The Last American Vagabond - Charlie Robinson Interview - What The Hell Is Happening (5/29/25)

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

Joining 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:(20) The Last American Vagabond on X: "A fact already proven & highly documented. But honest coverage is not Benny's thing. He is all about blind cheerleading around whatever his team just announced.. or excuse me, what his team just announced they are ABOUT to announce. #TeamSportPolitics https://t.co/KSTf4JEYNR https://t.co/AZX6nlQiFV" / X(20) Dominic Michael Tripi on X: "@bennyjohnson In this same interview he doubled down on saying that Epstein killed himself. https://t.co/XhQaIX8TDZ https://t.co/EG0riwC2Qs" / X(20) Benny Johnson on X: "Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino announces a bombshell video is being released soon confirming that Epstein killed himself: “It was only one camera. There's video and we will release it.” “There's just nobody there. There's no DNA, no audio, no fingerprints, no suspects, no https://t.co/c230YoM4jZ" / Xwhen did epstein kill himself - Brave Search(20) Ken Silva on X: "STORY https://t.co/cwMkymvKlG" / X(20) Elizabeth Warren on X: "Good riddance — but Musk isn’t off the hook for his chaos and corruption. We must hold him accountable." / XNew Tab(20) Dan Bongino on X: "As we read and process reports of a new COVID strain emerging, I want you to know that we are actively investigating, in multiple field offices, the cover-up of the origin of the COVID virus, along with associated matters requiring our attention. You deserve answers." / XNew COVID variant linked to China spike detected in US but cases remain low | Fox News(20) Dan Cohen on X: "The Covid origins debate is a US government PSYOP. You have been conditioned to believe a virus leaked from a lab, spread around the world and killed millions. This narrative has been carefully crafted through a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign and made to feel" / XUS cancels $766 million Moderna contract to fight pandemic flu | AP NewsModerna bird flu vaccine development contract canceled by HHSHHS cancels $590 million contract with Moderna for bird flu vaccine | CNNArcturus Therapeutics Receives U.S. FDA Fast Track Designation for the STARR® mRNA Vaccine Candidate ARCT-2304 for Pandemic Influenza A Virus H5N1 | Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc.Home - The AeroVax Inhaled COVID Vaccine TrialNew TabLeak reveals what Sam Altman and Jony Ive are cooking up: 100 million AI 'companion' devices | MashableIsrael seeks funding for plan to require facial recognition in exchange for food in Gaza | Biometric UpdateNew Tab(20) Fox News on X: "BREAKING: State Department now reviewing all visa holders associated with Harvard, not just students" / X(20) Secretary Marco Rubio on X: "The U.S. will begin revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields." / X(20) Nicholas J. Fuentes on X: "Look how afraid he is of offending Israel https://t.co/IuSj9M3kgp" / XTwitter Video Downloader - Download twitter videos & GIF OnlineU.S. Troop Presence in Taiwan Escalates Pressure on Beijing’s Red Line(11) Aaron Reichlin-Melnick on X: "1) You can't "dox" a government employee's name, it's public information. 2) This is the same @TriciaOhio who published the full name and address of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's wife and the names of their children, forcing her into hiding, so she's got some NERVE to complain here!" / XParents Catch FBI In Plot To Force Mentally Ill Son To Be A Right Wing TerroristBitcoin 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 to The Last American Vagabond joining me today, once again, for our kind of recurring planned podcast going forward is Charlie Robinson to talk about, as I titled today, what the hell is happening? Aptly because we've been talking about this kind of jokingly, a lot of us have, around how ridiculous and rapid the news cycle is, whatever that even means today. And funny enough, as we were talking last time, and briefly, I think at the end of last discussion we had, you know, we're saying we'll kind of just touch base on some of the crazy things that are happening. And then I reached out recently and said, hey, let's connect in my mind, thinking of something, oh, we've got to have to talk about that. And then I was getting ready for the show today going, I don't even remember what it was that I was reaching out about. And it was so profound in the moment.

And I'm laughing to myself because there's just so much to get into, not a profound thought. But today we'll go into what the hell's happening today and different pieces of the partisan dynamic, of politics, as I wrote, political machinations, foreign policy, all sorts of things. And no one better to talk about those things with and Charlie Robinson. How are you, brother? I'm good. How are you? Frustrated. Before we get started, I was dealing with all sorts of wild, ridiculous technological things in the background, but not to get into that right now. Browser is shutting down and so on, but that is the world that we're entering into.

But, you know, we were also kind of briefly talking about how, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's frustrating. You know, it will personally drive you crazy. It will cause you to get frustrated, you know, and I think that's a lot of what this is about. If that is what's happening, we do know to some degree that is going on in the world. you know, I wanted to start today with sort of, you know, what's, well, actually, one thing I wanted to start with before we got into that, I wanted to ask you what's on your mind before I go into what I'm thinking about and what I see, I want to see what stands out to you the most, but randomly wanted to get your thought on this before we get into it. I was getting ready for the show today. And I don't know if you were following Rock Finn and what's been going on with that,

you know, like the kind of just the shift they've done away from independent media and the kind of different changes that have been made. I noticed today, and I was talking with Steve about this yesterday, I'm not even given an option anymore to make this free, which is strange to me, seeing as Steve is still able to as you saw yesterday. So I don't know if that's just me being boxed out of being able to make this a free show on Rockfin, but I just want your general thoughts around that, because that's interesting that we've all, in a lot of ways, we talked about Rockfin being a kind of an alternative to a lot of different platforms out there and that's kind of shifted. I want your thoughts on just generally where that's going, you know, with that and then, you know,

whether that's something you're seeing as well on the free versus not. Yeah, I gave up on Rock. I still post there, but I really gave up on them after they did the price hike back in the tail end of 2022 when they bumped their prices up by 50%. And I watched my revenue fall off by 90%. People just left. Just didn't want to have anything to do it. And they give you in the analytics, you can watch. It's a nice little bar chart. So it's a visual. representation of exactly what's going on. And you know the difference between when you've got 100% versus 10% of the revenue that's supposed to come. So I got frustrated with that. I see what they're doing now. They're trying, they don't want us there anymore. They don't view us as moneymakers for them. I think they want to focus on wrestling and college athletics. And that's fine. That's what they, that's what they started with. But the, the treatment has been not the best.

The communication is absolutely, yeah, abysmal. They could write, they could do, you know, college courses on how not to communicate, you know, how to not run a business. Rockfin has dropped the ball in a variety of different ways. You know, and we used to have an open line of dialogue with Martin and with the guys over there and that's turned off.

Yeah. They don't want to hear from us anymore. So I'm not surprised that you're having an issue like that. I think ultimately they would just prefer that we went away. You know, that's exactly where my mind was going, is that it's like I, at first I was kind of like, you know, maybe I won't want to use them anymore because that is in line. But then I'm starting to feel like we're being, you know,

the contrarian nature from the, you know, that we're being pushed away from the platform. Like, well, well, screw that. I'm not going to be pushed away from the platform either. And I just think that's what's happening for me is, you know, I was, right in the beginning, I believe I was even the first. early aspect of Brockfinner person they brought on that they allowed to do free because it was built

around the premium dynamic and I said well I don't want to do that and so they allowed it to be the free all free content through us and then a lot of other people like Steve and others doing the same thing and so that's been kind of the market for this is for us that are on there that you want to use the mechanism to help you know donations and so on and for them to remove that just seems like that's like the final straw like just hoping that I'll jump off the platform as frustrating because I mean everyone out there listening if you want to keep using Rockman feel free I thought I just don't think you have to pay for this content. It's free everywhere else, you know,

and I don't like promoting platforms that do that. But you're right. It's been very, you know, same kind of point. I feel like it was, they decided at one point that we were no longer in their interest. And instead of handling that in a mature nature, they just boxed us out and hopes that we would just,

you know, the thing is that they know that there's no real representation for people like us in this field out there. They leaned into the mainstream, you know, and that's, right, that's their prerogative. It's the way that it went down.

They'll have to bad taste of my mouth as well. So it's very frustrating. There's a lot of good loss out there, you know, Odyssey and Bitchute and plenty of others that are really striving to do better every day. But let's, yeah, oh, good, sorry, good. You comments on it. Oh, no, no. It's, we, yeah, it's just rock fan being rock fin.

Yeah, unfortunately. But so I want to start with what's, you know, before I go into plenty of things that I, I think we're all, you and I probably have similar, you know, large topics to stand out, what's going on today? But if I asked you to start the show, you know, what's going, what's on your mind right now? Like right there. What would be the first thing that jumps to your mind right now today with what's going on. Let's talk about that. Well, I'm in agreement with you. I feel like I need an entire wall-sized

dry erase board to just write all of the current things that are going on. Unfortunately, none of them would really get erased because they don't ever, the problems never seem to get solved, but it's just the frustration of the week. If you had to ask me what what stands out, oh, I don't know, the self-emolation of Cash Patel and Dan Bongino talking about, we'll start with that, talking about Jeffrey Epstein. and everything. I mean, I get the feeling, and I have no particular insight information to this, but I get the feeling that they were instructed, you're going to go out there and say, killed himself, or, you know, and you're going to go out there and you're going to sell this,

this story. And, and, well, nobody's going to believe us. And well, that's the point. That's the point, actually is for you to go out there and look the camera, look, look, look the people right in the eye in the camera, and then just blatantly lie to them so that everybody understands that you have no credibility. Nothing's changed. You're not going to get to the bottom of the deep state. You're not fixing the FBI. None of that stuff is happening. None of this. And then the follow up to that, which was a Bonjino interview today, which was saying, yeah, actually, there's a video and we're going to release it. Oh, you do that. You go ahead and do that and just watch the rest of your credibility completely evaporate because everybody knows that you're lying.

including them. And it's, I think it's, you know, I think it's performative. You know, obviously they're going to go out there and talk about how they're changing things. But to me, that's been just, it's just such an obvious lie, a lie that really didn't need to be told. And of course, when they, when they put the video out, everyone will run it through AI filters and see what it says. And my guess is that it's going to be very high quality, but it'll, still be a fake and that these people are never to be believed under any circumstances. If you think Dan Bongino is coming to save you, you're deluded. This is not the type of guy who this guy is a, he is with the state. That is his entire career. He came up through the Fox News media apparatus

and now he's in the FBI. I mean, you don't get much more of a statist than that. So the idea that this guy's going to get to the bottom of it is laughable. And I think only a very small segment of the population actually believes that. I also wonder if this messaging is even for us. You know, I mean, they know that we're going to see this and go, get out of it. This is nonsense. You know, so I wonder if it's, if this is for the, you know, the 30, 40 percent of the population, they were just asleep at the wheel and they just go, oh, it turns out that I saw a headline that said that it was, you know, that Epstein really did kill himself and that, and that there's a video. That's all I need to know. And boom, and they go off about their day.

And in their mind, case closed, problem solved. We figured it out. Whereas the rest of us that actually sift through this information and give it a critical eye, we look at this and we go, this is nonsense. It's not a, it's not a, it's not reality. So I just wonder if, and maybe two things can be true at the same time. The messaging can be. You can be, before a dumbed-down segment of the population that has no real knowledge of the case. And also sort of a middle finger to the rest of us that says, oh, you thought we were here to help you? No, here's the messaging that we're giving you.

Case closed. Everything's been solved. Don't worry about your conspiracy theories. And then you see like, I don't know if you saw this tweet. It was embarrassing on its face, but it was Juanita Broderick, who should know better, saying in what felt to me like almost like a hostage situation where she retweeted the Bongino and Cash interview and she said, well, if they said it's true, then it's true. Wow.

Case closed in my mind. Mindless followers. Yeah. That's dangerous. That's a dangerous way of living your life. So I don't know. That's been on my radar recently. Or the litany of people that came out and were like, like, couldn't, like mental gymnastics for

the first half of like a 14 paragraph tweet that's like they're doing great and they're wonderful and here's well but now let's get into why i think they might be lying it's like he didn't need all that fluff you know it shows you that they're really not trying to get to the bottom of it they want you to think that they care about the lies that we all see you know it's all there's so many people out there that are operating in like this you know they're just trying to maintain their business you know and the business right now is you know what's the phrase uh uh i can't think of it you know business is doing well under this dynamic and so they want to just maintain that. But it's funny you bring it up because that was the first few things

that I had lined up today. And what's interesting is, you're rather, before I go to my thoughts, you know, what you're saying right there is interesting? Do you, what do you think the outcome is, though? Like, what is the, so if what you're saying is correct and they really, you know, I'm really just theorizing, but they're saying that they want to, or that you're hypothesizing that they want to put this out there to, even though we all see it, knowing that even those that are following it might push back. What's the, what's their objective, though? You know, because wouldn't you think to some degree that they want to fool at least their support? into thinking that this is their team still winning?

That seems like at least a clumsy part of it. But I think you're right. I don't know, I see more conservatives at this point calling this out than anybody. So I just, you know, what do you think their objective is in your opinion? Like with this play, is it trying to show them that they're being lied to or, you know, how do you see it? I think it's part of it is just also a reminder to us that nothing is ever going to change and a demoralization tactic.

Okay. Well, that's what I'm getting out there. Go ahead. We're going to stand up there. Look you in the eyes. lie to your face about something that you know we're lying about, about something that everybody knows isn't true. We're going to tell you that the sky is green and you're going to like it. You know, it's a, you know, you would think that the messaging would be, well, we got to convince

these people that we're telling the truth. I mean, I wonder what they're trying to do and just failing, you know, like that we send to give them a little bit too much, you know, sometimes they really are just incompetent, you know, like there's a lot of them like, that, you know? Totally possible for sure. Yeah, that they're just bad at this or that it's arrogance that Bonino goes, listen, I'm going to go up there. You put me in front of that camera. I'll sell it. Don't worry about anything. I'm the best. I'm the best liar you've ever seen. I've been working in the media. I've been working for the cops. I work for the FBI. If anyone's a liar, it's me, right? I can get out there, look them in the eye and tell them, you know, give them the story that we've agreed upon.

but the expressions on cash Patel's face kind of said it all to me i mean that guy part of it you know felt like a hostage video you know like there's somebody off camera with a gun to your kid's head and you're going to go up there and you're going to sell this turd to the american public and you better do a good job of it you know so it it's it's it's just another example of how those people who think that the cavalry is coming to save them are going to be disappointed once again. But I'll tell you, it's better to be disappointed now in the beginning of this administration and then understand what you're up against for the next three and a half years than to have some sort of hopium and think that Donald J. Trump is coming to save you. There's no evidence to support that and that the FBI is

going to magically all of a sudden get to the bottom of things. That's just not how it works. People need to understand what these systems are in place to do. The FBI is not there to get justice for the American people. That's the sales pitch. The FBI is there to spy on the corporations on behalf of the banks, to contain narratives, to run blackmail entrapment operations. They're gangsters. They're not the good cop coming to save you.

They're all the bad cops. And Dan Bongino is a perfect example of this. There's nothing about that guy that should set your mind at ease at all. I've never seen anything about him that made me think that he's some sort of champion for truth and justice in the American way. It just feels like a gigantic, phony sales pitch by a bunch of sociopaths. But of course, I'm not disappointed by this. And I know you're not disappointed by this either.

We knew that this was going to happen. I think that the MAGA people out there that maybe thought that, you know, this time is different. I'm not going to win the fall for, fell for it again award, but they fell for it again. When you trust, when you, when you attempt to trust these people, you will be disappointed over and over and over again if you're paying attention. So better now than later, I suppose, for the MAGA people. And better that they just wake up to the lies, you know, because because this delusion that the, that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, White hats are in charge, trust the plan, Patriots in control, all that you cue to electric boogaloo.

You know, it's all coming back to me again, how dangerous the MAGA crowd can be. We saw, we know how what the leftists will do when left unchecked. They'll burn your city down and transition your kids, you know what I mean? They're unhinged. But the MAGA delusion is a little different because they genuinely believe that somebody good is coming to save them. And so I feel it's better that they get disappointed early than have to figure this out in year three. But I agree with you entirely, but I see it as the same.

I mean, it's just a different flavor, right, but just a different flavor, right? Because if you look at it from the other side, it's the same idea as you got the left that's really arguing that there's certain parts of, it's their different part of the government that they think needs to save us from the other part. It's the opposite version of the same problem. So in my opinion, I think we've agreed on this is just partisanship. It's just partisanship. not, you know, one, they're equally dangerous in very different ways. And I think that's very much by design.

But so you're, but I agree with you. But so back to the point about this whole thing, it's, I agree with you on that too, but it's interesting, the why of it is what gets me. It's so fascinating to look at this because I guess you're right. It could just be that they chose these people because they're incompetent or because they want you to know that we're lying and that you're, and that's like you're supposed to accept that, get past the fact that we're lying and you know we're lying and that you're in control.

Like that does possibly feel like that makes sense. But the other side of that, another side of that, another, alternative could be that they are, like you're saying, maybe it is a hostage video because maybe a foreign power has completely taken control of what's going on. That's not a crazy thing to think right now from an Israeli perspective. Or, you know, maybe these people are just that incompetent. And I think we've been driven into that by a lot of things. And they think, as you're saying, hubris. So it's just hard to tell exactly why. But let's go through, let's go to the clips that we'll go over the clips where you were talking about and discuss what they're saying. And I think to me,

I get the sense that from the MAGA side of this, rather just the Republican partisan side, it's important that these people continue to think that they're winning. I do think that's a part of this from some people's perspective. And so if there's a part of it that is meant to be, we're showing you, we're lying, I just, that worries me. That either means that there's an end game coming soon or that, you know, another shoe is going to drop. That's what I worry about that sentiment. So let's watch some of these clips really quickly.

And we'll see, now this one was, oh, I was, this is my tweet about it. I'm laughing at the cheerleading of this. And this is Benny Johnson sharing it, where ultimately, It was, he said, FBI director Cash Patel confirms the definitive answer on whether FBI sources were present during January 6th. We'll come back to that one. This one will start with the Epstein point. So under that interview, he also pointed out that the Epstein killed himself point. This is just a short one.

Importantly, people have had questions about January 6th and whether or not they were. That's the wrong one, this one. But there is a lot of conspiracy theories out there. There are. The Epstein thing, you dealt with Maria. You said, as far as you know, he killed himself. I'm telling you he killed himself. The other thing on the...

So we hear that. That's very clear, right? So here's the one with Bongino pointing out that there's a video. Now, this is what I really want to get in. This is fascinating because we know, at least what we're told, all of the cameras were off or broken or whatever the narrative was. It was all, it was all kind of mixed up. People were on break and whatever else. And I also want to make sure we don't forget who was president when this was happening?

Who was running the FBI when this is the Donald Trump administration, 2019? So it's interesting that if you're going to start claiming, that he somehow has access to something that they was there, they lied about then. There's no way you miss that and understand what administration was covering that up. And again, for those listening, I don't think there's difference in the partisan sides. It's just as Charlie's pointing out, some people seem to think that one side is about to save them. So here's that clip.

Those two cases obviously are of significant public interest. I'm just telling you what we see in the file. I just want to be crystal clear on this. I am not asking anyone to believe me. I'm telling you what's there and what isn't. Right. There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case, and there's going to be a disclosure on this coming shortly.

We are working through some, there is video. That is something the public does not. There's video of him killing himself. No, no, not the actual act, but the entire MCC Bay, it was only one camera. There were other, there's video that when you look at the video, and we will release, that's what's taken a while on this, We are working on cleaning it up to make sure you have an enhanced and we're going to give the original so you don't think those aren't words that make you feel good about come we're going to clean it up for you.

The FBI is going to clean it up, you say. Yeah, yeah. Shenanigans, you're going to see there's no one there but him. Right. There's just nobody there. So I say to people all the time, if you have a tip, let us know, but there's no DNA. There's no audio. There's no fingerprints.

There's no suspects. There's no accomplices. There's no tips. There is nothing. If you have it, I'm happy to see it. There's video clear as day. he's the only person in there and the only person coming out. You can see it.

Your thoughts. Well, he's lying. He's just lying. He's a liar. That's what he does for a living. He defends narratives. He goes out there. He's comfortable around those people.

He used to work there. We need you to go out there and sell this story to the American people, Dan. You know, it's just a weird evolution of the story, right? Like I said, So if you somehow have video, how in the world has that not been released by now through multiple administrations, including President Trump's from the last time, right? Or the idea that you clearly just said you don't have a video of the event. So how are we supposed to think that you, like if you show us this weird video that's of everything other than when he dies, how are we supposed to let that? Why would we think that that proves that he didn't kill himself if you have the one moment that we need in all that?

You know, that seems like a weird, glaring red flag. if Dan Bonjino had you in a interrogation room and you changed your story like he just did because the story was all the cameras were broken there's no evidence of this and then all of a sudden you say well actually there was camera footage and there you go well why didn't you tell us this from the beginning

sounds like you have something to hide you know if you were the one that was doing this halfway through you know your story changed then they would say, oh, we've got a huge problem here because you just told one set of facts, air quotes, facts back in 2019, and now you've got a different set of them. So somebody's lying here. Who was it? And you said, no, no, it's just a big misunderstanding.

You don't understand. Well, explain it to me then. This guy is a cop. He understands that you change your story midway through. You're hiding something. Right. And to your point, what just popped in my mind when you said that is, is even recently, though, right?

So why didn't this get brought up in the beginning? Are you telling us that this one video that had the main thing was you're only just finding out that it was there? You know what I mean? Like, there's nothing about this that lines up in any logical way. But, you know, like that's, we'll let the wait and see when this video comes out if it ever does. Well, there's the first thing right there.

Do you think that's ever going to happen? It would not surprise me in the least if it just literally never came out. That's how things seem to go today. What do you think? I wouldn't be surprised. there will be a ton of people reminding them about this. And if it comes out, my guess is it'll be completely doctored. I agree.

What was the term he used? Cleaned up. Cleaned up. It'll be cleaned up a little bit. You know, what does what even mean? We can't, you can't shoot the footage with like a bigfoot resolution camera, like a one megapixel. We got to clean it up. We got to, you know, sharpen it, make it look nice and pretty for you.

Another word for that is edit. cleaned up. So the thing that goes to my mind is the deep fake point. Like, we've talked about this in the past. Like, I've been saying this for the longest time. Like,

when is, like, obviously we all know deep pics are there. It becomes this weird kind of comical, you know, Obama fake video on a show one day and then, like, just gets dropped.

You know, it's like this, I'm of the mind that it's probably radically affecting things and has been for a long time and, like, archives and we don't even know what's happening, right? Like, to a level we don't even understand.

And so I'm waiting for, like, the actual shoe to drop. Like the big, The case we're all supposed to see, right? And I've always wondered whether it was going to be somebody being accused or something they actually didn't do. And they claim it's a deep fake, but they say they're guilty or vice versa, where they are guilty. But Trump's like, it was a deep fake.

It wasn't me. And then all of his audience goes along with that. And so that's what I think this might be. It feels like it has those kind of remnants to it to where it comes out, or not remnants, but markings, to where it comes out as the Epstein video, which not of the event, apparently, but it shows him, I guess, being alone is his point. And then you wonder whether that is simply altered, like you said. We'll be checking that. But has that become kind of the conversation starter for that very point?

I don't know. It's interesting. Or somebody pointed out in the chat on top of that. Well, a lot of us are arguing, we have been for the beginning. What if he wasn't dead in the first place? What if he was shuttled away somewhere because he has too much information or, you know, whatever, which doesn't seem likely. Why wouldn't they just kill him?

But if he's still alive, wouldn't that add a whole of the layer to whether they could manufacture a new video? You know, interesting thought. Somebody shared that in the chat. I'll tell you what. If I were, if I were, I'm not trying to give these. lunatics any ideas, but if I were the Trump administration, I would save that, that deep fake excuse for a much bigger scandal. This is six years ago. We've already litigated it. Everyone has a

thought on it. There's nothing new. I would wait for something else that came up. And of course, there will be. And then, you know, if he's, let's just say he's Trump is doing something he shouldn't be doing and then it comes up and then he wants to hide behind the deep fake oh well it's not me as a deep fake i'd do that with something else this seems like no sense in diffusing the geoffrey epstein bomb after it's already gone off six years ago you know what i mean it seems like a waste to do that but we all know that i mean when the video comes out it's not if it comes out it's not going to set anybody's minds at ease you're everyone's going to have the exact same thought this is probably fake I mean, because it's coming from the FBI, who has a long and story track record of pathologically lying about the things that they're doing.

So it's one of those things where you, it also with the deep fake technology and the excuse of is going to also kind of take into account the credibility of the person who's who it's being turned against too. If you have a long track record of lying, like the FBI, and then you put a video out or something comes out and someone says, oh, it's deep fake. And they say, no, it's not. You know, we're the FBI. We wouldn't lie about that. The answer is, yeah, you would. You lie about everything. You would most definitely lie about it.

But if you're somebody who doesn't have a repute, some movie star comes out and gets busted and they say, well, I was raped by this movie star. And here's the footage from the security. and the person genuinely has never been in trouble for anything. And they come out and say, I think this was a deep fake video. I wasn't there. I didn't do it. That we have a possibility of saying,

well, maybe let's talk about this. Maybe he wasn't there. Let's have the conversation. The Trump administration, Trump's got a long reputation of being a liar. The FBI, same with them. They're the wrong people to start the,

oh, I can't believe that you would use a deep fake against me, sort of a crowd. They are the last. people to be in a position to claim that something is fake when they've been lying their entire lives about just about everything. So I think that we are in a post-truth world. These videos are going to be increasingly more difficult to differentiate real from fake. And my guess is that in some of the cases, they'll use it as bait to get people saying, you know, maybe I could

envision the Israelis doing something where there's a video of, you know, one of like a drone about me like you've just seen recently with the Ukrainian drone that hovers next to that Russian guy's head who's sitting down and then it blows up and everything. I could envision a scenario where Israel puts out a fake video like that. And then they go, this was a deep fake. See, here's the proof. You guys, it was all fake. Do you try to make us look bad? And then they say all those videos that you see of Israel are all deep fakes, right? They're all deep. If one is, then all of them could be. And so I could see them using that as a tactic to try and discredit things moving forward. But as far as the Epstein case goes, you know, the FBI would have an easier time of getting the general public to believe them if they didn't have a storied history of lying to the public every time they get a chance to.

Right. I mean, even the New York Times, for take it for what you will, wrote a while back about how the vast majority of the cases they break down that they have a hand in starting themselves. Right. That was in New York Times. The Intercept has done great work around that. there's a it's you said it's very documented that whether it's they you know end up arming funding nudging the guy they say as a terrorist and doing a thing or he ends up being nudged to the point and then doesn't do it at the last moment they still arrest him anyway like there's so many of those

cases over and over and it's like the question becomes like well would they have done any of that if you didn't force them or pressure them into it you know there's a case like actually the free thought project covered that i reported that i posted back in the day when they were uh talking about it was a case of a mentally handicapped kid. It was like a 17, 16 year old kid who they basically tried to try to manipulate into being a right-wing terrorist. And that's, it's, it's document. They caught it in the act. And we've talked about this possibly, I think. And he was, the parents caught it. So it didn't happen, but the parents exposed it. I mean, the documents are all very clear. And it's like, you know, the idea is that you're taking advantage of some kid who just

wants a friend who's willing to go, yeah, I'll do whatever you say that. As long as you keep calling me on the phone, you know, like that's the people they take advantage of. And that happens all, over the place. So I'm with you, man. I don't think we should trust a word they're saying, but I think the Israel influence on the Epstein story and just obviously the influence on this country right now makes you wonder whether there's another interest at play other than what's best for Donald Trump's administration or even the U.S. government. I always want to point that out because sometimes these things, it's anomalous. It's like, how does that make sense? There's no interest, but there is, if you understand that it's like to the detriment of this country,

like to literally bring this country down to its knees. And I do think there's a part of that happening right now. I think that's worth pointing out. Yeah. And I've, and I've, I've, I've, I've described from like an astronomy perspective when they say, how do we discover black holes if you can't see them? You say, well, you're not looking for the black hole. What you're doing is you're looking for stars that have, that there's an unusual effect on a star. A star is doing something that it normally doesn't do. And then you have to deduct that there's an unseen influence acting upon that star to make it do something that it doesn't normally do. Therefore, we've conducted, we've decided that there must be a black hole somewhere nearby. Israel is the black hole. Yeah. Their influence on people, they are unseen in a lot of these cases, but you know they're there based on the influence they exert on people that are visible. So somebody like Bongino, you go, why would you ever go in front of those cameras and say that the Epstein stuff was all true and then there's nothing there?

And you go, it must be something. We know you know it's not true, Dan. So how are you being made to say it? Well, there must be an undue influence. There must be a black hole nearby that's pulling on you and forcing you to do that. And I would assume, considering Jeffrey Epstein's ties to Israel, among other places, I would assume that the black hole in this situation is most definitely Israel. So, I mean, I don't know how you could, I mean, I don't know who else would be responsible for it.

I don't know who else has more to lose. It's not, it would have to be an outside. It'd be Israel. Well, I mean, that's not Saudi Arabia. Yeah. You know what I mean? They're not doing it. That's a really great analogy, by the way.

And I think the point regardless, I completely agree with you. But just be objective, the point regardless is just take note that there is something. There's an anomaly taking place here that is driving people to act outside their interests. Like Catherine's talked about that. And of course, terrifyingly, she overlaps that with the possibility or she think very, clearly that it is happening of like neuroscience like through technology like making you act against your own interest which is a terrifying thought i don't even know how to begin to cackle because how do you fight something like that but that's where we're the point the same is take note of

people that stand out and then you know don't try to box it into the way we see the world think about outside possibilities now january 6th is an interesting overlap to all that because it's a really interesting kind of convergence of events that started kind of before you know let's just say, building up to a lot of the larger things happening right now. And let's not, you know, if we're being honest about this and just acknowledging blatantly proven evidence, we know that there were multiple examples of authority, FBI, even military intelligence that were there, right? And this, this was documented in the beginning of this conversation, well past kind of this weird, like, revelation now where they go, we're about to prove that there were FBI there. It's like,

well, that's anybody, I mean, they said that in public in Congress by now. Jimmy Dorr points that all the time, right? So it's, it's, that was one part of it. Then we have the aspect of like the Antifa, you know, we're there. We got them to do these things. That's on video. We have the Ukrainian influence, the Azov movement. We've got, what's his name, Sergei Beninian, who's Arbinian, who's on video, screaming things in Russian, saying, let's go. And then, you know, and then proving that he's tied to a Ukrainian entity that is funded by Israel and the CIA. Like, these things matter, you know, there's a worldwide thing that was happening there. Now, with what we've seen, it's hard not to think about, consider the possibility that that was

at least, maybe that was an attempt to do what they're beginning to do now. And it didn't fail, or maybe it was a destabilization. effort. Maybe it was about more censorship. But let's go back to the clip from Cash and listen to what he has to say about January 6th. Then we could talk about more of those points. Importantly, people have had questions about January 6th and whether or not there were FBI sources, not agent sources, on the ground during January 6th. And I told you I would get you the definitive answer to that. And we have. And we are in the process, again, of working with our partners to divulge that information. And it is coming. And I will tell you this.

answer to that question will surprise and shock people because of what to me like with Donald Trump going which by the way I don't think we ever really identified what the big announcement was we all different opinions about it which suggests it wasn't really a big announcement that he's like this is going to be the bombshell world changing announcement that comes the next couple of days and then everyone's like well which one was it you know it's like I think it's about telling you how you're supposed to respond that's what I get like like this and why wouldn't you just go well there were agents there we're going to tell you soon whether or not you know what I mean it seems very contrived to me any comment before i keep playing well i was pretty sure trump

trump's big announcement was going to be that he was bringing the mcrib back probably what it really was yeah something something yeah former fbi director chris ray eventually admitted to congress there were 26 fbi confidential human sources not in around the capital january 6 but not actual agents can you say that's true or Are there more than that? What you're learning from that? I can say that that is definitely a piece of the truth. Why it took a ton of time for and questioning in Congress for the director to get that point

is what I'm trying to eliminate from the FBI. If Congress asked you a question under oath, whether or not there were sources in around January 6th at the Capitol, you as a director of the FBI need to know that and not deflect and give a DC answer. You mean like literally every member of your current administration that will not answer any question regarding habeas corpus or constitutional rights? And I don't have you seen some of those clips. They're just infuriating. And it's not new to it.

It's not partisan. And it's just partisan. Either side in front of Congress just never seem to answer any questions. They just kind of grandstand forever. It's always the other in these conversations, you know. To be prepared for that. He criticizes giving a DC answer while he's in the process of giving a DC answer. Exactly. Well said.

That's the answer Chris Ray should have given. And eventually everybody's going to know the whole picture. Yeah, because the American people deserve that. And look, no one's more frustrated than me. Remember, I was Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense on January 6th. We said that we were ready, and the President had previously authorized the National Guard to be there days in advance. I spent two years a small fortune, grand juries, to testify to the truth. And what happens now years later?

We were right. Bowser and Pelosi rejected that offer. And instead of figuring out how to prevent security lapses like that ever again, the American public spent tens of millions of dollars and countless hours on TV listening to conspiracy theories because those in positions of leadership fail to tell the American public the truth. Now, conspiracy theory, I mean, is this just the new mainstream? You know what I mean? Like you're just taking the other side.

The point for people like us is always that, you know, there's, it wasn't by, it was, it was the government. You know what I mean? Like with Pelosi and the overlap, I mean, the idea that this was something that was one-sided is just kind of insane to argue today. But, you know, what are your thoughts on what he said? It's, I'm embarrassed on his behalf that he's standing up there lying like that so brazenly. I mean, we're never going to get the truth.

We're not going to get the truth from the FBI about what was going on January 6th, because they were involved in the operation. They're not going to tell on themselves. So what about the car bomb that was found that was planted? What about that? How come we're not talking about that? How come that footage wasn't released until recently? And we have real questions about who was involved in the whole.

My first comment with regard to the January 6th situation is, And I always want to start with this. Don't walk into traps, period. This was an obvious trap from the beginning. I can't stress that enough. Like the people that actually physically went there, you just have to know better. I'm not saying you did anything wrong.

I'm not saying that they should have done what they did to the J6 people because they shouldn't have or anything like that. I mean, it was the most coordinated and organized insurrection I've ever seen. They're going in through the following the rope stanchions and like walking in like they're on a guided tour. So the whole thing was nonsensical. But still, even if you're just there to take pictures, even if you're just there for the pageantry of it all or just to say that you were there in the future when they have events like this, don't show up. You're walking into a trap.

Your cell phone is being monitored. They're taking pictures of everybody who's there. I mean, this is, but, you know, besides. that, you're dealing with a monolithic government that might pretend from time to time that it's red team versus blue team to keep you distracted. But when it really matters, the FBI is deeply ingrained. It's not going to be removed. It doesn't, it is part of the permanent state. Yes, Republicans come into office, then Democrats come into office and they change the heads of the FBI and all that stuff. But the, the agents and the inside the agency, they remain. Nothing changes there. So this,

this notion that Cash Patel is going to come in and fix the FBI is, is just magical thinking. Yeah. That MAGA wants to hear because they know that it should be reformed and it should be gutted and taken down to the studs and rebuilt or frankly should be abolished altogether. But, but even the MAGA people would say, well, we need it because, you know, there's bad guys and terrorists out there. And we, we just want an FBI that runs correctly that does things by the book. And it's like, there's never been an FBI that does things by the book. Don't you understand with that? Jay Edgar Hoover was, was as big of a gangster as anybody else that he was allegedly going out there trying to prosecute. So this is, this is organized crime. Right.

known as the government. It's just that in the movies, we're trained to think that organized crime is Italian mafioso smoking cigars and, you know, at a pizzeria somewhere and, you know, and shaking down the local residents for protection money. No, organized crime is the FBI. It's the largest domestic terrorist organization in the United States. Period. So the idea that it's going to get turned around is, is, it's wishful thinking. And I wish people would focus on, on, on, on other things. Well, this is why they've adapted the argument. And I mean, I saw, I think this has been building for a while, you know, where you saw suddenly the new argument that, well, you know, we're not, we're not left, right. We see beyond it. We're patriots.

I said, okay, well, are you voting for Republicans? Okay. So you're still taking a side. And the argument is because, well, those are all rhinos. Right. So all you really did was go, you're all, you know, you're Democrats and rhinos. So there's one side. And now we're Patriots. So you still have a two-party illusion. You're still doing the exact same thing. But it allowed them to think that, oh, yeah, two-party illusion. we're with you. You know what I mean? Like it was an evolution of that. And now you've got the problem where people, and look, I will, I will point out, I don't think there's anything wrong with hoping the outcome goes the way you wanted to. But as you're saying, hopium is the problem.

As you need to hope or wish for the best thing, but criticize everything, hold them to account, you know? But yeah, so they evolved it into the point to where now today, like you're seeing, it's that this is like you said, the white hat part of it that's fighting all of them. The government, everybody left and right, all of Congress, you know, And, hey, I, like, that's why I said that. I hope that happens. But I think, as you pointed out, there's already a very clear track record just from this administration forward that shows you they're already lying to you.

You know, it's like, let's just be real about what's happening in front of us. So the January 6th point is also, this is also a tweet in that same conversation in regard to Cash Patel telling Fox News last week that is investigation at July 13th. Trump assassination attempt was closed. And so these are all kind of in my mind in the same wheelhouse because there are, they're interesting points that I think we've all identified, or other, events that are manipulated in some way or another, whether false flags, you know, whatever else you want to call it, it's pretty clear that most in particularly on the Republican side think that there was at least

more than one shooter, which I think is flatly obvious, frankly, based on the evidence. But they've closed it and are arguing there was only one shooter. And it says when he said that I immediately filed a FOIA request. This is Ken Silva of not familiar with this platform, but just he pointed this out. And I do follow him, but I forget how I know him. overlap for something else. Libertarian Institute, it looks like, be a contributor and editor. It says, when he heard him say that, he immediately filed a FOIA request for all FBI interviews, reports from the investigation. Today, he was denied that request on the grounds. The case was

still open. So they're saying they close the case, but they're denying grounds on FOIA request because they're saying the case is still open. So, I mean, it's things exactly like this that show you there's a lot more going on where they want you to think. That's why I was asking at the beginning, that I still feel like they're genuinely trying to clumsily hope that people think they're doing the right thing. And I think that just shows that they're desperate, which maybe that's opium for me. But I do think that's clearly what they feels like they're scrambling to try to make this make sense. Or maybe you're right. Maybe it's about trying to, you know, I guess manufacture learned helplessness, right? Get us to just sit back and go, oh, well, I guess that's the

way it is. But unless you want to comment on that, I was just adding to what we talked about. I do find that interesting, though. It could be, it could be learned helplessness. I mean, they could, it's important when dealing with these people to understand that there's, there's two things that they do. There's what they say, and then there's what they do. And so when they say, the case is closed, that's why you need to pull the foia and say, like, I want all the, and then they say, well, actually, the case is open. So the case is open still. You said it was closed. So it's like you cannot trust these people at all or anything. I wouldn't trust Patel to tell me what he had for breakfast this morning because I just think that lying is so ingrained. You don't, it's not that you become the FBI

head and then they teach you how to lie. It's that you are a pathological liar at your core. That's the reason why you are put in a position like that. And some are better at it than others. James Comey was great at it. James Comey could sit there and just look at you and tell a lie without cracking it all. I look at Cash. Cash looks like an amateur. He's looking all over the place. It feels very uncomfortable. James Comey. me was a stone cold killer. You know what I mean? He'll tell you.

Obama was one of the most dangerous that we've ever had because he was one of the best making you feel like he wasn't lying. And he was one of the most dangerous we've had. Yes. There is a, it's a talent. It's a skill. And you can improve upon it.

You can get better at it. But some people have it. Some people have that ability. I mean, Barack Obama is, is in my opinion, one of the most dangerous people around there, in part because the vast majority of people don't think he's

dangerous. They think the only bad day he had was that he wore a tan suit one time. They think he didn't kill people. They think he wasn't drone bombing people. They don't know any of that. Because they see the smile and he like, hey, listen to me. He likes basketball. He's just like me, you know?

And they do all those things. And a skilled, I mean, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Barack Obama could lie right to your face. and most people that didn't know any better wouldn't be able to distinguish the lies from the truth. But somebody like Trump, Trump is a different form of liar. You know, he's the ringleader of the circus. You know, he's a step right up.

You're about to see the most amazing thing you've ever seen in your life. Well, that's a lie. Well, could be. For somebody, it could be true. For somebody's going to see the most amazing thing they ever saw. And it's like it's a different style. See, well, this is interesting.

Let's focus on this per second because this is generally I want your thought on why you think that. Like so clearly I agree. Like there's a different thing happening right now where it's gone from, you know, or even just a comparative point between the two. Like that adds to what you're saying earlier. Do they really just want us to see how bad this is? Maybe that's a foreign policy thing or foreign government thing. You know, but so on that's overlapping point, you know,

you can clearly see that shift into, at least as the way I framed it as nuance, right? Where you have a difference of opinion based on the facts we're seeing. That's how it always felt to me in the past where you get both sides telling you different stories but really trying to root it around the general facts but they're lying to you about them in a way, right? Now we've gotten this point to where nobody in the partisan field ever has really cared about the facts

but now you've got this situation where you've got the current leadership and the same thing I building I saw during Biden, whoever's currently in power, not having a nuance around the facts, but just coming out and going two plus two equals five. And that's some philosophical conversation about maybe math doesn't exist. No, they're going, I'm entering two plus two. My calculator is has five. And you're like, but that's not true.

How do you even combat with that? You know, that's the difference to me. And I wonder why that shift has happened. It's interesting. Yeah. It certainly has happened that you, the brazen nature of their lies or it's, it's terrifying, frankly. Actually, I think it's a sign of impending doom, to be honest with you. Because at least while they're trying to lie to you and trying to tell you, a difference to that at least feels like they're trying to cover up their tracks. When you get to around a person

who doesn't even feel the need to give you the backstory, or they just say, two plus two equals five. And if you have a problem with it, that's your problem, buddy. That's a dangerous person. That's somebody who doesn't even want to play the game

of trying to, you know, mislead you with a story or anything like that. And again, I feel like these are two separate messages for people. You know, when you tell somebody two plus two equals five, then you get a certain segment of the population that says, okay, I guess that's what we're doing now. And they get on board. And then you have a smaller segment that says, yeah, but I know that two plus two equals four. And their response is, and yet we're still telling you that two plus two equals five.

So you're not going to be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is right now. So it demoralizes people that want to hold them accountable because they're telling you right to your face. You're not going to hold me accountable. If I thought that I needed to be held accountable, I would tell you that two plus two equals four. Right.

The fact that I am blatantly lying to you shows that there's nothing you're going to do about it, at least in their mind, that they're not even worried about getting caught anymore. That's the learning helplessness in a way too. And I think the other part of it is you do have the ones you're talking about that maybe really do want to argue, right? But then they sit back and they go, well, and they've been trained this way for the last four years that, well, you know, maybe a two plus two does equal four, but, but they would have made it two plus two equals six. So I'm going to go with five because

it's closer to my lie. You know, like that's, that's the weird place we're at where they just rationalized why the lie is still better than the other lie. You know, it's, it's frustrating. But it is having a clear effect, you know, and it's just an interesting dynamic where the, well, I will add to it actually, too, where it's not just two plus two equals five and too bad. you just deal with it. It's if you come out and say the opposite, 2 plus equals 4, and then they remove your bank account

and Sanuel Salvador. That's where it's beginning to go. It's like, whoa, maybe I'll just say 2 plus 2 equals 5. And I think that's what's alarming is that learned, not helplessness in this case,

but like adherence, you know, where people go along to get along. And people that wouldn't otherwise do that might be more willing to if they recognize the consequences are very real. Like not just to call you out,

lose your platform, but maybe there's actual, maybe you go to prison for saying the truth. You know, that's the day. dangerous path we're on. It's it's funny that you chose the two plus two equals five metaphor because in my octopus book that I wrote in 2017 there's a quote I have in there from a lady named Amanda August and

she was the curriculum coordinator for Common Core and she's talking about three times four equaling 11 and she was saying that because they wound up on a conversation where she was explaining that they're not really concerned. If the child puts three times four equals 11, what she really wanted to see was them show their work, how they got to that number. And then they would get partial credit for it. And she was saying, if you just put three times four equals 12, I mean, how do I know that you even know what you're doing? Sure, it's the right answer, but I don't know how you know that. So she was saying, we're more, we're not interested so much in the final answer. We're interested in the how and the why and how you came to that conclusion. It's like, the answer is wrong.

The answer is blatantly incorrect. Who cares how you came up with it? The other answer is correct. Why won't you go with that? And that's like the common core philosophy is like a perfect encapsulation of this because it's like it doesn't matter if you're blatantly wrong. As long as you can bullshit your teacher well enough, you'll get partial credit. Yeah, and this is important, though, is it's also, so it's, this is how like, like, Matt, like, there's a lot of multiple levels to this, right? So I would argue, though, first of all, first and foremost, you don't get partial credit for being wrong.

I think that's absurd. I think that's training the idea into you that, you know, it's like the participation medal in math, right? It's the same kind of thing, right? Or ribbon or whatever, but what's interesting is I do argue that it would be important to not just memorize the. outcome. Like with doctors just being told you get this, here's your pill. Like they're an automaton. Instead to understand how you did that so you could better understand it. That is important.

So it's like we've played this where, you know, it's, it shouldn't just be memorization to learn these numbers do that, but to understand how you got there, that would make a person smarter. But not to walk it back to where all we care about is whether or not you even incorrectly, like I can't even remind around that. So you can incorrectly show your math and still gain points. It just seems ridiculous. But so this is where we end up. where now the overreaction is, well, no, it's like we're leaning it. It's a small point in regards to memorization, but I do think that's interesting, right? That I, I think we probably both agreed that they should understand how the math works,

but obviously the outcome of that math problem is all that really matters, you know, in the point of understanding, you don't, yeah, go ahead. Why do I need to show my work that three times four is 12? I learned that three years ago. You know what I mean? So I need to show my work on every single thing I do because, but like some of this, I already, you know, why do I have to show the math on this? It's so simple.

We did it a long time ago. There's no need to show my work in the fact that, because of, you know. Well, just common core is absurd. And we all like, I mean, funny you bring it up. I'm like, whatever happened to that, is that even still going on? Like, that was an early example of them trying to kind of rewire the way people see things. And we're seeing it happen to that right now as well. But, I mean, yeah, flatly, obviously, that is absurd and manipulative.

And it's interesting that, you know, the way we deal with these things. things, though. And where that came from, you know, why do we continue to allow these same billionaire social engineers to constantly stick their fingers and things left and right, you know? And like, my point was like GMO and Bill Gates, for example, how do we not continue to acknowledge the utter spectacular failure that was the GMO food pushed for India and the rest? And that never stopped. Or the GMO vaccines are now a thing, you know? It's like, we have the clear, visible example that that is not successful, that they've tested on your lives and yet we just still keep going, you know? even despite the obvious focus on Bill Gates.

You know, I think we're wrapped up in, like, the theater of the partisan game, and we miss the forest for the trees on almost all these topics, like, in a real big sense, I think. Yeah. Well, the oligarch class, the, you know, the Rockefellers and Carnegie's and Bill Gates, you know, of the world have, you know, once you get to a point where you have bought everything with a price tag on it, you start looking for things that aren't available for sale, like the education system, like the schooling system. Like you want to be, you're an industrialist. You want to create the school system so that people are more better suited for the world in which you're creating for them, which is sitting at a, you know, sitting in rows at the factory, sewing buttons on blouses and waiting for the bell to ring to tell you that it's time to go. I mean, it's the same thing you get in schools, right? So they design the schools to mimic the future. And so with Bill Gates, you have to ask the question, like, like, what future are you planning, are you getting kids ready for when you're telling them that

three times four does equal 11 as long as you can show your work? It can't be engineering. You can't build a bridge that people are going to drive across for that sort of math. You get people into their freshman year of college. And if they've come through Common Core, the education system in college is saying you're two full years behind entry level college math, which means your freshman and sophomore year, you have to take math classes just to be, able to get to the math class that you should have been taking when you were a freshman, but you can't because you're still, you know, trying to explain why three times four equals 11. So we've set the entire education system back by a number of years and the, under the guise

of what, not making Bill Gates angry? I mean, and again, since we mentioned Obama, I mean, Obama dangled the carrot and told everybody that they had to sign on, all the states had to sign on to this abomination before they even had the curriculum written. Then you see the curriculum and you hear the guys talking about it saying, you know, think of a, think of an idea on a napkin. Think of nothing.

That's what we had when we started. It's like, oh my God, why are you saying this out in general public? We already think your program's trash. You shouldn't be talking about how we came up with the idea for Common Core on a, on a cocktail napkin. You're not Google developing search engines on your cocktail.

and the greatest business plan ever, you're destroying an entire generation of children who are scared and terrified of math because you've made it impossible for them to figure it out. Meanwhile, you find the videos of the kids in China that are working on the dry erase board. They can solve it in like four seconds.

They answer. And then you've got American kids going, one, two, three, counting on their fingers. It's embarrassing and it's, it should be, as a crime against our children. But unfortunately, Bill Gates spends a lot of money on PR and, you know,

reminding everybody that the MS and MSNBC stands for Microsoft, you know, and that was a deal that they put in place a long time ago since expired, but I think the sentiment still remains. Yeah, well, I mean, it's the, I mean, I haven't talked about us in a while, but we used to talk a lot about the, like, deliberate dumbing down of this country, you know, whether they're the schooling system, the Prussian-based, an automaton-based school system or any number of other things where, you know, we have been clearly, I mean, my first thought a long time ago and still obviously stands is dumber people

are easier to control. That makes sense to me, you know, but it's hard not to see as I was talking about earlier that all these things converge around very clear agendas that, you know, like, from the Republican side of it, and rightly so, we should be on guard and considering any foreign government trying to do what we're seeing today, that the Republican side of this has long been going to. China is trying to infiltrate our country, right? And so it's interesting that for the first time in a long time, we've got the most evidence I've ever seen of foreign influence and it obviously just doesn't get discussed because it's the wrong entity. You know, so I just wonder, just point that out, whether these things have been

long-term agendas to sort of, you know, destroy this country. Because I mean, I think right now it's worth pointing out that the Israeli government, in at least some of the more fanatical elements, are openly discussing sort of the fall of the West and the end times coming on. I mean, there are people like Waltz and others in the U.S. administration are like, are religious Zionists. Like they're obsessive about the end times. And that means they have the mindset that this country, the West,

has to basically be brought down for this to end up happening. And they're, I mean, it's lunacy to understand that those people are in positions of power right now. So that all comes to the point about whether or not this might add to that. Maybe there's a reason this is going that direction. I just always think that's worth pointing out, you know, very alarming stuff.

If you wanted to destroy a nation, you would do it in a, you know, it's not the days of dropping a nuclear bomb on a country, to destroy it. That's that's antiquated. You would do it from inside. You would, you would, you would do, you know, you could look. People could go watch those Yuri Besmanoff interviews or those speeches that he gives. You listen to, you know, back in the 80s. It's fascinating. You, you, you see that there is a plan for ideological subversion that, that, that has been run on America for a

very long time. And once you understand how it can happen, you take a look at the, the evidence that Besmanov and people like that lay out. You just go, oh, boy, I mean, they might have run this on us on, they might have given us two, two full revolutions, right? He says, oh, you need 20 years to, it's like, well, maybe they've done it twice in the last four years. It certainly feels like that. Yeah, I agree. Well, one last point on the partisan side of this, and we feel the things to, to want to touch on is the Elon must point. Now, I just, I just want to show the caption Elizabeth Warren shared, but I think it's interesting the, you know, the partisan game in all this. And Elon Musk, if you, I don't know, I think you probably seen that he is,

well, first he kind of floated, he was back and away from politics, but now he posted officially. He's as my scheduled time as a special government employee comes to an end. I would like to thank Donald Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. Weirdly enough, he just recently stated that Trump's big bill undermines what he did with those. It's all fascinating to me. And who knows what the agenda is that's kind of one of you're reading the tea leaves here you know so Elon Musk leaving what does that mean for Doge what do you think the whole plan was did they did they fail is just trying to get Musk out of the way because he's destroying it and making it all look stupid I mean you know what do you think Warren simply said good riddens but musk isn't up the hook for his chaos and

corruption we must hold him accountable which I agree with but the funny thing is is Warren and Trump and you know Pelosi and all of them are all guilty for a thousand different things so yeah accountability would be great but let's start from all of them but anyway what are your thoughts on that Elon Musk leaving and everything With regard to Elizabeth Warren, every accusation is a confession. Yeah. So, I mean, she is telling on herself here in a big way. I think Elon accomplished, I mean, I guess the question is, what does success look like?

Because he got all his PayPal guys in there. They're all working on a digital. AI government. Enflavement program for humanity. I mean, so he went in and, you know, put his, had his nerds go in there and, and, hook up their programs to a bunch of different departments. So I don't know, I don't know what his plan was going in. I mean, I think everybody sort of knows or maybe if they were being honest with themselves.

Donald Trump, Elon Musk marriage is going to end in divorce at some point. It just, it's just a matter of time. Those are two personalities that I don't think would go well with each other over the long term. I think that there is maybe a case to be made that Elon took one look. and said, you know, like the waste is everywhere. Yeah. The fraud is overwhelming. It's almost hard. The hardest part is knowing where to even start with all of this. And yet, with the goal being, let's reduce the spending here. And then the next thing, you know, he, the big beautiful bill comes out and it's, it's way more spending than they even thought.

I would throw my hands up and go, good luck. You know what? You guys are on your own. If I were in, in a situation like that. If you brought me in to actually fix it, now a case could be made that they did not bring him in to actually fix it. But if you believed that you were being brought in to actually fix it, because you're smart and organized and you know how to do these things. And then you get in there and you say, this is what I do at all my other companies. We identify waste.

We send emails to see if people are actually really working remotely or if they're just deleting their, you know what I mean? You got to respond. Tell me what five things you did this week. All these things. You lay out all these things. And you go, there's a ton of inefficiency here.

We can cut all these people. We can cut all these departments, divisions, everything. We can get rid of all of them. And then we can button all this stuff up. And then your boss goes, that's great. Thanks for working on all that for me. We'll make sure to do none of this. And you go, then why am I here?

Right. That would be my response would be, then what am I doing here? But maybe what he's doing, maybe he's already, you know, there's nobody saying that he only had one mission there. Maybe his job was to reduce waste, but while also enabling this technocracy that's coming in from Silicon Valley that is extremely dangerous. And yes, you can get rid of the Department of Education, fire everybody there, fire everybody at USAID and all these groups and take a victory lap for that. But what kind of victory is it? Because because you brought in all the technocrats that you all know, those people are unnecessary

and they are redundant in this system anyway. We don't need. It's not so much that we're going to remove these agencies and then all those things are going to go away. We're just going to automate it. We're just going to make sure that I don't even need the approval of all these human beings to do X, Y, and Z. We've got the system in place that'll do it for us.

So I think that you could, you could sort of, disguise the automation of the government, the pivot into an AI government, you could disguise that by saying, we're getting rid of all of these government workers who are not showing up for their shifts or doing remote work. They're not doing anything. They're lazy. Nothing gets done. And there'd be a real appetite for that, right? Let's fire all these people. And you could be justified in doing that because you could say, look, they don't do anything. They're useless eaters, you know, as the globalists call us, these people are all useless. Let's get rid of them. Great. But the problem is you just have now created a new problem, which is it's all created, it's all

controlled tech, um, central. The control was centralized into the hands of these technocrats who wrote the program and he who writes the code runs it, right? So if they know how to do it, then, then you haven't necessarily solved a problem. You've just created a bigger problem, which is, Now there's no humans overseeing, no checks and balances, no good guys that might be trapped in a bad system. There's just nobody. And the system is run by computers. And that, of course, is something that they've dreamed of since the technocracy movement almost 100 years ago. They're making moves, you know, when we're talking about Greenland, talking about Canada, talking about all of, you know, connecting these together.

And you go, I wonder where they got that idea from. technocracy 1932 maybe I don't know you go look through the book and you go oh wait a second it looks like they're running this playbook a hundred years later you know it's actually feasible

right yeah well I mean so obviously I mean I agree what you said there is obviously one of the possible you know mindsets who really knows what he thinks and what his intentions are right that's what's interesting to me is from my perspective I don't the second part about the

I government I think is flatly obvious I think they're now actually rolling this out. We already have the GSA I bot they're using in the general service administration. I'll play, well, let's go next to the AI government point since we talked about that in one of our last discussions and how this plays out with the bill, which is very interesting. And you've probably seen the no oversight on AI for 10 years, which is just mind blowing that anybody think. But there's more than that that somebody's pointing out. I'll show you in a second. But first, Elon, my mindset is that I don't think he was coming with, I don't think, you know, the way that's framing, which is certainly possible, is that he was.

almost used in a way, right? He came in with this intention of do this and reduce waste and has now realized that was never the plan. But I don't feel that's the case. I think Elon Musk, if not more than Trump of the rest, is one of the main players and all of this. And I think that he is like, the idea was to frame this as cutting waste so that you had the excuse, always blaming the Democrats or somebody else a holdover from the other side, why it didn't happen. Oh, we really wanted to, you know, that kind of thing. And then, of course, falling back to the true trillion to $150 billion, in, but then the point is you could prove that even that wasn't true. You know, I mean, and I went through this, not just because reports were coming out.

I saw this myself, even before it was being reported on corporate media. And, of course, the overarching point that you can show all the different manipulations that were happening, all the different, I mean, there's all these weird things that were happening in the background. And at the end of the day, as we know, we've now spent more, or the government has spent more to this point than the previous administration. So objectively, regardless of the narrative, they failed, which is obvious in regard, but the point being made today is that that wasn't his fault.

that was the Republicans in Congress seems to be the partisan argument right now. You know, the bill and whatever else, they're the ones that didn't let this happen or allowed this to go more spending or that, you know, all the different arguments. To me, I think that was always the plan, which all I want people of listening is just consider both of those, right? Whether or not this is something that, you know, spun out, which does seem likely in a lot of ways that you and I think talked about the same about whether these two big, these big personalities would, I mean, quite obviously butt heads at some point with Trump

seemed to do with everybody in his circle at some point. And so big alpha males in the circle are going to have that kind of problem. But I think that he was involved with building out this AI direction. And my gut tells me he's being pushed aside because he's too conspicuous. Because, you know, as Matt Erit discusses, the technocrats are now stepping back out of the shadows. And I think they, but maybe a little bit too quick and maybe Elon was a bad choice. You know, that that's the thought process. Either way, I think overall it's pretty clear that this is going in a dangerous direction in regard to technocracy.

And so do any comments on the Elon point before we go to the AI point, in case you want to add something to that because, you know, we can't know for sure. It's all about what we can see. Yeah, it does kind of remind me of the magician who's asking you to look at what he's got in this hand, which is Elon. Come on, pay attention to Elon while there's something going on. You know, you really need to be watching what he's doing with his other hand because it's somewhere else. So they know that the cameras will follow that.

Elon's obviously a polarizing figure for a variety of reasons. He's been embraced by the right as some guy who's coming in to save everything. And now, yeah, I think a case can be made that, that, look, if you want to push through this technocratic agenda, you've got to have some technocrats in there who know how to make the system work. The problem is you've got a guy who sucks all the oxygen out of the room and Elon Musk who draws a ton of attention. And to your point, maybe too much attention to all of this at the same time. So he's a he'll be, you know, there'll be another one. There'll be another guy that gets sucked into Trump's orbit a year from now and his buddy, buddy and is his best friend and talks about how he loves him. And then, and then he'll be discarded as well because that's what Trump does.

Even if he throws you overboard early on, he may swing back by in his boat and rescue you like Marco Rubio. I mean, he obliterated that guy in debates and called him little Marco and insulted him. and rightly so made fun of how he drinks, you know, he's drinking water during his debate, all the crazy stuff, right? Just humiliated the guy and then makes him a secretary of state. And more. Yeah, that with three jobs now.

And more. Exactly. Yeah. Well, yeah, I agree. I think it's interesting to see that it's, you know, that what's, that speaks to me to, there's a larger thing at play, right?

That they're willing to put aside their hatred for each other as long as they get tapped by the right people, you know, and I think that's, whether that's outside this country or the same old people we talk about in this country, you know, the wealthy families or maybe it's Palantir for all we know. It's like, who knows, but I think it shows you, like you said, that's the black hole example. There's something doing that.

Like, I mean, if you look at the whole inner circle, from Gabbard to R.K. to Vance, to, I mean, all of them right before this, we're like, Trump's an idiot. He's blustering and he's always lying. And then all of a sudden, now we're the best team, you know, that shows you something. So on the point of AI, the reason I think this is so relevant, and this is what I might the article, the show we did on this, the impending future, AI government, but the point being, but who controls the AI. You know, that really does make a difference. The reason this is relevant to me is what we just talked about is, okay, so if the consideration is that Elon, you know, like we both agree, it seems that he is a major part of rolling

out this technocratic agenda, which is just transparent. It is the great reset from a red Republican side, rebuilding back better in the same way. You know, it's the same thing, in my opinion, but I think that's obvious. And so if we know that, or if we agree that Elon was, that was his agenda to help roll this out. And the idea is that this bill, which I'll play this clip next, is driving that into reality, the AI government, the AI oversight, that whole thing. And then that's the argument for why Doge didn't succeed. The bill, it seems as if it's a circular logic. Like, the point would be that if that failed, it's because of the agenda that he was a part of. You see what I'm saying? And so it seems to suggest that he was never really intent on doing that in the first place. But, you know,

you tell me what you think. We play this clip first. Then we can talk about this. is interesting. This is just somebody that I saw releasing this. The point is that we all saw the bill about the oversight. He points to the bill which is in the bill you can read for yourself about the idea of more GSAI bots is the most objective way to put it, which just means more artificial intelligence running

different parts of the government and then makes you wonder at one point, if not already, are we just going to AI government? Like, as a whole. And I think the whole Amy Gleeson-Dodge thing is worth talking about. So we'll come back to that. Today we're going to go down one of the largest rabbit holes I've ever found and this is the replacement of the government with AI and that's what's in this bill. Let's talk about it. So in section 4321 it talks about replacing the Department of Commerce with AI. Now the question comes with what else do they replace with AI? And here's where it gets

really strange. It talks about in this section below that no politician or governing body may stop AI for the next 10 years or enforce any laws or regulations regulating artificial intelligence models. Wow. That's Silicon Valley owning the government. Then we find Silicon Valley manipulating the weather. Then it gets we're weirder when we find AI and Silicon Valley entering the health care system to control all of that. And you can't sue any of these companies. Isn't that odd? And this kind of reminds me of the Vaccine Protection Act signed by Reagan in 1986 protecting all the vaccine companies from damages. There were so many lawsuits that they were actually going to go out of business. But the government protected them.

Then it gets even deeper when we find Billy Boy Clinton and the Telecommunication Act of 1996. He passed a bill so if they put a cell phone tower in front of your house, you can't sue for any damages. Do you see how the government is kind of seven us up and then they're going to replace the government with AI? Now, aside from his, which I actually agree with that that's the direction, but aside from his conclusion on it and maybe the weather add in, I think he makes very excellent points here about the kind of manufacturing idea, whether the vaccine, like the vaccine,

discussion where they just create a situation where you can't sue them and now they're essentially doing the same thing with what may be your next government or however you want to frame that but the overlap with that health that part and then considering that Stargate is an AI health driven vaccine you know therapeutic direction you know that's wild but so all those points start where you want I think that's very important stuff your thoughts the the 10 year no ability to modify stop or in any way hornets AI to keep it in line is terrifying. How was that? I mean, and you read that and you go, I mean, I don't know a reasonable person that would read that and think anything other than, whoa, that sounds like a really bad idea.

But of course, the government is filled with bad ideas. And it might be the setup. It might be the equivalent of that, 1986 vaccine, Act because they know the they know what's really going on. The vaccine, the pharmaceutical companies, they knew what was going on. They knew they needed help. The AI companies, they can extrapolate out where this is going. If you intend to be doing a lot of harm to the general public, then it would behoove you to set up the foundation beforehand to immunize yourself, not in a vaccine sort of way, but in a legal sort of way, like from lawsuits and the like. And so I wonder if that is, I wonder if this is the beginning of some sort of hands off my AI. You can't get in there and sue. We all know that there's a problem. I mean, there might be

the equivalent of a VERS court for AI. Oh, you were harmed by AI. Well, you're going to have to jump through all these flaming hoops and we'll settle maybe 1% of the actual cases that are brought against you. But again, it'll be like the vaccines, which is they set the schedule where there's a, you know, you take eight shots over the course of, say, a two year period. And then you come down with a problem and you go before the court and you say, my kid has a problem because of the vaccines. And they say, yes, but which one? You go, I don't know. It's one of them. And you go, well, my client is this vaccine. And I think it's reasonable that the other seven may have been the ones that gave your kid autism and not and not our clients right so if you can't prove which one

it is then you can't prove anything and it gets thrown out so again in an ai world i was harmed by the i i want i want justice and you go through some court which a i harmed you which one of them did it and it's like well right they're all blurred together so i don't know exactly which one did it but i just know that some one of them did it and they go yeah but my client isn't the one that harmed you. It could have been the other clients. And so the blurring of this also makes me very concerned. Of course, as you mentioned, the operation or the, the AI component to, you know, with Larry Ellison and Sam Altman talking about this, weaponizing vaccines and oh, we'll have a rush to market experimental vaccine. I guess Welcome Trust wanted to put it together in a hundred

days. I think AI or Sam Altman and Larry Ellison have much different visions on that. I think they said two days, you know, turn around and, and have the code sent to someone where they can make a personalized, customized vaccine specific for you. Oh, yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that, right? So we are in a very dangerous precipice here of, and we all see it. And it's tough to know, it's tough to know what, I mean, it's one thing if you say, well, we've got problems with the vaccines. You go, well, don't get your kid vaccinated, right? So, so, so. Okay, that's a solution. But if it's like, we have problems with AI, well, don't get your kid AIed.

Don't get yourself a, how do we, wait, how do we even do this? How do I remove myself from this new world that's being evictuous? Hoisted upon me, which I have no control over. Yeah, it's literally, that really put a fine point and that it's terrifying. Because AI, the way it's being applied is, you know, ubiquitous. It's in everything. It's doing everything. It's reading.

And so at the end of the day, let's just say it, you know, which inevitably seems to be the way it's going goes into direction where there's a problem because of it or some kind of sky net dynamic. Well, there's no going back after that, right? That's the point a lot of us are making is there's no like, well, we'll just roll it back. That's not how that works at this point. And it's so obvious that these problems are not being heard, rather that they just could care less about the out, the downside. It's about trying to take control or, you know, that's how I see it anyway. And it really is quite alarming to see how in, you know, all encompassing as I said this is with things like this. Leak reveals the Sam Altman and Johnny

of our cooking up 100 million AI companion devices. You know, and these are the kind of things I'm willing to bet you that'll be used in elementary school. Remember how we got the Apple computers and everything when you were in school and in Oregon trail and, you know, getting you worked in and like that's, I get, I'm willing to bet you that we see something like that being rolled out for, you know, your AI companion way we're going through school or something like that, which is kind of the way I, the normalization of that, I guess, never ending spy, you know, think about like your phone

where we laugh about in the past where all those, you know, they said, we want to spy. everybody and then they got you to put a phone in your pocket. So you can always listen to what you have to say. It's like that seems like that obvious next step. That does concern me. Or Israel seeks funding for a plan to require facial recognition exchange for food in Gaza. So one building step on that. And it's just using the world's plights to drive us into this biometric hellscape as being built. But yet the AI thing I think is a central part. One of the central concerns of our time, in my opinion, that we need to do something about this or stop falling for this partisan. Well, China's doing it first so we have to rush as fast as we can headlong into this thing kind of the same thing with

COVID-19 right like the rush to see something to prove something to make an injection never think you know always at the expense of the American people or the people in general well Ryan we need the good brain chips to fight the bad brain chips you know that's what you want to always binary man that's always how it goes you know it's like but you know I am of the mind that most people are beginning to see through this and happen for a long time and I honestly think that it comes back to the the blunder that was the COVID-19 response. So we can end on this point and talk about this because it overlaps kind of back with the first point we started with.

Because here's Dan Bongino saying, as we read and process reports of a new COVID strain, oh, here we go. I want you to know that we are actively investigating in multiple field offices, the cover-up of the origin of the COVID virus. We're still there. You know, it seems like in every way, everything they're doing is trying to direct you back to things that are largely already acknowledged, largely already fleshed out, but to go back to some kind of partisan, you know,

binary division point. And it says, along with associated matters requiring our attention, you deserve answers. So this was, wait, did I go back? Okay, that was the right one. And so I just want your, I thought I had a tweet there. That's weird. But so on the point of the COVID-19 strain, which you might have seen, this was going around, the U.S.

these cases of a new COVID variant linked to the surge in China. It seems to kind of like the same building points. But Dan Bongino, the origin of COVID, you know, why would the resources be focused on that and I just want your thoughts on where this goes with the kind of new building COVID-19, you know, whether just let's just say the pathogen WHO kind of hype virus dynamic that seems to still be building regardless of the narrative, you know, the pandemic accord was going despite the U.S. not being technically a part of the WHO, you know, where do you see all that going in that general? Let me can talk about the Moderna thing at the end. Yeah, it's funny. They're going to

get into the origins of COVID. Who was the president when COVID came out? Oh, it was Donald Trump. Oh, yeah, that's interesting. So you're going to go invest. investigate your boss. Let's have Dan Bonjino talk about Event 201 and drag all the people that participated in that, put them in handcuffs and drag them down to the police station and start interrogating them about things, about advanced knowledge. So it's a limited hangout, I think. You know, the idea that we're going to litigate, well, it's Wuhan. We got to go get the Chinese and they did all this stuff. It's like the Chinese didn't bulldoze sand into the skate.

parks and arrest surfers for not wearing a mask. That wasn't the Chinese government that did that. That was our government. That was our disgusting government that did all those things. So I again, Dan Bongino, boy, what an utter fraud he is. And the idea that there's people out there that think that he's going to come in and get to the bottom of things is, I mean, it's just, it's just Q for as far as the eye can see with that guy as far as I'm concerned. I think the, you know, it's, as it's been said before, COVID was an IQ test. It was a test to see who is paying attention. It was a, it was a drill to find out who's good at following orders and who isn't.

It was a psychological operation to break people down. You know, and back to Besmanoff, when he talks about the four steps, four stages of ideological subversion, The third step is introduce a crisis. It has to last at least six weeks. But then in the after you go through the crisis, I can shower them with authentic information and it won't change their mind. They're broken.

They are demoralized. So again, I think that there's a segment of the population who got broken by COVID. I think there's also a segment who woke up because of it. And they went, whoa. Yeah. There's a lot of nonsense going on here. The media is lying to me.

me, the stories are inconsistent, my experiences with it. You know, I mean, I was told there was going to be a, there was a pandemic and that it was going to kill millions and millions. There should be people stacked up corpses on my sidewalk, except I walk through and I don't see anybody. And then I go turn on my, my social media, and I see a bunch of dancing nurses that are clearly not working. They're not doing anything.

What am I, how am I supposed to, to internalize this? So if they want to try and push COVID a second time, good luck to them. You know, I mean, I just, I feel that that is probably not the best strategy. Again, I'm not trying to give these people ideas, but I just would think that you would pivot to something else. I mean, we know that they're trying to launch bird flu. They've been trying to do that for 25 years. I mean, they try it in Asia every decade or so. It doesn't really go anywhere.

So, and we saw recently, I think in the paper yesterday talking about a $700 million deal that just got ripped up that was for bird flu. But don't worry, it'll just pivot into a different type of vaccine for bird flu. It'll be MRNA with an AI component. You're on it. So it's not, it's a, I guess I take a little bit of solace in knowing that a segment of the population woke up to it during, during the scam, whether it was the message. that was wonky, whether it was their eyeballs, it didn't pass the test, whether they saw the authoritarians come out, whether they saw their neighbor, you know, their neighbor calling the police because there's too many cars in the driveway on Thanksgiving and they think there's

a super spreader event. It was revealing about the character of a lot of people in the United States. There were people, you know, you'd heard the things, well, if I were alive in Germany, I would have hit Anne Frank in my attic. I would have, I would have never, you know, partnered up with these Nazis and goose step down the down the street. Yes, you would. Yes, you would. Because you called the police on your neighbor for having too many cars in your parking lot.

You most definitely would have participated in this. People are weak. People are especially weak when they think that they, that all they have to do is comply and then they're protected. There's a huge rush to do. Right. Yeah. They pass it.

No, that's the good thing. You're supposed to tell on your neighbor. Sorry, keep going. I just think that's important. Sure. Yeah. I mean,

if you see something, say something. That's what Janet Napoliton. told us, right? Except, well, I see something all the time. And whenever I say it, it's funny, I get banned from social media. Apparently it's a one-way street on the things that they want you to talk about. But it's been, you know, it was a big unmasking the last five years with regard to COVID. It showed the media for who they really are. It showed the pharmaceutical industry for being a bunch of convicted criminals. They're all convicted felons for their crimes.

that they've committed over the years that they've been in business. It was an indictment on weak people. And it showed that the pharmaceutical industry still has a ton of power. Hopefully some of that goes away. I think I think I would love to see. I mean, my expectations for RFK Jr. are extremely low. I don't think he is, I don't think he is in a position, even if he wanted to change the world,

I don't think he can. I think he's too compromised. But, you know, the idea that he could come out and maybe end the direct-to-consumer advertising on the mainstream media, that would be a victory, I think, because if he did that, I think the following day, CNN and MSNBC would file for bankruptcy. They would just, or their parent companies would zero them out and write them all. off as a tax loss and then close them down because when you get 60% of your ad revenue from the pharmaceutical industry in the United States as we do, no more Sky Rizzy commercials anymore. You know, no more, none of that, none of that stuff that was clogging up your television.

You're going to have media companies that don't have any revenue coming in any longer. So I have no expectations for a guy like that getting in there and doing anything the next time COVID comes around. However, if there's one, if I could wave a magic wand and get him to a conversation, accomplish one thing, it would be to end that direct to consumer advertising because it's a two for one. You simultaneously get those ads off of TV while destroying the mainstream media in the process. Because none of us are taking advertising revenue from Pfizer or Merck or Moderna or anything like that. They are.

Mainstream media is nobody's offering to sponsor activist post with the Moderna ads. Not that I would take their money anyway, but it's not going to impact my revenue. but it would for them. And so hopefully something like that would happen. But you might also notice, I'm not holding my breath either because that guy has promised quite a bit. And so far I haven't seen much. So it would be nice, but that might just be me fantasizing. Well, I mean, we should all hope for that definitely, right? But I think that the concern is based on the track record thus far. And again, whether it's blackmail, whether it's that he's never been on it, you know, whatever it is, clearly something, there's a black hole there. clearly we could see something shifting, you know, is if that was going to happen,

I'd be willing to bet you the establishment that clearly is still in control would not allow, there'd be some kind of pivot, whether it's going to be APEC funding all of a sudden or, you know, whatever it is, my mind jumps to that, but anything, you know, the funding will be replaced. I don't think that they would allow that propaganda network to go away. I mean, we all know is they're all subsidized by this point. Fox News, CNN, MSN, they'd fail right now if it wasn't for this kind of propped up dynamic, you know, but I still would hope to see that.

I still think that will be a positive step. also a positive step. And I think it was a, I guess, feigned step, the idea of the removal of the COVID shot for, you know, basically saying that they're not going to recommend it anymore. They didn't remove from the schedule. They're not going to recommend it for people in certain categories anymore, which is still a positive inching forward, but they're still allowing the shots to be given, which we all know are deadly, that he told us are deadly.

And, you know, the thing is frustrating. A lot of people are calling it out. Danny Ranku, Tally Bowden, different people are standing up and saying that doesn't make any sense. You know they're deadly. You said that before. But again, it's still one little step further. But the point is you're still telling people that they should take them in certain circumstances, which is insane to me.

But I want to bring that up because still, that's also somewhat in that direction. And I'll overlap that with this to end. And to your point about the COVID thing, I agree with you. And I've been saying the same thing about it doesn't make sense. Like clearly going in the same direction again doesn't seem to add up. However, the one way I think it would, which we all see does work today to some degree, would be them to say, you know, through Trump, had Donald Trump come out through that administration and say,

this one's real, though, right? This is what's happening. This is a, you know, Democrats lied to you, but I can prove this to you right now. And we're making a good one this time. This is the good shot that we've changed. How much you want to bet most of them would probably fall in line, which is terrifying.

You know, and that scares me. But I agree with you. I don't think that's the way it's going to go. And that's why I think it's interesting that the COVID shot is probably not even what they're interested anymore, right? So moving out of the schedule entirely even would still be a win, but I don't think that's where they're aiming. I mean, Stargates and MRNA platform, right?

They've got all sorts of MRNA shots that they're working with. Now, to that point, this is recent news, which I saw this. I said good, because I was worried about this. This is the bird flu shot that was approved under Biden at the very end of his administration that is carried through. And you could already prove that they did continue this, but now it seems they've canceled. At least they've announced that. I'm going to look more into this today and tomorrow.

But so the report was Trump canceled $76 million, a modern contract to fight pandemic flu. What I found interesting was, here's what CNN reported. HHS cancels $590 million contract. Here's what, where is the other one? Here's what, oh, that closed it on an accident? Not too bad. There was another one.

There's three articles and all had a different number. I think that's hilarious. Corporate media. They don't really know what they're talking about. I believe it's around, I think it's 76, was the accurate full picture. My point was, just because they're pulling back on the MRI shot, or excuse me, the bird flu shot from before this that carried over,

as you likely know, that's why I said you're on it. they're still rolling this one out. M RNA vaccine candidate, which was the self-amplifying MRI shot for the same thing for bird flu. So it's sort of a bait and switch, and it always seems to be the case because you're getting a lot of people cheering,

which I agree with is good to stop this contract, but as if that means, see, they don't really want this to happen. They don't believe in these things, but they do. And they're leaning into MRI shots all over the place, including the central hanging, which is the Stargate platform.

You know, it's all right in front of us. And so it really worries me. And I'll also highlight this one. I've talked about the aerobron Aerovax, which is an aerosolized version of these same things. Right. You know, so I just see where all this is going. And I really just hope we can continue to be, you know, as we said earlier, skeptical,

especially to those that you believe in because maybe they're being played, right? You should be holding their feet to the fire more than anybody. But final thoughts on this and where it goes, COVID or whatever else, Charlie, always fun to talk to you, man. I'm just envisioning this aerosolized vaccine being sprayed all over San Francisco like they did back in the, what, 50s, 60s, Operation C spray. Yeah. Yeah. We're just testing it out. We'll see if, you know, what happens. It's a dangerous time to be paying attention, but I'd rather be paying attention than a sweep at the wheel and walking into these traps. And it seems like we're going to have our hands full moving forward because if you want to convince the Trump, you know, if you want to convince the Trump people to operate against their own best interest, you have to have a guy like Trump in there to do it. You know, that's that. So I, the people on the right side of the aisle, they need to have their eyes. open. They think they're safe because their guy is in there. No, no, no. The crosshairs are squarely on you

because your guy is in there because they know he will be able to get to you at a way that Kamala Harris and that administration never could. He'll be able to reach you because you have let your guard down because you secretly are, you've come to believe that Donald Trump is there to help you. So same old thing, right? If you want to get the right to get involved, in it, get a Republican president in there. You've got Trump. So for the next couple of years, it's going to be a war against them. They won't see it. They won't believe it. They can't believe it. They can't allow themselves to believe that Donald Trump is who he is. But I will remind everybody what Steve Poikinen always reminds me, and that is that Donald Trump has, is in the world

wrestling entertainment Hall of Fame as a professional wrestler. And when you watch his administration, the only thing missing is to hit hitting some guy in the head with a folding chair at this point because I've watched him do it with Zelensky. We watched him do it with the guy in South Africa. He brings him in for these struggle sessions. It feels very inauthentic. And I'm just waiting for him to get up on the top turnbuckle and go do a flying leap on some guy at some point because it all feels very cartoonish to me. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. You know, and I think that I mean, it's obvious. is the people fall for this stuff, you know, but I think that clearly it's not, it's partisanship. That's like with COVID-19, the left very clearly didn't want to believe that their part of the team was going to allow this to happen, you know, and people ignore what is obviously, you know, not in their interest.

They, they, whether they would ignore what the governments are doing that are hurting them in real time because they want to take a side, you know, and I think the, the problem is clearly for them that as you said earlier, people are just no longer really falling in line as much as they were. that's what a lot of this comes back to. And as you said as well, I don't think it's going to be the same thing. I think what they're doing is going to be a different flavor of a similar dynamic. And to your last point, Brad Binkley said this recently on a show, he invited me on for interview. And the same thing you were just saying. I'd really think this is a profound, but simple thing to think about that if anybody, but authority, a government was going to manipulate you, they're not going to choose the person that you hate to deliver the message. They're going to choose someone that you'll be open to, somebody that you'll be interested in listening to.

And so it doesn't mean that everyone you trust is therefore not on your side, but that should be the number one consideration about whether that might be the case. And it's just being objective, question everything, right, while considering all possibilities. So thank you again, brother. I'm sure we'll do this again soon. What the hell is happening? I've got one last thing to add since we're on a live show. Any of you in the Phoenix area this weekend, Saturday night, I will be there for the premiere, world premiere of the new movie Barnum World, which is brought to you by the guys who did

Jones Plantation, the same director and the same star, Mr. Jones. You'll know him on Twitter as Legal Man, star in Barnum World. I am also sort of in the movie. I'm the voiceover. I'm the narrator and I'm the off-camera interviewer who's interviewing the guy. So you never actually see me in the movie, but I'm in it. So we'll be in Tempe, Arizona, Saturday night, May 31st. If you're interested in getting tickets to the premiere, you can go to Eventbrite. Just type in Barnum World. That's the name of the movie. And then it'll be available to the general public the following week. I think he's going to put it on YouTube. It'll be free for everybody. But if you happen to be in Phoenix and you're looking for something to do on on Saturday night,

you can come to the world premiere of Barnum World. Should be fun. We'll be there. And once that movie's out, I'll send it. I'll send it to you. I'll come back on. We'll talk about it. Absolutely, man. Looking forward to it. Yeah, if you're out there, show some support, guys. people in this field need it more than usual. So thank you again, brother. And I'll end with this clip of my interview with now I'm blanking on his name all of a sudden, Dr. Martin, Dr. David Martin and his point just about who was responsible for COVID. I think it's important to hear this again. So we understand we're, you know, a patent-based, fact-based understanding of where these things were made is pretty obvious right now. So thanks again, brother, looking forward to the next one.

And as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. We should be having a public dialogue, and it should be something that rises to the level of legislation. We should not allow the National Institute's Health or the Department of Defense to allocate funding to amplify these agents so that allegedly we can study them in the case that they fall into the hands of bad people. Because the evidence has shown us that the bad people who actually have unleashed these pathogens since 1991, and by the way, if you go to the miscellaneous memory, Random 7 and other documents, we can go back to the 1950s. The bad people who unleash these things on the population are us. It is the U.S. who's doing it.