The Glenn Beck Program - Ep 124 | Did Jan. 6 & Ray Epps Expose a Corrupt FBI? | Darren Beattie | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Episode Date: November 6, 2021

The events of January 6 have had constant attention from the mainstream media, yet so much about that day remains cloaked in mystery. So much just doesn’t add up. It doesn’t feel right. Darren Beattie wrote an article for www.Revolver.News titled “Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol,” which dives into some of the unexplainable issues surrounding that day. Who is Ray Epps? What was his role in the riot? Is it a coincidence that 1/6 is so eerily similar to the events involving Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer? How much did the feds know about the events? Did they know about the riot in advance and do nothing? Or, a more terrifying possibility, did they play a role in the riot? The more you poke around, the more it makes your head spin. Merrick Garland, the Oathkeepers, the FBI. Beattie wants to know all the answers. And Glenn wants to know, how did Beattie, a Duke professor, become the only non-tenured professor in the country to publicly support Trump ahead of the 2016 election, only to try his hand at uncovering what could be the biggest corruption story of our time?    Sponsor:  Built Bar - The makers of Built Bar understand that flavor comes first And whether it’s the mint brownie flavor, salted caramel, cookies 'n' cream, or any of their other amazing flavors, you can rest assured that real chocolate and great taste came first. But they’re also healthy. Low-calorie, low-carb, high in protein and high in fiber. BUILT.com Use promo code “BECK15" to save 15% off your first order.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You remember the Trump days before the mainstream media went on a four-year vacation. They worked nonstop, like deranged bullies, obsessed with destroying Donald Trump. One of the rare instances of the media waking up during the Biden years is their obsession with January 6th, the insurrection. And I say that in quotes. Because they have pushed that word like a thief pushes a stolen TV. Meanwhile, they golf clapped last summer as anarchist and radicals literally. burned American cities to the ground resulting in $2 billion worth

of damage and how many countless people have died since then for this experiment with our cops. It's so more than a little strange that they've spent so much time on the insurrection narrative. I mean, after a while you have

to wonder, why is it they're still talking about it? Because they aren't really talking about it. They're insisting that it was an insurrection without really giving us anything. Strangely, their insistence focuses on the unquestionability of the whole situation. Well, I have some questions, and today's guests ask these questions in a more recent article for Revolver News titled Meet Ray Epps.

The Fed protected provocateur, who appears to have led the very first one-sense. attack on the U.S. Capitol, but it goes deeper than that. It's more of an expose and a very comprehensive one. At the center of all of it is this mysterious guy from Arizona named Ray Epps, a name everyone should know, and a name that you will not hear on CNN, NPR, MSNBC, or from the administration. We know that he was on the FBI most wanted list. He was one of the first 20 people added to the list. But he was removed just one day after Revolver published an article about him. That alone would seem to be enough to raise the alarm. We know this guy Ray Epps was there. We know that he was encouraging Trump supporters to go into the Capitol the night before the rally.

There's footage of him doing it. In response of him telling people who are Trump supporters, was, hey, we got to go in and take over the Capitol. People that were Trump supporters began to chant, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, because they felt he was a Fed plant. As well as the footage of him on the morning of January 6th telling people to go to the Capitol 30 minutes before the end of Trump's speech. Recently, in a House oversight hearing, Representative Thomas Massey asked Attorney General Garland about the situation, and Garland was surprisingly close-lipped about the matter.

This whole thing ends in a question, not an answer. The question is, why? Well, we don't know, but we need to find out. And Merritt Garland is not the guy, as you will find out at the end of this podcast, not the guy to really be looking into it. Today's guest has devoted himself to this cause. Please welcome, Darren Beattie. You may not know this about me, but I'm a man of taste. I mean, look at me.

I also work out. I do curls more like this a lot. And I do curls, especially with chocolate. It's my favorite chocolate. And it's also my favorite time is snack time, which is why I always have several times a day, happy moments. Snack time.

Fortunately, I can now snack without feeling bad about it because of built bars, which I love. They're candy bars. They don't call them candy bars. They're like, they're protein bars. No, they're not. They're candy bars. They're healthy for you.

Yeah, who cares. The makers of Built Bar understand that flavor comes first. So whether it's the mint, brownie flavor, the salted caramel, the cookies and cream, or any of their other amazing flavors, you can rest assured that real chocolate and great taste come first. They're healthy. They're low in calorie, low carb, high protein, and high in fiber. Okay, got it. Happy. Built.com.

Built.com. Go there. Use the promo code Beck 15. Say 15% off your first order at built.com. Promocode Beck 15. So, Darren, how does a guy who's a professor at Duke University who likes Donald Trump, A, how did you even get that job? Was that undercover? And then you left there to go speech right for Donald Trump. Yes. Well, I was an academic that was my first profession. I majored in mathematics as an undergraduate and did a PhD in the philosophy of mathematics as presented through the lens of a German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. And then I was teaching at Duke. And one of the interests I had was sort of the underlying logic behind various political coalitions.

And I had a thesis that essentially the underlying logic behind the Republican coalition had become obsolete post-Cold War, and it was due for a certain type of realignment. And in fact, I presented this thesis through a course I was teaching called Left, Right, and Center. And contemporaneous to that course, we saw it play out in real time with the emergence of Trump and to a certain extent with the emergence of Sanders on the left. So it was very interesting to teach that. And of course, I was not just a detached theoretical observer. I was a supporter of Trump. I supported the underlying realignment that I thought he represented and symbolized.

And I was, in fact, if you can believe it, the only non-tenured academic in the country to have publicly endorsed Trump's candidacy. And I was also the only faculty member at Duke to have correctly predicted the election, which I think irritated them even more. I think it did probably did. So what is the realignment that you saw? Right. Well, there was a number of factors.

I mean, a lot of things have changed since then. And so to some extent, the analysis requires its own kind of update. But at the time, you know, you just saw the same types of refrains coming out of GOP and the messaging as though we'd never gone kind of beyond the Reagan years, as though the kind of economic philosophy represented in the Reagan years was somehow essentially connected with the various other positions, for instance, on foreign policy, on cultural policy, and so forth. And I think a lot of times because people see various political issues packaged together, they assume that there's some type of essential coherence, when in a lot of cases, they're packaged together in an arbitrary way or maybe not entirely arbitrary, but contingent to the underlying political circumstances that existed.

And I think the way that a lot of the GOP platform in the movement conservative platform was constructed, it was very much attached to the peculiar circumstances of that Cold War period and required a certain type of substantial software update as it were in order to address the emerging challenges of the 21st century. So we and yeah. We have free aligned. I mean, I find myself, I've always been a freedom of speech guy. You know, First Amendment is really, all of them are, but the First Amendment, especially with what I do, I've always been there. And the left used to be the champion of that. And now we're on opposite sides.

I've always been a guy who said, well, you know, big, big corporations, what are they going to do? Not realizing what corporations that are bigger than countries and many countries in the cases of these corporations now combined can do and are doing. So now I'm almost, I wouldn't say I'm an anti-corporist, but I'm very suspicious. and I want nothing. I want our government to do nothing with the private sector at all. That's a huge change just in me. We are all flipping and finding ourselves in proximity of very strange bedfellows. Right.

And I think it's simply a matter of pragmatically addressing the predominant threats to liberty that exists today. and it takes different forms. And this is, I guess, a partial update from the issues I was focused on back during the Trump candidacy. Back then, it was somewhat significant and even a little bit novel to suggest, oh, we need to reassess our relationship between sort of economic theory and liberty. And there's this sort of simplified version of what free market is when really people use that term so loosely as to encompass a free market of the neighborhood lemonade stand and the free market

of something like major institutions like Goldman Sachs, but the market in which Goldman Sachs exists is not the same market as the kind of neighborhood lemonade stand. And we didn't quite have the vocabulary to recognize those important distinctions. But I would say that at this point, we may have gone a little bit far in the other direction. At first, it was necessary to say, like, look, just because these big tech companies are technically in the private sector, in a very technical sense, doesn't mean that we should simply ignore the overwhelming threat that they pose to free speech and the ability to deliberate in the public sphere, which is a precondition of a democratic society.

Correct. You need free speech in order to have a democratic society. And so I think just because everyone was sort of so fixated on this public sphere, private sector distinction, it was important to say, look, just because the threats are coming from the private sector doesn't mean we should ignore them because it's sacrosanct by virtue of not being. But I think at this point, I'm almost inclined to kind of push back in the other direction in the following sense is I think ultimately what big tech is. is the major companies, Facebook and all these other things, you cannot understand ultimately what they are without recognizing that they are essentially extensions of the American state. And in fact, and the government at the highest levels in the state department and other spheres, they use Google, Facebook and these other entities as an integral component of their public diplomacy operations,

of their propaganda operations. It's used to facilitate our objectives overseas. We saw this with the Arab Spring, clearly. Exactly. Exactly. And in fact, and that's not even to mention the de facto revolving door that now exists between the high level positions at these tech companies and the government, and also the fact that these companies are doing major contract work for the government. So I think the ultimate position is not quite, oh, public versus private. The ultimate, I think, recognition we need to make is at the highest level, that distinction is not very meaningful. The public sector and the private sector blend. And in the case of big tech, these companies are not ultimately private sector in the way that we imagine.

And I think that's important when we try to assess solutions because you can't solve the bottom. simply by saying, oh, we need some other kind of private sector competitor, because at that level in the economy, everything blends into the state. And ultimately, the bottleneck to a solution is the security state, which has been a primary driver of the censorship regime that we have. And I think that could be an interesting segue, I think, into the biggest story really of the past few years that encompasses a lot of my reporting on one six, which is the fact that the entire national security apparatus in this country has been repurposed and redeployed domestically. And that includes the big tech companies. And so far as their instruments of the security

state, the entire apparatus we have has now been reoriented towards silencing and suppressing precisely those insurgent populist energies that animated the Trump candidacy, but also animate other populist movements on the left as well. And that's where we find ourselves. I think it's a very dangerous place. And many people are still coming to realize that this is the reality and how dangerous it actually is. What do you think it's going to take to get people to wake up? I mean, it is so clear and obvious. I mean, just in COP 20s, today, I think it was, the president announced a partnership with his administration, the United States government, and the World Economic Forum, and I think it's 20 or 25

different companies where it's a public-private partnership. This is, this should be terrifying, especially when you see groups like, you know, Bill Gates and Microsoft standing up on the stage. as well. I mean, this is everywhere. Is it going to be too late by the time we wake up? That's a tough question. I mean, it remains to be seen. And I think partially it's a matter of political psychology on the right. And this is why my news organization, revolver.com, I think we're a premier organization, especially catered to the right, to illustrate the threats presented by this repurposed national security state.

And I think there's a reason that traditionally a lot of the best critiques of the security state have come from the left, because dispositionally, the left, to be generous to them, they have to think of themselves as critics of corrupt institutions of power. Now, I think in practice, we can all see that the left overwhelmingly functions as an instrument of those powerful institutions. But as a matter of how they need to think of themselves, they have to think of themselves as challenging, powerful, corrupt institutions. Whereas on the right, I think there's a very different political psychology at work,

and that is people on the right want to think of themselves as venerating just institutions of authority. And so it's a more difficult proposition to get people on the right to recognize that these institutions, many of which you've had a history of venerating and supporting, like the FBI, like the DOD at its highest levels, like the national security apparatus more broadly, that these have become extremely corrupt and are basically pointing their guns and their fingers at you. And I have to tell you, I don't think that you, I don't think the problem is that big getting the right to realize that. I think when you see what happened to Donald Trump, and, you know, I said this all during that, if they can do this to the president of the United States, what power do you think you have over them? I mean, if they can destroy, lie, cheat, steal, fabricate, eavesdrop, spy on the president, the average person has no chance. And for the very first time, I've always been very pro-law enforcement and pro-FBI, et cetera, et cetera.

You know, I'm skeptical about corruption, but I've always felt like it's a few bad apples. When it comes to Washington, D.C., there isn't an institution that I believe in now. I believe in the principles that were lined up by our founders and are, you know, up for show for the little people in the archives. but those are never used by those institutions, it seems to me. And you don't know where to turn. You know, you can't turn to the press. Yeah. You can't turn to the government.

Where does the average person turn? And that's why I think your reporting is so important. And I want to get into the way this has been used for January 6th. And Ray Epps, I want to get into. But I think we should start with Whitmer and tell that story. Yes. No, Whitmer is a very important story. And actually, the very first piece that kind of focused the appropriate narrative on January 6th,

before the first revolver. Dot News piece that really analyzed the charging. documents in relation to the oathkeepers and presented the thesis that there's very likely FBI involvement here. Before that, there were disparate narratives going on, like, oh, it was a bunch of people taking selfies, and there's a lot of truth to that. Oh, it was Antifa or something. But there wasn't the appropriate focus before that.

And part of the reason is that, you know, we hadn't looked at the charging documents and seen this kind of reverse RICO structure whereby you have a lot of the little fish wallowing in prison and the bigger fish heads of the militia groups in some cases just enjoying their lives walking away free. But also it's just, again, I think it goes to this kind of veneration for the institutions as trust in authority saying like, you know, maybe they would do this, but they wouldn't do that. The feds wouldn't, you know, go into incitement. And of course, if you look at the long history of the FBI, it's it's very clear that they are capable of doing those things and they have. But we pointed out in this very first revolver piece that you don't need to go back to

the 60s and look at the history of the FBI. You just need to go back a couple months before the so-called siege of the national capital to this Michigan plot that you mentioned. Now, what was the Michigan plot? Many of your viewers probably heard about it in the context of the media ginning up this idea like, oh, the Trump supporters are terrorists. They tried to kidnap the Michigan governor and whatnot. Well, it turns out that out of this so-called Michigan plot, 12 of the 26 plotters, were either Fed agents or Fed informants, 12 out of 26, which is a remarkable ratio. Now, just a couple more and, you know, it's really a Fed man.

Right. No, no, it's it's remarkable. So that alone is a whopping statistic. But what else? Well, most people think of it, this Michigan plot as the plot to kidnap the governor, which it allegedly was, but it was also a plot. to storm the state capital, to storm the state Michigan capital. So there's an interesting similarity there. It also involved predominantly an organization called the Three Percenters, which is one of the three main militia groups also imputed to the quote unquote insurrectione aspects of one six. And so you have the same militia group, the same plot storming the capital, only in this case, we know for a fact that 12 out of the 26 so-called plotters were actually feds.

And I always say the cherry on top of the Michigan case is that the FBI director of the Detroit Field Office, who was presumably overseeing this entire infiltration operation in Michigan. The day after these so-called plotters were arrested, FBI director Ray promoted this Detroit field office guy to the DC field office. His name is Stephen De Antoine. He was promoted to the DC office where he went on to oversee the one-six investigations. So there are many, many fascinating parallels to say the least. Now, I like to be very precise in what I'm claiming, what I'm not claiming. I'm not saying that the fact that the Michigan case, which involved one of the same militia groups involved the same plot to Storm a State Capitol and whose director was

promoted to D.C. the day after the plotters were arrested, I'm not saying that all of those coincidences logically imply that 1-6 was the same thing. I'm saying that there's independent, compelling evidence for 1-6, but for those who have some kind of heuristic blockage as though this couldn't really be plausible. We wouldn't really do that. I'm saying, look, you don't need to read a history of the FBI. All you need to do is go months back where they're doing precisely the same thing that I'm suggesting went on in one-six. You don't need an intuition boost from going back in history. You just need to look at what they did a couple months before involving the same groups and the same plot.

So let me stop here. There was a book written, I'm trying to remember who wrote it, called Blacklisted by History. and I read the first couple of chapters and it was kind of a red pill and I read the first couple of chapters and I realized if this were true it would change me. I would have to change

a lot of the things that I believed about our history, about government, et cetera, et cetera. And I closed the book and said, I've got to talk to the author first. I want to know the author. I want to make sure he's not a crazy man and, you know, and I called him, I think he was over in England and he made

perfect sense. And so I read it and it changed my mind. That book changed me. I saw events in American history in a different way. This is one of those things. But this one, if this is now, it's not history. And it involves the most respected American law enforcement and the highest law enforcement agency in America. And I think it's frightening to go down this road. I would imagine, if I'm listening to you, there's a big part of me that doesn't want to believe this. Whether it's true or not, I don't want to because what it means.

Can we talk about the psychology of this just a little bit before we move on? No, absolutely. And it gets back to kind of what I was. saying earlier is that I think part of especially the conservative political psychology is we want to be defenders of just institutions of authority. But what happens when those institutions are far from just, and not only they unjust, but they're hostile towards us. That's a very difficult position to be in versus those on the left who are already primed to challenge unjust institutions of authority, at least according to their political psychology,

we want to be in a kind of country where we can support our law enforcement institutions, especially the FBI. We want to be able to support our generals in the military and so forth. And we want to be able to do this. And so it's a tougher pill to swallow to see that they're actually not functioning anywhere near the way that we would we would want or expect. I think it goes deeper than that. It goes to, well, then I'm alone. If I believe this, the power structure is now against me. And all those things I used to hang on to of, you know, truth, justice, and the American way, those are all gone. And so now I have to chart a new course and it's completely foreign to me to not have the faith that the good guys win in the end.

Right. And I totally understand that. And I wish I could present some kind of optimistic rejoinder in which I kind of sincerely believe. But it's a difficult position. But I would say that it's better to have a sober understanding of the reality than to rest on fiction because it's only on the basis of a sober understanding of what you're up against that you're actually in a position to address it even if it's a long, hard road. Versus, I think, in terms of the implications, many people, again, on the right, are so, I think,

inordinately focused on winning elections. Not to say that it's a bad thing to win elections. Obviously, it's a great thing, and we had a great result in Virginia the other day. But I think it's important to note that winning elections can only get you so far if you have the security apparatus against you. And I think that the story of the Trump administration illustrates that very well, is that you can have the people on your side. But if every major institution is against you, there's only so much you can accomplish. and especially when the national security state is against you, when you have organizations like the FBI, Army counterintelligence and so forth,

looking at right-wing groups as national security targets to infiltrate and to set up, that is a profound political bottleneck that is not captured in this kind of narrow focus on winning elections. So I've been inclined to say that unless and until, we bring this national security bureaucracy to heal and back within its appropriate place, pretty much all of electoral politics will be fake and performative because it will run up on this bottleneck. And because there's this feeling of being so alone and helpless when you recognize the institutions that are raided against you, there's this strong urge to just kind of suck on electoral victories like a pacifier and to pretend that, you know,

these, this is the answer to it. But the answer, I think it needs to be much more robust, much more difficult. It, uh, it requires, um, narrative focus, which I think I'm very happy that our reporting has provided some narrative focus. But the solution is much more difficult than simply, oh, we need to win the next election. Okay. Because, um, yeah. So let's let's go to the solution after we talk about the issue. Let's start with. January 6th. What most people will tell you happen is they were, you know, verifying the vote. And people went to go to a speech. Some people went. They got out of hand. Some of them were dangerous or crazy. And most people there were not. The police were completely surprised by it.

Nancy Pelosi hadn't done anything to make sure that we had more security there, but she was surprised by it, and it took everybody by surprise. And then we, I'm not sure if we got the bad guys. I know we've got a lot of grandmas, but I'm not sure if we got the bad guys. That's pretty much the narrative that I think you would hear from the average person that, you know, is middle of the ground or leaning right. right and um yes so what what's important about the narrative of one six and how much and how much and how much of that is how much of that is even true what i just said right well some of it some of it is true

i think the the general truth about the people that you see in the footage and everything is that there were people there for trump rally uh that there were some things that that the Capitol Police did that sort of incited the energy of the crowd unnecessarily. And a lot of people got caught up in sort of crowd psychology that was, I think, ginned up by various provocateurs, which we can get to. But people did get caught up in the crowd psychology. In many cases, the doors at the Capitol were open. And so all of these factors combined, you get what you see, the notion that any of the

criminal activity on one six elevates anywhere near 9-11, which is now the preferred comparison in the government and the regime media, is totally absurd. The only person killed in cold blood was a Trump supporter veteran called Ashley Babbitt. So in that respect, that's basically what the narrative is. As for the infiltration, that's a very specific. subgroup. And that involves some of the militia organizations that, as you'll note, in the reporting on 1-6, it's the militia groups that did this, quote-unquote, military stack, which was not very impressive in the first place. But there's a very narrow group of sort of militias

that are being charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Those are the most serious charges. The Oathkeeper militia group specifically is the most prosecuted group associated with one-six. And when you look at the militia groups, especially at the leadership level, that's when it starts to get very suspicious as to what role did the feds play. And as I mentioned, in the very first revolver thesis piece presenting this, we looked at the charging documents related to the militia groups. And what we found is, In many cases, the people referenced in those charging documents who were occupied a more senior position than those people charged, whose behavior is more egregious than the people charged.

They're referenced, but they're not indicted. And so we said, here's a real question that the feds have to answer. How do you account for the selective non-prosecution of more senior militia members who, if the other people are indicted, they're doing just as much, if not more. How do you account for that? And in a follow-up piece, we zeroed in on a very specific person, that is Stuart Rhodes, who's the founder and head of the oathkeepers. And we pointed out the extraordinary degree of federal protection that he seems to enjoy

that is very difficult to provide an innocent explanation for. And so I'm happy to go into details. So let's go there. To details of that. but this is this is i think an important part of the story um and there are two sort of uh narrative possibilities when clobuchar senator clobichar asked fbi director ray she said don't you just kick yourself that you didn't have any informants in there and you just weren't ready you weren't ready for the event so don't you just kick yourself and he said oh yeah

we we will try to do better next time and so forth she set up the question for him to deflect. She didn't say, did you have? She said, don't you kick yourself that you didn't have? Well, now we know for a fact that they did have. In fact, there was a New York Times piece that came out, essentially vindicating some of our original reporting at Revalra News. And the New York Times piece talked about a proud boy who was in the Capitol that day, texting his FBI handler contemporaneously throughout the entire day. Now, it's one thing if the feds had informants. What that means is that the feds would have been informed in advance,

and they simply, for whatever reason, decided to do nothing to provide the requisite security to prevent it. So they sit back and just let it happen on purpose, presumably for political reasons. But there's an even darker possibility, which I think the evidence points to strongly, which is more than just that they were informed and they did nothing. But some of the key most proactive players in some of the most egregious elements of

1-6 were actually government-affiliated or government people. And that is to say there's a distinction between the government knowing in advance and doing nothing and the government taking a more proactive participatory role in inciting the event. and the latter category is precisely what we saw happened in Michigan. And I think it's also what we see in 1-6. Well, that would explain why they did nothing. Let's go back prior to 1-6. When did this plot do you think started?

Do you have any idea? I don't. What I do know is that there is in the mountains of documentary footage and all the video that exists related to 16, there's footage of one person who explicitly and repeatedly calls for going into the Capitol the evening before. And that person is Ray Epps. And this is not just some random crazy in the crowd who comes up with an idea, you know, maybe on drugs and say, oh, let's go into the Capitol guys, and then that's it. No, he's going from group to group on the 5th, the evening before, and there are different people on the streets there for different

reasons. Some people were pissed off about the election. Some people just wanted to support Trump. Some people just wanted to see what was going on. There are people clashing with Black Lives Matter. There's a lot of different people, different energies, and he went to the various groups, refocusing them on his stated mission, his stated mission, sorry. His stated mission, which was, we need to go into the capital. And he was not received very well. People, in fact, explicitly said, no, this guy's a Fed. He didn't give up and he didn't disappear.

In fact, he was there. It was a veritable where's Waldo situation on the sixth. He is literally everywhere, all sides of the Capitol seeming to persist with his Michigan, directing people to the Capitol, saying, we need to go into the Capitol. That's where our problems are. And then remarkably, but not surprisingly, given his past statements, the very first breach of the Capitol grounds, the barriers, which occurred as Trump was speaking, it's important to point out.

This was before the main crowd went to the Capitol at all. There were people by those barriers who broke them down. And the very first breach of the Capitol grounds, a guy called Ryan Samsell, who was a in jail and has been persecuted in jail under pretty horrible conditions. But he was the guy who first broke down the fence, and Ray Epps was standing right by him and whispered in his ear two seconds before he breaks down the barrier. And where is he? He's at his ranch right now.

Initially, the FBI put his face on its 20 most wanted people for January 6th. They said, they did their whole spiel where they say, we need the public's help in identifying this man. The internet being the remarkable sort of crowdsource research tool that it is came up with his identity within days. The feds did nothing with it, just crickets, until finally, like four months later, the day after Revolver News ran its piece on Oathkeeper founder and leader Stuart Rhodes. The day after that, the FBI quietly scrubbed Ray Epps' face from its most wanted database. And ever since then, they've had nothing to say about this guy

who, of all people from the video evidence seems to be, if there's anyone who's one of the main orchestrators of the initial breach, it's this guy. And he's riding around in the golf cart by his ranch and other people, the grandmas, are rotting away in Abu Ghraib-style conditions in D.C. prisons. That doesn't add up. So tell me, it doesn't. Tell me who he is. What do we know about him? Well, we know that he is a veteran. He's a Marine veteran. He is, I would say, in many ways, quite impressive.

I was particularly impressed by his professional demeanor throughout the fifth and the sixth. There is a lot of, you know, a lot of energy in the crowds, a lot of people like calling him a fed. Like, he's the equanimity that he demonstrated was professional and quite impressive. He was there. He, it looks like he was there to do a job and he was focused on that job. He had a natural kind of command over the crowds. It's remarkable how he's just standing there saying, people go here, people go there, people listen to him because he seems like a, he has an essential.

authoritative presence in that respect. But he was very focused, very cool, very detached and professional, which again, I think, is a big red flag because one of the things that you typically see in provocateurs is this bizarre, this is the kind of bizarre combination of emotional detachment with kind of radical suggestions, whereas there are a lot of people who got emotionally kind of wrapped up in the event and they were not cool and detached. And whereas he was so, you know, cool as a cucumber, let's go into the capital, radical suggestions combined with a detached demeanor.

So that's another interesting thing about him. Another thing which might explain why the FBI decided to scrub his face the day after the revolver news report on Oathkeeper Stewart Rhodes is that he's a form. president of the Arizona chapter of the oathkeepers. So that's kind of interesting. And in our piece, we present all kinds of footage from the past of him paling around with Stuart Rhodes and such, his former boss, his former oathkeeper boss. So that's also an interesting thing about him.

And that's basically, that's basically it. All right. So, I mean, we had a nationwide search. This was, I mean, they were, they took the military down, put it on, you know, stand by to be able to get anybody who might be a radical. You have this guy that they identified early. There's tape of him orchestrating. And he's on the most wanted list. And then they don't arrest him.

They don't question him. Nothing. Not that I know of like, it's possible. that they questioned him and we just don't know about it, but he's not indicted. He's not indicted. Now, there's a possibility that they questioned him and he agreed to kind of cooperate and that's why they're not touching him. I don't find that explanation terribly persuasive simply because of the seemingly professional provocative role that he played on January 5th and January 6th. And the fact that, in my judgment, looking at the footage of him, he appears to be one of the primary orchestrators

of the initial breach. So who could he be, who could be he be informing on? He seems to be a major player in that. And so the idea that they would just kind of leave him after putting him on their top 20 most wanted is very bizarre. So I think the case of Ray Epps is hard. to present an innocent explanation for. And similarly, I think the case of Stuart Rhodes, which if we have time, I get it. Let's go there now. Let's go there now.

So what should your audience know about him? We've done so much extensive reporting on him. So for the full stuff, go to avolver.com news, read the full report. It's incredibly comprehensive. But what are the cliff notes with this guy? So here is the founder and the leader of the oathkeeper. which is the most prosecuted militia group associated with one-six. The Oath-keepers is involved in all of the boogeyman-type reporting on one-six

of the military stack, of the conspiracy, all of this stuff. All of the boogie-man reporting is really most concentrated in the Oath-keepers. And Stuart Rhodes is the founder of the Oath-keepers. and when you look at the charging documents, I'll take a specific one. So there's an individual called Thomas Caldwell who is presented in the media as a leader of the oathkeepers. In fact, he's not a leader far from it. He's not even an official member. He's someone who Stuart Rhodes met at some kind of political rally before,

and they got to talking. And basically, that's how Caldwell got wrapped up into it. He's a 60-year-old, disabled military vet. He's not terribly threatening in any capacity. But he's indicted. He faces very serious charges, conspiracy charges. And the remarkable thing is, if you look at the documents in his charges, the government's case, when they argue for the existence of this conspiracy,

rely overwhelmingly to the point of near-exclusivity on Stuart Rhodes' statements and actions. And again, to give the full account, you have to look at the article or we need more time. I'm just giving the cliff notes. But if you look at those documents, the government relies overwhelmingly near exclusively on Stewart-Rodes' statements and actions

to constitute the conspiracy that they're charging Thomas Caldwell for. Which is very strange because if it were a RICO type situation where they go after the little guys, yeah, they go up to the little guys to get the big guys. They only do that when they don't have enough to go after the big guys. Whereas in the case of Rhodes, there's evidence of him trespassing on the Capitol, which is a stupid and trivial charge, but others have been charged for it. And if they're as desperate as they claim to be for him, they could have gotten him for that. Furthermore, if they're charging Caldwell for this conspiracy and they're using Rhodes's statements

and actions to constitute that very conspiracy, they could have, you know, it's very puzzling why they haven't gone after him. And perhaps even more puzzling than the fact that Stuart Rhodes, after eight or nine months, remains unindicted while a lot of the underlings and fellow travelers remain indicted is the fact that Roads hasn't even been properly searched. So a lot of people, even people who aren't charged with one-six related things, people have the remotest association with it, have received the full kitchen sink treatment by the FBI in terms of the feds going to people's houses, knocking down the door. Yeah, I know a couple in Alaska that, that, that,

Exactly. You know, early in the morning while they're laying in bed, they come knocking on the door and throw them down. And I mean. Exactly. And they take everything. Every single electronic device in the house they take. There's even cases of them taking like some 11-year-old girl's tablet because it happened to be in the house. So that's the full treatment.

And that's the treatment that people get who aren't even charged. The feds are just saying, oh, they might have communications with people that we might want to charge. And yet in the case of Stuart Rhodes, whose phone calls are everywhere in the charging documents, who's the founder and head of the most prosecuted group associated with one six, the extent of the search that they conducted on him was they took a single cell phone from him when he was in his car four months after January 6th. Four months after. How do you, how does, or do they just not answer?

How does somebody logically... They don't answer. They don't answer. They don't answer. But I would offer a possible explanation, and that is this, that they don't want his electronic communications. Because as we saw in the story of New York Times story of this proud boy in the capital texting his FBI handler.

And as we saw in the Michigan case, one of the key informants basically got outed because of a leaked text message. between the informant and the handler. The feds don't want the electronic evidence because there's something called the Brady rule that obliges the prosecution and the government to hand over all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense, and that would certainly include

evidence regarding informants and undercover agents. So if it is the case that Rhodes has some type of undisclosed relationship with the feds, they would have every incentive not to collect his electronics, give him four months to dispose of whatever kind of incriminating communications he might have, and then do just a total performance art type search where they take a single cell phone four months after. And even in that case, according to a lawyer for Rhodes, she suggested that that search pertained to the, their investigation into someone else. So that may not even be an investigation to Rose.

And yet all of the left-wing media, all of the mainstream media, they're the ones now who want to trust the authorities. They're saying any minute now, any minute now, they're going to get Rose because he's the big bad orchestrator of the whole thing. Any minute now. And they're just afflicted with this profound cognitive dissonance because the most parsimonious and persuasive explanation for why he enjoys such federal protection is not one that these mainstream and left-wing journalists want to entertain, because then they'd have to acknowledge

that they're serving these powerful and corrupt institutions rather than challenging them. And that this whole narrative that's been set up, not just to throw grandmas in prison for trivial offenses, but in a larger sense, the whole narrative that's been set up to cast over 70 million Americans as domestic terrorists for their political beliefs, that that whole narrative is based on not just a lie, but a malicious lie and a malicious scheme by their own government, the very national security institutions that want to prosecute this false domestic war and terror were responsible for setting up the false narrative in the first place. This is so crazy.

I mean, this is the Reichstag fire. and I think we found out didn't we find out in the end that it was the communists that said it but it could very well have been the Nazis who said it and blamed it I remember on January 6th when this was happening before

the break in before the speech I said if you're going please watch who you're standing next to I mean this just feels like the perfect opportunity to have a Reich dog fire when I first when I first saw it it didn't

seemed to me that it was, I mean, I've been around conservatives for a very long time. They're not the ones that burn up the capital. You know what I mean? Right. Yeah, there's, yeah, there's a remarkable record of all the Trump rallies that how many have there been riots, like zero. Right. And that's why it was so obvious when someone like Ray Epps said, we need to go into the

capital. it was so obvious that he wasn't part of the group. And that's why people literally started chanting, fed, fed, fed, fed after he said that. Because it was so out of keeping with the ordinary conduct of those Trump supporters, of those, you know, Americans who just wanted to express their beliefs peacefully in an organized demonstration. So. So let me go back to, because you've made this point a couple of times that the, prison situation or the jail situation is atrocious. You can't hear this except from one of their attorneys.

You know, there's Congress just said, hey, you got to go look and they came back and said, oh, no, there's nothing bad there. It's fine. Other parts of the jail are worse. But their part of the jail seemed to be okay. What's the truth on how these people are being held? Well, this is a subject on which I'm, you know, I've taken an interest, but I can't claim to be a subject matter expert in. There's a great reporter who's sort of my partner, comrade in reporting this called Julie Kelly,

and she's an expert on the conditions in these prisons, which can only say from what I've, what I've read, are really atrocious. There are people being held in solitary confinement. There are people in all types of horrible conditions. There's mold and a lot of these people are old and they're not in a position health-wise to live under these kind of squalid and difficult conditions. And there are some cases of direct physical abuse on the part of guards. In fact, Ryan Samsell, the person who allegedly is the first person to, break the barrier after Ray Epps whispered in his ear two seconds before, he was beaten up by guards.

And I find his case actually very interesting because, first of all, he knows what Ray Epps whispered in his ear. I find that very interesting. He knows, I don't think that he is a Fed. I think he's someone who is just kind of foolish and suggestible who did something very stupid and unstable, that doesn't mean he deserves to be brutalized by prison guards. But he certainly would know what Ray Epps said, and he might have more insight into the other people who are orchestrating the initial breach.

And it could be an intimidation factor. It could be why they're beating him up because they say, look, you know, if you go public with what you might or might not know about Ray Epps or these other people, you're going to have hell to pay. And additionally, it's interesting that whereas all these other people, the government prefers to charge like multiple charges with conspiracy charges, Samsell is charged as a standalone case, which also doesn't make any sense because there was like coordinated activity leading to that initial breach.

So why in so many other cases, including the Oathkeeper's cases, they charge a bunch of people in conspiracy and they hit this guy with standalone cases? It seems like they're deliberately constructing things. So as to cordon him off from the other people that he was coordinating and communicating with leading up to that initial breach in order possibly to protect people like Ray Epps. So is there such a thing as a fair trial here? Is there is such a thing as getting to the bottom of the? this? Well, those are two different questions. I hope that there's a possibility of a fair trial. It's a dubious prospect in D.C., that's for sure. So the jurisdiction will matter. Other factors will matter. In some cases, these people have incompetent legal counsel, and in some

cases it might even be worse than incompetence, which is something I'm looking into, but is too speculative at this point to go into greater detail. But as for will the truth come out, well, I did mention this thing called the Brady Rule, and that does oblige the government to hand over potentially a sculptory information that could involve information about informants. In the Michigan case, the lead defense counsel in that case, I believe his name is Blanchard, has made this.

a key part of the defense strategy to point out the extent of infiltration and the nature of what the informants were doing. It's one thing if it's just they have informants passively sitting around. It's another if the informants provide such proactive support for the plan that it wouldn't have happened had it not been for the Fed's involvement. And it looks like that's the case in Michigan. And that's become a key part of the defense. strategy. I think similarly, the defense counsel in the one-six cases, they need to get up to speed, they need to wake up, they need to take some cues from the Michigan case, and they need to make the infiltration, the federal involvement in one-six, a key part of their defense strategy.

I think that will help their defendants, and also will help the American public get the full truth or at least a fuller truth about exactly what happened on that day. Why do they not want us to see the tapes? What do you think is on the tapes? That's another great question. I don't know. I can only speculate. I could imagine that if the tapes were made available, you'd see a lot more instances of

provocateur type activity. I think even more so, you'll see instances of maybe capital, police officers letting people in the building and so forth, and that would discredit the narrative that people were just bashing, bashing in and going in. Most people went in when it was already inviting them with open doors. And as for the people who are bashing down the windows and so forth, they appear to be coordinated. And they're dressed all in black. And we still don't know who these people are and I suspect that maybe the government has footage of that type of activity that they don't want the public to have. So those are just some possible reasons.

In the in the aftermath, we had, we had the Capitol police go silent with the police officer that shot, which is bizarre because you know the name of the police officer within five minutes of a discharge of a gun in almost all cases. And then you had the Nancy Pelosi authorized the Capitol Police to get Pentagon equipment to become an intelligence agency and listen and track people in D.C. Tell me about that. Well, it's an interesting development and the Capitol Police seem to be expanding their operations, they're opening up a shop and base in Florida. They're expanding.

It's strange, but they enjoy certain advantages. For instance, Capitol Police as a legislative institution. They're exempt from FOIA, which is an advantage for an institution of that sort. Yeah. It's, but yeah, it's, it's very bizarre. It's, it's disturbing that that would happen to any kind of sort of enforcement organization, the kind of militarization that you see, especially when the militarization now is basically pointed at 70 plus million Americans who happen to object to the direction of the Biden regime and otherwise.

So it's just part of this new trend, this new domestic war on terror aimed at all of us. Trump and involvement? Any involvement? What's that? Any involvement from Donald Trump? In terms of what? Any of the stuff that happened on January 6th. Well, I mean, he gave a speech, but I think that's entirely.

appropriate as a speech, I wish that he would lend his voice toward the narrative of potential FBI involvement, potential government involvement. And just generally, I would say I wish he had taken a kind of more active role in expressing concern for the people who have been unjustly prosecuted as a result of one six. As for the kind of the idea that Trump is sort of incited or is part of the conspiracy, I think that's very far-fetched and ridiculous. But I will point out that it's an interesting tie-in that the head of the January 6th Commission in Congress, his name is Benny Thompson. Now, Benny Thompson, in his personal private capacity

initiated a lawsuit against Donald Trump, against Roger Stone, against the proud boys, and against the oathkeepers. And in this lawsuit, he presents his own theory of the case. And in this theory of the case,

the oathkeepers and proud boys were coordinating with Trump's inner circle to plan this riot in advance. which I think is fairly ridiculous. But what's interesting about this is that the oathkeepers appear, they have a star role in Benny Thompson's personal lawsuit presenting his theory of the case. And he even sent this lawsuit to Rhodes to notify him of it and had like a big, bold letters, attention, Stuart Rhodes.

Now, Benny Thompson is the chair of the 1-6 Commission, and he hasn't said a word about Stuart Rhodes. He has no interest in Stuart Rhodes. He's just as uninterested in Stuart Rose's communications as the FBI and government are. And the commission is demanding the communications record of seemingly anyone who set foot in the capital within a month of 1-6, everyone except for Rhodes. So I just think that's an additional detail that's quite remarkable that the head of the commission did a lawsuit presenting a theory of the case in which Stuart Rhodes takes a key role. And now that this guy runs the entire January 6th commission, he's expressed zero interest in Stuart Rhodes. So tell me, you said earlier that maybe that, you know, that we had a way out, that you had some suggestions. on what could be done.

What are those? Well, there are some historical precedents for bringing the national security state to heal. I think we're somewhat at a distance from being able to achieve this in the same way, but we should focus our efforts toward that end. There is something called the Church Committee that you might recall that was set up a big kind of congressional commission that basically detailed the excesses and abuses of the intelligence community, the CIA, the FBI, and attempted with some degree of success to bring them back under the kind of fold of appropriate democratic control. I think for various reasons it would be

difficult to replicate that now, but I think it should be a focus. And I think, people on the right should understand the corruption and abuses and basically the current configuration of the national security state as the predominant bottleneck to any kind of true political victory. Can win elections. You can have electoral victories, but you won't have political victories until this national security bottleneck is somehow addressed. And the first step of that, I think, is delegitimizing these institutions in the eyes of the right,

because they still maintain a certain degree of implicit authority. And it's very important that they be exposed for what they are and their corrupt activities be exposed. And I think ultimately it does matter. It doesn't get us everywhere, but it does matter if these institutions are no longer viewed as, essentially legitimate by the 70 plus million people that they've effectively declared war upon. And from there, I think there needs to be a real political focus. There's such a kind of phantasmagoria of the news cycle. There's a certain kind of ADD element of how conservatives process media is like this is a big

story. And then the next day, um, AOC will wear it. address that we don't like and that will be the news story and then something else. Biden will do some outrage, but it's really important to have persistence and focus on this in particular. And I think we have to a large degree. We have not let this narrative go away. And I'm very proud of my news organization revolver.

Dot news for sticking to it. We are going to keep sticking to it. And this wasn't supposed to happen. Like this narrative wasn't supposed to get out of Pandora's box. We're still supposed to be disjointedly talking about, oh, there were Antifa there. It wasn't supposed to get to the stage where now every major conservative, populist person in the country is talking about this narrative, including, you know, including you and a lot of other very major voices in the conservative media space. It wasn't supposed to develop like this. And so I think they're very scared.

That explains the, yeah. I think the same could be said for the reporting from the Daily Wire, which I think it should be nominated for a Pulitzer. It won't be, but should be, on what was happening in Virginia with the school district. And, I mean, it's the same apparatus being used by the same people. And if a journalist wouldn't have exposed that. the narrative would be completely different. And once it's exposed, the problem with this one is it's very complex.

Yes. Even though it's not. I mean, we, I guess we just need to find out, you know, who these guys really are. How did they, how did Ray Epps get, rolled up into this? Well, that's a very interesting question. And there's a broader history and context to this. And I'm glad I'm glad you mentioned that.

That in fact, the government began its sort of robust infiltration efforts specifically into right-wing militia groups. That all kicked off in earnest in the early 90s. Now, I think it's important to mention in this context that this is not American. Garland's first rodeo. In fact, in the early 90s, Merrick Garland was working for the DOJ and the Clinton administration, and his portfolio was the domestic extremist in portfolio. He was in charge right around with that first major infiltration operation called Pat Con. Okay. That led into Oklahoma City. And I think part of the reason that the government and the regime media, they're

freaking out so much about this kind of revolver news narrative of one-six is not just for what it exposes about one-six, which is huge enough. But once people see that, they're going to start saying, what other events have we been lying to? I saw one this morning about Timothy McVeigh, because you remember that there was. There was. a third man that tons of witnesses saw. Yes. No, this is so huge. It's so dark.

I've looked into this extensively. I'm not ready to report on it fully. There's been a lot of reporting out going back to 90s. But I think the public is now just starting to get prepared to hear the full truth about these things. And it's absolutely true. There's so many dark details about. Oklahoma City, and it's no coincidence that Merrick Garland was one of the key hatchet men,

was one of the key janitor cleanup guys for this event, and they're getting the old band back together. Now Merrick Garland is head of the Justice Department, just as the government is kicking off, it's new and improved and perhaps even more aggressive domestic war on terror to address the threat posed to the corrupt elements of government by the resurgence of a kind of populist element within the American politics. The internet sure changed everything. Absolutely.

That's why they need to censor it. Yeah, absolutely. That's why they need to censor it. So can I ask you just real quick and we'll have you back on a later date for an update, but also I'd like to talk about this. Are you familiar with Alexander Dugan? Yes, I am. And his fourth political theory? Yes.

Yeah. What are your thoughts on that? Well, that's not something that I really have the expertise on. As I mentioned, I'm a political theorist by former profession, and I wrote my dissertation on a German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who is someone that Duggan has commented on and wrote a book on, I've read his book on Heidegger, some of it is interesting, other parts of it I would critique. Dugan is kind of an interesting, interesting voice in sort of interpreting this transitional phase that we find ourselves in geopolitically. But that's pretty much, that's pretty much all I would say, in genera. terms, but if you have the

specifically about the fourth political theory, are you wondering about that the language that he uses is very appealing to people who feel like a lot of conservatives do right now.

Right. You know, they're they've lost something. They're being told their country is no good. They're told that they're no good, et cetera, et cetera. It's corrupt. and it's very appealing and is a is another leg on the table that I watch. Interesting. Because I think that there are other forces out there that would like to keep people under control or to destroy the nation.

And I think he's one of them, quite frankly. that would that he's one of the forces who would destroy this nation yeah that is looking to start a whole new order a whole new um not just this nation but this nation and the west i mean he is he's pretty clear on that um well um yes and i i guess what i would say that's not specific to do but because Dugan can kind of be thought of as a sort of political, philosophical archetype for sort of Eurasia or Eurasianism as an alternative to America. I think that we really need, and especially with the rise of China, which is in some ways involved with that, although the relationship between Russia and China, is a very complicated one and not necessarily configures to the presentation that Dugan gives. But just to keep it generic, I would say that the rise of China is a very important thing going on right now.

And it's important not simply is to say, oh, we need to demonize the Chinese and point to all of their abuses. I think the diminution of America's role geopolitically and the dissipation of America's prestige is something that should really give us pause and not occasion us necessarily to criticize our rivals, but to use it as a mirror to hold up to ourselves. because it is going to be the case that if we are no longer a serious country, which I think we become largely a joke country, not only a joke, but an evil country. And what do we represent geopolitically? What do our armed forces represent? It represents disseminating the very woke poison that we inflict on our own domestic population. and the rest of the world is going to be just as tired of it as a lot of us are.

But unlike the conservatives who are relatively impotent politically within the United States to challenge the dominant American regime, there are going to be major competitors with real self-sufficiency that present legitimate alternatives to the woke prison that the United States has become. And so I think that in certain ways, multipolarity geopolitically is something to be cautiously welcomed. Because I view China certainly not as a free nation, but I don't view the United States as a free nation either.

And I would rather have competing authoritarian regimes with different taboos than a one-world situation with the same taboos. And for all of China's faults, there's actually a popular tweet that I had. Senator Marshall Blackburn tweeted a photo of Winnie the Pooh saying, look how free we are in America that I can tweet Winnie the Pooh, whereas in China it's an insult to President Xi, so you can't do that. Look at me.

I'm showing how we have free speech in the United States. States by tweeting winning the poo. And I responded to her, great, now do George Floyd. You can't do it. In China, you can, it's not that we have free speech here and they don't in China or vice versa. They're just different taboos. And I think increasingly, one thing that people on the right, especially if they're labeled as dissidents by their own government, will take advantage of is something that I call taboo arbitrage, which is basically taking advantage of the fact that there are different taboos in different parts of the world.

And in fact, it sounds crazy, but it might be the case that in the future, professors who are fired for violating the dictat of wokeness in the U.S. will be hired at Chinese universities. And so it's just one of the, those things. I think, again, we want to be in a position where we say America is the best, America is the freest, but we're not there. But we're kidding ourselves if we're there. And we should look at the rise and the increasing competence of countries like China, not as an occasion

to just saber-rattle and say how bad they are, but to honestly look at ourselves and say, are we really going in the direction where we're going to be capable of controlling the 21st and are we going to be deserving of controlling the 21st century? And I think the answer to both of those questions at this point is a resounding no. No. I agree. I agree. I have said for a long time, if we don't face up to our past and we also don't stop this spin away from, you know, the founding principles, we're going to. We're going to going to we're going to make the Germans look like rookies. I mean, our technology alone could enslave the entire world. And if it's not us, it's going to be China and we'll be in bed with

them. I mean, we're doing some really frightening things that I never expected my country to be involved in. We've been involved, you know, I've had a problem with ghost, you know, ghost planing people. If you're going to torture, at least have the, the balls to say, we're going to do it. Don't ship it off to a third country and then say your hands are closed. but I think Americans are ready for those tough conversations to say, look, this is what we have done in the past. This is what we're doing right now. And stop it. I mean, I think Afghanistan was a very good example of this.

People watch that and they recognize dishonor. And that's why they stood up because that's not who we are supposed to be. That's what the left says we are. that's what the rest of the world says we are but that's not what the average american thinks of when they think of an american soldier that was dishonorable on so many levels and that was a good sign to me that americans saw that and went ick i don't want anything to do with that right right no it's absolutely true and as much of a disaster as the entire afghanistan affair was i think you know those types of resounding global embarrassments, I would hope could at least have the silver lining

of forcing that type of radical, critical self-reflection that our country really needs. But unfortunately, it doesn't even seem like Afghanistan is enough. It might require something even more humiliating before we really say, like, wow, we need a profound, we need a profound course correction in this country because the hierarchy. of taboos and the nature of accountability in the United States of America now is such that a general will suffer more severe repercussions if it comes out that 20 years ago he used the N-word, then it will if he loses a war. Correct.

A nation with that kind of priority of accountability is a joke nation that will not predominate in the 21st century. Well, we were a joke in 2000. We had just gotten back. Our financial institutions had just gotten back wagging our finger at them in 2006 in China, saying you have to adopt the American banking standards. Look at this. You're going to collapse.

And then we collapsed and they laughed at us. The same thing happens with Afghanistan. And what are we doing today? We have our president trying to lead the globe in climate change, which is just the great reset is the next. I think slave tactic from the big corporations. So thank you so much for being on the program. And thank you for all your work.

You bet. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You bet. Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.