The Last American Vagabond - Charlie Robinson Interview - What The Hell Is Happening? (11/20/25)

Episode Date: November 20, 2025

Joining me today is Charlie Robinson, here once again to discuss the madness that is partisan politics, and the chaotic nature of the world today. Charlie will be periodically joining Ryan to discuss current events, political machinations, foreign policy blunders, and just good old fashioned two-party illusion naivety. Our conversations will be focused on whatever is most current in our minds as we do our best to decipher: “What The Hell Is Happening?”Source Links:Trump Reopens Epstein Investigation To Shut Down Epstein Vote & The FBI “Waived Security Screenings”x.com/justinamash/status/1991257176640274697Text - H.R.4405 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Epstein Files Transparency Act | Congress.gov | Library of CongressScreen Shot 2025-11-20 at 11.48.51 AM.png (1074×1344)(18) Thomas Massie on X: “For anyone hoping to use “ongoing investigations” as a reason to withhold Epstein files, please read the language of the bill. “narrowly tailored and temporary” Thank you for your attention to this matter. https://t.co/BgCszrQzP1” / X(18) Gareth Icke on X: “Ah, that old chestnut.” / X“National Security” Blocks Epstein Files Release(18) Rep. Anna Paulina Luna on X: “Some used the Epstein files to smear @POTUS instead of bringing justice to the victims, which tbh is super gross. I look forward to the continued investigations into this with @GOPoversight. They deserve justice. https://t.co/mdUWhrTbYC” / XNew Tab(19) GABDULLA Tha BUTCHA on X: “@FBIDirectorKash @FBI Update on this case? @grok https://t.co/BqiWKWaZsx” / X(19) Dan Bongino on X: “Public corruption will not be tolerated.” / XDonald Trump calls Democrats ‘traitors’ over calls for military to resist unlawful orders(19) Elon Musk on X: “I would like to thank President Trump for all he has done for America and the world https://t.co/KdK9VC2MLs” / XJan 6 Pipe Bomber, Conservatives Turn On Trump & #TwoPartyIllusion Has Never Been More Vulnerable(19) Thomas Massie on X: “Official story: 2 bombs were placed on J5 & sat for 16 hours. On J6, cops found bomb #2 within minutes of bomb #1 discovery, then quit looking. NEW VIDEO shows the bomber visited a third site on J5 and the same cops visited that third site 2 minutes before finding bomb #2 on J6.” / XNew TabIMA: The Growing Control Grid & The Prophets Of TechnocracyWhite House Working on Executive Order to Foil State AI Regulations — The InformationIsrael’s Anti-Muslim Hasbara and It’s Agenda To Eliminate Free Speech(20) Kerry Burgess on X: “The US has woken up to the fact that Israel is controlling US politics and its mainstream media. Judging by social media, there’s a terrible backlash coming. The best outcome Israel can hope for is that they’re going to be on their own. The worst is that the US turns against https://t.co/F1ST2Kmrd8” / XNew TabThe Technocratic Trump AdministrationThe Technocratic Trump Administration: The Zionist Infiltration Expands(20) Grok on X: “@DavidSmuts @MrUsiuFenix @RedPillMediaX To my knowledge, X has not disabled translations for Arabic or other languages in the same way. The Hebrew-specific measure addressed a documented surge in untranslated inflammatory content that translations inadvertently amplified globally, per platform reports on hate speech” / X(20) Daniel McAdams on X: “What a weird thing to say about your chief of staff: “She’s the most powerful woman in the world. She can take out a country—destroy, take out a country with one phone call.”“ / XNew Tab(18) Yousef Munayyer on X: “An Israeli strike killed at least 28 Palestinians in Gaza today” / X(17) Max Blumenthal on X: “The US military is now directly involved in the administration of the siege of Gaza These are photos from the US Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) at Kiryat Gat near the Gaza border European forces are also reportedly on site https://t.co/mPGOt7xjbb” / XCENTCOM Opens Civil-Military Coordination Center to Support Gaza Stabilization > U.S. Central Command > Press Release View(17) 🍞🎪 on X: “The U.S. has troops on the ground in Gaza helping Israel enforce the genocidal seige .. Donald Trump told us this was the plan but it sounded so crazy that nobody believed him Including me https://t.co/OJRKnIa7Wa” / XIsrael seeks 20-year military aid deal with U.S.New TabMan detained by ICE found dead, hanging with hands and feet tied—attorney - Newsweek(17) Scott Greenfield on X: “US citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship. US citizens do not have to prove their citizenship. US citizens have a constitutional right to be left alone.” / XHome - Activist PostBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen to another episode of what the hell is happening. myself and Charlie Robinson get together every so often just to kind of reflect on the madness that is the political conversation today. And there's, as always, no shortage of crazy things to talk about. And so we're going to get into some Epstein conversations, some Gaza talk, and a lot of other things that might come up because, you know, we're both so head down in our work throughout the month that it's always interesting to cross paths and see what, you know, other, the other person may have picked up that we weren't noticing and vice versa. So Charlie, always a pleasure to have you on the show, brother. How are you? I'm great. I mean, it's, I'm great considering it's so

weird out there right now. It feels like it's hard to know what to focus on. So I suppose you just kind of grab what interests you, what's important to you and deal with that because when I open up my, you know, my computer in the morning and take a look at everything that's going on out there, it feels crazier than it's ever felt. And I'm not surprised by this, but it feels a bit disorienting at times. But I suppose that's the cost of paying attention. The alternative is you put your head down and not worry about any of this stuff and have it, you know, come back to bite you at some point in the future. So I'd rather be aware of it and a bit stressed out than oblivious and caught off guard. But that's sort of the burden.

That's the burden of paying attention, I suppose. Yeah, you know, it's sort of like the ignorance is bliss point. You know, it's not really far off. But it's a certain kind of person that decides that I'd rather be uncomfortable and know what's going on. you know, if that has to be the two choices, you know, and I think more and more that's, I think people are starting to feel that way it seems. But on that note, I had something that I still am sort of grappling with, but I was discussing it on a wake up and different points. That exact kind of overlap, I mean, just in a broad sense, I completely agree. We've talked

about it more than once about the madness that is the cycle that's meant to kind of just get pulled in a thousand directions. The Trump administration, you know, I think Bannon talked about flooding the zone. That's clearly part of what's happening, just dumping lies that are kind of just meant to be ridiculous on their face lies so people go the lie and we all talk about it maybe taken away from something else as the point i always make is they'd rather be seen as incompetent than criminal right so it's clearly throw you a bone to make themselves look dumb to be covered up a crime you know however it looks but the thing that the fine points and all that that i that i was grappling with is you know calling out some of these things like i guess

the starting point would be that the mainstream alternative media has really just taken the place of the corporate media these people like in my opinion anyway i'm sure we differ on who they are and Alex Jones and others, they reach more people than the corporate media platforms these days. So we shouldn't even be blocking at the fact that in my mind, whoever you think those are, those are the new mainstream media, right? So when we talk about them on our shows and like, let's say, criticize the independent media larger characters that we see as lying or I see as lying, that feels very important these days because they're wildly influential, right?

And so I'm like, where do I draw that line, though? Is this flooding the zone? I meant to jump at all of these ridiculous things, Nick Schroeder is saying? Is it meant to pull me in to lose myself in the vitriol of Twitter, you know, or is it important to reach people that I have in my life that I know for whatever reason fall for things like that? So, you know, it's hard to draw that line. Like, my point is, I feel like I'm getting sucked in some days, the things that are wasting

my time. And I just don't know where to draw that line because I do feel some of that's important. Where do you find that line in regard to like the social commentary of the conversation first, the fact-based reporting, you know? I feel myself getting drawn in as well, but because I'm aware of it, it has less power over me. And if I were oblivious to that I, you know, that this was happening, that I was being manipulated or I was being drawn, you know, being forced to focus on the ridiculous component of this, I, or on where I see it the most actually is on my social media feed. When I look at X, I look at this and I go, I can tell I'm being manipulated. I can tell that they want me to feel a certain way about a certain group of people.

If I didn't know that going in when I'm looking at my phone, that I'm either may be manipulated or I am currently being manipulated, I think the information would impact me differently. But because I'm aware of it, because I can look at it and say, this is not true or this is designed to make me feel guilty about something or emotional about something. I'm being manipulated. I'm watching groups of 10 black guys beat up one white guy. And I see that over and over again. And I go, my phone wants me to feel a certain way about groups of black people. You know what I mean? I keep seeing this. It gets sent to me. And so I'm because I'm aware of it, hyper aware of it, I think it's less, it impacts me less. But for I think the people who are just going about their day to day business and they don't realize that the mainstream media has sort of left and the mainstream alternative media has taken its place, they're not aware of it

and they're not looking for that. And the characters are different. So they think that the messaging is different and they make these assumptions about it. I fear that people are genuinely trying to look for better quality information. Think that that is escaping the mainstream media, which of course it is, and then mistakenly falling into this trap of the mainstream alternative media, which looks like the alternative media, and it sounds like it, but it isn't. And if you don't know what you're looking for, you can kind of easily fall into that. So really, you've got the normies that are watching MSNBC and it's like, good luck to you. But then you've got that segment that wants to, it's starting to break away, that realizes that the mainstream is lying to them.

they're looking for authentic good alternative information and they think they've found it but they've walked into a trap and that to me is the new battlefield right because now we have we've been focusing on the corporate press and all the things that they've done wrong but now there's kind of a new player in this and and I think that we need to recalibrate our focus and and really make sure that people understand just because it's not on your TV doesn't necessarily necessarily make the information any better. You still have to be picking about who you're getting it from. You have to be careful about manipulation and propaganda and so forth. But I think that a lot of people are unfortunately, like the good news is they're trying to get better source information.

The bad news is there's a lot of traps out there. Yeah. I mean, I love the analogy. That's what I often frame it as. And I often point to like the timeframe just really resonates with people when we all feel like we kind of saw like the QN on and Russia Gate were kind of dual partisan, you know, like our opposites, but ultimately we're at least trying to achieve the same thing, which was convincing one part of the conversation that there were secret white hats on their side of the government, they were saving you from the bad guys, which is everywhere in the conversation today, right? And so the point was there was a time, you know, where those things I thought were at a moment or people were waking up to things to a degree more than I'd seen

at the time, and that kind of pulled people back in. Trump's election, for example, we all saw was, you know, people were like libertarians that became status because they were like, we did it. It's over. We won. Trump got elected. It was a weird moment, you know. My point, though, it's like a minefield where, you know, it's not over. Like you wake up from something and you look above the brim and all of a sudden you're like, oh my God, I made it. You step right into another mine. Boom. And then you're right back into it. You know, it's like that's, that's what keeps happening to people. We just got to recognize as you highlighted it, it never stops. There will always be an entity out there trying to get you to think one thing or another for one

reason or another, whether it's buying some different kind of soda or selling your life to a certain cause. You know, it's all out there. And that's why question everything, as we often talk about. It's just where you have to be, not ignore anything or blindly accept anything, question at all, consider all possibilities, man. It's just absolutely important. Questioning isn't disrespectful. I think a lot of people have been taught that, like, you know, that they need to be, they shouldn't be disrespectful of people. I think we have a problem with compliance in this country. We have a lot of people doing what they're told. That is actually kind of the problem.

A lot of times you're told to do things that you shouldn't be told to do. And so I think that people need to, you know, maybe grow a little bit of a backbone, stand up for themselves. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, let's get into the first topic today, which is clearly an important one for the conversation, been an important one for the independent media for a very long time. And it's obviously taken some, I don't even know what the right out, sharp, weird, you know, this whiplash type churns with Trump's administration, but the Epstein conversation and how there's no better conversation for that very point.

I mean, it is completely mired in partisan BS right now, and people are being like driven. I mean, it's like every other topic right now, but being driven against their own interests, people that have been screaming about the Epstein files. And, you know,

in many cases, Republicans who feel, and rightly so in many cases that, you know, child sexual predators are the most important topic. And yet now being told that they, for one reason or others shouldn't be looking at it or that it's not what you thought or,

you know, and so it's a very interesting time. And so this is something, I had covered it like I think a lot of us did. It was the 15th where the Trump reopening the investigation was going to be used to shut down the vote. Now, that's not exactly what happened, right? The vote happened. Trump ultimately signed off on it.

But now we're finding out that there's a couple of different overlapping things to this that are very important to get into about the language within the actual Epstein Transparency Act, the terms that they're using to sort of avoid questioning. But first, give me your thoughts on where this all is, you know, with the act and everything and, you know, where you see it going and your thoughts. It's so funny because the, you know, the Democrats would think that they've got that they've got Trump and this, you know, we're going to get him. He's, he's in the Epstein files and we're going to hang him out to drive. There's been no secret about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. We've known that there's videos. Despite him denying it, weirdly. Yeah. Right. Yeah, you know, deny it. And then, you know, then you see the videos. Yeah, yeah. Well, we did this and Mar-a-Lago and then I kicked him out and all that stuff. So like the idea that Trump is involved with this and the Democrats think that this. is going to be some, some big win. It's funny to me because, you know, it wasn't a right wing operation that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in. This was, this was bipartisan. It was across, you know, corporate lines as well.

But the idea that the Democrats are going to, like, present themselves as above reproach and that Trump is this bad guy and that they're going to, they're going to hold his feet to the fire on the Epstein stuff. It's like, give me a break. You guys are, first of all, you're in it. well. This isn't partisan. This isn't limited to that. If you think that he only targeted people on the red team, that's delusional. So I think that they, you know, I'm glad that the general public is talking about it, really. Like ultimately, my, my barometer on this stuff is that

I prefer that everybody knew exactly what was going on and that that they understood the ins and outs of this. But of course, that's unrealistic. I'm just glad, though, at the bare minimum, that the general public knows that a guy like Epstein exists, that there are entrapment operations such as this that are out there, that they ensnare politicians. And that for some people, this might be the first time that they've ever considered that something like this exists. You know, like that this is the thing and that this is how people are controlled. Maybe they're oblivious or they're young and they don't, they haven't been around. They don't know what they don't know. But now you get to see that a bunch of people were under this guy.

control and we're acting in funny ways probably because they had this unseen influence operating on them, the Epstein file. So I'm glad that people are talking about it. They're never going to make us happy. They're never going to get into the level that we'll say finally. But for whatever, at least it's at least it's front page news. At least it's on your TV talking about Jeffrey Epstein because the alternative is that nobody ever talks about him. And we pretend like this doesn't exist and that it's not then that you're crazy and delusional for even thinking this meanwhile you know the way i've always seen this was that epstein was like a a franchise owner you know like he had a franchise but he didn't own the whole i mean he wasn't the only one doing it

he was doing it in this region and with these people but it's happening on the west coast and it's happening in other countries and it's happening and you know so uh i at the bare minimum with all the epstein news that's out there If anything good comes of it. It's just that the general public realizes that there are people out there that manipulate our politicians into acting against their own self-interest. Yeah, and that is a huge win, like really a win that we need to stop and acknowledge, you know, for whether independent media or just an individual out there who's been calling

attention to this, you know, this is, it's one of those moments where we, like right now, again, things feel crazy. And it feels, if you don't, if you look at it in the wrong lens, it can feel like we're losing. And maybe that's the case. I tend to disagree. I think that there's so much positive change happening in the sense of just awareness, whether it feels positive or even has an outcome that is positive. It's positive in my mind that people are seeing the truth, that that's such a, you know, that's happening. And we are people

are making these power structures uncomfortable at the point to where these kind of things are happening. We just can't, you know, we have to stop and reflect on that. You know, it's like you said, if this wasn't any, like if it was up to them, it would be completely ignored. And so now they're having to acknowledge it and having to act these things out and just, dismiss certain things, and it's just a very important moment. You know, so it comes to the, well, first to your points, actually, the them win, I think it's interesting. Do you really think that some of them or the majority, do you think that they actually feel

that there's like a win moment here? Because I agree with you. I think that to a degree, whether they're all implicated or not, like as a party, I think they're aware that there's implications that are bad for their side. And so I don't see how they would then feel this might be a win unless there is truth, which is certainly possible to the fact that one side or the other individually maybe decided to alter something that made it look a certain way. I don't really believe that. I feel like there's more of an all-of-a-government approach to this, to the most part. But it's not impossible that,

let's say, a certain actor could have removed something or added something that's going to look bad or something, you know, with Trump's current situation, and maybe they weren't the ones to think of it first. Now they feel stupid for not trying. I mean, who knows, right? So do you think that this is really one side versus the other in some way. I just really think that if, and I've got my problems with Trump, don't get me wrong, but I think that if the red meat was in there, if it was, they had Trump dead to rights, that information would have been valuable years ago. They tried to get him to not be the president on, on multiple occasions. I would have thought, I would, and this is an assumption on my part. Now, if there were something really diabolical about him in those files, that that's

ammunition that would have been, there's no way they would have been sitting on it. The valid, valid point, but the point still is, though, if, if, and again, this is all hypothetical, if the argument is that there's stuff about more than just Trump, then that makes the case right there, then they wouldn't do it because either they know that that'll come out to or that eventually somebody will throw that back about them. So to me, that kind of explains it, even if, like, I'm of, I'm of the mind, I mean, just because of how we both are, I'm going to, I'm going to engage with what we can prove, right? And so at the moment, there's no proof that Trump broke the law in any way in regard to the sexual trafficking, you know,

and that's that kind of thing. So all we can acknowledge is that either he does know there's something like that, or he just knows that him being present in this in some way will be used against him. But that latter doesn't make sense because everybody already knows. He must know that everybody knows he was friends and all the stuff's come out. So maybe that's why he's now turning back to investigation, you know, but we'll get into now why that doesn't, you know, the actual act completely sets them up to allow this to be hidden. Before we get to that, though, just to me, it seems almost self-explanatory because what we can see at the moment that everybody is acting in a way that makes them appear as at least they can to others that they're not the one.

I'm the one trying to call it out, right? Yet none of them are really doing anything to make that happen, which speaks to the fact they're all guilty in some way. Or as an entire government, there's an agenda just to keep this going for some reason, you know? Right. There's a lot of the lady doth protest too much happening with the Epstein files and things. like that. So I think that the safe answer is they're all in it. You know, they're all involved in it somehow, some way, shape, or form, right? So, so maybe, maybe there's somebody who's not necessarily on the list and they want to blow the whistle on it and they get the, and they take a look

at it and they see all these names and they go, God, my buddy's on there. I can't do that. You know, and there's, or my donors on there or whatever, or my mentor who got me into this, you know, right. There's plenty of reasons why somebody who isn't on the list has to keep their mouth shut about the people who are, unfortunately. So we're in a really weird era here. I'm not going to, you know, when they say, well, we're going to release information, declassify it and put it out there. I don't know about you, but that's not going to set my mind to use. I don't, I don't trust the information that comes out from them. And you mentioned something interesting was the wording of it, right? Where that one word, the declassified was a specific term

that was put in there. I guess Massey put that in there. They're talking about declassified. Well, declassified is nice, but what about the good stuff? When are we going to get that? I want the classified stuff. Now, I get it. There's a reason why it's classified. But if the reason that it's classified is because it will take down the entire government, then take down the entire government. And the government doesn't deserve to be here. Right, which is the whole thing is that, you know, if this is, this is, you know, what we're saying, and I agree with the logic, what you're saying, if we are in a world where things were just inherently altruistic. It's not the way, you know, we very know, we know very well in history that our government

will classify things that, as you said, do hurt their personal agendas or will claim national security, which is the same kind of a thing in a different context. And so before we get it, well, let's go through the actual verbiage. And we can talk about it. Before that, though, I thought, I want you to see, you probably saw this, but just the, the excuse is already swirling. This one just kind of makes me laugh, which is what we knew was going to have. is that she says now,

well, Justin Amash says that they will never stop coming up with ways to prevent this, but Bondi says that I'll have to play this because the way she speaks, just embarrassing to me, we're not going to say anything else about, on that now because it's a pending investigation.

Okay, well, right back into square one, where if they pretend that this is an ongoing thing forever, that they never really have to engage, and you have the feeling as if we're being transparent, it was what they tried to do in the first place. Here's what she said, though. I just, the way that she, like, you tell me what you think about

the way that she's acting, Bondi in general, but all of them in my opinion. The issue with the new information that you just indicated are, is the department seeking information perhaps from the Epstein estate because Mr. Blanche did not have that information when he interviewed Delaine Maxwell? What new information? And would you limit the new investigation to just those named persons that the president talked about? Or is this a broad, open-ended investigation? We didn't comment that, by the way. Who he pointed to was very selective and i doubt hopin for example is actually going to be investigated but it's interesting that it was a fine fine we'll investigate go look at the democrats which is just kind of silly but here's a

response i would refer to um the deputy attorney general's post that he put out on x and we're we will we're not going to say anything else on that because now it is a pending investigation shocker in the southern district of new york but you know so for ongoing of course but you know first of all to her kind of like demeanor just feels like she feels like she's like some like a junior high girl they're speaking on behalf of the government but but the the to refer to the ex post like i just feel like i know there's a reason to for them to kind of like want to give some kind of gravitas because trump is using it as this kind of medium but at what point did we stop like cash patel and the rest just using twitter as the way they point

to things and using like fox news articles to basically make their announcements like there's just no there's no decorum in all of this just want to comment on that but really Trump has really taken everybody kind of down to his level, you know? There's there's a there's a decorum level that that everyone's they match his energy sort of. If there's like incompetent like as an example, like, and I don't mean this necessarily in a good way. But when the Reagan administration was in office when I was a kid and I looked around and they were all, they all seem like very serious people. You know, like they were doing serious things and they had serious. And when they gave presentations, it was all, you know, it was very boring as a kid, but it was all very

serious. And now I'm watching this and it feels cartoon like. Yeah. You know, Cash Patel's standing up there and he's talking about, you know, they're releasing the binders and they've got all these people for a big photo op and they're all holding the binders and the binders is information that everybody already had. And you go, this is like some sort of side show or freak show or something. This is like everybody. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Like it's a, it's a, like they're larping as if they're pretending to be in an administration like they're in some movie about it but it's not real i don't know it just feels i think you nailed it though like i think that's exactly what it is and i mean in a real life sense i think these people are so far outside of their depth that they

that they this is what they think this is supposed to look like like you know what i mean like if you watch them act this out it feels like they're doing what they might have seen a tv actor do in this position as opposed to actually knowing what is supposed to be going on and even about Hegset, for example, James Lee made a point about this that he argues it's possible these people are just PR window dressing. They're not even really the people who are making the real decisions in these, which makes perfect sense when you stand back and look at what all this shows. It's, we are being embarrassed. We are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to this. And that's not a secret. So why was that being the interest of the American people or the

government? It seems like an outside entity doing something to diminish our standing in the world. You know, that's how, you know, my opinion. I feel like there's a really real aspect of that. But if not, it's just shocking incompetence. And that makes sense with how we've seen the kind of the degradation of what's been going on, the standing of the country, people who actually might be good in these positions, you might actually have the know-how, look at what keeps happening and just like, I don't want anything to do with that. I don't want to be thrown to the bus.

I don't want to be made fun up by Trump. I don't want to do the right thing and be charged for, you know what I mean? That's what keeps happening, whether it's left or right. So it kind of makes sense if you think about it. Even Elon, and we have our thoughts on him. You know, he joined the administration where we're going to have Doge. we're going to clear this out, we're going to do all this stuff. And you got a couple weeks or a couple months in. And they're like, so how's it going? And he's like, I'm out. Yeah. You go, really? Because of all the

people, I mean, say what you will about Elon. Yeah, he has tons of government contracts. And he might be just a front man. But he gets things done, right? Things get done. I mean, companies get formed. Things get good. You know, actually products get made. Services get me. So he gets things done. He took one look at that after being on the inside. He's like, that, that is a problem that is an unfixable situation there. I wonder about that too. When I see some of the, the, the, the, the, the hexis and the, Cash Patels are the right. And I go, okay, Cash Patel is the head of the FBI. There's nothing about him when I look at him or watch him interact that screams, I'm the head of the FBI. It feels more like a guy who's, who's like got a script. And he's, he's doing a read through. And,

for the part of FBI director and there's some guy off stage going, yeah, that's okay, but can you do it a second time, but this time mean it? And don't crush your eyes when you, when you threaten everybody because you look silly. You know, it feels like a wag the dog kind of, like how much of this is artificial. And so then, you know, my follow-up question is, boy, are we just getting mad at the artificial show? You know, like, are we falling into this trap? I feel like the fact that we're mad about Hegzith and Cash Patel kind of feels like we are in that. And of course, we understand that there's a lot more going on than just these people. But it's our, it's just an interesting way to look at the current situation.

It always, politics always feels a bit phony, but never has it ever, has it felt more like the Truman show than whenever Trump is in office. It's just very cartoon-like. And look, if it was just that alone, it would be, you could, you could. You could explain this way in a lot of ways, like I just said. Like, you know, this, I mean, if we're being honest to ourselves, because of the way our government's conducted itself, this is sort of a dying empire right now. We all, if we're being honest, we can see that, you know, so that that would make sense. But when you stand back and look at all the other factors, the Zionist infiltration, what

Israel's doing and the way that our government responds, it's really difficult for an objective viewer to not see that even, at the very least, that both those things are feeding off each other. You know what I mean? Or you have an entity who is doing this for. its own benefit because look the money that keeps the genocide going the propaganda machine of the u.s government is what allows israel to continue to essentially conduct this and do what it's doing and expand its territory but we don't have to get into all that unless you want to i just we talked about that every show so far but i think the and we probably will touch on gaza but the

idea of that just i don't know how you decoupled that from the conversation i think it's very obvious that's a that's a factor yeah yeah but and we could touch on the infiltration part i have some things about that before we get to it though let's let's let's get look at the actual verbiage here because i think this is very important is that this is i mean you and i've been doing this long enough this is this is every single time there's never a case where you go through these and there's not some vague term or use of national security which if needed could be the really the thing that makes it all meaningless and that's how these things all you go for me and so the the first obvious these are what most people have been pointing out in general it says not later than

30 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the attorney general shall subject to subsection B make publicly available in the searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, classified. Okay. So right at the gate, that means that if they choose, they could make things classified or the important stuff probably already is to some degree because it's connected to intelligence. So everybody right out of the gate was like, okay, this is going to be meaningless, right? That's what it felt like to me. Jump in if you have a comment about the individual parts. That's how I felt. That's exactly how I felt. The one word makes all the difference to like when you're doing when you're whether it's a legal contract or some

high quality propaganda the best time to if you can make it just one word that you switch and throws the entire meaning of the document or the the narrative off that's it unclassified boom yeah yeah and for those that don't want to all you know it's not that we always it's that it's always that they're lying or always dishonest but historically the government has shown that they are willing to do this when it suits their interest. And even the smallest reasons, this administration seems to do it just for fun. I mean, not even joking about. They just lie about things that don't even need to be lied about.

But so the point is that it's clear that the history is here for something just like that or that they use these terms like we've talked about before because they argue, you know, there may be some kind of an outside influence or even they buy their own BS about the left right paradigm and think they have to do this to fight some other power structures. I mean, I do think that there's internal power divides, you know, like Whitney's cover before, that whether they're working together to control our lives at the end of the day, that they are still vying for their own power. Anyway, the point is that these things were there for many different reasons.

It goes on to say permitted withholdings. So, you know, obviously this was going to be a part of it, but there's a pretty good list here for things that they're outlining how even aside from the classified. So classified, not even on the table. Within the unclassified, here's what they can remove. And it says the attorney general may withhold or redact the several portions of records that a contain personally identifiable information about victims and personal. Same thing. Now, here's the problem for me. And then you could address this is that the victims, by and large, are the ones that are standing with Massey out there going, release everything. So they're using, in many cases, people's names or without even pointing to people individually and saying we can't let personal information out when many of them are saying, we don't care if we're being shown. We're already talking about it. Put out the information. Now, if there are people that maybe aren't identifying themselves, which I'm sure exists, then hold those back. But let out everything else that pertain to the 20 people standing next to Massey.

You see my point? And they're not doing that. So this is, I argue, going to be used to, if each one of these could be used to release nothing. But I think that one will be the one of the easiest if they can use it. What do you think? They're going to play games. They're most, I mean, look, the state, the state has a lot to lose here.

Their credibility is in question. Jeffrey Epstein was deeply embedded with all of these people. They're, they're, this isn't one of those cases where it's like one guy went rogue. and did something awful and we can sell him out because he probably wasn't going to get reelected anyway and it's fine. This is systemic. This is how it worked. This is how it's worked probably before half these people were even in office. It's been like this for a long, long time. The idea that you're going to fully expose this sexual blackmail entrapment operation, I think is, I think people need to set a reasonable expectation for what they're going to receive from the state with regard to

this because you know, you have to not get your hopes up in terms of getting all the goods because, you know, if it were to come out that somebody was deeply embedded with Epstein and some foreign nation has the goods on that guy, you know, it just creates these real opportunities for, you know, for other states, other actors to get involved in control, our politics or all our politicians. And it's been, you know, I think it's, I don't know, I, I don't think that we're going to get what we want. I think that maybe for the general public out there, this will, this will set some of their minds at ease and allow them to, you know, move on to the next topic. But, but this isn't, if people are thinking this is going to be

an unmasking where everything's going to be laid bare and we're going to get right to the bottom of it. I just don't think that that benefits the state. And because it doesn't benefit the state, they won't allow it to happen because they make the rules. And if they want to write in the rules that there's a, you know, there's a wiggle room for if they need to, to classify something, then what's the, what's the criteria for that? Classify what? Something that makes you look bad? What about it? Is it, what if it makes your opponent look good? Do you classify that, you know, and so that that doesn't get out, like, I feel like this information is, uh, is going to be weaponized in really devious ways. It's how, I mean, and this is the thing.

It's not an unfair statement. You know, some people will say, oh, well, you'll never be happy no matter what they do. You're probably not wrong, to be honest. Right. The other day, these people lie, you know, we never real true, anybody who's been doing this long enough knows that we can never truly be sure that they didn't withhold or lie or alter something, especially in the digital world in which we exist, you know, but it's, it's about the, I mean, the, you know, I mean, importance, the, like, if they were to release a body of work, I'm sure both of us would be like, well, is that everything? We really don't know. But there would be things to discuss. And if we can look at that and objectively say, well, look, that's a major shift in the right direction. Here are

some politicians that are going to jail, like we all know should happen if this is really coming out, even in part. But it's going to be something like usual where you get the release of information. It's largely redundant. It names somebody who might be dead or something like that. And then the mainstream alternative media spends a week acting like everything in the world changed. You know, And we come out going, well, that didn't do anything. And they go, oh, you're not happy on anything. You know, that's how that tends to get played. All we really want is some kind of actual move here.

We want something actually to change. Because everything around this has been clear, right? Both sides now are very aware, largely because of the partisan side. There's an interest in doing it, but that there is real stuff here. There's no putting this back to bed, which was the point made earlier. This is a huge win because of that. So this is, you know, flailing right now because everyone's paying attention. I'm of the mind that there's going to be something, as we've talked about,

that will try to get us to look away and ignore this and, you know, there's a lot of things that could do that. But continuing is child sexual materials, you know, and so again, how do we even know, like this is what Bondi tried to use in the beginning. She already used this. She already said, well, there's a bunch of child porn. We can't release that. And then was forced to ultimately release more information, even though she said she couldn't

because it was all compromised. So, you know, they will say something like this in order to hide something that they won't ultimately release in the first place. It says, would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution? we already heard her say that now it's an ongoing thing so if it never really finishes which we've seen things happen before they can argue forever that it's ongoing or at least drag their feet for a long period of time depict or contain images of death physical abuse or injury you know it's like at this point it's like really you're going to pull back in you know a picture image of somebody being hurt

I mean we're what you know it's just that seems like a really ridiculous claim in all of this with what we're seeing in the world contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. I mean, they really just went all out. It's every possible excuse they could throw in here. All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification. Great. So they're going to lie to you on paper too. That makes me feel better. And it says if the attorney general makes a determination that covered information may not be declassifiable and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources

related to national security, the attorney general shall release an unclassified summary for each of the redacted effort so again the people that have been lying to you this entire time we promise we'll write it out a summary for you that will accurately contain what we desperately don't want you to see so that that's the verbage right now and it's pretty clear that that does not seem like it's going to go in our favor what what define national security you know like what like what this is a you know this is a threat to national security okay how so what's the criteria for it seems like you could just throw that and say anything what why is it a threat to national is there somebody high ranking within our nation who's compromised and therefore if we

talk about how this person is in the list that some foreign nation has the goods on him and he's going to they're going to make him dance like why why do we have to keep secret about this stuff um so i i came on that really quickly charlie that is such a good point that i always forget to bring up that i don't want to skip over like the point is to really accentuate the why would this be in any way in national security risk it's it's he's dead we're told right all the people there are being told that we wanted to be released fine at the same point if you want to hold back about the people that maybe aren't that's a different anomaly but so they're all willing to do this he's not around you're telling us he's not tied into anything else so what is holding it back the only

implication for national security is like you said that it must actually connect to some kind of state apparatus that would hurt that that's exactly what we're all calling for we want the truth you know so that's an important point that few people want to talk about because it kind of explains it you know if the government is so flimsy that exposing Jeffrey Epstein can bring down the government, then that is a government that needs to be brought down. That is a government not worth saving. That if it's all held together by duct tape, chewing gum, and Jeffrey Epstein files, we've got a bigger problem here. We've got a system that's unworkable. Here's Mike Johnson. Talk about it. Number five, national security concerns,

okay the discharge requires the attorney general to release within 30 days quote classified information to the maximum extent possible this ignores the principle that declassification should always rest and always has rested with the agency that originated the intelligence why so that they can protect their critical sources and methods it is incredibly dangerous to demand that officials or employees of the DOJ de-classify materials that originated in other agencies and intelligence agencies. As the person who posted that said,

oh, that old chestnut, right? So the CIA has to protect its process. It's illegal drug-ship, drug, you know, sexual, you know, whatever, the many ways they conduct illegal trafficking operations. But, you know, this is frustrating for obvious reasons because he's basically just, he's adding like a whole other layer to not just national security, but now the, But if the CIA has to be the one to decide whether or not, it's like, there's just,

there's like six different layers of bullshit around this. It's frustrating. This is dangerous to that, to, to the agencies. Why? First of all, who cares? Why is it dangerous to the agencies? Right. Why, why is the, why is explaining the role of Jeffrey Epstein dangerous to the intelligence

agencies because he's an intelligence asset, of course. I think we understand that. Mike Johnson isn't setting anybody's mind at ease with any of this stuff. Get the feeling he's on some files or in some folders of people as well. He was he was kissing that wall with the best of them. You know what I mean? He is he's not somebody that I would I would trust at all. This is a this is they're going to try it.

You know, like they're trying to paint this as like red team versus blue team. I think that's a poor strategy. But of course, I'm not going to interrupt somebody when they're in the process of destroying themselves. So let's allow them to play this out and let them make all these claims. See, I also hope that it doesn't just end with the government officials that were tied to Epstein. Because if it's just that, if they say, fine, we'll tell you about the government people who are involved with it. I think his connection to the big business CEOs was even more alarming. Or, well, maybe not more alarming, but as equally alarming, there's a component to that that we need to know he's, he's, he's just Staley's involved. And we've got Larry Summers. And these are guys that aren't government. I mean, well, Larry was for a little while. But, you know, there aren't typical government guys. So like if it, if it only stays in the world of government manipulation and what he was doing with them, then it leaves out academia. It leaves out big business. It leaves out the eugenics component of it. There's a lot more to.

trafficking of all kinds, not just the human kind, but the arms trafficking and everything that he was involved in information stealing Southern Air Transport, everything that he was involved in, if it only stays on the child trafficking component, which is a really important part, don't get me wrong, but if it just remains there, it excludes this entire, I mean, mountain of information and unusual stories and industries that he was in. I'm all I'll I'll say it. The other stuff is way more interesting than what he was doing with the child trafficking component of it. I mean, it gets the headlines of course, but Zorro Ranch, we haven't even scratched the surface of what's going on there. And his relationship with academia and Martin Nowak and

evolutionary game theory and evolutionary dynamics and things like population structures. you know, like it's bad that he's he's doing what he's doing with the kids and the entrapment and everything along with that. But it's like you want to say, hey, if you think that's bad, wait until you get to part two and part three and part four when we, when we explore all of the other components that he's into, otherwise known as One Nation under Blackmail volume one and two. But still, you know, there's there's a lot. I hope people, like I said earlier, I'm glad people are talking about Epstein because it needs to be talked about. I hope they don't stop at just the stuff that's in the headlines, because if you really want to understand Epstein, there's so much more to him.

And then, and I think, I think ultimately, if you really want to understand the governmental side, I think you probably need to understand everything else he was working on as well to fully get that picture. Because once you know about the other stuff, you realize that the government agents, the politicians that he was compromising currently. or semi-currently. That was just the current iteration of what Epstein's been doing. But this had been going on for decades. And there were other people had been doing it. And it wasn't just this batch of politicians of guys in the 80s and Craig Spence. And the whole male prostitute scandal and the Franklin scandal that was going on in there.

I mean, this has been going on for a long, long time. I'm glad they're talking about it. I'm glad Epstein is in the news. But for those that want to understand. how the system really works, I think explore Jeffrey's other avenues as well because it paints a different picture too. Yeah, right. I mean, again, Whitney's books is the best place to go with this just to start. There's plenty more even on top of that, which I'm hoping she'll at some point want to do more follow up, you know, but that ultimately, you know, whether you're talking about

the eugenic scientific side, the obvious sexual blackmail outside of it, the weapons trafficking, intelligence overlaps, like there's so much to it. The point is that I argue, that the, as I think we probably agree, that the sexual blackmail, that's just a means to an end. It's obviously a monument you're making is that that was a, that was a coercive tool, at least I think, what I think you're making is a coercive tool in order to achieve their larger agendas, right, which was really massive. I mean, and this is what I was thinking about when you started is that you're not, like I would argue that it's almost more important, the non-governmental ones because, well, or you could, you could call it non-governmental. The point is that they're all

one of the same essentially is that the technocratic sort of change in the world we're seeing the real power structure that the people in congress aren't necessarily even the ones with the most power you know and so if you state if you just focus on that you're missing the forest for the trees i argue which i kind of think is what you were getting at that's powerful you know so all of this is like i was thinking at the last part there possibly maybe that's the game because they know they've lost control of the story so maybe if they can just couch it with that one thing they can they can kind of stave off the larger point to protect their shift in the world. You know, it's one way to look at it. No sense in diffusing a bomb that's already

gone off, right? But you try to contain it to contain the investigation to just the bomb site. If you do that, then you're not looking at everything else that went into it. And Epstein is an onion, of course. And you peel him back and you start to find that it's that it's not just him. And you go back, this is intergenerational. You find that the Robert Maxwell. It's a fascinating story. I think that when you want to understand how governments get compromised and controlled, Jeffrey Epstein is a fantastic place for people to start because you can see, as you mentioned, the control of the politicians is one part. Why are you controlling and controlling them from what? Maybe you're controlling them to do something. Maybe you're controlling them so that they won't do

something. They won't look into it, right? But once you've got them under your thumb, then you can do the other things that you need to do. And I think that, you know, obviously Epstein had had help. He wasn't a lone wolf in this operation. But understanding all of the aspects of his operation to the extent that you can because it's pretty complex, I think it helps, I think it helps you to understand how, first of all, how these people got into these situations.

You know, you think you just, oh, I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and do good, and I'm not going to fall into these traps. I'm not going to go to the after hour parties. They still get you. You know, they get you, or you're gone, right? You're Madison Cawthorne. You show up there in your wheelchair. You go to the parties.

You start talking about the parties, and we never see you again. Right. Right. Well, you know, but the point is, too, that these days especially, it's, we're getting into a time where they may not even need, you know, deep fakes and whatever else. Like, you know, find yourself in a compromising position because of, you know, like some kind of a fraud or something, you know, like that's a very real part of it today. And then, but not, I'm not talking about things that we see, but things that are used in the

background. You know, this will come out if you don't do X, Y, and Z. You know, we know, we know, we know, we know, so it's just to understand how much of this is going on, how much we don't even see. But I very much think that this is, you know, like you said, the technocratic transition, which I see is sort of a Zionist globalist kind of, you know, blob is, is, I think, the larger point. I think that is the agenda that a lot of this was a means to an end, you know, it was a means to an end. This is what they were aiming toward. Now, hopefully everybody out there can come to their own conclusions about what you think the ultimate agenda was, but at least consider that because I think that it's pretty clear

to see how all these strings actually connect. Let's talk about the technocratic overlap to all of this. So we've discussed the Epstein discussion, and clearly one thing we were highlighting is sort of the way in which that is a means to an end, a tool that's used to achieve different, you know, manipulative outcomes. But in this case, I argue that the largest, you know, one of the largest agendas was about kind of controlling policy to end up in this position. So we recently had a really great IMA panel, the growing control grid and the profits of technocracy. I wish you were there actually because we talked about something in regard to the kind of

God, like the idea that you have these people that believe they can become gods through transhumanism, through technocracy, whether it's putting your brain in the cloud or in a different way sort of like becoming a machine. You know, there's like different ways you could see that. but that's a really alarming overlap to that and just where that's going. And I think that to get into the Israel kind of technocratic overlap that we see coming off of all that, like where's your mind and all that right now with where that's going and any intersection between the two, you know, because I definitely think there, because you touched

on the tech, the eugenics part of the Epstein overlap. So what are your thoughts and all that? Well, the technocracy side, I think is the most alarming for us from a practical standpoint, right? We were interested in the Epstein because it's, we should be. How is it going to impact our lives? Maybe, maybe not. You know, I mean, it, you know, it depends on who you are. The technocracy is going to impact everybody. And when you've got these people in Silicon Valley who are talking about the way they envision themselves and you talk about the God complexes and things like that, it's always dangerous when those people are in charge. But also, their, their idea, they don't have, you know, the way they see. the world, I think, is incompatible with most people. When you're talking about the future of humanity and all the people that are involved in, well, maybe not all of them, because I've got to

take Elon out, but a lot of the main players in this are homosexual men with no children. I have, I worry, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I worry about if that's the right people to be in charge of planning the future, who have no kids in, you know, no blood stake in the outcome in the future. I worry about those people being in positions of decision making because I fear that they maybe don't value things that we value. There's a lot of people that are talking about, well, their views are incompatible with mine. The way they see the future, the way they relate to the state, what they think the role the state should be, deciding how people behave the technocrats when you hear larry ellison talk he says this is going to be

great everybody's going to be on their best behavior and i go whoa that's a problem yeah because uh you guys have a god complex you're watching everything that we do and you're telling us that we all have to be on our best behavior or else you're going to turn the switch off frankly no wonder they have god complexes you know this is the sort of thing that can make the decisions on life and death the technocracy is sold to us as convenience and innovation and improvements. And we're having this conversation due to technology. So there's part of us that goes, well, it can't be that bad, right? Because we benefit from this.

But when the wrong people are in charge of it and there's no off ramp and you don't get a choice to live an analog life any longer. And I just had this conversation with Hakeem Anwar where we talked about the real fears that we have about people not just walking into the technocracy, enthusiastically sprinting into it and dragging everybody they know with them, right? That this could be a situation that if we're not careful, we can't come back from this. So I think that we, it right now, before the doors of the digital prison have been slammed behind us, we need to have this conversation.

We need to talk about where things are going because it's, you know, when you're in there and they've shut the doors, you'd give anything to get in your DeLorean, go back in time and fix the things that you know needed to be fixed that didn't get fixed. And we're here now with the opportunity to do that. And we're going to wish it's sometime in the future that we can come back to this moment and do those things. So with that recognition and an understanding of how dangerous this future could be if these people are allowed to be in charge of it, this is the time to pay attention. This is the time to be to not not and not just as an observer, but to be in it, you know, to be actively saying, I'm not going to participate to the extent that I can.

I'm going to remove myself from this system because we see where it's going. And for a lot of people don't, a lot of people have their heads down, maybe even in their device as they will walk across the street right into a car, right? But we're watching it. And so because we're paying attention to it, I think we have a duty and obligation to tell everybody. that will listen. Hey, this is where things are headed. This is what could be the future and it could be a trap for us. So let's be careful about how much of our of our sovereignty and freedom we give away in exchange for technological convenience because at some point that will be used against us. And if you don't think it will, you can read Brave New

World and it will be explained to you. Yep, exactly. And a point to make like what you said in regard to people like I make the same point about me independent media right now in regard to people who I think the largest percentage of the propaganda are people that don't even know that they're doing it you know and so there's a point you made about people who may genuinely think even billionaires and this is not in any way meant to be a pass or some kind of a disregard you know but that they may actually think that what they're doing might benefit the most people but it comes down to like I argue I think most of them you can clearly see that it's more of a megalomaniac kind of personal enrichment, profiteering kind of thing, but there may be an individual out there

who thinks that controlling every single thing you think can do and say all day is in the best interest of your life. That doesn't mean it is. It doesn't mean that it's what you want or what you choose for your life. And it sure as hell is not freedom and liberty. You know, so it's getting into this weird overlap where, I mean, weirdly enough, the people who are right now champions of the right are the ones who are like screaming towards some kind of collectivist, socialist kind of mindset. I did an interview with Catherine about that. She thinks that Trump is the most anti-capitalist president we've ever had. You know, and the idea that what they're rolling out,

and she made very valid points to back it up in regard to the things they're doing that are very much in that kind of collectivist, socialist, communist, kind of direction, but are simply being framed differently because he's the one doing it, which we've talked about so many times. That's how they play the left-right paradigm, you know? But it's such an important thing to think about is that these people are still driving us there and may genuinely think that this is the best thing for what they think. You know, it's like saying that killing a million people is the best to save all the others,

you know, even if it's the truth, one, that's not something else anybody else should get to decide. And it's something that I find to be like kind of amoral. Like, that's just not a choice we should be involved in. And that's the kind of calculus these people think they're doing. And that's, my point was the God complex. You know, think about that, like, that they believe that they're in a position with the power and influences to be able to dictate the future of the world, even with good intentions. That's an alarming, alarming thing, you know, but I doubt they're actually good intentions. The digital trolley dilemma, right? Yeah, exactly.

that they can, they, they, they, they fear, feel that they're entitled or they're in a position to make that decision, that calculation on who, you know, do we send the train down that track and kill one person or the other track and, you know, kill much. So this is, and, and I think, to be fair, I think the majority of people who work in the tech industry are just trying to do a good job with what they're doing. They're trying to build devices that they think will work. I will leave the military industrial complex out of this. Of course, I don't believe that. them if you're working at Google and you're and you're working on a on an app and that makes the email faster and everything like in your mind yeah you're doing good work right you're trying to make things improve you don't you're not in the meetings at the top where the people are saying yes but we're doing this and so it's like a pyramidal structure with the controllers at the top bunch of people down below them who you know either don't know the plan or you know only no part of it and aren't necessarily evil, but they're just making the widgets that, you know, and doing their job. But up at the highest levels where they're coordinating, I think that people

need to be paying attention to it. We've seen it lately get out, get a lot of talk in the economics world from all of the, what they're just calling the AI circle jerk buying, right? where NVIDIA is buying services from Open AI and Open AI is buying it from Microsoft and Microsoft is buying it. And it's just this circular economy where the trillions of dollars are flowing through and they're going around in circles. But one big thing. Yeah. Is it generating anything? Is it money washing?

Is it some sort of weird circular economy? Are we just trying to goose the stock market to keep it up and keep the impression that the economy is going fine? I mean, because if you want to. Here's the problem. When you centralize all of those five or six AI companies into one group and run several trillions of dollars through that, if you decide that, let's say the time is right for an economic collapse because you're ready to make the changes, you only have to pull the pin in one place, AI, and it all goes down, right? And all you have to do is say, these guys are all working in this weird circular economy. me it's all fraud and put a pin in that pop that balloon and all of a sudden everybody's back to the drawing board we're reimagining a brand new economy so terrifying yeah no i think i've had

this thought more than once about first thing it stood out was when open ai was used in stargate instead of x-a-i and i thought that doesn't make much sense right like he's literally the the first buddy whatever they called him you know it's like he's in every conversation he's in every meeting and it's like that doesn't even they didn't even address that like why wouldn't he have gone and so i'm like okay i think there's more to this and this just my my feeling my sense to it and i you know historically i think we pretty we didn't be pretty good about the senses about the future what we've talked about which i think it's more likely this is all one big thing that's being put together and if you keep it fragmented balkanize you know whatever

ideology or whatever way they've done this in historical context you know keep it separate or big oil but there's standard oil breaking up and is more powerful. You know, there's ways you can think about how if you keep it fragmented and looking as if you're fighting and working, it's not one big corner in the market monopoly AI machine, which nobody will be comfortable with. You know, and like that's what I kind of think it is.

And it's so much more than just AI. You know, it's like this is the world that we're stepping into. And I think that's why it looks that way. And I just, at least just be on guard out there because I think that's what makes the most sense. And maybe that's not even what's happening yet, but that's what it will be.

That eventually they'll all just blob together because they see an interest in controlling everybody through, you know, like you said, if they can corner that market, that's literally everything at this point. That's where it's all going. If you feel like, if you feel like you have six different companies competing against each other, you also feel like, well, maybe they're going to, you know, sharpen each other. I'm going to have to, I'm going to have to be better than them. But if they're all kind of in the same, getting the same money from the same blob, then you have just a gigantic industry that is theoretically controlled by a couple different people. But, but really,

it's extremely centralized. And centralization, I think, is a real problem when it comes to governmental decisions because then you only have to control a small number of people as opposed to everybody else and the AI thing makes me very nervous. Yeah, we'll take that analogy about the government, right? And it's the same point. Like, you can argue that I would even argue, even though if I had a choice, I would not choose a state of society, but since we're living in that.

the state of society. I would argue that the check and balance system, the constitution was pretty well thought out. And it really did have an ability to somewhat check the interest of any human society of trying to, you know, gain power. But the point is where we are today, they pretend that's how it is, but it's really not, right? When you remove that check and it's the illusion of checks and balances with just one ultimate power deciding. And that's a good way to think about it. It's the same idea. And so, man, I think there's more to that. We should talk about that more in the future. I think that's what's happening. yeah yeah it there's there's a lot going on there's everything's you know we go I remember years and

years where it seemed like nothing really happened nothing changed and in the last five years everything feels accelerated and uh and not in a good way like artificially accelerated so I'm trying to hang on and make sense of all of this best as I can but it's a it's an interesting time to be paying attention for sure. Yeah, well, this is something I want to add on to the AI overlap to it. Is it so we got the, you got the technocratic shift happening in a thousand different ways around us. But this was something that came back in the beginning, early on, they were like no regulations on AI, which is just like, fat shit crazy. Like, I just, I can't believe that in what's happening. I think, was it you that made the analogy that it's like

essentially like when nuclear power was there and we're like, everyone can build the nuclear bomb in the garage. You know, it's like, that's just insane. Like, what this is is so crazy. But so then it kind of got put away. People push back on it. They removed the verbiage. But then Lutnik came out and basically said in front of one of his, what was that? It was a pretty big meeting or like it was at a conference or something. And I just said basically, we're not going to, there's not going to be regulation.

Don't worry. Like, who cares if we took the language out? That's not. And now I'm seeing this. This is what? This is, uh, was data on this. It's recent. Uh, oh, it's, it's a recent one.

I think it's behind the paywall. The point is, you can see that they're now working with executive orders to not allow states to regulate it, which we already know what they want. they want no regulation. So not only is that a violation of states' rights, an executive order can't do that. It's frustrating the way they abuse that, but also that you're now showing us that this is going to be a free-for-all.

And if out there listening, if you ever thought you'd be somehow engaging with the way this was going to come out, first of all, that never happens, but this is really showing you that this is going to be a, you know, public-private partnership, corporate gangbusters AI takeover. That's what it looks like to me. What do you think?

It would be interesting if it was regulated at the state level, though, because then it would be sort of like state income taxes where people would be shopping around for places where they want to live based on maybe the AI regulations. That's the check and balance right there, right? Even though I'm not going to ever argue that that would actually be the,

it would stop any kind of corruption. But even that would then allow some level of like, well, that AI in that state's way less restrictive, way more about, you know, less privacy invading. And so then they would be forced to somehow compete because you could use an AI from anywhere if you wanted to. hopefully we're out there going no AI, but if you're going to be forced, at least have a choice, you know, but that's where the illusion of choice comes in. But it's an actual point to make

because it does open that door to at least some level of control, you know. Competition. Like, let's, let's compete for who's got the best, you know, the least invasive or the most helpful or whatever, least onerous platform out there. And maybe that'll be or state or whatever. But if the federal government has it their way, of course they would love to regulate this at the top and have yeah or if any regulate maybe you know who can participate in this game and who can't oh there you go yeah I could see that being being something or or where they say you know we're going to make it in order for for firms to comply with our AI restrictions that we're putting on you know it's going to cost them

like a billion dollars a year and all these these AI companies go, oh no, that sounds terrible, a billion dollars a year. We'll get it back in a tax rebate, but it'll prevent anybody else from ever competing with us. It would just be us six companies there locked in, everybody else locked out. You're going to find me a billion dollars a year. That's the cost of doing business. We'll work it out. We know what's going on. This isn't about actually taking my money. It's about locking out competition. So I can envision a scenario in which they do something like that, where at the federal level, they just, you know, try to pick winners as they do. Or, yeah, what I thought you were going with, it is, or, you know, in a world where this becomes ubiquitous, which hopefully we don't go there, but it seems like that's where it's going regardless, there will be a power with using this, especially with the level it goes to, whether you're talking about the stock market, like if you, let's say you hypothetically open into a part where this becomes so ubiquitous that it becomes almost expected, that if you're a writer, if you're in the, that's just everyone uses it, therefore it becomes fair in a way, right?

Hope that just doesn't happen. But then the point becomes you don't get to use it because you say the wrong. things or because you have you know so ultimately you then have like a superpower so you're trading on the stock market but everyone's beating you or you can't make any money because you know that's a bad analogy really but other things like that where somehow everyone's just better faster you know and that you're the one boxed out of it because you didn't comply you know i can see a world like that i think we'd be the ones living up in the you know rural derrick bros community but a lot of people that would feel like they don't have the leg up like everyone else does because they're and then that would force them to comply with other things a speed

regulation, whatever else. You know, I see that being possible. Social credit score too low. You get the crappy AI. Right, right. And you just, ah, God, it's just such a weird,

like, you know, like, for example, in schools where everyone got their computers and, you know, it's the same kind of thing.

Like, all of a sudden, you just everyone gets it except Billy was bad today so he doesn't get the, the AI assistance. You know, it's like,

you know, that becomes just like ingrained to the normal. I almost feel like that's an absolute at this point. Like, yeah. Stop that, man. Like, what a,

what a wild future that we're, we're headed into. I think it pays to be aware, you know, have your eyes open these days. Things are moving so quickly. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a dangerous time, you know, as that Chinese symbol, the danger and opportunity. You know, it's a dangerous time filled with a ton of opportunity. Feels like, feels like major governmental change is, is possible. And, you know, I hope everybody is ready for what's coming to the extent that they can, you know, to be prepared and proactive and taking a look at this scenario and going, okay, I think, you know, they legalize bank bail-ins. I think they're probably going to do a bank bail-in at some point.

You know, maybe I should think about my relationship with the bank in a different way now because I know this information or AI's coming. It's one of these moments where it feels like the calm before the storm. I know a lot of people are talking about. 2027 being a big year. That's a little ways away. But I don't know. I'm I'm concerned about where things are going. But I'm glad that we're talking about it because if we weren't talking about, if nobody was talking about this, frankly, I think I'd be more worried because at least we're starting to have the conversation about the potential dangers of AI. And I don't think we had that conversation about the potential dangers of technology before. So maybe the fact that it's even

a part of the conversation is maybe a good thing, but ultimately, like you said, I'm not, I'm never going to be comfortable with this. I'm never going to feel like, you know, there's there's some finish line that you cross and then everything's fine and everything's fixed. You know, it's going to be an ongoing situation with us trying to find that balance of having technology that serves us without enslaving us and that is a that's a fine line to walk and it's really tough these days yeah yeah it is but you know i'll always point out that i feel like it is easy to fall into the despair and hopelessness the learned helplessness right that they hopelessness that they want from us because there is a lot of dangerous stuff happening a lot of

you know it's just a lot of strife but i feel as i've said many times that's happening because the power structure feels like it's losing control. And that, in my opinion, is a good thing. Control over your lives. Control over what you can say and live. And I think that right now people are starting to push back on things that they don't expect. And that's why it feels that way.

So it's a mixed bag for sure. But we'll end with the, get some comments. We'll end on this, this overlap I was highlighting. Derek's done a great series recently called the Technocratic Trump administration. He's three parts, the public private partnership, pressuring and consolidate in the media and the technocratic Trump administration, the Zionist. infiltration expands. And it's just an important conversation right now with where this is and how obvious this has become. And I personally do feel like this is kind of the crux. Oh, this was just

since, well, we can skip past this, just Twitter censoring the translation of Hebrew posts because ultimately it was showing that they're calling for genocide, you know, just crazy stuff. This one was Trump saying Susie Wiles. She's the most powerful one in the world. She can take out a country, destroy, take out a country with one phone call, you know, and while it's being called as handler, the Zionist connection to it, you know, it's just like, oh, I'm saying, just on the way out, I just feel like it's clear that if there's ever been a moment where people are truly, whether it's the Epstein thing, left and right, just like, okay, you know, this is, it's just kind of a cartoon right now. We see this is happening. You got the, the screaming people online,

desperate to take a side who want to just support the side, no matter what the truth looks like. But I see more people seeing this than I've ever seen in my entire life doing this. You know, part of me is just honored to be a part of doing this, you know, that we're at a time where we are watching this shift take place. The work that we're doing is making a difference, you know, and it's just a, it's a, it's a crazy time to be part of, but I would rather be nowhere else, you know, so your final thoughts on the way out. What's going on where you're going? I feel the same way. I fight this, this battle between, you know, trying to feel optimistic about this. The good news is that if it were hopeless for them, you know, they would, for us, if it was hopeless for us, we, they wouldn't continue the, the, the.

propaganda campaign you know i mean they they have this in place because they need it to constantly convince us uh of of things that aren't true so if that when that stops if the propaganda campaign stops that actually is the alarming part that means that they no longer feel it's necessary that doesn't even matter what you think anymore we control you so as long as we're in a point a point in time where there's propaganda coming our way actually view that as a good thing it means that they need to use propaganda, and as long as they need to use propaganda, we're still in the fight. But the minute they stop with that, I think that's a signal that it is no longer necessary for them. And if it's no longer necessary for them to lie to us, we got bigger problems.

Yeah, well said, man. I really, I really agree with that. They wouldn't care if we didn't, if our opinion didn't matter for what they were doing, whether our, you know, general opinion or maybe, maybe you think voting translates, they wouldn't be trying so desperately to influence our opinion. I think that's a very well taken point. And I agree. I think right now more than ever, it seems clear that they're desperately in need of our opinion. And I just think that's something we reflect on. You know, you are making a difference out there. So keep at it. Well, always a pleasure to talk with you, brother. I'm looking forward to the next one. And any final thoughts? I think you just did. But anything else you want to leave where we go. No, I hope people will also consider

going to activist post. You know, we're in an information battle, right? I'm republishing articles from journalists that are actually, you mentioned the Derek Brost. It's all being republished on activist post as well. So if you're somebody that is interested in getting news from, you know, from writers that are writing about things when they're dangerous, dangerous, not safe, dangerous. Right. Then come on over. We're, um, we're there. And I would advise people actually, we have a brand, we have a newsletter that we started in August. It's great. Go, if you're reading an article and they give you an opportunity to sign up for the newsletter, please do, because you're going to get two emails a week on Sunday, Sunday post. It's just a quick wrap up.

here's three of the top stories of the week. If you didn't have time to see it, get it in your news in your inbox, go through it real quick. On Wednesday, Wednesday's emails are called the solution series and we're providing solutions. And we're talking about some issues that are happening, but then we're just saying, look, here's X, Y, and Z. This is how you can mitigate this, prevent it. Here's some companies out there that are doing it. And of course, it gives me the opportunity to bring in all of these brands that I know, like I'm just Akeem Anwar with above phone and in groups like that Tony Arriburn with Wise Wolf, Golden, Silver, and Bitcoin, people that I know, let's have a home for them.

So if you're interested and you like your news, and I'm always saying, don't get rid of your other news sources, right? You don't have to get rid of anything. You just add us to it. Just add activist post. And if you get your news on your cell phone, we did not build an app for activist posts. We learned from Zero Hedge.

They said it's centralized control into the hands of the Apple and Google. And that's no good. So if you're, if you're on a mobile device and you want to get activist posts, just pull up a browser, go to activistpost.com, bookmarket, get news there. You know what's funny to me on that. And by the way, echo that entirely. Activist Post, I think, is definitely what you should all be checking out. But what's interesting is on your phone, there's an easy option to just go to the website

and put add to home screen. And it becomes an app that you click and it goes right to the website. And yes, it's still through the browser. But to who's using the phone, it's no different. You know, so it's always, I've always found that strange that we feel neat. the need to be part of the store when it's the same difference, you know, it's always an illusion about that. They want you to feel like you are going through the right channels, you know.

I guess I'm always the one that's been like, why? What about that? Well, as you say, question everything, including that. Right, right. Well, great conversation, your brother. Looking forward to the next one. And as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions.

Stay vigilant. You know,