The Last American Vagabond - Brad Miller Interview - Military Accountability, The Greater Israel War & The Technocracy Transition

Starting point is 00:00:01 Welcome to the Last American Bagabon. Joining me once again in studio is Brad Miller, and I'll use his bio to introduce, happily resigned former Army officer, Christ Truth, Courage, Freedom. We've had a lot of great discussions in the past, Brad and I, and we're following up today to discuss the last point we left off on. We discussed in the last interview, which was entitled, Brad Miller interview, a declaration of military accountability and foreign influence over U.S. policy. And so I really wanted to start today with that point and what we,

Starting point is 00:00:53 we, you know, what's happened since then. And I was reaching out earlier because I've been noticing a lot of stuff he's been posting and talking about. And I think there's, you know, it's a rapidly growing number of people who are becoming aware of what I think is happening. But it just seems Brad really has an insight on what's going on for a lot of different reasons. So it's honor to have you back in studio, brother. How are you?

Starting point is 00:01:10 First of all, great. Thanks again for having me back. We have had some great conversations. I think we've done two conversations previously. This would be the third, the second in studio. You know, it's funny you say that. I thought there might have been three and I wasn't able to grab. the other one, but it could just be a tagging issue.

Starting point is 00:01:24 Yeah. But one was that one I just mentioned. And then there was the first one where we discussed the, you know, just your, the courage about resigning regarding the shot. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, we've always had some, some fantastic conversations before. So yeah, looking to get back into it.

Starting point is 00:01:39 Yeah, well, thanks for joining me, man. And, you know, obviously you've got some insights that most people don't have. You know, just things that probably more than you even let on on your, on your accounts and what you're talking about, you know? So I'd like to get into this stuff with you on how you perceive these things, you know, with the different fields of war. Epstein, you know, how this is all evolving. And one thing most important is, you know, your view of Donald Trump, the two-party illusion,

Starting point is 00:02:00 how all this is evolving and a really, I mean, in a way, an entertaining way right now. And a very wild and crazy, which is one of the most alarming things for me is that people are going to get lost in like this, like this reality TV version of what it is. But it is pretty chaotic, which makes me wonder whether, as we were briefly talking about off air, you know, who's really calling these shots if they seem to be sort of destroying what was, you know, what they built. Well, before we get to all of that, I'd like to start on the declaration of military accountability. And our last discussion about that and your substack posed and, you know, what, you know, actually,

Starting point is 00:02:32 let's start with, you know, your brief introduction of, you know, maybe the brief background, military COVID point and then that declaration and let's go on to what has happened since then, in case they didn't see the last interviews. Yeah. So, you know, the abridged version of what has happened in the last couple of years. So I served for 19 years in the military. I spent a little bit more than 19 years in the Army on active duty. I attained the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Starting point is 00:02:59 I was a battalion commander in the 101st Airborne Division at the time that the COVID shot mandate went into effect. Long story short, I was never going to comply with the mandate for a variety of reasons. One being my own health, but a lot of people think that that's the only reason. It's not. There was a much larger, more important reason. So of course, I didn't want to take the shot for my own health, but there was a bigger reason is that I knew that this was an operation. I knew that this was to target the American people,

Starting point is 00:03:27 if not people across the globe, and I wasn't going to go along with it. And I did, even in 2021, I thought that to go along with it would be to comply with treason, or at least to kind of involve oneself in what was a deliberately planned and executed treasonous operation. I wasn't going to go along with that. So I was fired from command and shortly thereafter. I decided to resign altogether from the Army after a little bit more than 19 years of service, which means I did not hit the 20-year benchmark to qualify for retirement pension, et cetera. So I've been out of the Army now for almost three years, in September it'll be three years.

Starting point is 00:04:04 And since that time, I have continued to, I don't know, what do you want to call it, be a voice of reason or talk about government overreach or try. Here's what I would probably say. try to get people to think more deeply and conduct their own personal strategic assessment of the environment and exactly what's happening. Because I think a lot of people fail to do that. So here's the other thing. And this is where I think a military background can be a little bit of a double-edged sword. So I like to think that my military experience gives me a framework to think about these problems.

Starting point is 00:04:44 a vocabulary to be able to communicate these ideas to myself and understand them, and then be able to share them with other people in a way that hopefully makes sense. Because at the end of the day, we're all in a war. And if you think that you're not a combatant in that war, think again, because those who are trying to fight against us very much view all of us as combatants. So you might as well just understand that out the gate. It's just that this war may look a little bit different than the way that we typically think about, you know, war. Now with that said, so I have a good buddy of mine who is still currently serving in the

Starting point is 00:05:21 Navy. His name is Rob Green. He's a commander in the Navy, which would be the equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the Army, which is the rank that I held before I left the Army. And he is still currently serving. Now, in 2023, he wrote a book called Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines. And that book kind of detailed what was happening in the military with regard to these policies that were enacted in 2020, 2021, etc. Mostly focusing on the COVID-shot mandate, but it did go deeper than there were other policies that military enacted during that time period

Starting point is 00:05:53 besides just the COVID-shot mandate. That book, defending the Constitution behind enemy lines, was published by Rob Green in on July 4th of 2023. So fast forward a couple of months. And on New Year's Day of 2024, a group of us put out this document, which consisted of an open letter to the American public, that basically said,

Starting point is 00:06:19 we, and then there were 231 individuals who signed on to this letter, the 231 of us are not going to stand by and allow senior military leaders to destroy the armed forces. And so there were a group of us that were behind that document, but the one who wrote the initial draft, who had the idea and wrote the initial draft was Rob Green. So in some ways, that open letter to the American public, which we came to call the Declaration of Military Accountability,

Starting point is 00:06:51 in some ways it was this continuation of his book that had been published a couple of months prior. Anyway, so his book comes out, he's very, first of all, he publishes the book as an active duty officer. He doesn't publish it anonymously. he doesn't publish it under a pen name he publishes it in his own name so what's the reaction from senior military leadership silence now why i mean i would assume it's because they knew that we don't even want to touch this as soon as we try to refute it we're already lending it credibility

Starting point is 00:07:28 so don't touch it so six months later when our our declaration of military accountability comes out, which, oh, by the way, we emailed, I emailed on January 1st, 2024. I emailed to senior Pentagon officials early in the morning on New Year's Day. What was the response? Silence. So it's weird because, again, it was as if they knew, just don't even engage with that because as soon as you engage with it, you're lending credibility to the message that these guys are putting forward. Well, now fast forward another year. and a half. So 2024 was our major push for substantive reform in the military. Did we get there? No. Does that mean that we accomplish nothing? Well, no, that's not necessarily true either.

Starting point is 00:08:18 And we brought a lot of awareness to these issues. So then what happens, you know, Trump comes into office. I'm sure we'll talk about that. There's a new secretary of defense. Some superficial changes have been made in the military. And we can talk about that. I would say they haven't gone nearly far enough. And now, just recently, within the last maybe 10 days or so, we've come to find out that Rob Green, who wrote the book that I mentioned, and then was the primary author behind the Declaration of Military Accountability, he is still serving in the Navy. Well, now the Navy has opened up an investigation into him for some language that he

Starting point is 00:08:53 is used publicly in which he has referred to certain senior military officials as domestic enemies of the Constitution. And so what I would say is, yeah, okay, that's pretty strong language, but it's also true. It's also 100% true. But the other thing is, is that he has been very consistent in his message. This is the same message that was in his book. It's the same message that we talk about in the Declaration of Military Accountability, or that we have mentioned in many interviews that we have given.

Starting point is 00:09:25 So nothing's changed, but now they've gone after him and they have opened up this investigation into him. So on the front of all things, military accountability, I would just use this as an example to show that we are still very much in the trenches in that fight. Yeah. Oh, definitely. I mean, what comes to my mind is obviously what do you think changed? Now, before you answer, I mean, it's interesting that, you know, my thought on why, let's say, in, I guess during the Biden administration, there was no silence, there's no response. I think, you know, regardless of whether it was Trump or Biden or anybody else, at that moment, moment, I think, just like you're highlighting or insinuate or, you know, hinting at is that

Starting point is 00:10:04 they didn't want anyone, they didn't want, you know, whether Streisend effect or anything else. They didn't want this to get attention in any way because I think they recognize as we did, everyone did, that we're at a moment right there where people were more willing. And I think it's gotten better in the way I see it, worse for them now, but despite their efforts, that people were willing to start asking certain questions. We were willing to look into these things we hadn't in the past. And so I think they were just trying to get away from that. Now, I want your thought on why you think. because in my opinion, their circumstances are even worse for them right now.

Starting point is 00:10:35 Why do you think during Trump's administration now are they decided to go after him? What changed? Yeah. Well, if we talk about under the Biden administration, now the first thing that I would say here is I, and I know you know this, but just for those out there who are listening, and I'm assuming much of your audience already gets this, but just to say it, just to map this out. So ultimately, I believe that, you know, Trump and Biden still take their right. orders from the same networks, of course. But they do have, but they do play different roles and they have different scripts. And so, but a lot of people within the public, to include within the military, unfortunately enough, they don't necessarily see that. Right. So during the Biden administration,

Starting point is 00:11:17 or when Lloyd Austin was the secretary of defense, if you were on our side, you felt that you were within a hostile environment because you believed that this administration, meaning the Biden administration or this secretary of defense meaning Lloyd Austin they're hostile to the constitution they are hostile to the rights of service members etc but then there may be this assumption that that's going to change with a new administration okay you know with trump in office or or with pete heggsett there are a lot of people within the military accountability movement and within the public at large they just assumed things would change and now they haven't necessarily changed but what did anything change?

Starting point is 00:12:01 Well, yeah, I would say there were some superficial changes that have happened. So, for example, on January 20th, so during his inauguration speech, Trump did include some language in that speech in which he mentioned, you know, bringing back these service members whose careers were harmed because the COVID-shot mandate. Within a week, there was an executive order that was published that basically said the same thing. So then, you know, now Pete Heggs, Seth is in the driver's seat in the Pentagon, you know, as the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, you know, his office starts putting out more memos and they put

Starting point is 00:12:37 together to this process to bring people back into the service who left over the COVID shot military or the COVID shot mandate, those who left either voluntarily or involuntarily. Now, what I would say is the process that they have put in place is, is someone, what, well, first of all, it's very incomplete. And the rhetoric around what they have supposedly done is quite hollow. So they're saying they've done much more than they've actually done. But they have. Well, you flesh that out for me in what way? Yeah. Yeah. So have they put together a process to allow people who lost their careers to the COVID shot mandate to come back? Yes. Now, what does that look like? So if you, let's say you're

Starting point is 00:13:23 me and I, let's say I were to say, okay, let me go back and let me finish out my time in the military. What do I have to do? So there is a process that I can apply for and try to get accepted back into the military. But there are a couple of things we've got to take into consideration. So first of all, they're going to look at me and they're going to say, did you leave voluntarily or involuntarily? Okay. Okay. Well, good question. Because what about unlawful coercion? Yeah. So what if you were coerced out, but you voluntarily left? So I resign. but I resigned after being relieved of command. Well, now the Secretary of Defense has actually come out and said that the COVID-shot mandate,

Starting point is 00:14:07 which he characterizes as, you know, having been implemented by the previous administration, which technically is true, but whatever, he has said that that mandate was implemented unlawfully. Right. So it shouldn't matter. But I was relieved of command. Right. That means I was relieved of command unlawfully. But I resigned. Okay, but why was I backed into a corner to where I had to either comply with

Starting point is 00:14:28 an unlawful command, give an unlawful command to my subordinates or resign. Why was I ever placed in that situation? So according to the military, I left voluntarily, not involuntarily. And so the DOD wants to focus on this number of about 8600. So DOD will tell you, hey, there were about 8600 service members who were kicked out against their will. And for those 8600, they will offer them back pay and then also they will credit them as time served, the time lost between the day that they left service and the day that they would be reinstated. So if that's a three-year time period, they would credit them. First of all, they would pay them for those three years and then credit them towards retirement

Starting point is 00:15:18 or whatever those three years as if they had been served. Now, that's a great thing. But you're making this very clear distinction between those. who were voluntarily kicked out, which is only 8,600, and then the 100K plus that were voluntarily kicked out. You know, you're kind of, you're drawing that distinction where I think that that distinction is not quite as clear as you want to make it. So, and the other thing is, even when they try to give the back pay to this group that they consider to be those that were involuntarily kicked out, they're doing a bunch of calculations to try and determine what salary

Starting point is 00:15:56 offsets they should be to decrease the actual back pay that they're going to give you. You know, right. So all told, are people banging on the door of the, of the military to get back in? No. Right. No, they don't want to enter back into that abusive relationship. And then also, so we have about, we have, if you, if you count all of our active duty troops and your guard troops and your reserve troops, it's over two million.

Starting point is 00:16:23 So 8,600 out of two million doesn't seem like. like a very large number right but but again that's the number dod wants you to focus on because that is the number of troops that were kicked out against their own will right this number of 100k which may be a conservative estimate i imagine yeah um well obviously that's a much larger percentage of the overall force right but even that so so of that number how many have come back into the military so far 13 wow so 13 out of 8600 is a tiny percentage 13 13 out of 100K is a much, much, much smaller percentage. I think, see, my, I mean, tell me if you, if you share this for you, it seems obvious

Starting point is 00:17:03 that if you look at the real main distinction between those two groups, it's one of them that seems to act. There's plenty. It's hard to decide. Somebody wanted to stay and stick it out to make a point. There's something we said about that. But the people that decided to resign, there's principle in that. You know, that you're saying, I'm willing to sacrifice my everything in order to stand with

Starting point is 00:17:21 this principle. That terrifies a dishonest, unjust system, right? And I think, that's what it really comes. them down to, or just a financial motive to recognize, hey, if we lean into this number, we can pretend like, you know, save all of the effort that might, you know, those are my opinions on. I would agree with both of those. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:17:36 So how do you create action and then make it look like you're doing more than you are? Oh, look at this process we put in. Look at all these overtures that we're making to these people that were wrong. But they're not actually doing nearly as much as they want you to believe that they're doing. And I bet you they knew they wouldn't come back as well. Of course, of course, of course. And then also from the perspective of DOD, they also, I think they don't, they don't really want you back. Right.

Starting point is 00:18:02 And so why? Because the military is not done doing the type of unjust actions that they did over the last couple of years. Right. That hasn't ended. Because it doesn't change based on partisanship. It does not change. Right. So in regard to the declaration of accountability.

Starting point is 00:18:21 So you pretty much already touched on it. But is there any other way that you think? So basically you described it as there's a group of people in there that really want this and believe in it, but that at least in the beginning felt that Trump's administration would be the thing that brought that change on. First part of it, are they, where do you feel they are right now? Are they starting to feel disillusioned by that? And have there been any positive movements from that? Yeah, yeah.

Starting point is 00:18:44 So the whole military accountability was more of an effort than an actual organization. and a lot of people would sometimes they would come to me or whomever and they would say, hey, you guys should create some sort of, you know, organization. And we, we never quite went that route because, you know, people are busy. They got other endeavors they're involved in. But also, we all, we didn't even 100% agree on this issue. Now, here's where we did agree. We knew that what was happening was wrong. And we largely shared a lot of the same goals that we wanted to see achieved. We did not necessarily agree, though, in our entire strategic picture of the environment

Starting point is 00:19:32 or the pathway to achieve those goals. That's where you started to have it. That's right. That's where you started to have some kind of some strategic differences of agreement. And that's okay. Right. But that can also create some tension. Now, a little bit of tension can be healthy, a little bit more than what is healthy can be,

Starting point is 00:19:52 you know, slightly disruptive. And so, you know, within our groups, there would, you know, there would be some conversations. And sometimes those conversations would get a little bit tense as to kind of not necessarily the goals, but kind of the strategic read on what exactly is happening. Who are the influencers or the interlocutors that we should be engaging with in dialogue to try and achieve this or this? Because here's what was happening during that same time period. we had people giving a lot of interviews, even on some pretty big platforms. We had people who were writing op-eds or writing sub-stack posts.

Starting point is 00:20:32 We had people who were in D.C. engaging with members of Congress, which achieved very, very little, by the way. Tends to, yeah. There were court cases, which I don't want to say achieve zero ground. Some of them were helpful. There were some victories, but on the whole, it was very little. So you get to a point where it's,

Starting point is 00:20:51 it's like, okay, we've approached the, we've approached within DOD, haven't gotten a lot of support, certainly didn't get a lot of support from the president, meaning Biden. I would say we still haven't gotten a lot of support from Trump. We haven't gotten a lot of support from the legislature or from the judicial branch. So where do you go? In fact, this was Rob Green's assessment when he decided to write a letter to the American people, hence the Declaration of Military Accountability. We can't get any help from any of the branches of government.

Starting point is 00:21:21 How do you appeal higher what you take it to we the people? That was the driving idea behind this open letter to the public, you know, the Declaration of Military Accountability. So where are we now? Yeah, you're the, and I can only kind of speak for myself, but I know that there are, I know some people within this basic effort have some slightly different opinions than I do, and that's okay. but I do think that people are starting to maybe reassess their read on the strategic environment

Starting point is 00:21:54 and at least say, hey, maybe things aren't quite the way that I thought they were going to be. And it's just very healthy and positive, you know, and I get it. I mean, I get and completely understand why somebody would want to hope for the best outcome. We should always do that, right? Just don't let that completely overtake what's actually happening. And I think that now is a very clear time. There's plenty of, we'll go over some of them in a moment. There's plenty of indications that this is just not,

Starting point is 00:22:20 that there's a lot of narrative statements that just don't match what's actually happening. So I'm glad, I mean, I'm hoping that people are starting to see that because I'm glad you didn't do it in an organization direction. I think that right now it's very easy for these, these things get co-opted, especially with something that large. I think reaching out the American people, I think we said in last interview, was the right way to go because that's where the change is happening. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:22:43 So you say, said something very important that I actually want to touch on. So I, from day one, which would be January 1st, 2024, I mean, that's the day that our declaration of military accountability, which we call the DMA, the day that it hit the streets. And it was, it created a lot of momentum immediately. And I remember thinking on that very day, there, there's a risk here. Because Because if you want to look at this as a partisan issue, which I don't, but a lot of people do. If you want to look at this as a partisan issue, we have just given you fodder that reinforces that. Now, we were very much trying to keep ourselves kind of apolitical because a lot of the people that signed this document were still currently serving.

Starting point is 00:23:35 Okay. So the document on its face had nothing to do with one political party or the other. It was very neutral, very apolitical in that regard. But people are people, and even people who serve in the military. I mean, they still vote. They still have, they may still be affiliated with one party or another or whatever. And so when you look at the environment and you say, you know what, even if it was unintentional, we have put some fuel into this engine that reinforces this kind of two-party dynamic.

Starting point is 00:24:09 You mean because you released it under one administration? So the perception is that it's against the perception could be that this was, was, anti-Biden, which we never said. I would never say that anyway because I think the problem is much broader. But even those who might have felt that way wouldn't have necessarily said that. So this would be unintentional. But here's where you run the risk, though, of being potentially co-opted, even if you don't mean to. And this is something that I think happens all the time, is people, people are sincere, but their effort that they are involved in can be twisted to serve a certain purpose. I think that's most of what's happening today. Sure, absolutely. I really do.

Starting point is 00:24:46 And so this was something that I realized, I remember thinking about this on the evening of January 1st, 2024, because we held, so I sent, so what happened on that day was I took the DMA, which is a one-pageer. People can find it, by the way, at military accountability.net. It'll be included in the show. Yeah. Check it out. And so, so I took that document, and I emailed it to, I remember exactly how many, 12 or 15 senior military officers, some of whom are named in the DMA specifically because of the egregious actions they had committed.

Starting point is 00:25:21 Now, this document is not addressed to them. It's addressed to the American public. But we sent it to these senior military leaders basically to say, hey, we've written this document, we've signed it. This document is about ready to hit the streets, just so you know. And I sent that.

Starting point is 00:25:38 Now, why did I send it? Well, Rob and I spoke about this, and we agreed that even though a bunch of us have signed it, you know, Rob's the primary author, but a lot of us had a hand in kind of the final revisions, et cetera, but that I might be the best candidate to put it out there because I was no longer serving. So I'm less of a target.

Starting point is 00:25:57 I'm not in uniform. Yeah. And because, you know, maybe I had a little bit of street cred because I'd been a battalion commander who had been fired and then had resigned at 19 years. 101st, no less. I mean, that's prominence. So in any case, I was like, yeah,

Starting point is 00:26:11 I'll put it out there. I will be the one to send an email to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you know, the highest ranking uniformed officer and other generals and admirals and say, hey, heads up. This is about ready to hit the streets. So I did that at 4 a.m. DC time, January 1st, 2024, when most of America was either a sleeper or still partying from, you know, New Year's Eve. And I turned right around and then on my, you know, my Twitter or my ex account,

Starting point is 00:26:38 I made a post within a couple of minutes. and I put a screenshot of the DMA. And that post in the last year and a half has had almost 5 million views. But that is the exact moment that that document would have been publicly visible for the first time. And then we took it,

Starting point is 00:26:55 we hung it on a website and, you know, and then we further socialized it from there. Real quick, 5 million views. I mean, this is, that's viral. I mean, the world saw that, you know, and that mean, and 5 million views are just, just that means far more than that actually digested that, saw that, shared that, took screenshots of themselves and shared it.

Starting point is 00:27:13 What I'm saying is that it's really interesting to see how that can happen. And that's the point that that's where the change is happening. People wanted this. They know that. And I think it's just an important line to show that, I mean, it shows you the government does not represent the American people in a very clear way. That's right. That's right.

Starting point is 00:27:27 And at the time, I think at that time I had maybe, I want to say less than 5,000 followers. I had a pretty small following on Twitter. I still got that. That's crazy. But it generated that. And I mean, it started immediately. So that night at like, I don't know, 8 p.m. Eastern, you know, if I put it out at 4 a.m. So, roughly at 8 p.m. Eastern, right? The same day, so 16 hours later, we held a, we held a Twitter space that just had a ton of people get involved.

Starting point is 00:28:04 And we had members of Congress in there. It was really crazy. Nice. But this is when I really. I realized if we're not careful, this could be used in a way to reinforce some ideas that I'm not out there trying to promote. Now, at the same time, I had to also say,

Starting point is 00:28:23 yep, there are people who can use this to reinforce this two-party dynamic, you know, the elephant versus donkey smokescreen. But I can't let that affect what I am trying to do because I do believe that there should be military accountability. I don't want to use it to try and paint Democrats as bad and therefore Republicans is good because that's not helpful either. But, and I don't want people to take what we're doing

Starting point is 00:28:46 and try and do that, but I can't not do it just because somebody might take our words and twist them to mean something that we're not actually saying. Well, you have to. I mean, that's about principle, you know, but nonetheless, even though, well, that always happens, as you know. Always, always, whatever, what move you look at, there's always some element to co-opt it,

Starting point is 00:29:05 whether from government or something else, but it still has a you know the positive effect is still there which i think especially when you have an administration shooting themselves in both feet it makes it easier for people to see even if they first accepted it as that's the one side bad now they're seeing the other side of it you know and so that's why this is so important to keep this momentum going because maybe people will stumble back through this and recognize now even the full picture as opposed to only half of the first time so so it's interesting because so fast forward and we get closer to um you know to election season now do i believe that elections are free and fair? No, of course not. Did I, did I vote in the 2024 presidential

Starting point is 00:29:41 election? No. Did I vote in 2020? No. Did I vote in 2016? No. So, so it's kind of funny because like, I've never been to Trump. I've never voted for Trump, but I've also never voted against Trump. Anyway, so whatever. And I will also say, because I get called a Trump hater a lot. Yeah. But if you forced me, if you forced me to pick in the last three elections between Trump and any of his opponents, I would have picked Trump all three times. You know, I had a similar conversation with Catherine Austin Fitz for similar reasons. And I, you know, there's there's an argument that could be made is the way I framed it

Starting point is 00:30:17 that. If you're looking objectively at what we have only right in front of us, then yeah. But my point is the same is that that's that is operating with the broken game. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Or the way it's not to play. That's right. Yeah, I don't play rigged games.

Starting point is 00:30:29 Right. Right. But the reason I say that is because so take what I just said about the DMA and my realization, you know, within the strategic environment, hey, there is a risk here that we at least have to manage, you know? So fast forward and now we're in kind of kind of deep into campaign season. And people were coming at me and they were saying, how come you're always so critical at Trump? but you never, you never criticize Biden or Kamala. And so I put out a couple of posts on, on X about this because I was like, because I thought, I was very, very convinced that they were going to put Trump back in.

Starting point is 00:31:10 I'm not saying I necessarily realized that a year out, but I would say seven or eight months out. I was, I was convinced they were going to put Trump in. I think we shared the same thought in that last interview. I mean, the point was, or when time would, the timing of the time, timing might be right. But the point is I think we've shared this thought that not like we're psychic, but that it makes sense that Trump would be like with the COVID point, that he's going to allow the right, like give the people the excuse to dismiss what's happening. That's right. That's right. And I also, and I said this on the day of, so July 13th of last year

Starting point is 00:31:40 in Butler, Pennsylvania. Yeah, I mean, I thought that was, I thought that was staged. I still think it's staged. I said that the day up. Yeah. So that day, I knew for sure. Oh, they're going with, they're going with Trump. I also thought that, I mean, there's been some theatrics with Elon now, you know, in the last month or so. But they also weren't going to have Elon because Elon is such a pivotal player as well in this whole game. Yeah. They're not going to have Elon. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:32:05 They're not going to have Elon back, the guy that's going to come out on the wrong end of the election. So anyway, but people would say, why do you criticize Trump and you don't criticize Biden or Kamala? And I would say, well, I think Kamala is. running a so first of all Biden was a stooge all along he was supposed to be a stooge he was playing his role whether he was doing that deliberately or whether that just is whatever whatever um and i think comela i don't even think uh put together a real campaign yeah yeah i agree i don't think she was running to win yeah she probably knew so so in my mind it was if i expend a lot of energy on her when she's basically a decoy but expending energy on her is to basically basically

Starting point is 00:32:50 push in the direction of the SIA. Right. Whereas to push back against Trump is to push against the direction of the Siyah. Even though if you were to ask me between the two of them, which I prefer, I prefer Trump 100 times over. But I don't have to pick between the two of them. Right. But by design is your point.

Starting point is 00:33:07 That's exactly how it's meant to work. And, you know, and obviously feel free to question this. And we're not psychic. But the obvious point is that it's just logic. And you can see the way this goes, why what suits, if we're correct about the bigger picture, what best suits the empire. That's right. And this is exactly what seems to line up.

Starting point is 00:33:22 But I would even more so add to that, that your criticisms are aimed not, I mean, I can't speak to everything you've said, but not at Trump as a person, but at Trump who is running the government. Right? So it's regardless whether her or him, I bet your criticism would be the same. That's right. Yeah, exactly. You know, so I, there's this idea that I've been communicating, you know, and thinking

Starting point is 00:33:44 a lot about recently. And I even did a video about it recently. but it kind of boils down to principles first and then people. And so what I mean by that is not that people aren't important, of course, but figure out what your principles are. And then as you stand on your principles and as you live in alignment with those principles, you will naturally find the people who are similarly minded. I love it.

Starting point is 00:34:09 But when you seek to congregate with certain people first, what happens when you then realize their principles aren't your principles? So now take that one step further. What can you extrapolate from that? So think about this is why populism is so dangerous as a political movement, right? Because it's not that charisma is bad, but there's got to be some character behind the charisma. Substance, yeah. Otherwise, yeah, you might be an inspirational person, but what are you inspiring people to do?

Starting point is 00:34:36 Are you inspiring them to do something that is great and noble, helpful for themselves and helpful for others? Or are you just inspiring them to do something that, that pushes things along in a predetermined way. Right. But it has nothing to do with, you know, the interests of the American people. And so, you know,

Starting point is 00:34:54 so, you know, you take a populist movement or something, and you take that to its extreme and you have demagoguery or you have a cult of personality and people are so wrapped up in the personality of this figure. And then there's no,

Starting point is 00:35:06 there's no guiding philosophy there. There's no bedrock of values that some guiding policy is rooted within. It's exactly what we're dealing with, which I know we were on. You know, it is, it is, I mean,

Starting point is 00:35:17 and it's not a secret. I mean, even right now, I think the Trump MAGA movement, whatever is grappling with this, the honest elements in there, which I think there's largely majority.

Starting point is 00:35:25 I think most people were tricked into thinking that's what they wanted, you know? And now they're grappling with this, the very clear many characters we could call out it by name if we want to do, they're just blind support Trump will change what they said yesterday. If Trump tells them to that day, and that's terrifying. But let's get into some overlapping points.

Starting point is 00:35:43 I'll let you decide right now. You want to go in the direction because I'm enjoying the conversation we're having it's sort of a higher view of the Psyop, right? And how it's being played bigger than partisanship. So do you want to get into some foreign policy discussion about military locations or you want to want to get into Epstein and, you know, the different parts of who Trump is? What would you rather talk about? Let's talk about kind of in line with what we've been talking about the last couple of minutes. Yeah. Let's maybe talk about this supposed 12-day war between Israel and Iran.

Starting point is 00:36:13 Okay. If you want to talk about that. So I got some thoughts and then we can go wherever. So first of all, even if you just take what we've been told, even just in mainstream sources or whatever, so Israel conducts a strike, which they call preemptive or whatever, but they conduct a strike. Now there is retaliation coming from Iran,

Starting point is 00:36:36 which results in this 12-day war. But in the midst of this 12-day war, there are strikes performed by U.S. service members, you know? And so, which makes us completely a belligerent in that war. So there's a lot there. There's a lot to unpack. I also believe that, and we're still under a ceasefire, but I saw yesterday that Israel was striking Syria.

Starting point is 00:36:59 Yep, yep. We can talk about that today, too, if you want. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So first of all, I don't in any way think that we've seen the end of this. Yeah, I agree. I also think from a big picture geopolitically, we're going to continue to see the stage set for war. I would also say

Starting point is 00:37:14 if you look at what is the domestic counterpart to the push for war abroad and I would say that is increased surveillance here at home and so when you think about just the digital control grid when you think about the way in which AI can increase the sophistication

Starting point is 00:37:36 of the digital control grid then I think those are things that we have to worry about. So you mean in the overlap that being that one, are that just two parts of the same agenda or that the war is there to justify that? How do you see them connected? Yeah, exactly. So like, so let's just use a very simple example. So the border. So immigration, okay? But then also you hear these stories, and it's like 2003 all over again, but you hear these stories about supposed sleeper cells that can infiltrate through our border because our border is so porous, et cetera. So first and

Starting point is 00:38:12 foremost. And this is something we have to, we have to realize is that when you think about problems and solutions kind of in the Hegelian sense, just because you recognize that the problem has been engineered to lead towards a predetermined solution doesn't mean that the problem isn't a problem. Yes. Yes. Important point. Right. So if I, if I think that there is some complexity behind the border issue, I'm not saying that the border is not a problem. It is. What I'm saying is the same people that are causing the problem are trying to give you a solution. Right. And maybe we should be cautious about that.

Starting point is 00:38:51 But anyway, but if we set that aside and we just think about if we have some sort of adversary that we have painted up as, hey, that's the new boogeyman. In this case, you know, let's just say I ran. Then that can certainly be used to try and scare the people into accepting new increased security measures back. and both being very real. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:39:16 Well, I mean, I call them like a landmine, like in a hypothetical or a metaphorical sense where, you know, people will, like the same thing like with the two-party illusion or anything for that matter, is that people tend to break away. There's these moments of awareness. And there are just landmines and traps laid for them that they fall right into and thinking they've discovered the new thing. Q on on was like that, right? Where people thought, oh, they discovered Q, now they can see everything.

Starting point is 00:39:38 And even though that was just the first trap laid the moment you pull your head out of the problem. I think that's what a lot of this stuff is, is they want to believe that, you know, like, my point is that my point is that my point is that the landmine there being, you know, the idea that that's fake, as opposed to recognizing that, yes, that's a real problem, but they're using it to trap you here. They set that there, so they dismissed the whole thing. That's right. That's right. That's right. It is wildly present right now. But again, I think people are starting to sort of like awaken from that. So right now in that same point, look out for those minds of talking about because they're laid everywhere to trap you right back into it.

Starting point is 00:40:11 So, you know, I put a social media post out, I don't know, a couple of weeks ago, and I said, and this will resonate with people who have done their homework into, like, fundamentalist Islamic terror, right? And I said something like, scratch an Islamic terrorist, and you'll find the CIA or Mossad beneath. Right. Keep scratching, you'll find MI6. Because if you look into the history of that, you know, a lot of, so the CIA and Mossad, a lot of them kind of learned their dirty tricks from, from MI6. You know, MI6 does not get enough attention for how intertwined. I mean, it's funny because Matt Ehre's a writer for TLAB, and he's done a lot of work

Starting point is 00:40:49 that's opened my eyes to that deeper background. I don't think it's hard to tell in anyone in the situation sometimes or often which one is the real. Like people discuss whether it's Israel controlling the U.S. or U.S. controlling Israel. It's that kind of dynamic. And I think MI6 just has a tendency to not be involved in that thought process, which is a problem. They're very prevalent.

Starting point is 00:41:06 Yeah. So I will tell you my thought on that. because I sometimes push back a little bit against people who say Israel controls the United States. So here's what I would say. Maybe I'm wrong. But I would say it's not so much that Israel controls the United States as it is that Israel and the United States are both controlled by some network that is out there. And I tend to think a lot of that goes back to to MI6 and kind of the British establishment. And by that, I don't necessarily mean the monarchy per se, but more like the city of London and this nexus of.

Starting point is 00:41:38 More of a globalist idea. Yeah, international finance, corporations, even secret societies, et cetera. Yeah. But anyway. No, I mean, that's an important. So is that what you mean when the background or were you referencing something else? Like what we see behind that, like calling those shots? Is that what you meant?

Starting point is 00:41:53 Yeah, yeah, yeah. So just, you know, because right now I think there is this idea that Israel is the center of the globalist empire. And I would say, I think it's more maybe an avatar of. the globalist empire. Well, the easiest way to make that clear for somebody who's only just stepped into this is that really, the point is about Zionism, not the state of Israel, we're sure we agree on. But to your point, Zionism was, you know, existed, but the Belford Declaration from the UK, that's what started Israel. So you can clearly see that there's more going on there. The hard part is that people, like especially today, you know, there's a lot of, you know, people

Starting point is 00:42:32 seeking awareness and information, but they kind of woke up like 2016, 2020, and they don't really dive into the background. I mean, myself, everyone I think does that. Like, even myself, I find things that I stumble into that kind of were like before where I started doing this work. Yeah. And you go, wow, I didn't even like, you still have this weird framing of that that you didn't even question because it's from a different time. And we all are going through that. You know, the cognitive dissonance is a hard problem where there is the people want to run away from it when it becomes contradictory, you know? But yeah, the bigger problem, I think comes down to whoever's driving that bus. I would argue that I do think Zionism is one of the chief issues of

Starting point is 00:43:05 our time. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, totally. Totally. And I think that it is alive and well. Yeah. You know, so you mentioned the Balfour Declaration, which goes all the way back to World War one times, 1917, but some of these ideas already pre-existed that. You know, you got Theodore Herzl and, I mean, you've got the, the Schofield reference Bible because obviously there's a huge, there's a huge movement of Christian Zionism within a lot of the evangelical churches, which are very influential

Starting point is 00:43:31 in the United States. Yeah. And so, and it's a lot of, and I mean, I say this as a Christian, but just within, within, greater Christianity and those who profess to be Christians here in the West, but primarily in the United States, you have a lot of mostly Protestants and within that kind of large umbrella, mostly evangelical dispensationalist Protestants, that they believe they have a moral obligation to unconditionally support this Middle Eastern state that, you know, has been around for, you know, 80 years.

Starting point is 00:44:03 It's wild. It is wild. It's inherently contradictory when you look at the basic. It is historically, so it, that thought, that idea, I would say is historically and geopolitically illiterate. And biblically, for those who want to go there, too, because I would say that too. 100% agree. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:44:23 Well, so this thought stems through a lot of what we're going to talk about. So taking it back to Iran since you were, you started with that point. Yeah, yeah. What I'm showing on the screen is just Iran faces, this is a recent article from yesterday. Iran faces August deadline to accept a comprehensive nuclear deal. or face renewed UN sanctions. So, you know, at a finer point, where do you see this going? Because it's, I mean, you're well-versed on this.

Starting point is 00:44:44 It's absurd, in my opinion, to think that Iran in any way takes what the U.S. or Israel is putting forward to Syria. They violated everything they've ever done and every one of these dynamics, including with Iran. So again, with this kind of floated, like, you better do what we ask, or, you know, which is framed as negotiation before this deadline. So just where do you see this going? You know, what do you think is going to happen next?

Starting point is 00:45:03 You laid as the last, you left off with kind of the bombing of the cutter base. then they at this point have been doing little bombings here and there, which aren't really getting much coverage or disputed. So where do you see it going? Yeah, yeah. So, you know, there were these supposed strikes that, that U.S. service members, you know, engaged in in the three supposed nuclear sites within Iran. Real quickly, I just saw a report saying two of the three are now shown to completely not be destroyed.

Starting point is 00:45:29 One of the claims. Obliterated. Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, remember that. So anyway, so then, so there was a response. There was an Iranian response, supposedly with some U.S. bases in Qatar. They supposedly called ahead.

Starting point is 00:45:42 It was just maybe one of these face-saving measures. That's what I thought, yeah. So then there's the ceasefire, right? And now we're however many weeks, I don't know, three weeks or so into the ceasefire. Will that hold? And no, I don't think it will. So how will it be broken? And will we potentially see a false flag used as a pretext to potentially break the ceasefire?

Starting point is 00:46:04 I don't know, but it's something we always have to be. aware of. Absolutely. Absolutely. The other thing that I think is interesting is, and I know people have differing opinions on this, but it bears some discussion or at least people kind of, you know, parsing through this in their own mind. So when we think about the globalist, whatever the structure of the globalist empire is,

Starting point is 00:46:28 you know, does that, is that largely a Western construct or is it more global? and are countries that are considered to be antagonistic to the West, are they, are they foils to this empire or are they part of it? Now, I'll tell you my, my assumption. I'm not saying I know for sure,

Starting point is 00:46:50 but my read currently is I tend to think they're part of it. So I tend to think that Iran or China or Russia, maybe in North Korea, that they are part of this, but that they have a role to play. And within that, they are supposed to appear, you know,

Starting point is 00:47:06 to the West. Interesting thought. I mean, I think it's an important thought to consider because one, here's a way I look at it from like the COVID overlap is that you, very clearly we saw a lot of supposedly adversarial countries lockstep in the agenda, right? But that doesn't necessarily have to prove that they are not adversarial in other ways. You know, my mind was, I think all of these governments, I have a very poor opinion of governments in general, would be willing to do very many things to better have control over our lives, of their people, in respect effectively. And so they're all go, yes, we'll accept this, you know, we'll all go in this direction, but then still didn't agree at certain points, still vied, you know, back behind the scenes about

Starting point is 00:47:45 different, many different points. And so that's what I see it as is they're willing to come together if they can use that to control us. But at the end of the day, they're not really not the same team. And they might not be. So I do agree that that makes sense within that possible cost. Yeah. And, and I do think that it, it doesn't have to be a clean either or. Right. Exactly. Either China and Russia and Iran take their orders from the same party that gives the orders to Trump, for example.

Starting point is 00:48:13 Or they're totally antagonistic. I don't know that it necessarily has to be that cleanly either. Right. I think they'll take what they can when they can. I think that most governments. But I do think that they are within the globalist spheres of influence to some degree. Right. To what

Starting point is 00:48:28 degree? I'm not exactly sure. But I do think that Iran therefore may have a role to play. Now do they maybe push back against that role. Sure, maybe. But I also think that from the globalist perspective, I think they want war. I think we're kind of seeing the winds blow in that direction, which is unfortunate. But I think that means that we just maybe have to be, you know, prepared for that. Yeah, I agree. I mean, the main point that I think a lot of people, Jason Baster, for example, and they're basically just

Starting point is 00:48:57 saying, you know, in a larger kind of sprawling sense, I support the peoples of Iran. I support the people's of Syria. Yeah, sure. Yeah, right. I don't support the governments of any of these And that's kind of the distinction when you start making. You know, fighting, for act, take action that is in the interest of the peoples of these places, not the government structures, but our government, like all of them, have framed this in a way that, you know, that that is the representation of the people. And that's just not the truth. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:49:19 So, so two points on that, because that is, that should be the way that we almost look at all geopolitical situations. And so when we saw this 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which largely, and I don't want to, So I think when things like that happen, because some people don't, but I think the missiles are largely real. Some people don't. Yeah, I agree with that. And I also think that there is, there is a, I think atrocity propaganda can be a real thing. Absolutely.

Starting point is 00:49:50 So you can take something that happens and then you can amplify it and you can compound the effects of a true atrocity that occurred. And you can maximize it, you know. And just be honest. and absolutely faking entire events. That nobody should be pretending like we don't have historical evidence of that happening. That's right. That's right. That's right.

Starting point is 00:50:09 That's right. That's right. So Gulf of Tonkin, of course, is an event that didn't have. Anyway. I agree. No, no, no. It was clear. I know why am I suggesting that everything, you know, there's plenty of atrocities happening

Starting point is 00:50:21 that we can prove. That's right. It's just considering that possibility is always important. That's right. So people who who question these events, I get why they're questioning them. Right. But I also think it's dangerous to assume that every time there's a supposed missile exchange between two countries that it's always fake. Yeah, we shouldn't assume anything.

Starting point is 00:50:40 That's the point. That's right. Consider these thoughts, but facts are what matter, you know? And so to that point, so during this 12-day war, you know, and I would have this discussion with friends of mine. And I would say, you know, you don't have to pick a side between Israel and Iran. Right. You don't have to, you know. But you can side with the people.

Starting point is 00:51:00 you can you can express solidarity or whether you want to call it you know sympathy or whatever with the people on both sides that are being impacted by what is happening definitely yeah i mean that's where we need to stand with this and you know people will always have different perspectives inside on different ways but if we start putting our lot in you know in the flag next to your bio you know we're falling into the sciop i mean that's what i really think it is you are but your point is important about the bigger picture about whether they have another role whether it's Iran or somebody else. And we definitely should consider that because it's easy to fall into, you know, Iran's the one pushing back against the one we see committing genocide. So they're the ones

Starting point is 00:51:37 on the good guy side. It's just, it's a dangerous assumption to make. So it is, yeah, it is a dangerous assumption. And you can also, you can reinforce that dialectical engine by pushing hard against Israel because all you're doing it, you're still fueling the dialectical engine between, in this case, Israel and Iran. And I think a lot of times, the best way to deal with those types of situations is to remove yourself from from that unnecessary dialectic. Yeah. Right, right.

Starting point is 00:52:07 It's exactly. Oh, you're being forced. It's the false binary. It's the false binary. Right. Don't feel like you have to. You don't have to.

Starting point is 00:52:14 Right. But so on the Syria point, because I mean, all of these are interconnected. I mean, let's put it this way. My opinion is this is the extension of the greater Israel genocide. I mean, that's what this really comes down to is these are obvious agendas of Israel in the context of this direct point. But so I'm showing an article I put out our show about Israel in regard to Syria. As Israel further occupies Syria, Western-backed ISIS patch wearing terrorist begin executions.

Starting point is 00:52:37 It's amazing that anybody can even try to dismiss that at this point because it's live-streamed like everywhere else. And ISIS patches and all. But so right now what I think is interesting is we're seeing the extension of this. And now you mentioned the recent bombings. We're saying they're claiming now Syria's now occupying certain areas, even though, in my opinion, they've already pretty much occupied most of Syria. It's like this weird kind of narrative on top of what's already been going on. They play a clip really quickly of Netanyahu, and then we can comment on what's happening.

Starting point is 00:53:05 Solomon Ahmed frames it as Netanyahu announces Israel is going to occupy southern Syria. Netanyahu announces occupation from the Golan Heights to the Druze Mountain area. Welcome to Greater Israel. I agree with that. I want to ask us to Syria and what we're doing in Syria. We've given a medinuque, Burmese, a merriment to Damesek, from the Golan and to Zoro Har of Ruzim. So, the kav the second, smirah on the

Starting point is 00:53:31 brothers of the arsian the har of drusine. Two of the things were off were by the government. He shalach a government to the domestic to the area that

Starting point is 00:53:41 needs to be furzee. He'd begin to thwart in the druvian. At that's not we can't get. So what's frustrating for me on that is first of all the idea

Starting point is 00:53:53 occupying, which they're already doing, but interesting point of always seemingly using the Druze population as like this, we're saving them and they themselves will speak up and say, we want nothing to do with Israel. But just your thoughts on the larger point here on the narrative,

Starting point is 00:54:05 as always, that we're coming in to save the day and what's Israel doing with Syria? Give me your big picture view on this. Yeah. So, okay, so we mentioned false flags a few minutes ago, but what is a false flag? I'm not saying this is a false flag,

Starting point is 00:54:16 but what I'm saying is a false flag is just one type of invented pretext. So you find a pretext or you invent a pretext to supposedly create. create a justification for you to, you know, engage in some action. So, and I think that's kind of what we see here. Oh, look at what's going on with the Drews. We, Israel, we've got to get involved. And so whether it's a false flag, but because we've seen this type of pretext used before as well,

Starting point is 00:54:46 where you'll have some country who says, hey, we've got, we have ethnic brothers. In this case, I think he uses the term brothers of our brothers. But anyway, we have ethnic brothers that are being, you know, genocided or are being repressed by this other country. Now we've got to get involved. Right. So in any case, it's a pretext that is either identified or invented to justify, then, you know, some action. What do you think their objective is, whether Israel or the United States involved with Syria, you know, outside of the Russia dynamic, which seems to still be present. But now that Assad has gone diminished, but what do you think their objective is?

Starting point is 00:55:25 Well, I do think that your assessment about the greater Israel, that is something that I think we all have to have our eyes on. Because when you look at the modern borders of Israel compared to what greater Israel would look like, it is, first of all, it's eye opening. Now, you just mentioned Russia. So here's the other thing about Israel. So whether it's geographically, whether it is culturally, it's kind of this it's a hinge between the east and the west and one of the things that we have seen

Starting point is 00:56:01 is we have we've almost started to see some some tensions that look a lot like old Cold War tensions that have started to reemerge you know where that those antagonistic feelings between the east and the west are kind of starting to reemerge now we're talking about Israel right now in Syria but you did just mention Russia but we're three and a half years into what's going on in Ukraine.

Starting point is 00:56:27 But of course, a lot of the tension in Ukraine didn't start in 2022. Right. We don't have to go back that far before we start talking about what happened in 2014. The West was very involved and, you know, all the actions, you know, around Maidan, et cetera. And to some degree, I do believe that what is happening in Israel is related to the Greater Israel project. But I also, in my mind, I see that. itself as a component in potentially a larger strategy as well to increase the tensions between the east and the west right yeah i mean it just seemed that that war in conflict is a clear

Starting point is 00:57:04 outcome and all this or a goal i brought up the map for people to see it and you and we should remember too that the the patch that they're wearing this is not some old concept they have patches to this day they bring warren as they kill people in gaza that showed the greater israel map on their patch so that's right this is a very smotech smotech ben govere these are people they're very forward about it, and they're proudly telling people this is what they're doing. And it's weird how the West just pretends like this is not the most obvious thing in the world. And you can see all of them from Iraq to Syria to eat, you know, it's everything. I mean, and it's all coming to pass.

Starting point is 00:57:35 Well, yeah. So in the last recently, last couple of weeks, there have also been some increasing tensions between Azerbaijan and Russia. Okay. And so this is interesting because a lot of Americans probably do not think a lot about Azerbaijan. Right. But Azerbaijan is a key player. First of all, it's in kind of this Southern Caucasus region that's very strategically important because it lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. So you've got Azerbaijan, you have Armenia to the direct west. You've got Georgia. You know, Turkey's kind of right there as well in that region. And then, but Azerbaijan also, you know, shares a border with Iran. So very close ally with Turkey, Azerbaijan is. And obviously. Azerbaijan has had a series of wars that it has fought with Armenia. So they had a war in the 90s. They had another war in 2020.

Starting point is 00:58:31 And so, and the reason I share this is because I do think that this is also somewhere where we kind of have to keep our eyes on. Azerbaijan's not exactly in the Middle East, but it's in kind of that greater region there in the South Caucasus that is not that far away, but is also potentially being used as a point of leverage. to cause tensions to flare between the East and the West. Now, if I were correctly, Robert Nalkech has spoke about groups that, Arjabarjani groups that exist in Iran, right?

Starting point is 00:59:04 That are very prominent that he worries might be a point of manipulation from Israel's perspective to use some of his groups from within Iran. And we recently just saw whether it's Azerbaijan or not, but groups that were in Iran that were like cells, sleeper cells that came up and they conducted those attacks from within Iran. And so that's, that just adds to that point that maybe that could be something Israel uses as well to create a false flag. That is a, so I think that's a real point. That's kind of what I'm driving at too, because Azerbaijan has demonstrated a closeness to Israel. Right. And tensions with Iran. But they are interesting because so they're, they're very closely allied with Turkey. In fact,

Starting point is 00:59:42 they almost consider themselves to be, you know, one people, two nations, primarily a Muslim nation. And, but it's really weird. If you look at the map of Azerbaijan, up until recently, they used to have an enclave within their borders called Nagorno Karabakh, which was comprised of a bunch of Armenians that lived in this area within the Azerbaijani borders that Armenia claimed. And of course, they had had several wars over that. And in the most recent conflict between the two, Azerbaijan has basically taken over that entire area. But in addition to, you know, that enclave within their borders of Armenians, Nagorno-Karabakh, they also have this other, like, exclave, I guess, that is, that is another portion

Starting point is 01:00:32 of their territory that is not contiguously linked to the rest of the country, and it's on the far side of Armenia. So, Armenia is kind of in between the greater portion of Azerbaijan here, and then this tiny portion of Azerbaijan to Armenia's west. So a really fascinating country, even if you just look at it in terms of the map. And then it's right on the sea of, I mean, it's right on the coast of the Caspian Sea. There's a huge pipeline that runs through that South Caucasus region. Seems strategically important.

Starting point is 01:01:01 It is strategically important. But pipelines also, first of all, they're economically vital. But pipelines are also often targets of terrorist activities. And therefore, it could potentially be used even in a false flag scenario as well. Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think, I think all, you know, as we say, stay vigilant because clearly, I think I agree with you. I think that the logical outcome here is that Israel will do something to justify what it's, I mean, it's not a secret. They've been screaming about wanting this and having the U.S. be the group to carry it out for them for decades.

Starting point is 01:01:35 I mean, on the surface. So we should definitely be keeping an eye on that. Now, the overlapping point of this obviously is what's going on with Gaza. You know, that clearly this, I genuinely think that because of the way they conducted this, this is why the narrative is collapsing. It's been coming for a long time, but I think they shot themselves in both feet, as we said earlier,

Starting point is 01:01:52 by conducting this in the most belligerent, clumsy obviously ever. So show a couple of things for the audience to get this. This is just as of today. This is anti-war.com. Every day they're doing these reports now, and it's almost the same every day. Israeli tanks strikes Gaza's only Catholic church,

Starting point is 01:02:08 killing three, injuring a priest. And what's interesting is it's a priest that the Pope has been calling daily. and now they struck this church and and you know apparently it's causing this rightly so a huge international thing Israel spoke up and said oh it was an accident because people you know when it happens that it gets enough tension they they respond to it you know um BBC reporting at least 20 killed in another incident at the back at the GHF food lines every day that's happening and 93 killed in just last 24 hours so you know where your thoughts on on you know what's going on

Starting point is 01:02:42 with that, how it's possible that it can continue for a year, even though we see it. It's a crazy scenario. Yeah. So this whole situation with Gaza has been, and this goes back to what we're talking about was Zionism. And so what is incredible to me is the degree to which you have to perform some pretty complex mental gymnastics to defend Israel's actions. Yeah. But we have people that have felt a moral obligation to do so because they do they have to unconditionally support Israel in whatever Israel does. The second thing, and I can't remember who first said this, but somebody wrote a piece, and I don't remember who it was now,

Starting point is 01:03:25 but I agree with the assertion that Gaza represents a method. And so I do believe that on a global scale, we may all find ourselves Gazans at some point. I can't remember who originally wrote a piece in which they said that. But, and that to me was impactful when I first came across. You know, someone said that. I think I may have even read the piece. I just don't remember what it was.

Starting point is 01:03:49 Because when you look at the way in which Gossans have been treated and the way in which many people across the globe have turned a blind eye to it or have tried to contextualize it in some way in which you make it either less horrific or you even justify it. has been as sick as it is also just kind of in some ways like darkly insightful. And I say insightful because not insightful in a good way, but that's why I say darkly insightful, because insightful that you can make good people rationalize some pretty dark things.

Starting point is 01:04:27 If you find a way to do it, you know. I took that in the sense that it's, I mean, it's hard not to acknowledge what, who these people are. The insight, you know, to be able to have the, you know, insight on the reality of what, you know, just this, I mean, I rarely would use something like the word evil because it's just not an objective term, but I don't know what else to call something like this, you know, and how anybody can be, you know, tell them, I'm a, call themselves a Christian Zionist or any religion or have any belief in these things and then turn around and in any way.

Starting point is 01:04:58 I don't care if every single thing they've ever said about Palestine is true, rationalize killing this many children in any way, you know, I don't care if they are holding 75 guns each. It doesn't matter that, you know, it's a, it is counter to their belief structure. And so that's where I think is causing one of the biggest risks within that part of the community. Sure. Is they're just going like, you know, I could have gone along with you if you had been doing this. Here's an interesting point that I think Dave Smith made in the debate a while back is that had Israel, October 7th, 8th, went right to the UN, which, you know, like history that never really done, but just decided, you know what, we're going to play this differently, right to the UN and said, we were attacked. We want to go through the right channels.

Starting point is 01:05:36 they would have never needed support for the rest of their life. I mean, it would have, it's so, and then they could have gone on bombing and killing, right? But just going to them and acting like they're going through the process. Instead, they went right genocide, right out of the gate, started murdering children in daylight. And people expecting the same old thing and people looking the other way, but it just jarred people. You know, and so had they gone the right path, they clearly, they would have succeeded incredibly, you know. But at the point is it just jarred these people to the point to where they can't keep ignoring their, the moral, you know, absence. Yeah. So it kind of reminds me of what we were just talking about with the situation in Syria or with the Druze, et cetera.

Starting point is 01:06:12 So and then I mentioned Azerbaijan. So we may start to see two blocks kind of start to form, right? And I wonder if maybe what's going on in Syria is so have we, have we, are we now witnessing Israel break the ceasefire without breaking the ceasefire? So in other words, we're going to initiate hostilities, but we're not going to do it directly against Iran. But we are going to reinitiate hostilities, and those hostilities eventually are going to spread. Yeah, they did it in Lebanon. They do it. I mean, Craig Murray was highlighting that from day one, the supposed it ceasefire at Lebanon. They broke that every day going forward.

Starting point is 01:06:53 No one even talks about that. And they still never stopped it. But then the same with God, so they broke that every time. But so like you're saying, having the conflict kind of drive out from other points. So it's like they didn't break the ceasefire. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So they haven't launched new missiles at Iran. Now, they may. I mean, just for all the reasons you just said, like, in fact, I was going to say earlier in the discussion, if we see the ceasefire broken, I think there's a much greater likelihood that it would be broken by Israel. Yeah. But what could be happening is that Israel is basically breaking it now. They're just not, they're not technically breaking it because they're not launching Israel or missiles at Iran, but they're engaging in hostilities that they know that some of their, historic enemies are going to react to. And perceive that way. That's right. And they are eliciting that reaction.

Starting point is 01:07:40 Right. Without launching missiles directly at Iran. There's also the point you made about reports. That's why I briefly mentioned earlier that I can't verify, I don't think anyone has yet, that there's been events that have happened since that ceasefire. Bomings in certain areas that get to speak. I think even Ron has an interest in going well, either way, we're going to claim it's not them, right? But very well, I feel makes sense. Even the way it went down was one more of these sleeper cells. And so your point being, from Iran's perspective, Israel never stopped attacking them. So I get that makes sense.

Starting point is 01:08:09 But I don't think Iran has been very, I mean, they've shown restraint in more ways than I can imagine going from Syria, you know, any different mini dynamics where basically showing that they will not react the way that they want them to. They're not going to be belligerent. They'll wait. Like you mentioned with the kind of possible back channel conversation, they, you know, let them move things out of Qatar. They bomb cutter afterward, you know, I think that they won't is what I'm getting at.

Starting point is 01:08:31 I think that they've shown restraint enough. Now, one thing that I have heard, Colonel Douglas McGregor say in various, and he's given a lot of interviews the last couple of weeks. Now, I find myself listening to him a little bit more than I used to. I used to, because I think from a military perspective, he is very smart and he knows exactly what he's talking about, and he probably has a lot of connections.

Starting point is 01:08:55 I sometimes have felt that his overall geopolitical understanding has been a little bit lacking. And I would attribute that to, When you spend a long time in the military, you start to see things. And this kind of goes back to the way that I opened up the discussion is that a lot of times military service can actually negatively impact the way that you see the world. Because you get locked into this geopolitical construct in which the dominant actors on the stage are sovereign nations. And you don't tend to think of, well, who's pulling the strings behind these different nations? And even if two nations go to war, is somebody pulling the.

Starting point is 01:09:32 the strings of the leaders of both nations, you know, et cetera. Right. The military tend, because you are, you're an agent of your own government. I mean, for 19 plus years, I wore a uniform that said U.S. Army. Right. It had a U.S. flag on it. I mean, I'm an agent of the U.S. government. So you tend to think of, well, the U.S. does this and our allies do this and we have

Starting point is 01:09:54 adversaries out there that do this. But I think that's kind of a simplistic geopolitical construct. Definitely. So you kind of have to get away from that. So you have to, if you can use your military experience, or I would say the same thing if somebody worked in in other parts of the government for a long time, if you can use that to inform the way in which you see things, give you a framework to perhaps interpret them,

Starting point is 01:10:16 but get rid of the baggage that forces you or can suggest that you see things in a very limited way. So anyway, with McGregor, there are times in which I felt like, he still kind of he has his his geopolitical view here is still a little bit limited but more recently i've actually been more appreciative of some of the things that he said i feel like he's kind of come out of that a little bit i think partisanship plays a factor sure yeah but in any case i do think that one thing that he has been saying recently that i that i do think has been insightful is um israel depleted a lot of their assets of missiles okay so it's so it's a resource game and at the of the day, you know, it's a math problem. If I'm launching this number of missiles and you can launch

Starting point is 01:11:03 more back at me, then I may run out of missiles before you do. You know, if you have stockpiles, they're larger than mine. So what he was suggesting is there may be a couple. So let's just say, perhaps there will be a period of a couple of months that actually gives Israel time to replenish their stockpiles. I agree with that. Yeah, I saw the thought circulating as well. And I do, I think that's at least a major part of what happened. I also think that it just was kind of a wake-up moment. I don't think Israel expected both things. I don't think they expected as much they didn't,

Starting point is 01:11:38 the attack didn't succeed the way they wanted it to. And that's again, assuming that maybe that's the way it was supposed to go. We consider that as well. But I also don't think that if this was just a genuine back and forth, that they expected the kind of response they got or their ability to get through their defenses. I think Iran completely, I mean, if their reports are true,

Starting point is 01:11:56 the Mossad headquarters, like a couple of different places they claim they bombed that Israel disputes, but it seems as if the way they responded, it was both the depletion, but also just that unless we get more support, we're not going to win this. And I think that's what a lot of very educated military minds have been saying that unless Israel can't win this. And arguably even the U.S. wouldn't be able to with everyone else involved. Yeah. And so if let's just assume that is true for a moment.

Starting point is 01:12:20 And I'm not saying it's not, but let's just go with that for a moment. So here's what that means. So Israel's own government or Netanyahu, whatever you want to call it. But if that's true and we look at it that way, then they engaged in some sort of strategic brinkmanship that took their country to the very edge to the brink. And kind of basically they backed themselves into a corner so that the United States would have to get involved. But there are plenty of people who say that is exactly what happened. Yeah. Well, I mean, that's a very plausible outcome.

Starting point is 01:12:52 Yeah, but it does make sense, especially when you look at what they've been doing over the last. last 70 years, you know, clearly. And they probably be less than that, depending on when that started, but just trying to drive the United States against Iran in a thousand different ways. So it does make sense. Now, there's another way to look at this, too. Now, I understand there are debates going on right now. And I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other.

Starting point is 01:13:15 But there are people out there that dispute the existence of nuclear weapons, you know? Okay. It's an interesting thought. I've heard that. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Okay.

Starting point is 01:13:22 So let's just, let's just assume they're a thing. You know, they're real for a moment. So if Israel gets into a war with Iran or with any of its neighbors that are much, much, much larger, that Israel can't defeat in a conventional war, then their threshold in which they have to go nuclear could be lower, you know? And so that's just another, it's just another dynamic that is part of this scenario as well. Well, again, with the, you know, asterisk of the, asterisk of the possibility that those don't exist. The idea is the Samson option.

Starting point is 01:13:53 I'm sure you're familiar with, you know. And the idea being if you're not, Seymour Hersh wrote a book about it. The point being that Israel will, there's different disputes on overall, but launch nuclear weapons against everybody, including their allies, should they recognize they were about to fall.

Starting point is 01:14:06 You know, and that's just, and I've heard that supported, even just like a Wilkerson who, you know, has inside or a, I'm blanking on his name, somebody's been making the rounds, a former CIA,

Starting point is 01:14:18 saying the same thing, John Couricout, you know, saying, I've seen these people. I've watched the way their intelligence operates. I mean, there's some dark things they'll tell you. you, you know? And so it just makes sense with larger pictures. But yeah, question at all.

Starting point is 01:14:28 We definitely should. But all that being said, it makes sense to me that this is about them trying to drive this into reality. I think largely my gut tells me because they recognize that's where they're inching toward. The Zionism has lost its influence. People are questioning like never before. And I think they feel they need something serious and jarring to maybe shake us away from that. Sure. Yeah. That terrifies me. It is. I mean, the whole idea the Samson option is, is terrifying nuclear weapons, again, assuming they exist. And this is, I find that fascinating, but I haven't looked into it enough to, you know,

Starting point is 01:15:07 to make a determination one way or the other. But I understand why people, so I'm assuming this holds true for you too, but I am, I'm far enough down this road. I've been playing this game long enough because I've been researching this type of stuff for, I don't know, since like 2007. So I no longer dismiss things just because they sound far-fetched. Yeah, that's because they're called that intelligence.

Starting point is 01:15:32 Yeah, there are too many things that are pretty crazy that I have come to believe. So anyway, or that you could prove, I would say, too. Yeah, so like with the whole nuclear weapons thing, just because it's kind of fun, I mean, not that nukes are fun, but just the idea, right? Right. Because on the one hand, I could totally see how they're not real. And they've been used to create, I mean, the existence of nuclear weapons was a huge pillar in the entire geopolitical construct that existed during the Cold War. Yeah.

Starting point is 01:16:05 You know, mutually assured destruction and the fact that, you know, the United States and the Soviet Union are both, you know, nuclear powers, et cetera. So I could kind of see why that, that veneer would need to be there in order to kind of prop up that construct. You can see, I mean, you could see an easy, you know, based on what we're even seeing today, a world in which you have the Soviet Union, United States, who recognize that they're the two pillar powers of the moment and say, look, what if we just make an agreement, you know, like to create this construct that will allow us to essentially rule over everybody? I mean, that's not that far fetched, it's not. It's not. But it comes down to the technology, which I think is definitely worth everyone's time. You know, everyone watching the show, question everything, right?

Starting point is 01:16:46 There's some interesting points that are made. There's some very, very intelligent people over the years that have done rounds and talked. where they're arguing, like, look, we can prove this is not X, Y, and Z. You know, and for me, it's hard. The only thing is that there's, like, Pearl Harbor for, or rather, World War II in general in the dropping of the bombs, you know, that there's evidence that people point to, but then there's the arguments of the, like, here's a good point to make. There's so many directions to go in that, like, you can look at Hiroshima and that it's not,

Starting point is 01:17:13 it's, things are growing back and it's okay. My point is, well, okay, you could argue that means that it doesn't, it's not real, or you could argue that they, we just don't understand the, repercussions or maybe we've under overestimated it you know it's just there's so many nuanced points to it but what do you think about it yeah so there are two books um which i have not had a chance to dig into yet but uh one of them is uh which i have the book i've acquired the book i just haven't i just got i haven't read it yet but it's by michael palmer who i believe is a german md and i think it's called Hiroshima revisited it's it's i think it's Hiroshima revisited

Starting point is 01:17:48 but so from an md's eyes He looks at kind of what happened in Hiroshima. Okay. And then there's another one by a Japanese author. And again, I haven't read the book yet, but I'm aware of it, trying to get the book. I do want to read it. I think his name is Akio Nakatani, maybe. And that one is called Death Object.

Starting point is 01:18:09 And then there's a subtitle, which I don't recall off top of my head. But he also questions whether or not nukes were used in Japan. So I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am aware that there. There is an argument out there being made by intelligent people that maybe they don't or they don't or whatever. But there's also, so even if they do exist, you know, technology has advanced so far in the last however many decades, right? That there are also devastating weapons that are non-nuclear. There are types of kinetic weapons now that, you know, governments have that are very, very powerful and should be taken into consideration when we think of like a threshold that could be met, you know, in a conventional war where that war then passes

Starting point is 01:18:58 into a new phase and very devastating weapons are used, even if non-nuclear. Yeah. Well, I mean, going back to your point about, I forget which part, we're talking about Gaza and just in a general point about testing and manipulation that in Gaza, it's often used as a test bed for new weaponry, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They call it battle testing and they sell it. They're killing innocent people with it.

Starting point is 01:19:17 You know, the argument being there's been, again, the question of whether that's what it was or not, what they call them, low yield or tactical nukes that were tested in these areas. Yeah. For example, the explosion that happened in Lebanon, they may root. People argue that might have been something like that, that they said was fertilized, which I find impossible to believe. But there's a lot of different elements of that possibility. But to your point, just this, I mean, at one, at some point, a large enough bomb, you know,

Starting point is 01:19:42 it's about the fallout that we're debating because there's a large enough bombs that, you know, that kill a lot of people or even the point of like a chemical or biological weapon. Yeah. Which can kill a hell of a lot more people if it's done in a lot of. certain way you know so the the kinetic violence and damage is still there either way i think yeah i mean there are weapons like the um what they call the rod from god was like basically yeah yeah so i mean it's like a telephone pole made of tungsten that's crazy you know yeah i mean it's you know fired i'm only right about that anyway yeah so so it's its impact is um the force created by the impact

Starting point is 01:20:16 is right is just incredibly devastating but it's a but it's not nuclear and it's just an object right it's just a like propelled yeah yeah yeah yeah so anyway people can look into that but um yeah it's just colloquially called the the rod from god um but i was going to say so the so looking at weapons or or other technology so i do think this is important so the military industrial complex so this term has been around for over 60 years right and generally when people think of the military industrial complex, they think of these large corporations that create military hardware. I mean, someone's got to create tanks and bombs and aircraft carriers and fighter jets, you know, munitions, you know, who builds submarines, et cetera, right?

Starting point is 01:21:03 And I think that's all important. And if we end up in a very large war, military hardware will continue to be very important. However, we do need to update our understanding of what the military industrial complex is. Agreed. Because in 2025, you got to understand the importance of data and metadata. And so it's not just Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, but it's also Palantir that has, you know, gained so much notoriety recently. Anderil, there are other companies out there, you know, like Oracle or whatever. But, you know, there are some of these that are very powerful. And these are, make no mistake, these are a crucial part of the military industrial complex nowadays. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, I think. think that's where it's all going, quite frankly. And there's such an important point to make right now that, you know, I even make kind of a similar point in the point of like surveillance that a lot of people are stuck with like, you know, listening devices and cameras. We are so far beyond that. It's like almost irrelevant. You know, your phone is right there. It's like Wi-Fi

Starting point is 01:22:01 mapping your house. We're so far beyond this, that same kind of thing is that, you know, we're focusing on the kinetic side of it, but people are arguing that even today that we're sort of beyond that or even the idea of like you mentioned earlier, fifth generation warfare, as opposed to even like deploying soldiers. We're at this like higher our drones. You know, we're getting into a whole little level of this where we've like fundamentally changed

Starting point is 01:22:20 the way we perceive how these work. And the point being we can be played with those things. You know, like you're talking about, we could be looking at something else while the real things happening over here. Yeah. So,

Starting point is 01:22:30 um, you've probably heard, maybe you've even commented on, um, the, uh, the AI system that the Israelis use called lavender. Yeah.

Starting point is 01:22:39 Yeah. Okay. Or Hobsora. They use the, yeah. Okay. So, so you're,

Starting point is 01:22:42 so you're aware of that. Maybe even, your audience has heard you talk about it or they've heard others comment on it and there's a lot of information out there that people can just search and they'll find about that so so two things that i want to mention one of them is is this is a lot of conjecture on my part but i'm still going to mention it so the department of defense i don't know maybe five or six weeks ago they made an announcement that they were going to decrease the number of generals and admirals that we have the top. Now, just so people know, we have a large military, I said earlier, if you take into account

Starting point is 01:23:19 all the Guard and Reserve troops, it's over two million. So we have a large force. So we maintain billets, just on the active duty side, we maintain billets across all services for a total of about 600 generals and admirals. Sometimes we go above that number, but we maintain about 600 billets for generals or admirals, one to four star. What's a billet? Like a position. Okay. So like positions for about 600. Okay. Generals or admirals, one to four star. Okay.

Starting point is 01:23:49 Active duty. That's including an army, navy, all of them, you know, a total of about 600 guys, um, whether there are one star, two star, three star, four star. Okay. That's a lot. People have said, rightfully so, hey, our military during World War II was much larger and and we had less generals than admirals at the top. Maybe we're too top heavy.

Starting point is 01:24:11 Okay, great. Maybe we are. So a couple of weeks ago, whenever it was five or six weeks ago, DOD came out and said, we're going to relook this. We're going to decrease the number of generals and admirals we have at the top. Now, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that should happen. Maybe it should have happened a long time ago.

Starting point is 01:24:30 But there's a part of me that says, okay, maybe we should, is there another reason that they're doing this? And is it because we're going to get to a point where we need less human decision makers at the top? Yes. Now, that's conjecture on my part. But those are the types of questions that we at least need to entertain. I 100% agree with that. I mean, right now it's very obvious that that's the direction that the world is going in.

Starting point is 01:24:59 The U.S. and China seem to be driving everyone towards, right? Clearly, and a lot of other groups, too. But so the obvious point is that they're going to have less need for people in those positions. Israel's demonstrating that right now. They're showing that, you know, in the background in other conversations. But I agree with you. And I think that that's whether or not that's why that's happening. I absolutely agree that's where we're going.

Starting point is 01:25:20 And I think that right now, you know, it's also, I mean, one of the thought I would add to it is that it also might just be that there are people with certain mindsets in leadership that might be a problem with where things go. Yeah. That'd be my conjecture attitude. So I'm, I totally understand all of the quote unquote normal and maybe even positive. reasons as to why you might reduce the top heaviness of our force. I totally get it. And maybe that's all it is. But because I trust so little of what the government does to include the military,

Starting point is 01:25:51 I have to ask some of these hard questions of, okay, but is there, because it's easy for them to sell the idea. They can easily sell the idea. Or to your point, it could be both. It could be both. Right. But here's another dot. So also a couple of weeks ago, the Army,

Starting point is 01:26:09 put out that there were four guys from the tech world, but specifically AI, that they were going to bring into the military. And these four guys, no military experience, no prior military experience, they all come from, you know, important AI corporations. And these guys have been commissioned as lieutenant colonels in the Army reserves. Now, for those who aren't familiar with the military, let me explain why this is so weird, okay? So, DOD, so the terms DOD, the Department of Defense and the military,

Starting point is 01:26:45 they're, like, mostly synonymous. You can kind of use them interchangeably, but they're not exact synonyms. And DOD is technically larger than the military, okay? Because you have a lot of civilians that work for DOD. So even I sometimes use the terms interchangeably, but they're not exactly synonymous. And you can be a civilian who works for,

Starting point is 01:27:05 DoD. There are many civilians who do work for DOD. So do we have engineers that work in research and development? Yeah, sure. Do we have other scientists or other guys that come from a very technically nuanced background that are employed by DOD? They work full-time for DOD? Yes, of course. You know, people know about DARPA or anyway, okay.

Starting point is 01:27:28 My point is, if you want to bring, let's assume that you think, well, we have to be on cutting edge of AI because our adversaries are whatever. Let's assume we accept that argument, right? And then I can understand why you would say within the DOD apparatus, we need smart guys that are on the cutting edge of AI. Okay. But why do they have to have ranks? Why do they have to wear the uniform?

Starting point is 01:27:58 Right. So here is the one thing that I can think of. And I know I'm not the only person to say this. There may be other reasons. but the one thing that stands out at me is guys who are in the military are now in the structure of giving and receiving orders. And so they can now give orders. Now they're not active duty.

Starting point is 01:28:18 They're in the reserves. But in terms of being a lieutenant colonel, the way the military looks at that is if you're a lieutenant colonel, you're a lieutenant colonel, right? It doesn't matter whether you're in the reserves, whether you're in the guard, or whether you're active duty. And so, like, I was a lieutenant colonel. And I served for 19 years. And four years at West Point before that.

Starting point is 01:28:34 And it took me, so it took me 17 years to, to make lieutenant colonel. And these guys have made it with, with no military experience whatsoever. And so now they're at a, so if you're in the army and your lieutenant colonel, what does that mean? That means you outrank far, far more people than outrank you. Yeah. The only people who outrank you are generals, you know, one to four star or colonels. So anyway, so again, I think this is something that we got to keep an eye on. Like, what's going on here?

Starting point is 01:29:07 I 100% agree. It's funny that you, that was going to be the point that I wanted to finish. I'm glad you bring it up. And honestly, we already pretty much went over that general point. And I did a show on this. I simply called it Detachment 201, technology and uniform. Yeah. Right.

Starting point is 01:29:21 That's how I see this. Is that really, I mean, we've all been talking. I mean, you mentioned Palantir, you know, the idea of, you know, even if you don't like the word technocracy, just an idea of like the, technological the way they view themselves elites. Yeah. Technological elitists who think that they know better, you know, and there's a whole weird overlap with eugenics to all this.

Starting point is 01:29:38 The point is that, you know, as you're highlighting, you have Palantiers, CTO, meta, and open AI, right, becoming lieutenant colonels, it blew my mind. That was the point that I highlight it as well. Military uniform. I mean, this is the exact thing that I've been watching for is the transition away from the current structure into, you know, people like this being actual, whether politicians

Starting point is 01:29:59 or actual military enforcers. I mean, that's where we are now. Yeah. And so I'm very worried about where this is going and whether we're watching. Let's just end on this point. Do you think that this is bigger than just a transition and more so about some kind of a coup? Oh, that's an interesting question. Okay.

Starting point is 01:30:17 Let me ask what you mean, a coup by whom against whom? Well, it's, again, just one thought of it. The way I framed it in a recent show was the Zionist technocratic coup of the United States. So I see a multifaceted kind of a thing going on, Again, as we kind of discussed earlier, that a lot of these things are in line, but not all in the same line with everything, right? But I would argue if we're talking about it specifically in that point, it would be some kind of technocratist structure.

Starting point is 01:30:41 In this case, I could see a Palantir-Over-Lap that the Marc-And Dresens and Carps and and these kind of groups that are, you know, for a very long time, have a hell of a lot of influence on politics, who have for whatever reason decided they have enough momentum, enough control and influence to just essentially take over. And so what I'm seeing is the Elon Musk ep representation as well as Open AI, but then Palantir, J.D. Vans, like, through this administration. And I add Zionism because I think it's part and parcel with this. It's, you know, same with the globalist idea. But that general structure sort of taking this, like this is the administration where they're shifting into place.

Starting point is 01:31:17 That's how I would look at it. But, you know, in the Broadway, it's hard. Yeah, yeah, it's a good question. So here's what I would say. A couple thoughts. I don't entirely disagree. I think it's a good question. There are maybe some points of that I might quibble with.

Starting point is 01:31:28 So the reason I asked the question, a coup by whom against whom, and even with that, the important part of that is the against whom. So I kind of think that we have been undergoing like a coup arc for a long period of time. And I think that that coup arc is punctuated by certain discrete events that occur along that arc. we could look at, you know, obviously the COVID operation. We could look at 9-11. We could look at even things like the assassination of JFK. If you want to go back further, you could look at things like, you know, 1913 and the Fed, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

Starting point is 01:32:11 But there are these, so the coup arc has been around for a long time. But then there are these discrete events that, like, move us into a new phase of the arc. So in that regard, I don't know if I would necessarily characterize this. I mean, you might be right, but I'm just thinking where I might quibble a little bit. is I don't know if I would characterize this as a kind of a one and done type coup, but it could definitely be another one of these events along an already existing coup arc that takes us into a new phase. And that I would not disagree with because I do believe that we are moving into a phase

Starting point is 01:32:48 of technocracy. And you mentioned, hey, maybe people out there take issue with the word technocracy. And maybe they do, but I don't. That's the word that I use. Right. I mean, they're self-avowed technocrats. It's more about maybe people maybe don't understand what it means in the political sense, you know, or that we've been propagandized against it. Yeah.

Starting point is 01:33:03 I think it's obviously a very real thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, like I said, many of them self-describe. And I also think that there is this, that technocracy and transhumanism, there is an inextricable link between those two. I agree. And in fact, just by way of maybe kind of wrapping up this whole discussion, I'll give a, I'll give a book recommendation out there for people. And it's actually a work of fiction.

Starting point is 01:33:31 So people, I have long said people got to read. Like Americans, we don't read enough. Yes. And also, when you read, you can't just read articles. And I'm not saying articles are bad. I mean, I write a lot of substack posts and people write great op-eds. That's not my point.

Starting point is 01:33:50 But you have to read books because a book is different than even a very scholarly, well-defended article because the argumentation that you put into place in a 300-page book or whatever, right, compared to even a very dense information-rich, very well-put-together article, it's still very different. And as Americans, a lot of people are losing the intellectual stamina to read a book. And I, for a long time, was reading almost exclusively nonfiction. And I still read more nonfiction than fiction. But I've started to go back and read more fiction. I think there's a lot that you can read in fiction that will supplement what you're reading in nonfiction. Yeah, I agree with that.

Starting point is 01:34:32 So recently over the last two years or so, I've been reading a lot of the dystopian literature. Now, I had read 1984 previously, okay? But I, but, and that's like the granddaddy of the dystopian works, right? Okay. So if you haven't read 1984, read 1984. But that's not actually my book recommendation. I'm building up to it. If you haven't read Brave New World, read it.

Starting point is 01:34:55 that one too because you need to understand like the hard approach and the soft approach now there are different and and brave new world represents that kind of soft approach you know where you you grow to love your servitude right now now there are people who will tell you that you know george orwell whose real name was eric blare or out as huxley they will tell you hey these guys aren't so much warning you as much as they are they are globalist and they're telling you the insider plan right not my point regardless they are still very, very valuable. Right, right. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

Starting point is 01:35:27 You know, a great book. In fact, of those three, that one's probably my favorite. Oh, yeah. But there is another one that people are less familiar with. And it came out of Russia in the 1920s. It's a 100-year-old novel, and it's called We, We. I've heard of that. Okay.

Starting point is 01:35:42 So here's, there are a couple reasons why I would recommend that people read it, and particularly right now. So it predates 1980. Well, both Brave New World and 1984. So I think Brave New World was published in 1932, and 1984 was either in 48 or 49. I forget, yeah. But and then Fahrenheit 451 was in the early 50s, maybe 53. But we is from the early 20s.

Starting point is 01:36:10 I think it was published in 1924. So it was written in the, like in the Russian Revolution during that time period by a Russian author named Yevgeny Zamayatten. And the manuscript was smuggled out of the Soviet Union and was actually published first in the United States, I think in 1924. It's funny. I've only, I think I've only heard this once, but it's ringing true. I've heard this vague story. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'll explain why it's important.

Starting point is 01:36:36 So, so the, the, so first of all, it's written kind of in these early years of what would become the Soviet Union. And in fact, supposedly it was the first work that was actually censored by the Soviet Union. So obviously the manuscript is written in Russian. but it's first published in English. And I believe, if I remember this correctly, the first copies in Russian of the novel weren't from the original manuscript, but they were Russian translations

Starting point is 01:37:05 of the English translation of the original manuscript. It'd be interesting to compare those to Russia. Anyway, it would not actually be published in the Soviet Union until the 80s. So, you know, 60 years after it was written. But why is this so important? So first of all, George Orwell said that he was influenced heavily by this novel.

Starting point is 01:37:26 And the two plot lines are actually quite similar. But the novel, what it posits is a futuristic society. It's called one state. But it is ruled by basically math, like mathematical principles. Okay. So in that way, what you would say is it's a society. kind of as utilitarian as you could get, as rationalistic as you could get,

Starting point is 01:37:56 and mathematically optimized, you know? And so the protagonist in the novel, who has no name, he goes by D503. So all the characters in the novel, they don't have names, they just go by like a combination of letters and numbers. So interesting. And he's D503.

Starting point is 01:38:15 He is a mathematician, but more specifically, he is a spaceship engineer. Okay. Anyway, I'm not going to tell any more about the plot just because I do think people should read it. But this novel is 100 years old. And there are moments in the novel that are quite philosophical where you start talking about the importance of math and what it means to regiment a society along mathematical principles. But if you were to update that thought, modernize that thought by a century. And you look at where we're at now, well, we would call that governance by algorithm or governance. by AI. I mean, that is that is where we are headed, you know? What does the algorithm tell the state that it should do, et cetera? So anyway, very interesting. You know, these are some hundred year old ideas that I think should resonate with us now. So anyway, so I offer that out there for everybody listening. So you have Guinea Zamiyaten is the author. You can easily find it. The name of the novel again is we. Well, thanks for recommendation. I'm definitely going to check

Starting point is 01:39:16 that out. A couple ending thoughts. Derek wrote an article called Doge is efficiency, a gateway to I used Elon Musk's face over, I forget his first name, name was Taylor. He was responsible what's called Taylorism, which was a precursor to technocracy and the efficiency movement. And so it's interesting. If you look back to that point, it's the same idea. It's about he carried a pocket watch. And he would walk around like timing people and trying to shave off seconds.

Starting point is 01:39:39 And it's kind of an interesting overlap as well as the point just to give someone an article or rather a show to watch based on that last point. James Corbett did a show called Algocracy, government for the. new world order. Right, right. And it's just about governments by algorithm. That's right. I recently actually did a show too called a was called the impending future of AI government, but then the kind of additional point behind it was but who controls the AI. Sure, right? So it's just I'm with you, man. We're going in a very dangerous direction. And it seems that regardless of the flavor, all the power structures are going in that direction. Yeah. So that's kind of

Starting point is 01:40:14 the larger point again, and it seems like we're just being played off each other to get to a point to the power structures want. That's right. That's right. But it's just. It's such an insightful conversation, man. I always enjoy talking with you. I think that this, you know, gives people kind of a glimpse into the way you see the world. And, you know, you see things and have understood things and have been involved with things that a lot of people have. And so I really appreciate you giving us that insight, having this conversation. We should definitely do it again.

Starting point is 01:40:36 Anything else you want to leave anybody with before we wrap up today? Yeah, I just, the last thing I'll say, just as we talk about that is, you know, with this novel, we, it's what you can't argue against math. Yeah. You know, math is immutable. Right. And you can already see people are making. the same arguments now, but you can already see how the narrative writes itself. You can't, you can't argue against the AI. Right. You know, so it is a brave new world that we are,

Starting point is 01:41:01 we are moving into. I have heard that term algocracy that you mentioned that Corbett had used. So, yeah, we got to keep our eyes open. It's important that we're constantly refining our strategic assessments so that we can, because things are moving really fast. Yeah. And I don't think they're going to slow down. So anyway, thanks for inviting me. Glad to be here in studio with you once again. And thanks for all you do, brother. Thanks, man. And I'll leave us with a thought and feel for the comment since that we didn't get into this of Elon's America Party and kind of that direction and people are already going like AI algorithm. Like maybe that's where they go with that.

Starting point is 01:41:32 Because you could see a portion of the population that would base, just like we were saying before, because they're only focused on the current problems go like, yes, that seems like a solution to our dealing with right now. So that's, you know, as always, guys, question everything. We have to be in a position where we are critical of everything, including what we think we know. and you know, this is just why it's important. And I'm glad that, you know, you've been on this path for a long time, brother, and I'm honored to be your talking with you. So thanks again. Likewise. Thanks, man.

Starting point is 01:41:56 As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations. Now, this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved.

Starting point is 01:42:45 So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals. So that security and liberty may prosper together.

Starting point is 01:43:33 As we peer into society's future, we, you and I and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

The Last American Vagabond - Brad Miller Interview - Military Accountability, The Greater Israel War & The Technocracy Transition

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.