
conversation
because apparently that's what Americans want.
Hashtag winning?
I don't think so.
Well, I'll leave you with a clip on
the way out that I think is important
for, you know, where this was always going,
guys, and where right now here's the interesting
thing to think about. This was a public
conversation, like we said, the sheep in 1996.
And at some point,
some inner circle decided,
we don't we shouldn't talk about this anymore.
Like, we this is something that we need
to control the awareness of, my opinion.
And so now and when you watch this
clip, there was there was sort of a
heyday where it was patenting life and creating.
And now, suddenly, it's like no one's even
at least from the average person's perspective, it's
as if it doesn't even exist.
And you I'm I hope you know that
are as alarmed by that absence of conversation
as I am. But but, you know, be
skeptical. Don't assume.
But with this and everything else we discussed,
I think it's pretty clear that we have
reason to be concerned. So thank you for
tuning in, guys. Thank you for your support.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
The Jacobardi case was one of the great
judicial moments in world history,
and the public was totally unaware it was
actually happening as the process was being engaged.
General Electric
and, Professor Jacobardi went to the patent office
with a little microbe that eats up oil
spills. They said they had modified this microbe
in the laboratory, and therefore, it was an
invention.
The patent office, the US government took a
look at this, quote, invention, and they said,
no way.
The patent statutes don't cover living things. This
is not an invention.
Turn down.
Then General Electric and doctor Jacobardi
appealed to the US Customs Court of Appeal.
And to everyone's surprise, by a three to
two decision, they overrode the patent office. We
bring good things to life.
And they said this microbe looks more like
a detergent
or a reagent than a horse or a
honeybee.
I laughed because
they didn't understand basic biology. It looked like
a chemical to them. Had it had an
antenna or eyes or wings or legs, it
would never have crossed
their table and been patented.
Then the patent office appealed.
And what the public should realize now is
the patent office was very clear that you
can't patent life.
My organization
provided the main amicus curiae brief.
If you allow the patent on this microbe,
we argued,
it means that without any congressional guidance or
public discussion,
corporations will own the blueprints of life.
When they made the decision, we lost by
five to four, and chief justice Warren Burger
said, sure, Some of these are big issues,
but we think this is a small decision.
Seven years later, the US Patent Office issued
a one sentence decree.
You can patent anything in the world that's
alive except a full birth human being.
We've all been hearing about the announcement that
we have mapped the human genome, but what
the public doesn't know is now there's a
great race by genomic companies and biotech companies
and life science companies to find the treasure
in the map. The treasure are the individual
genes that make up the blueprint of the
human race. Every time they capture a gene
and isolate it, these biotech companies claim it
as intellectual property. The breast cancer gene, the
cystic fibrosis gene, it goes on and on
and on. If this goes unchallenged in the
world community,
within less than ten years,
a handful of global companies will own directly
or through license
the actual genes that make up the evolution
of our species, and they're now beginning to
patent the genomes of every other creature on
this planet.
In the age of biology, the politics is
gonna sort out between those who believe life
first has intrinsic value, and therefore, we should
choose technologies and commercial venues
that honor the intrinsic value. And then we're
gonna have people who believe, look. Life is
simply utility. It's commercial fair, and they will
line up with the idea to let the
marketplace be the ultimate arbiter of all of
the age of biology.