The Last American Vagabond - Derrick Broze Interview - The Slow Change Into Digital ID, Budding Technocracy & A Fluoride Win

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

Joining me today is Derrick Broze, here to discuss his recent articles for TLAV, and to discuss a major shift in the water fluoridation conversation, specifically as it pertains to Houston. We also discuss the looming threat of a technocratic future, and the many ways this future is currently becoming a reality, most obvious of which is the currently growing digital ID infrastructure and the surreptitious and deceptive way this early step is being rolled out.Source Links:Fluoride Trial Archives - The Last American Vagabond(25) Derrick Broze on X: "Important hero and whistleblower in the fluoride infowar." / X(25) Derrick Broze on X: "This is a good move. HHS Secretary Kennedy & EPA Admin Lee Zeldin Announce Review of Fluoride Science Today, at an event in Salt Lake City, Utah, with U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator https://t.co/vuV0fcJfKv" / XTrump officials quietly move to reverse bans on toxic ‘forever chemicals’ | PFAS | The GuardianCNN Environment News: Dioxin DangersRFK Pushes MMR Jab, Trump's Yemen War Crime, American Killed By Israel & Weaponized DeportationThe SAVE Act, REAL ID & ID2020 - Using The #TwoPartyIllusion & The Election To Usher In Digital IDsNew Tab- The Conscious Resistance NetworkWho Runs the Pyramid of Power? Derrick Broze on Redacted - The Conscious Resistance NetworkRitualistic Sex Abuse Charges Dismissed Against Admitted Child Abuser David HamblinReal ID, Voter ID & Digital ID: The Future of American IdentificationDOGE: Is Efficiency a Gateway to Technocracy?The Technocratic Regime Change: Under The Guise Of Freedom Technocrats Are Slowly Taking ControlNew TabMeet The Peter Thiel Acolytes in Donald Trump's 2nd AdministrationMeet the Man Whose Philosophy Has Influenced Peter Thiel and the TechnocratsDonald Trump, Peter Thiel, and the Technocrats'You Can't Hide': Elon Musk & SpaceX Are Helping US Intelligence Build the World's Largest Spy Satellite NetworkNew TabOperation Enduring Freedom: The United States Opium TradeBitcoin 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 is Derek Brose to get caught up on a lot of things. He's written a lot of fantastic articles, as all of his articles are, for the Last American Vagabond in the last couple of weeks that have been really profound, really important for a lot of different topics. And in general, just always good to touch base with his work and a lot of the important things he's doing, like the Pyramid of Power, for example, and the updates on the fluoride investigation, the trial. So I wanted to invite him on today to get more into that. Just kind of get caught up with Derek in general.

How are you, brother? Welcome back. Hey man, I'm doing great. Thanks for having me back on. Yeah, just a side note before we get started today, Tis is in here filming the documentary we've been talking about, and so you might see him floating in the shot in case you guys are curious about why this random man

with a camera is coming into the shot. But you can look forward to that coming out. I think it'll be kind of, there's some that are already pieces of different parts of it out, but I'm looking forward to that coming together or something larger. Derek, he was doing that with you as well. That's correct, right?

Yeah, I've had the fun experience of having Tis follow me around back. in January at the People's Reset. Yeah, it's an interesting experience. I'll tell you that out of the gate, just having to, you know, try to be spontaneous in moments that aren't, which is difficult for those of us. We were joking when Steve was in here, we were doing the recording, and it's like this reflexive, like, stop telling me what to do, you know?

Stop telling me how to act what to say. Anyway, just funny. But I really am glad to talk to you today, man, because we haven't got a chance to connect with, I think the one that really stands out to me is the Doge technocracy overlap that I want to touch on a little bit. want to start right out of the gate with you today with some of the updates you have around the fluoride investigation, the trial, and kind of just your thoughts on where that's going and some other kind of tangential points we were talking about off air that I think are relevant

to bring in. But go ahead and start with where you are with that and what's going on in the moment. Yeah, so there's definitely some federal fluoride news I want to get into in a moment, but I did want to share just an update. I've been telling you for a while, Ryan, that I had filed some open records requests with the city of Houston, which is where I'm originally from, and trying to figure out just details about the current fluoride program. And this is because I've been going to city council since 2012, 2013. I originally started a group called Fluide Free Houston way back then. So over a decade ago, and we were going to city council.

We were trying to get fluoride out of the water. And I was learning all about how city government works and how corrupt it is even on the local level. And we had some successes getting about five or six council members interested. And they were like, look, we hear you. This seems like a concern. But at the time, I realized that the city of Houston, the mayor was actually like the strongest mayor in the country and that the council members are basically just figureheads who have no power to, you know, they can be against anything they want, but they can't put anything on the

agenda. They can't actually bring it to a vote. That's all in the mayor's hand. So I'd kind of given up on that effort years ago, but then obviously fast forward more recently, the Floyd trial starts in 2020. You know, it came to a conclusion last year with a verdict against the EPA and in favor of the Floyd Action Network. And a lot of this is sort of like re-ignited my interest in trying to get, you know, get fluoride out of the water in Houston, even though I don't live there anymore just because my family's there.

I think it would be a good moral victory to get the fourth largest city in the country to, you know, say no to this. So I started to when I ran for mayor in 2019 and 2023, I was talking about Floyd. I was saying, hey, if you elect me, we're going to get Florida out of the water, et cetera, et cetera. And obviously this has become a national issue now, which is, you know, good to see. And so I think I last went to city council in Houston in October, 24. Same thing. Brought them the studies, brought them the conclusion of the lawsuit, the National Toxicology Program report, all the things we've covered.

I brought them all that data, emailed them, et cetera. And pretty much per usual was ignored and nobody said anything and kind of, all right, well. And then after doing that, I started to look on the city's website and I couldn't find anything in the budget. I couldn't find, you know, you would expect if governments, you give a crap about the people actually being able to be informed, you should have a simple website in 2025 where you can go and look through the budget, line item, you know, word by word, I could just keyword fluoride and find exactly where the fluoride budget is. But sure enough, that is not the case. And in fact,

it's actually very difficult to find out where, you know, what the fluoride budget is, where that program's been at. And the best I could find is that they took it from being just an obvious program, hit it inside some sort of other special operations or something within public works. long story short i ended up finding uh filing records requests uh on the city of houston because they that's i guess that's just what you got to do if you're just a regular person and not a journalist and you don't have money to file open records requests well then you're out of luck you're just not going to find that info and even when i tried to call them just being like you know sometimes i'll put the journalist hat on sometimes i take it off and just say hey i'm just a

concerned citizen i'm just curious can you tell me whether the city of houston's adding florida to the water nobody could give me any answers nobody knew where to send me it's just like a total miss for the fourth largest city in the United States. And I ended up having to file these open records requests. I requested specifically emails from, I think I did the last three years, three or four years, so 2024 to 2020, I think, and specifically looking for emails, contracts, memos, et cetera, that contain hydrofluoresolic acid, fluoride, water fluoridation. And I ended up getting 3,000 emails. And I definitely haven't gone all of them, but I've gone through a fat chunk of them and I'm going to be doing an article that will kind of outline this more in detail.

But what I want to share today is that I can I could already, I've had this information for a couple of months, but I've been kind of sitting on it because I wanted to get more details. But I can confirm for sure that the city of Houston is not adding fluoride to their water. That would make the city of Houston the largest city in the country to not be adding fluoride to the water. The second or the current, as far as we know, biggest city is Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is nowhere near as big as Houston.

And so that's, you know, it's again to be kind of big news. And so I've kept that in my back pocket while I've been digging through these emails because I wanted to do my journalistic due diligence and be able to say, this is the exact date that the water fluoridation program ended. And I haven't been able to find that, unfortunately, but I did find one email where this woman, her name's Joni Senech, and she is in the Houston Public Works Department. And she received an email from another official from a nearby town saying,

hey, can you tell us the latest on your water fluoridation program? And in her own words, I have the email right here. And she said the water of fluoridation, she said something like, because we have groundwater fluoride, you know, basically naturally occurring fluoride, the city of Houston hasn't been adding fluoride for five years. And this was October 24. So that means since at least 2019, according to this city of Houston employee, they have not been adding fluoride to the water, which is for me kind of funny because I'm like, okay, I was campaigning in 2019. I've been to city council. And for Merrigan in 2023, nobody ever bothered saying like, hey, by the way, there's no more fluoride in the water, which I have my theories on and I'll share in a moment.

But essentially, right before we recorded this interview, I actually called this woman because she has been kind enough to speak back and forth with me. And again, I didn't have my journalistic hat on because they tend to treat you differently if they think you're a journalist asking questions instead of just a curious citizen saying, hey, I'm just trying to figure out what the fluoride things about. But I think by this point, she knows who I am. And I actually, after I got the initial email, after I did those initial files, I filed a whole other open records request specifically for her emails for the last five years because she seems to be mentioned quite a bit in this.

And the city of Houston is now appealing that to the state of Texas. They're trying to deny me access to that for some reason. So I think I'm on the track of something. But right now, they've sent a letter to the state attorney general or the attorney, yeah, the AG of the state saying we should not have to reveal this. information because I asked for more information about contracts and specific details and not because I'm trying to really get into their business. I just want to know, like, is there a date that you can give me when this contract ended, when floor I'd stop being added? And the city of Houston's

trying to deny that. So I was actually able to get her on the phone. And I said, hey, you probably know I file the records request for your emails. And that's, you know, it's nothing against you. It's just because I see you're mentioned quite a bit in this. She told me she didn't start at the city till 2021. But as of just 30 minutes ago, she told me her best guess that she was able to figure out through her own research is that the city of Houston stopped adding fluoride to the water in 2018, 2019 kind of fiscal year. And there was never any public announcement. There's never been any media, any news reporting on this. I'm assuming it was probably a budget situation because the city of Houston is like millions of dollars in debt like many major cities in the U.S. And so it's been like a

huge issue in the city for years. Like we're about to go off the fiscal cliff. What are we going to do. That was actually why I was campaigning saying, hey, if you want to save the city money, how about we get rid of this million dollar a year fluoride project? Exactly. And so, thankfully, somebody did it. But, you know, my point, my interesting thing that I'm coming away with, and I've even had some hesitance to report on this, because at the moment, nobody in Houston knows that there's not fluoride in the water. But obviously, because of RFK at the HHS, because of the fluoride lawsuit, and I would argue because of our reporting as well, fluoride has become like a national topic again. So at the moment, it's kind of like, hey, we're sort of under the radar. I've been

telling all my friends, hey, guys, there's no Floyd in Houston, by the way. But the moment we report on this, and especially because I think that the local media in Houston should take an interest in this, and I want to kind of send a letter to the editor to some of the biggest papers in the city and say, what have you guys been doing? None of you all paid attention. None of you all report on this because they're really falling down on their job. But my fear, as well as the fears of some folks that I spoke to, including Michael Conant and others at the fluoride action at work is that by announcing this, we might actually ignite some momentum under the pro-fluoride activists. And then all of a sudden, you get people fighting to get the fluid back

in the water. So as it stands, though, we can say for sure, and I have all of the monthly measurements to where they go to check the water. As we've reported in the past, the EPA, the CDC, et cetera, they've set a target over the years for 0.7 milligrams per liter. And they, the city of Houston has been at 0.3.4. Now, that may mean that the Houstonians are kind of below the risk of IQ loss and all these other things. But of course, the fact is that we don't really know, and I talked about this with my reporting in the trial, they were never able to conclusively say when exactly it starts. That's why Michael Connett, Floyd Action Network and others have been saying the expert witnesses, the scientists have been saying, we need to exercise the precautionary

principle. And, you know, since we can't pinpoint where the harm starts, let's just get rid of it, We know that at some point above or around 0.7, harm seems to begin. And the government wants us to believe it's totally safe at 0.7. But nevertheless, we don't really know. So as of 2018, 2019, and as of right now in 2025, the city of Houston with 3, 4 million people in it is not being fluoridated. The test that they show shows show levels of 0.3, which is just naturally occurring fluoride, which is different, I will say, not to say it's not harmful because some people, they fall into that trap. because it's naturally occurring, it doesn't have the same harms, but it does. But the difference is that it's not toxic sludge from aluminum mining being added to the water.

But nevertheless, there is still some level of it in there. So I kind of think of this as a win. I'm like, oh, wow, this is something I've been fighting for for over a decade. And it kind of happened quietly and none of us even realized it. And it hasn't been reported anywhere. Yeah, it's actually, I mean, obviously your work is probably a foundational part of why this, even secretly might have happened, if that is the reality of it. what's interesting to me, just for all the things you laid out there, think about how illogical

it is to have, you know, so they're like, it's completely safe and it's good. It's actually for your benefit, but we're going to do everything we can to stop you from getting the information about how that's happening. It's like, okay, well, that doesn't feel right. Something's, you know, they wouldn't, if it was something that was benign, they would be happy to display this stuff, but it's interesting about how that, that's my opinion anyway. But, you know, the interesting part about that is that, you know, in a way, you could, you might even argue that the, that, you know, from your work and others, that maybe they're people, because I've always in the mind that there's not, every person and every position of authority is all part of the problem.

I think they're all part of the problem that is the system. But not, you know, we know there are people that act within that in some ways and good ways. And it may be this whole effort allowed that foot hold by saying, okay, well, they gave us a number now. So now we can say, because we've got natural point three, which you pointed out, not everybody does, they could just say, well, by adding that, then it'll be above that number. And they get, that's the, the logic they can use push back on it. Because I mean, we've have, we've seen pushback, you know, on whether that should happen. But all said and done, I think it's really important to see that this is shifting. And I do think it's because of work like yours and other and Conant and the rest of it.

And it's insane that we're still talking about this. And how I remember you and I talked about when the trial was really kind of, you know, it was clearly coming out that they had lost that ultimately it was going to be now a decade long battle of them continuing to fight to keep it in our water. And that's essentially where we are, it seems. But I'm glad to see that, at least in some places that it's being removed. Now, one more thing I was going to ask you, do you think that that, are you certain that's not there based on what you see. Are you worried at all that it's just simply like another like

compartmentalization like you talked about where they just now call it something else and we don't know that it's on the docket and some other name? But again, you said they tested the water. So give me your thoughts on that. I would place my confidence in this at 95 to 100%. And I say that because I have numerous, you know, so they come and do like monthly or, you know, quarterly testing of the water. And so I have those records where it shows like levels of fluoride. And you can see it's like below that. I have emails where they're talking. I mean, I have a lot of interesting emails, and this will be coming up in a new article for The Last American Bagabwebawar, of course. We're going to include all these emails. Nobody has to trust me, my word. You can have access

and read them yourself. And the other interesting thing is that the city of Houston was obviously, they were keeping up with the trial, too. They were talking about the trial as it was going on. There's even one email where they talk about the judges, you know, they're sharing an article about the judge's ruling. And some city of Houston employee says, how is this going to impact us in our fluoride program in the long run or whatever, which is interesting because if the fluoride wasn't there anymore, you know, I don't know what to say. But I will say I also have pictures that these were in City of Houston presentations like PowerPoints that they were sharing with each other. And there's one picture I have, there's a kind of a suburb of Houston Northwest called Kingwood. And they have pictures of

the guys in the hazmat suits and everything cleaning out the fluoride tanks because they're basically getting rid of everything that's left. And so I have pictures that with the date saying like, fluoride being removed from Kingwood tanks. So we have that. We have the water test showing that it's at 0.3.4 and it says naturally occurring. So even if they were adding it, they're not, which I don't think they are, they're not even anywhere near the target level of the CDC. And then of course I have the email where like I said, this city of Houston officials specifically tells another official from a smaller nearby town who's just asking questions about the fluoride program saying we have not been adding Floyd for the last five years. So at this point, and then again, after talking with her this

morning, now I feel confident enough to report on it. This is kind of why I have been sitting on it. I didn't want to like go forward without trying to get some more official statement, if you will, and then end up being, you know, misquoted or something like that. But now I feel pretty confident. I am going to continue to dig through these emails. Like I said, I got 3,000 of them. And, you know, just and I'll make a side note here, just a pitch for why you should continue to support TLAB or, you know, my work, both of us is because these are the kind of things. that I do journalistically, that costs money. You know, that's like, I think $60, $70 to request those files.

Not a huge amount of money, but that's what it takes to actually get access to documents if you want to, instead of just talking about it, but you actually want to see them. Same thing. I'll just mention, like I started looking up the court records for this ongoing immigration thing with the gentleman from Maryland who's been deported. Instead of just talking about it and taking the government's word for it, I have a PACER account. So I go there and I pay a little bit of money to get access to these files. This is what I think it takes to do real journalism.

So please do continue to support us. And yeah, so I now have all those records. I'm going to continue to pour through those files just to make sure there's nothing else that I'm missing. Like maybe there's even more, you know, another bombshell statement or something. But right now I've got a folder saved where all of the spicier stuff is being saved. And I will be putting those in the next article for TLAB. And of course, we'll upload the original emails so people can check those out themselves. Yeah.

So I feel pretty good that it's for sure that the city of Houston is not. fluoridating and hasn't been for at least the last five years. And I think that's the headline. And for those who are opponents and advocates for getting fluid out of the water, when we report on this, please take this report and run with it. Because again, if you're in a smaller town that can look and be like, oh, well, if the city of Houston is doing this, then maybe we can do it over here with our smaller population of 20,000 people or 50,000 people, whatever. That was kind of always my goal is that if we were able to get fluoride out of the city of Houston's water, that would be like a big step forward because, you know, then you've got L.A., you've got New York, you've got Chicago,

those cities are all fluoridated. And so there's a pretty big jump from Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Houston, Texas. I think that is a, you know, for me, the headline I want people to take away. Whether or not it came from them, you know, the people voting and them saying, hey, this is bad, we're going to get rid of it. I think it was more likely related to the budget and the city being in debt. We don't know those facts at the moment, but nevertheless, the fluoride's not in the water. So, you know, I'll take that as a win. Definitely. I think somebody should whether Houston or the other city you mentioned, somebody should be doing some studies,

2019 forward. What's the difference? Take a heavily fluorinated population and compare it to this. I think that's an interesting comparison to see if there's any major differences, and I think that would be important. It's interesting just real quick that if we do report on this, again, and I'm not going to hesitate

because I think the truth should be out regardless of the consequences, but I won't be surprised if we do see the fluoridation, pro-flordation activist from the American Dental Association, from the Floridation Society, et cetera, these people who always pop up, that all of a sudden they pop up and they start talking about how Houston's going to go into cavities and everybody's going to end up getting bad dental health if we don't have Florida, even though it's been going on for five years and nobody's said anything about it.

Right. Or what a great point to make. Or the idea that let's pretend like our government actually cares that we get cavities as opposed to spending money to care about your teeth. And again, just for the record, I know the people, our audience, they're probably well aware, at least of my opinion, opinion on this or you can speak for yourself on it. I think you agree. Florida is bad for you. It's dangerous. There, in my opinion, are no positive benefits for putting this in any context

in your water and your toothpaste. I think it's actually a detriment. I mean, it's toxic, but I think that's for people to read their own, you know, look at the science. That's important. And as I'm saying that, all of these articles that Derek has written, and this is just one page of, what is it, of five different pages of different, this is all from the fluoride trial forward. And Derek has done a bunch more work to that on the conscious resistance. But the point is, link to source material, peer-reviewed science, showing you this. Or the interviews you've had with, I forget his name from the WHO. It's an interesting last name, the doctor who basically spoke out of them.

Yeah, Dr. Philippe Grangine. We talked to Dr. Hu, we talked to the other ones, escape me. But the three expert witnesses who were at the floor, I'd lawsuit. Yeah, all of those interviews, and those are all referenced in my articles with the quotes from them directly. So you don't have to take minor Ryan's word for it. You can hear it from the people who are the lead experts on Mercury, on Lernery, lead, who the U.S. government, the EPA themselves, took their work and used their work to

build their thresholds for harm for lead and for mercury. And they listened to them before, but they're ignoring them or they have been ignoring them when it comes to fluoride, which I think leads us right into just a little bit of an update on the kind of the fluoride lawsuit things going on right now. For those who might not have seen just yesterday as we're recording this, So on Monday, the head of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the head of the EPA, Zeldron, I think Lee, something like that. Zeldon, yeah, they were in Utah to commemorate or to celebrate Utah becoming the first state to ban fluoride. And at that press conference, which you can see right there on my Twitter account,

Zeldon makes an announcement, says that the EPA is going to expeditiously review all the scientific data related to the fluoride in the water. And that link there is the official EPA statement. People can find that on their website. Now, I want you to highlight something here, Ryan. So as you see, I post it there, I said, hey, this is a good move, right? And, you know, I'm going to give credit where it's due. I have all kinds of other issues with Robert F. Kennedy, as I know you do, Ryan,

with the anti-Semitism, with the vaccines, et cetera. But this looks like, okay, cool, give credit where it's due. I'll just say it's a good move, right? But if you go to the first comment in there, I'm pretty sure it's Michael Connett from the Floyd Action Network. Yes, go ahead and look at Michael. comment because I think this is important to highlight because Michael, for those who don't know, he's the lead attorney who fought with the Floyd Action Network. He's the one who, along with his team, beat the EPA last year and had the judge say that, you know, they need to act. And so I'm going to

be including this, this quote in my article as well when I do one about this. He said, I'm very wary of EPA's announcement because Zelda never mentioned that the EPA is already under the court order to take regulatory action to address fluoridation's unreasonable risk to human health. And he's talking about the court order from last year again. The lawsuit ended with Judge Chen saying the EPA must act. And then Ryan in the last days of the Biden administration, the Biden administration announced that they were going to appeal it. Now, so far, the Trump administration has not rescinded that appeal, the new EPA under Trump. They have till this Friday to do so. So Michael says under the court order, EPA must initiate rulemaking proceedings under the

Tosca toxic substance control act to issue a rule that will eliminate the risk related to Florida. Zeldon sidestepped this current obligation and focused on EPA doing another review of the science under a separate statute because they specifically said, we're going to review this because of the Safe Drinking Water Act. But he's making the point that they're kind of ignoring the ruling that's already come down from the judge. Meanwhile, the EPA is still moving forward with its appeal of the court order, thereby delaying any actual action the EPA will take to eliminate the risk.

EPA's deadline for filing its appeal is this Friday, April 11th. If the EPA files the appeal, as it looks like they will, that will likely say more about the EPA's true intentions with fluoride than a commitment to do another review, especially because the EPA's reviews on fluoride literature in the past have been atrocious. So Michael, the lead attorney who fought the federal lawsuit against the EPA, who I will say privately has had some optimism with RFK being there and like, hey, look, this might be the chance. You know, we're actually going to see it. We're three days away from this. They have made no statements about, you know, rescinding the appeal or what, you know, anything related to the lawsuit. They

haven't said anything. RFK hasn't said anything about the lawsuit. They mentioned it in passing in this press conference, but not in the sense of like, we're going to stand by that court ruling and we're going to start rulemaking to figure out, you know, the harms of fluoride. You know, so I think that that's an important point. On one hand, they hold a press conference where they're saying they're going to review all the fluoride science under the, you know, using the Safe Drinking Water Act, etc. But no admission that the court, a federal court in San Francisco has already ordered the EPA to initiate rulemaking specifically about the harms of fluoride that were found in this court case. So the fact that, you know, I can have my own skepticism, but I definitely would give more

weight to Michael Connett, the lead attorney for the Floyd Action Network, saying that he believes, again, he says, and it looks like they will, you know, file the appeal and continue to appeal this decision. And of course, he doesn't have much confidence in the EPA doing another review when we already have so much data out there. So on one hand, yes, it's a good move, but let's also temper it with the reality of what might be going on. Well, and let's not forget that this process has already been like a seven-stage process of new reports and new reviews from every element. This has long since been done according to the National Toxicology Program to Conn himself. I mean, it's obvious, right?

And that's, to me, in my opinion on this, look, the step is highlighting this is good in and of itself. But I think the problem with what we're dealing with in everything today is that they're aware that people are seeing these problems. And so these things in a lot of way are, you know, release valves in order to make, you know, to let people think that there's momentum coming. I hope this continues in a positive way. But to overlap this was something you were highlighting around, I mean, any number of these things or even the point that I just saw around about Forever Chemicals is there's a game that's always played where you water it down in a long-term, overwhelming investigation, and you make it so nuanced and so complicated that nothing ever really changes.

But, you know, you're sure as hell putting a lot of action out there. A lot of things are moving around and it makes people think things are changing. I hope this is not that, but it seems that Michael Conn, it seems to think that it is. to his point, you wouldn't need to do anything else. Everything's already in front of you. The right action is to take the information that's been presented over and over and over from the very government that we're talking about and take the right action and remove this, but they're not doing that.

So I guess we're going to the 11th to see. Yeah, if they wanted to, this press conference could have said, we are going to follow the decision of the federal court that ruled last year that the EPA should initiate rulemaking to figure out what to do about the unreasonable risk of fluoride and we're beginning that process now. Instead, they kind of, as Michael said, sidestep that and just focus on like, we're going to do an additional review under the Safe Water Act. So, yeah, we've got three days. I'll probably wait until after Friday to do an article on that.

I'm going to report on the Houston situation before then. And then we'll wait to see what happens after Friday. And probably by next week, my article will be focused on the fallout, whether they do decide to follow through with the court's ruling. Or if it's another example of how the Trump administration picks up what Biden did, in this case, an appeal of. the ruling against the EPA and continues with that process. Right. So another example of just a government. Just continuation, the linear progression of the agendas through one government.

Well, so what's interesting in the overlap that we brought up before him is, and again, one of the obvious reasons that I am already feeling like this is kind of obvious that it's going to go in the direction that I hope it won't is every other thing we're looking at. And I just recently talked about this. This just has, this is from the fifth yesterday. as there was more kind of movement on this conversation, Trump officials quietly moved to reverse bans on toxic forever chemicals.

So, and you could argue that my mindset would be that I don't think that Biden administration truly wanted this to stop either. That's the kind of, that's the way this goes. And I would even argue that I'm only to bet you that if they go the wrong direction with the EPA point around fluoride, that it will probably flounder and in feigned direction and action and investigation

until somebody new takes over and then it will get mired in that as well, just like we're seeing here where Biden kind of feigns potential, you know, we're going to stop these things that we all know are bad, and now we see them begin to walk it back. And so what's problematic about this for me is this is, it's just whether the guardian or not, if you care, look into it because it is very real,

and the information is out there from their own documentation. But it says the Trump EPA and the move involves changing the way the agency carries out chemical risk evaluations. Again, this is at a time, just like with the fluoride point, where we are well established that PFAS is dangerous. We don't need more investigation or more abstract, nuanced ways of looking at the picture. You know, oh, if you hold it up and squint just right, it's totally safe, you know? And it says which would also preempt state laws that offer the one

the one of few meaningful checks on toxic chemicals and consumer products. And here's the important part. Trump's EPA's new rule would require the agency to evaluate whether a chemical presents a risk for each intended use, not whether something's dangerous, but knowing something's dangerous and finding out if it's still dangerous if you use it this way. It seems pretty stupid to me. formaldehyde says, for example, has 63 different uses. The agency plans to claim most chemicals do not present an unreasonable risk. You love that, right? That's the whole generally respected, regarded it as safe. It's still risky, but it's acceptable risk in consumer goods because they make up such a small part of the product. So you could argue something's deadly, but as long as

it's a small part of a larger idea, we're okay with that. So this is my bigger point that I made yesterday in regard to dioxins going back to the 90s, which is at this time in the 90s, even CNN was telling us dioxins were a problem. They were dangerous. They were seeing over 150 times the allowed amount that the EPA felt was safe in your Big Macs and Pizza Hut. It's publicly reported. The reason this never changed. At the very end, it simply said we're talking about hundreds of chemicals and the chlorine industry believes each one of them should be tested and judged separately.

Now, even that's a manipulation because what it's really about is the specific products that lead to dioxins. Not saying the individual things, but the one thing that we know is bad, take that out of it. And instead, we got mired in a decades-long process that I don't think ever actually even started of them pretending we need to look at each individual one, which would be decades of research and finances, and it never actually happened. And now nobody talks about it anymore. So that long-winded point is simply to say that I think with PFS going the same direction, where they're saying, wait, we'll take this dangerous thing and just muddy the waters and investigate

each little part of it. And the same thing I argue is probably going to happen here with what we already know is dangerous of fluoride. So I want your thoughts on that. That's a great point in that CNN article is, wow, man. It's just, it's so, it always, It's such a crappy but not surprising feeling to look back and that, wow, some of this information was out there back then and nobody did anything. It's the same thing with fluoride scientists warning since the 90s about the dangers and then getting ignored. And I also find it interesting that like that's this, like you were just saying, that's the same process they're going to repeat now with PFAS. So we're going to have to look in and study each individual chemical. And as that CNN article said at the end, which will take millions of dollars and multiple years to do.

So they just keep kicking the can down the road. And I also agree with you that this is just yet another example of how the two parties pass the baton back and forth, right? I've written articles on this before how Trump and his first administration at the end, some of the actions he took related to the border in the biometric security state, entry and exit program, that that was setting the stage for then Biden to come in and continue to expand that. And the same thing, it's like, okay, Biden can look good towards the end of his term and say, we're going to ban PFAS, maybe even full well knowing, okay, when Trump and them get in, they're going to undo it. Don't worry, industry folks. Don't freak out. We're going to keep doing it. It's just we got to play this little game for a little bit.

And then Trump comes in and reverses it, right? It's just, it's so emblematic of the problem and the false binary. And I wish more and more people could see that because that's how these two parties operate. And you could get mired in the two party paradigm and say, oh, see, this is an example of how Biden is better than Trump. Because Biden actually was trying to do the P-FAST. And now Trump's undoing it. And there might be some element of truth there. We know that big oil was deep in Trump's first cabinet.

I reported that. during his first term for TLAV. But at the same time, I think the bigger point is to not get sucked into that, like defending Biden, defending Trump, et cetera. And just to see, this is how the two parties will collaborate and keep moving the ball down the field towards their goal, which ultimately, I think here is to be, you know, obedient to the corporations and folks of that. And then, of course, others would argue this might be part of these slow kill eugenic methods

as well. Yeah, I mean, Catherine Austin Fitz, the great poisoning. I mean, I don't know how we disregard that. I mean, whether it's by accident, by, you know, an add on to something else, it's very clearly happening. And, you know, I think that's such a, it's profoundly clear. Like, you can see the different aspects of the GMOs, the COVID-19 shots. I mean, even like the COVID point alone, the shot we've talked about many times.

It's like you couldn't, like, almost like statistically impossible to accidentally get that many things wrong in a consistent way that all hurt you in very similar ways. You know, it's like, that seems almost impossible. And so then you stand back even further and go, then take that and look at it. GMOs and the food supply and the water. It's like to me, either we have to recognize that we live under one of the most incompetently stupid governments in history that only does the wrong thing all the time, or maybe they don't really care about us.

It's a little more complicated than that, but I think it's a good way to look at all of this. And all these different examples go in the same direction, man. And I, you know, I, what you were saying, I do, my opinion, but I very much think that's the case. I think these things are coordinated, whether the Biden and Trumps are aware of it or not, to like the way Corbett explained it the other day in a show is that. you know, these, like you were just saying, these administrations are building blocks, right? And they set this tone.

There's all sorts of noise on the sides of these tangential issues, but the core idea continues to expand. And I think we can see that going back decades, the linear agenda that never really falters regardless of the ongoing screaming, you know? And that's our hope. I actually truly think more people are seeing that than ever because of work like you're doing here. I hope that's the case.

When I think it also, it leads us into the, I know you wanted to cover just briefly on my story and the digital IDs and the real ID because that's another one. that has been started with the Bush administration post 9-11. And yeah, there's been some states resisting it here and there. But now the deadline's coming up. We're less than 30 days or maybe exactly 30 days away from when the real ID, you know, real ID IDs are going to be required all around the United States to get into federal buildings, to fly.

And, you know, they're even to travel around. And they represent like maybe in some way like minor changes. I see some people saying, oh, Derek, well, real ID isn't digital ID. yet it's just like a little star on your ID or things like that. That's debatable though. That's debatable. Well, and I think that is debatable.

And as I point out in this article that actually if you look at, because I've been reporting on mobiles driver's licenses for the last couple years and those are becoming in vogue and now people are getting through the Apple wallet and Google wallet, et cetera, just having a digital ID on the phone. And I even show in the article that the TSA has already got a page on their website dedicated to digital ID, showing how you can use digital ID to get in. And part of that is related to real ID because what do they say is a real ID? because what do they say is a real ID, you know, efficient, you know, it qualifies as real ID,

either your passport, the new IDs, like, so if you've got an old one, you need to go, you know, you're supposed to go in and get a new ID and it's going to have like a little symbol on it. They're supposed to be harder to counterfeit, et cetera. But the real point, I argue, is that it's all about pushing people closer to digital IDs because the other thing that they say they'll accept is these mobile driver's licenses or just simply digital driver's licenses. And this is the, again, the app on the phone. Some states are starting to have their own apps.

Some of them are letting people use Apple and Google and others. But the point is that there are companies, and we've reported on this over the years like the Thales Group and other big companies, IDEMIA, around the world who are pushing this concept of mobile driver's licenses. And it ties directly into this rollout of the Real ID program. And it took them 20 years to get to this point, which I think in some instance, you know, in some art, you could argue that that's a testament to the American people's resistance to this idea of a national ID card. because that's the other thing for people who are like, oh, I don't care, Derek. I've already given Twitter and all these other people my ID and, you know, they've got my faceprint from whenever I signed up for driver's license. I see these kind of arguments.

For one, I think we should defend and protect against all encroachments on our privacy. But the other thing is that it is really about pushing the digital ID program. And it's also about establishing a national ID card. That was really the main resistance. If you go back to the post-9-11 era when they first started talking about this, it was the 9-11 commission report that recommended. there be some sort of national ID card. And the reason it's taken so long is because a lot of different states were like,

screw that. We're not going to participate in this national ID program. That's one more step towards tyranny. If the government can just track us everywhere we go instead of just having an ID from your state or whatever. And it's taken 20 years. But in that time, they have warned the people down. And a lot less people care about privacy now than they did in the post-9-11 world. And most people are just, you know, as we saw during COVID,

they're going to do whatever they got to do to just complies. So they can keep flying, so they can keep driving, whatever else. And this is also kind of going along with, I know you reported on this a while back, but facial recognition rolling out at sports stadiums. I've had friends telling me they can't even go to a basketball game or a baseball game anymore without some sort of digital thing. They don't even sell digital cars anymore. Ticketmaster doesn't let you do that. You have to sign up for this digital app. So all of these are generally a push towards digital IDs, national ID cars, less privacy, less freedom, more tracking and tracing you everywhere you go.

Yeah. It's incremental steps, boiling frog, totalitarian tiptoe, right? You choose your analogy. It's clearly, or your metaphor, it's clearly just the slow building and getting you in the right place. You know, so like, I mean, post 9-11s and shootings and whatever else that are happening, like every one of those. And whether or not those things in your mind or false flags, manufactured, or just

things that happen that we're taking advantage of, it is always the same step, right? We'll take advantage of this. We'll use this moment and get one more step closer to that idea. And who knows whether that's even what everybody in positions of power actually or wherever or not. But so what I think is important to what you were saying, my idea with this, which I talked about the SAVE Act from July 9th, which is about trying to force this in and real ID compliance in regard to the

under the guise of the border conversation. This is not dead, by the way. There's just going to find another narrative to make this make sense. What's interesting to me, the point you made about the mobile driver's license. If you remember the SAVE Act, the same argument was like, well, it's not, there's other options on there. And fair enough, right? There was, I think, a birth certificate, passport.

The argument was that even at this time, they were already under, arguing that at some point those were going to be no longer valid. And that then on the side of the Biden conversation. So you had the Republicans really leaning into this and the Biden side of it, the Democrat side of it, and then Biden's administration were really pushing the mobile driver's license. Now, one of the things, if you read into the mobile driver's license, part of it, that would happen once that was beginning to become a like a national point. At first, it's always, it's something you can do and you get a benefit. Then it's, you do it or you don't get a benefit. And then eventually you have to or your grandma's going to die. You know,

they've got a thing. But, the point is that you get in that position where just lost the thread on that. Oh, that the mobile driver's license, you know, once that becomes something that they tell you is the plan, will they make it clear? Well, eventually that will mean that these physical things are no longer valid, right? And so if you combine those two things, you can clearly see how this, it's the same two-party side of it. Both of them will point at the other as the responsible one for why digital IDs became the reality, but both pieces are why it happened and they come together to make that a reality because the mobile driver's license part removes the

others and then real ID compliant is all that's there. And they even just recently put out the real ID compliant thing again to the Trump administration. You know, so this is not a joke. And I think it's obvious. Right. They announced the rule right is the Trump administration, the final rule. And at back in my article, there's a section where I'm talking about the facial recognition, how that ties into the digital ID.

And the point you were just making is 100% stands. The former now former TSA administrator who was there before Trump came in, David Pekoski, I believe, he actually in, 23 or 2024, he was speaking out the South by Southwest music festival, kind of big event in Austin, Texas. And they have all kinds of politicians and different people, little TED talks and stuff like that. And he was there as part of some panel. And he specifically said that it's temporary right now. It's option right now, but that it's eventually going to be mandatory. Like that was his own words. And in fact, some of the senators, both Democrats and Republicans, sent a letter to the TSA after that and said,

hey, your administrator himself is out here in the public saying that this is going to be permanent eventually and that people won't have the option to opt out of the facial recognition because digital IDs is one step, but ultimately the goal is to just use your face. Like you don't even need, like once they get you from like, yeah, you don't need that old, you know, out of date ID card or birth certificate paper, all the things you said they're going to give you options. Eventually it's going to be, no, it's so convenient, just use your phone. But then eventually it'll just be you don't even need that.

You just walk into the airport and it scans your face. and we know who's supposed to be there. And we, you know, we log you in and you can just walk through it so quick and fast. It'll save you the lines, et cetera. And they've been testing that out for years. Exactly. They've been testing this out for years with like the TSA pre-check and some of these other things.

They start with, like you said, with COVID, they incentivize people. Hey, this is faster. It's better. And then eventually that becomes the norm. And then you no longer have an option to do anything but that. And that's what this is really about going towards. So the real ID coming into enforcement in the next 30 days here, and then mobile driver's licenses,

and then we should expect to see more types of digital ID. This is all part of the national digital ID card, and then eventually they will be, I think, eliminated, or at least the next option would be just use your face. You don't even need the digital ID anymore. And just to kind of go back to all this, you remember, like it's all, the narrative, and this was really seen at the beginning of the COVID illusion,

but funny enough how all of a sudden the same agendas was rationalized by something else before, now being rationalized by COVID. Now we're past that in a way, and the same agendas are still there, and there's another rationale for why that's the most important thing. It's all, you know, it just shows you the agenda is what really matters. And, you know, digital ID, remember they were really pushing.

We can't touch things because viruses and, you know, we can't do all that. And now there's just, it's now because people are coming across the border. And now we need to look at your biometrics. You know, it's just, I don't know how that's not the most obvious thing in the world. Clearly, you can make an argument for why those things can benefit in some way. But we, right now there's this massive battle in Americans' minds about what is important around, you know, our rights and our privacy and our liberty. If it bumps up against what we think the government.

agenda, the side of the government we believe in, if their agenda, if that somehow comes up against that. And I think this is causing a lot of friction in a lot of these political fields. And I think that that is, you know, I think this is one of the biggest fights of our time right now. And I mean, we can kind of spend the last so many minutes you're talking about, you know, just give me your thoughts on this and where it's going. And hopefully you'll read this amazing article that Derek wrote called Doge is efficiency

a gateway to technocracy, going into Taylorism, you know, the efficiency movement, these precursors to technocracy. And I basically put Elon's face on the founder of Taylorism there. That's a real picture, by the way. This was way back before, even like the technological side of it, but it was the same mindset, you know, really in a eugenics kind of way. So give me your thoughts on that and, you know, where you see all this going with the Trump administration and the overlap of this idea.

So I kind of feel like some of my most recent articles have, which have been related to technocracy and Doge and Trump and Peter Thiel are sort of a collection of articles. I almost want to put them together. And I would say, like, if people were to go back to, yeah, including that, that documentary, which is based on a lot of my articles that I've been doing over the last six months or so, meet the man whose philosophy has influenced Peter Thiel. So we first started out looking at, like, Peter Thiel himself and how many Peter Thiel Acklites are inside the Trump administration.

And there's even more than I put in that article that I've learned about since then. And then I wanted to look behind Peter Thiel. It's like, well, who are the people who's actually influencing Peter Thiel and David Andreson and some of these folks who are deep in there, David Sachs, et cetera. right so these kind of build on top of each other you can find the evidence that's clear that trump's administration is full of builder burgers and world economic forum members and young global leaders and i can't believe people don't make a bigger deal about that it's just it's mind-blowing to me but then i wanted to look at the background of peter teal and then you could even go back a few months to this

article i wrote called you can't hide about um elan musk building the satellite network etc and so i feel like those are all kind of interrelated and with the doge article i was trying to do the same thing well like let's look behind this whole idea. I've kind of alluded to it in a few articles just referencing the efficiency movement, but I wanted to do a deeper dive. And as with some of these things, like, you might have an intuition that there's a thread there to pull and you start pulling it and you're like, wow, this is deeper than I even thought. That's basically what I landed on. And I do encourage people to read it because there's a lot of history in there that I won't have time to cover here. But when you look at the technocracy movement, which we know started in the 1930s, 1940s,

We know that Elon Musk's grandfather, Joshua Hathelman, was involved in that in Canada, elsewhere. And, you know, there's also this huge South Africa connection that I want to explore in the future. Like, why is it that Peter Thiel, David Sacks, Elon Musk all come from South Africa or spent time there, and they all seem to be on the same thread? I think that they're interested in some sort of technocratic apartheid, like, you know, sort of movement that they might be trying to build here. But I wanted to look further into what was the movements that influenced technocracy. And sure enough, you find a movement called the efficiency movement. And even the fact that they had bureaus of efficiency.

Like, you know, it wasn't, it didn't start with Doge. It didn't start with the Department of Government Efficiency. There was a department, I think it was under Wilson, that was also about efficiency. And this kind of comes out of the progressive movement originally. And in some cases, it wasn't as deep as technocracy, but you can see the seeds of it, where people started to literally study, like, how do people work in the, you know, in factories, the industrial age. Right.

lot of people are working factory jobs. How can we make the workplace more effective, more efficient? And that movement was funded by the Carnegie's, by the Rockefellers and others. And then as I looked into that, I discovered this man, Frederick Winslow Taylor, and he was kind of part of the efficiency movement, but also sort of like standing on his own. In fact, his philosophy got the nickname Taylorism or his, he called it scientific management. And this guy was like some kind of like character out of a cartoon or something. And he apparently walked around with a stopwatch everywhere and was literally always just logging, like, we could have saved two seconds here.

You know, we could be more efficient. And even studied like workers, like let's say you're on assembly line and you're moving a box from one place to the next. He started thinking like, okay, well, if they move to the left instead of the right, they can save three seconds and we can save X amount of dollars. Like this is how like micromanaging this guy's mind was. And so he wrote books called the Principles of Scientific Management. and of course this influenced the efficiency movement, this ended up influencing technocracy. But what I found really interesting as I dug into this, Frederick Winslow Taylor and another man, he used to work at this steel company. That's where he started developing his ideas of how to make steel more efficient in that whole industry.

And he went to this fair in, you know, they used to have world fairs and stuff like that. And he went to this 1901 exposition in Paris where he was showing his ideas as well as how he could make steel production more efficient. And at that event, there was these German engineers who end up being very influential in the German World War I fight, as well as in some level up to World War II and Hitler and the Reich. I'm not trying to say that, you know, these guys weren't that Winslow was a Nazi or anything like that. But his ideas absolutely influenced it. I found books specifically referencing how these engineers witnessed his work at the fair, went back to Germany, translated his books into German, and they became very popular.

They influenced like the technocratic, the technicians, engineer class. And I also found that even Vladimir Lenin, who's, of course, the revolutionary, you know, end up becoming a dictator under the beginning of what is now the Soviet, you know, the Federation of Russia, what would become the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks back in 1917. They had their revolution, October, October 1917. Within six months of that revolution, Lenin is quoting from Taylor specifically in saying, like, we need to take his ideas and sort of create some sort of socialist Taylorist movement, socialist efficiency movement. And because he saw the potential, you know, Winslow may have just been, Taylor may have just

been literally thinking like this could make the workplace more efficient. But what they saw was if you take these ideas and you apply them to an entire society, then you can micromanage everything. You can, you know, and they were talking about the machines, of course, what we would call AI right now. And so it's just very interesting that when you trace the origins of what must clearly is embracing with this technocracy and what his grandfather was up to and so many of these ideas and you look at the precursors to that because all philosophies build on top of each other you know it didn't just come out of nowhere for the most part it was kind of building on the time of the great depression people are looking for new ideas people are looking to make government and

workplaces more efficient but it's just interesting that two of the groups that ended up taking these ideas the germans during world war one and then eventually the nazis and then also the communist right from the beginning, the Bolshevik revolution, they were like, look, let's take these ideas and let's embrace them and apply them to our entire society. And then that goes on to influence the efficiency movement. That goes on to influence technocracy. And here we are 100 years later with the Department of Government Efficiency. Right. And what a cosmic joke it is to have the Republican Party running out this old progressive idea. Like, it's just kind of like this cycle around or whatever you would call that, you know, socialist background. It's just almost hilarious,

but alarming and sad at the same time. But yeah, I mean, it's so interesting to see this web of how long this is influenced. And, you know, I mean, even going back to like South Africa, for example, like it's not just to make it about one thing in general. Like you've taken even Zionism, for example, you could argue that these things like David Ike would point to Sabatianism and like these precursors to what it is.

And it's just interesting, you can see these direct threads. And it's just as if, like, even back to the point of the current two-party illusion and the idea that they think they're fighting communism and it's like essentially rolling out a weird technocratic version of exactly that. It just, you wonder how this is not more obvious, you know, but I think that you can see this kind of central evil, if you can call it whatever you want, that seems to be this continuing influential factor in all of these different problems.

Like the reason I bring in Zionism to that is because it's clear I was just talking about earlier today of how obvious you can see its tendrils around all these different horrible things going back over the last hundred years. And so it's like to disregard that is just irresponsible. And so to make the same point here, we can see where this stems from. We can see that. And to your point, this is not even just like a, you know, it looks the same.

There's direct connections, even just to his grandfather for crying out loud. You know, I think this is a monumentally important reality. And I think that this kind of background work is truly opening people's minds to, whether they think Elon and the rest or whoever they're pointing to is a problem or not or on their side or not, that what they're seeing happen. You know, the same thing we're talking about with like the great reset coming out of this administration. It's like, stop looking at what they're telling you, what they want you to think they're trying to do. just look at what's actually happening.

And I think that a point applies right here, that this is exactly what you're highlighting. And I think that this is, I would argue, not making the world a better place. It's the bastardized version of use this to better control people for our benefit. That's how I see this. Absolutely.

I don't even, I wouldn't argue that Taylor was, you know, creating his ideas or coming up these ideas so that dictators could later use them. But that's just, you know, once you come up with an idea, that's how philosophy works. It's out there into the human consciousness

and people will take it and twist it however they want. And I definitely think, though, it's important to study that background. So I encourage people to check that out. Yeah, definitely, brother. Well, thanks for coming in today and chat. And I think we should do this more often. I always like talking with you. And I think your work is profound. Make sure you guys check out the conscious resistance as well. He does amazing work for T-Lab, but he also has his own platform, Conscious Resistant Network or dot com. And I don't include that. And I do eventually want to do some more in-depth work with you on interviews or whatnot about your peer of power. I think it's important that you guys

check out his work on that and a lot of other things. But anything else you want to talk to you about that? Yeah, I was just saying I would love to talk with you about that in the future. I'm, as soon as we end here, I'm getting back into my script. I'm finishing the 17th chapter right now, and I'll have a lot more to share on that very soon. So I would definitely look forward to coming back and sharing about the Pyramid of Power. People can find it at the Pyramidof Power.net. All the current 16 episodes are available there for free.

And that'll be included in the show notes for one to check out. And definitely we should make sure that happens. But thanks for taking the time, Derek. and as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.