The Last American Vagabond - Patrick Henningsen Interview - The Dying American Empire, Lies About Iran & The Coup Within The US

Starting point is 00:00:00 I think as soon as Trump was sworn in, who are the major stakeholders? It's big AI, big tech. Look at the front row of his inauguration. And Mary Madelson and the Israeli lobby. I mean, that was a coup. Welcome to the Last American Vagabond. I'm excited to have Patrick Henningson of 21st Century Wired today to discuss largely Iran and what's been going on, the massive deceptions and lies swirling around the story

Starting point is 00:00:47 and possibly some other things we'd like to get into. But I reached out to him because I saw that he was recently in Iraq. And as always, it's important for me to discuss, you know, to like, we've had many discussions over the years with people like Vanessa Bealey and have a Bartlett because there's some of the few that actually go to these locations and, you know, speak from a place of honesty. And so Patrick is one of those people. So I wanted to invite him on to discuss what he saw there. And so Patrick, thank you for joining me today.

Starting point is 00:01:08 How are you? Oh, it's great to be with you, Ryan. I'm okay. Pretty good. Yeah, shrugging along. Yeah, yeah. Things consider, you know, that's a lot of common response today because there's a lot of madness going on in the world.

Starting point is 00:01:18 But, you know, I often ask this of people, since it's something that I'm I think is very relevant to, I mean, even small conversations, but just the large ongoing deception of, you know, what I see as the political two-party illusion and so on. Do you feel that you've seen a shift in awareness of these larger things, whether it's a two-party illusion or, you know, just the dishonesty of our government at large versus, you know, all the different points? Do you feel that partisans are starting to see some of these long held lies? Sure. Yeah. Thanks, Ryan. Look, it's hard to it's hard to encapsulate that question into a small answer.

Starting point is 00:01:56 But I would say that these things go in phases. And the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and 24 in many ways was a rejection of the two-party duopoly. As it were, obviously you have to run with one of the two-party duopoly branches in order to get on ballots and do primaries and things like that, which is why, as you know, Ron Paul, went and ran under the Republican ticket in 2008 and 2012. And he publicly said, I'd, you know, I prefer to be independent, but it would be impossible for me to get a national platform, which is, again, the problem baked into the question there. But so that the, the Trump phenomenon, which was,

Starting point is 00:02:42 it drew on populist sentiments. And especially in 2024, the Ukraine war was in full swing. Trump campaigned on that. He pulled all the independents, pulled all the anti-war populists, pulled the libertarians, pulled all the Tulsi Gabbard's fan club, pulled all those people into this big tent and had J.D. Vance, as his vice president, saying all these, we shouldn't be in Ukraine and no more endless wars, no more forever wars. So it worked. But what they're doing, what's important isn't the fact that Trump has now stabbed them all in the back. That's not the point. The point is that, that, that is the actual sentiment of the American public. And that's why they came on board. That's why he was able to get those votes. So ironically,

Starting point is 00:03:31 Trump coming into power was a rejection of that kind of duopoly establishment consensus. Now that he's in, this is the next phase of this awakening, this epiphany, as people realizing that actually MAGA was a complete fraud. Trump lied, their larping as anti-war populists in order to get your vote in Rust Belt states like Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

Starting point is 00:03:58 And it worked. It worked really well. And it turned a lot of borderline states to give them a slight margin. They got the presidency. Republicans got the House and Senate. Pretty much on the coattails of that. Because a lot of people voted down ballot because they assumed that there was going to be a whip line on policy. and all these Warhawk Republicans kind of kept their sort of volume down on the war mongering during the campaign. And for a lot of people thought, wow, okay, this is the way the president's going to be redirecting foreign policy. You know, give it a chance. Many voted for him on that basis. So now that the illusion has been shattered.

Starting point is 00:04:37 So now we see exactly what it is, which is complete psychopathy. and the fact that this administration, more than any other in history, is absolutely owned and operated by Israel. His whole cabinet was handpicked by the Israeli lobby. Still, even the replacements will be probably as well. So now we look at what's going on in the world, and there's no way that this president, this party, never get those populace back.

Starting point is 00:05:09 Never. It will never happen. There will have to be a complete overhaul of that party. The Democrats are struggling to get a lot of disenchanted, you know, Bernie Sanders supporters and others back. So both parties are going to struggle. The problem is for America. This is a deeper political conversation of which we probably don't have time to get into today. But the problem with America is the institutional problems, the faults, the fatal fundamental flaws in the system.

Starting point is 00:05:40 are so deep and so wide that it even confounds reform, I think, at this point. And, you know, you can have protest candidates that will emerge. And, you know, I have many friends that are switching parties during the primaries and in the midterms, as well as the next presidential election, just to vote out Republicans. These are Republicans that want to vote Republicans out. So they're willing to vote them out. and then during the national vote Democrat. And they don't care who's running as long as it's yet.

Starting point is 00:06:16 No, just this is such an interesting spin. And this is, I see that, everything so far I'm happy about, but said that last part where it's sort of like the reverse of last time where, and even part of it made sense, you know, where Biden's administration was obviously investing in the genocide and supporting it. And so let's give the Republicans a chance. You know, even though people like you and I were going, well, it's probably going to be the same.

Starting point is 00:06:36 You know, but now you do it seeing the same thing where they're, you know, why can't they just stand back and see what we're talking about and be like, well, it's not one or the other. It's the same continuity of the agenda. And that's why I was asking that. And I'm really glad, you know, what you described there is, is well put and very, you know, deeper insight into that point. And like, it's kind of what I was getting at is not necessarily the team sport politics players,

Starting point is 00:06:55 but the average American people who have played in that game who are now starting to go, hold on a minute. This, there's something very wrong with all of this. And I just, I feel that. I feel like a difference here. And, you know, maybe it's like you said, maybe it's kind of ebbs and flows over the years. And maybe it's happened in the past. but it's a moment.

Starting point is 00:07:09 And I feel like there's an opening for that. And I'm just glad that, and I bring it up in the context of the bigger or wrong conversation because I think this is one of these moments, like post-October 7th, where the way they handled this has shaken people awake to all of this. It's just a positive moment, I would argue, within all this. One last point on this, Ryan, which I think is important. And, you know, there's different ways that we can see some of these things expressed on small points. You know, for instance, Greg Stoker is running for Congress in the 31st Diction.

Starting point is 00:07:38 York of Texas, and he's running under the Green Party. And he is ostensibly, you know, you could say left wing, but he doesn't necessarily want any endorsement from the national Greens because he feels like this focus on national politics is the fundamental problem. But he feels like that's a better vehicle for him to run. There's no way he's going to run Democrat or Republican. I just spoke to him last week in Texas. And he's an amazing guy and has a great background.

Starting point is 00:08:07 and his convictions are extremely strong. But the point of, and just to a segue of what you just said, Ryan, is that the Israel lobby doesn't care if the Republicans lose the House or the Senate. And that's the point. And, you know, when people talk about continuity of agenda and they talk about it in terms of U.S. foreign policy,

Starting point is 00:08:32 but this does beg the question that it's also a continuity of agenda. But underneath the veneer of U.S. grand strategy is Israel policy desires ambitions and political maneuvering. And I will argue that, I know this is a big debate in the alternative media, is it a U.S. imperialism or is it Israel leading U.S. foreign policy? Does the tail wag the dog? or does Israel just merely a beachhead for U.S. imperial interests? And of course, I will argue that it's both. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Starting point is 00:09:13 Israel is allowed to pursue its greater Israel project so long as that it benefits in some way U.S. transnational corporations and the flow of global capital. And the minute it becomes an impediment for that, then they will become a liability at that point, and then their position will change. So, but the thing is that they spent $600 million in the last election on Republican campaigns alone, including the presidency records from the Israeli lobby, 300 million just for the presidency from the Israeli lobbying sources. That's the record spend. Now, if any other country did that, people would be saying that country's trying to buy influence. But because Israel's doing it, everyone's saying, no, no, don't look at that.

Starting point is 00:09:58 It doesn't mean anything, you know, continuity of agenda. It's just the gaslighting on this is just unbelievable. So, of course, Israel is not doing it for laughs. And they're getting exactly what they want, which is to use the U.S. military as a mercenary force to do the heavy lifting to achieve their objectives of regional hedgermonia and their hyper-security paranoid hyper-security perimeter that they have to maintain with the United States' help.

Starting point is 00:10:30 And every single U.S. base is proven now to be basically that. This war proves that. Marco Rubio is the only honest assessment that anybody gave about this war, which is that the U.S. went in because Israel went in. You got to take him at his word. I mean, Ruby, to his credit, you know. I hate to give him credit for anything. But, you know, I'm going to go ahead and not give him credit for work because they don't want to.

Starting point is 00:10:55 but I think that, you know, it's self-interest opportunism, in my opinion. And you wonder what drove that. Is that because he's feeling that he's being, Trump often tries to shock responsibility on the people around him, right? So you wonder if that was it, whether it's just a slip. Because clearly it was sort of saying the quiet part out loud. And then they all kind of spun out trying to hide that, you know, is it just interesting, though. And but it all kind of led to this awareness more so.

Starting point is 00:11:17 They even, I even saw Republicans start to use that very point as saying, well, there you go. It's not Trump's fault is real tricked him. But then people like us, whoa, whoa, that's what we've been saying. the entire time that Israel's been here trying to influence this. But it's just, it's an evolving understanding of this. And now the truth in its own way is being used to sort of give them an out. You know, and this speaks to what I think is a larger kind of destabilization or just kind of collapse of this, what we were just talking about.

Starting point is 00:11:40 But one last thing on this before, and again, you're right. This is an important conversation and it really has a lot of, a lot of meat to it. But I think the MAGA point that you referenced there, I agree. But I would fine tune it to say that I believe, and I think this is kind of what you were saying, that I believe the majority, but a lot of, of them at the very least of the people in the conservative MAGA movement, not the Republican team sport side, but just the average people believe those things. Like you were saying, right, they wanted those.

Starting point is 00:12:04 We want these agenda. That's why they pretend to fight for these things. It's the fake maga side of the government, right? Like the MAHA thing, people say it's a fake movement. I think the movement's real. I think MAGA is real. I think the government and the team sport players have lied to them. I think that's an important distinction because it shows that we're saying is most

Starting point is 00:12:19 Americans are like, we want these things. We want this change. So it's time to lean into that, you know? Yeah, I mean, just last thing, last thing. And this is, these are all important issues for us to, to discuss and unpack. And to me, there's a fundamental flaw now. And it should be visible to honest people at this point. And there are a lot of conscientious people that are now seeing this, including whistleblowers and other people like this. And more so, I think we'll come forward. The whole premise of, this is me talking as American, by the way. And I'm a in an ostensibly red state, not for long, maybe, it's purple, Arizona. But make America great again. The idea behind it is just, it's, it's, it's a preposterous fallacy. The whole idea. And then America First is even worse, because America First, it plays well to a domestic audience. But how it's translated is that America, anybody who's making any gains in the world is doing

Starting point is 00:13:23 it at the expense of America first so that we must confront China because America first. And so anything that China or Russia or Iran or any country or Mexico or Brazil or whatever, any progress they make is a zero-sum world view, which is a zero-sum game worldview, which is that we can't allow anybody to rise. And it plays into this Thucydides trap mentality that any rising power must be confronted put down by force if necessary. And it justifies this muscular U.S. foreign policy. And that, to me, I think, is the fundamental flaw in the American worldview in

Starting point is 00:14:04 2026, is that America cannot imagine a world where it is not the sole unipolar hegemon. This to me is a failure of imagination. And you have two, as an empire, you have two choices. You can either reimagine your place in the world and accommodate that and adjust and evolve. as a society and that has start at the political level. It needs to start at the political level. It needs a vision and a compelling future that people can buy into. If you don't do that, then you will be the defeated empire.

Starting point is 00:14:36 You will eventually be ground under the wheels of your own hubris. And so it's a choice. And Americans need to understand all these slogans like MAGA and American First. These are desperate, desperate moves by a culture that's just. just clinging to some kind of grandeur or the past. It reminds me of the British Empire. It's the same type of mentality. It's a rural Britannia.

Starting point is 00:15:01 Britannia rules of waves. People will be cheering that in the football stadiums until like literally everybody in the country is in abject poverty. They'll still be waving that flag and singing those songs. Even though, and they're alluding to a past grandeur that simply doesn't exist anymore. Just like Americans and the Europeans are alluding to a past world where the Europeans dominated for 1,000 years, a whole millennia, Western civilization, as they call it.

Starting point is 00:15:28 But their whole idea of grand strategy is based on 100 years ago. China was a backwater, was economic backwater. Russia, for the most part, was a rural economic backwater. And only the advanced West had the competitive advantage. That's not the world we live in anymore. You have India, China, Russia, you have the BRICS countries, the global south. This idea of dominance is predicated on an Anglo-American worldview that is, you know, 200 to 100 years old. That's the software, the Brazinski-McKinder software that our leadership are still running on that the Marco Rubias of the world are running on,

Starting point is 00:16:09 that all these fanatics like Sebastian Gorka and all these just nut jobs that are surrounding Donald Trump. that's their idea, Stephen Miller. They're still living in that world. And this is a problem because this is what Fox News is inculcating half the population with and other mainstream outlets. And see, this is my, this is like, and so what I see in that is like, but it's a good point to make there. Because like I often point out within that discussion, the point I just made before is that, you know, and that may mean that we see differently what that should be, making America great again. We may desperate very much disagree on what that should be. And I disagree with a lot of the statements they make about what some of these honest people want from the,

Starting point is 00:16:51 but the point is they were still lied to by Trump. Right. They were still even they thought was going to happen. And so it's like this kind of moment where we're all, even though we disagree on some of these things. And in some very dangerous ways, the government is still playing all of us. You know, it's like this really interesting moment. And hopefully within that, we can find some solidarity as just American people being suppressed by a power. You know, it's an important, man.

Starting point is 00:17:10 I mean, you know, we should probably have an interview discussed this entirely. But why is it important, Ryan? it's important because if we if we maintain if Americans maintain this worldview that they must be number one and at all costs and whatever it takes and certain actions are justified without any justification what they're what they're doing is dehumanizing or creating second tier humans in other countries and I think that's the general attitude Americans are not bothered by civilians being slaughtered in Iran or Gaza or South Lebanon they really don't care. They might care a little bit about Gaza, at least on the left, and the left is coming around on Iran a little bit, but it's south Lebanon, it doesn't mean anything to them. So they think that somehow all of this is justified, and it's okay to bomb 30 universities and destroy the entire higher education system of Iran in three weeks like they did in Gaza. It's okay to do that. Why? Because you know, Iran's dangerous and they really shouldn't be allowed to develop because America

Starting point is 00:18:18 first, you know, and Israel's our greatest friend and ally. And somehow you can bake that all together in some really weird omelet. And that's kind of where the American mentality is. I mean, we need to value Iranians, the Iranian children and men and women, not just children but women, but men too, humans, we need to value them on the same level we value our own children. and our own citizens. And only then can we participate in the world as an actor that's existing within the world and not trying to lord over it. And that's the problem America is facing.

Starting point is 00:18:57 That's a big, that's a classic imperial problem. But it's especially bad today in the 21st century in our democracy, because our democracy has us bamboozled to think that somehow we have this advanced system of governance and, you know, which is depleting in front of the world right now, which is an interesting conversation to get into around the Iran point, where this kind of lie about, you know, at least to some degree, about the ability to just be insurmountably, you know, it seems that they lied about a lot of that or at least misled people to think they were stronger than they were, or maybe they misled themselves to believe they were

Starting point is 00:19:31 than they were. But I would add to on that, that, you know, it's, I think at the end of the day, you know, I just, I feel like right now it's, you could be right. And I hope that, I hope the case is that more than not want good things from the world or want to, you know, care about human life. But I would, and I would argue, though, regardless, I think it's a larger number than we are led to believe in this country. And I would argue that the very least, we should be aware, which I know you are, of the propaganda of the partisan game that wants us to believe that.

Starting point is 00:19:59 You know, sort of like the trick of Zionism to make us think it's only Jewish people that are ruling these things, which is not the truth. But that's game of, you know, it behooves us to hope that more people are seeing this than not, I would argue, you know, and I do believe it. I think more people are starting to see this. But it seems to come to that opinion, you know. Definitely. Massive awakening.

Starting point is 00:20:15 It's a massive awakening. And I think it's just going to increase by orders of magnitude in the next year. It's going to be amazing, actually. Yeah, I agree. I agree. I'm glad to hear that. It's just, you know, at least, you know, see that positive change and lean into it. And so let's talk about what you saw in Iran.

Starting point is 00:20:31 And because I do, like, the reason I started with that point in general and some of the stuff we just could discuss right there, it's very relevant to this and just about every other conversation, foreign policy related. or domestically. And so what's happening around this. And if we, if we touch on the end, if we get to, we talk about some of the technocratic connections. There's a larger global play in all of this. And so feel free to get into some of that if you think that connects with what you saw. But let me let me know what you think about, you know, so well, you went to Iran, which I think is important to point out. Then you were there reporting, which first let's start with, you know,

Starting point is 00:21:00 what you saw and what you felt the contradictions were or start with what you think was important. Yeah. So I was there. I was there. I was there and I arrived like approximately like two weeks before the bombs started dropping and then I left sort of a week before the bombs began to drop. I knew it could have been war at any moment. The U.S. had already positioned their naval assets off the, you know, around the sort of Gulf of Oman and in the Arabian Sea. So I knew that the couple of things that if I wanted to go, it might be my last chance for a while. So I just thought I had an opportunity. I got press accreditation and it was like logistical, logistical night There were just so many obstacles to going.

Starting point is 00:21:42 And it was only issued a short visa because of the security situation. They were expecting war, basically. And that means all the airports would be shut down if they're, if not bombed during that first wave of attacks. So I was a conscious that all this was going to happen. So I knew I needed to get there. You know, there's a couple of things I really needed to, because I had very strong opinions on these Iranian protests that happened in December and January.

Starting point is 00:22:09 From there, I'm arguing a hypothetical point of view, but I'm also based on data which I can glean and analysis of people that I trust as opposed to typical mainstream media or what the White House is saying, or what Israel is saying, or with the Iranian diaspora, the Polavi royalists are saying. So going there would give me a little bit of an extra advantage in my understanding in comparison to the sea of voices that we're saying that the regime, killed and slaughtered, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60,000 of their own peaceful democratic protesters and it's a bloodthirsty regime and it's on the verge of toppling. All of these things are connected.

Starting point is 00:22:53 So when I arrived, I straight away immediately understood as I stood amongst two million people in the streets in Tehran who were all there for the national rally, which is the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. all basically supporting the government at a time when they could be attacked at any second. And everyone's very conscious of that. Everybody there is fully aware that even being by Israel or you mean by the, okay, good. Both.

Starting point is 00:23:23 Yeah. Somebody could hear that as you meaning the Iranian government could attack them there or bombing from outside. That they could be bombed by America or Israel at any moment, at any moment. So, you know, it's, it was incredible. So it was very clear to me that the higher the level of threats, that the more solidarity, the more cohesion you get in Iranian society, even at that moment, before the official phase of the war started on February 28th. So I knew that that was absolutely a fact. And so I took that box in terms of my understanding of how society moves with the political realities in that country and then the relationship with the leader. And the other thing is the system of government there is completely unlike it's alien to anything that we have in the West.

Starting point is 00:24:13 In a certain way, it's a lot more democratic because there's a lot more consensus building at the levels of national office, regional and local government. And the same way with their law enforcement are also broken down into national, regional, you know, regional stroke state and then local. So there's a lot of accountability within this. It's the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's the Islamic Republic. And I didn't fully appreciate the differences of, say, not actually the similarities. As a republic, every single position is democratically elected. Even the Supreme Leader is Democratic elected, albeit by a special counsel, an expert counsel.

Starting point is 00:25:00 But the Supreme Leader plays the role sort of like the Pope. would play in the Catholic Church. But instead, the people, the consensus in Iran is that they want religion, they want faith to be at the center of society. And that includes to be a mitigating factor with government. So it's an intermediary. Like to think of the Moscow patriarch, Kareel, and Putin goes to speak to Kareel about a big issue.

Starting point is 00:25:30 And Kareel will then speak about it in the Orthodox. clergy will speak about it in their sermons, and that's how you build consensus. In other words, that you must go through the church because the people value faith, they value their religious institutions. They're pro-family. They're very conservative. Iran's socially conservative. It's extremely, quote, anti-woke, extremely.

Starting point is 00:25:53 So they are socially conservative. But what's funny is the neo-conservatives and the neol liberals in America will attack them for being socially conservative and will ram the LGBT woke issues down their throat, even though it's anti-woke warriors like Ben Shapiro and all these other sort of grifters in the U.S. political conversation or Tommy Robinson. They will then, they'll weaponize the woke, you know, trans or LGBT agenda in order to use as a battering ram against the Iranian government, the Syrian government, or any enemy of Israel practically. It's amazing how that works. I find that to be quite extraordinary,

Starting point is 00:26:38 but it's not by accident. They do that intentionally. So the other thing is there's no pure Persian. There's no pure Persian. It's Iranian. They unite under a national flag, a national identity. Just like America unites under a national flag and national identity. So when the U.S. assassinated the Supreme Leader, who is ostensibly a moderate by a lot of people's estimations, who issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, the opposite of what the White House claimed he was a bloodthirsty terrorist and all this other stuff. So when they assassinated him, they thought the country would fragment. They thought people would just capitulate, would fall apart.

Starting point is 00:27:25 Just like if somebody assassinated the U.S. President with a missile strike on the White House, What do you think the reaction of them? Do you think Americans would just surrender and fall apart? I mean, even the people that would be against the president would rally together against the external enemy. And it's like common sense. This is just under a national flag. So the problem is Americans and people in the West in general, but they project their idea of what a country and what a national identity is or their cynicism about government. they project that on everybody else.

Starting point is 00:28:02 And then they assume that the Iranians don't have exactly the same thing under a Republican form of government. Because as Islamic, the word Islamic, somehow disqualifies them in the eyes of the West as being a legitimate society, a legitimate form of government. So then they ascribed quickly as Islamist terrorist. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror, which is completely fake. It's totally false. So, but you build up all of these sort of view, viewpoints and these characteristics in the mind of the West, and then that basically opens the door for you can just pour tons of propaganda into that framework. And that's how you, that's how you pollute the American mind.

Starting point is 00:28:47 You have to carve out the framework. And you just pour the, you just pour the plaster in. You just, you create the mold. The mold is created with propaganda and conditioning. And you do that over years. And it even stays in the American mind. If you noticed, and I've studied propaganda for many years. I've also lectured at the university level on propaganda and counter propaganda.

Starting point is 00:29:10 And the Cold War created such an anti-Russian animus in the U.S. mind, in the Western mind. But that framework stayed generationally. And then when the Russia gate hoax was launched, all they did was pour in propaganda into an existing mental framework that had already been etched out for generations before. And the same with the global war and terror. They're using a 9-11, a post-9-11 psychological framework to pour in a new round of anti-Iranian propaganda. And there's even people saying now Iran's responsible for 9-11.

Starting point is 00:29:49 I even saw, I think it was Mark Levine or somebody saying that Iran's responsible for the 70,000 dead Palestinians in Gaza. No, it wasn't. It was an Israeli, no, it was a Fox News pundit. But they're making this argument that Iran is somehow funding terrorism. So then you have to believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization and not an armed liberation struggle that's resisting an occupation. Then you have to believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and not a local militia that's an armed liberation struggle opposing Israeli occupation. and you have to believe that the Hashdo Shabi is a terrorist organization and not Iraq's people's mobilization units that were formed to defeat ISIS.

Starting point is 00:30:35 And you have to believe that the IRGC is a terrorist organization and not the actual defense force of a UN sovereign member state, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Or the UNSolar Movement. And Sala Movement, another good example. And we could add a few more to that. So I will argue, Ryan here, and we're getting a little bit off the track to a big hypothesis, but every problem we have now in the international system, the breakdown of international law, the onset of World War III,

Starting point is 00:31:08 the actual attack on the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment specifically, you look at the anti-putting down the anti-genocide protests across American campuses. And Rubio and the Trump administration were predicating this. in the Israeli lobby and Jonathan Greenblatt, that this was a pro-Hamas, these are pro-terror rallies. So the abuse of the term terrorism and the labeling, a political, arbitrary labeling of Palestine action in the UK, for instance, as a terrorist group right across the board, it's destroying all of our Western legal framework. Right. This is the number one problem.

Starting point is 00:31:47 And they'll say, and I even hear like, who is it, Jonathan Stewart. Jonathan Stewart, the comedian, he'll caveat everything that, oh, well, look, the Mullers are still bloodthirsty dictators in Iran. So again, back to your question, Ryan. I was there. I'm American. They'd have every reason in the world to absolutely hate me because my country, my government are threatening their existence.

Starting point is 00:32:13 And I was treated better than well. I was treated as a fellow human being in that country. The Iranians are exemplary in terms of as intellects, as intellectual society. Their hospitality is beyond legendary. They're warm. There's so much love there when you visit that country. It's incredible. How it's been characterized by the Israeli and the U.S. mainstream media and our politicians

Starting point is 00:32:43 is the opposite of what it is. They're not, Qasem Soleimani wasn't a terrorist. Right. They said that to justify his assassination. He, however, was fighting against our terrorists, our al-Qaeda and ISIS creations that we armed, that we funded, that we provided air cover for with our air forces. That's who Iran was, that's who Qasem Soleimani was fighting in Iraq and in Syria. Hezbo, yeah. Well, you know, death of America overlap.

Starting point is 00:33:12 And the point of which has been made clear, it's, you know, whether they believe them or not, that they're discussing the government and all of that. It's not only that, Ryan. It's good. Ryan, it's not even that. The government has never gone and led death to America chance. This is from the people. This is from Iranian crowds. And not very often.

Starting point is 00:33:34 You might see it here and there. You might see it on the red ticker tape in some mosques, which I did see in northern Tehran a few years ago when I was there like 10 years ago. I saw it said death to America on the ticker tape in the mosque. But what they're saying is death to this American empire that is killing our scientists, that is destroying our country, that is ruining us through embargo and sanctions and blockades, is overthrowing our governments, and that is backing Israel who is attacking us. And it's not even the government. It's not the governments of, that's a lie by the Trump administration saying, they've been chanting death to America. for 40 years. This is what MAGA supporters

Starting point is 00:34:19 and bots will say. What I was going to say is ultimately the point was that government or people, same point, is that from the government's perspective, they have clarified and I'm sure you've seen many points of which they say, look, and I think there was even like a whole thing written about how this is about the empire and about the government of Iran's perspective aiming

Starting point is 00:34:36 at the U.S. government. Like that's what we're from the government's perspective. But then the people's the same point is that if you, it's about the occupation, the influence, the destabilization. And whether at one point that was the same thing to them, I think it's become clear to people because of the internet and other things that it is the empire or not the people. And I feel, I've seen endless examples of that of people who travel there,

Starting point is 00:34:55 people, whether journalists or just average people that tell you the Iranians love Americans, which I almost find confounding with where we are, but it seems to be the consistent opinion that I get from people that actually speak to Iranians. And so it's an interesting overlap. And I'm glad you made that point that it's not American people in their minds in a general sense. It's about stopping the empire and the destabilization of the world, which is what most of these groups seem to be fighting with. The danger with this generally, Ryan, is the binary or binary view of the world, especially the American view of the world. It's very binary.

Starting point is 00:35:27 It's us and them. Is that the Americans will look at Iran if they believe the propaganda that the Mullahs slaughtered 30,000 protesters, which is total fabrication. I can say that categorically, completely fake. I've seen myself with my own eyes the evidence of agent-profileged. provocateurs, rioting, armed agent provocateurs, shooting at police, using the crowd as human shields, burning EMS vehicles, and attacking EMS and fire people when they came to put out fires, burning mosques.

Starting point is 00:36:00 Like, who burns mosques in Iran? I mean, honestly. And anyway, I saw evidence of this police being burned alive, being doused with petroleum and then lit on fire by these so-called democratic protesters who weren't a Democrat. Many paid, many armed, many provocateurs. drugs were narcotics were distributed to certain groups of youth as I'm sure you know so so what why this is important is the American reaction to the to the narrative would be well the people must rise up to overthrow their government and if they don't then the people are

Starting point is 00:36:37 condoning the Mullah's regime's violence therefore if the people are subconsciously Americans believe if the people then become collateral damage in the subsequent air strikes, well, it's unfortunate, but they deserve it because they didn't overthrow their government. That's what we projected on Libya. That's what we projected on all of these countries

Starting point is 00:36:56 where we have ideas about regime change, is that in a way it's the people's fault because they haven't risen up. The Iranians, if they wanted, they could say the same thing about America. Clearly, the biggest terrorists on the planet of the United States and Israel, but they could easily be cynical

Starting point is 00:37:13 like the Americans are generally, which is they sort of, and blame the American people for not overthrowing Donald Trump, who's quite obviously the most naked war criminal of since probably World War II on the world stage. So it's, and we have nothing to say about it. All we care about is our baseball games and March Madness

Starting point is 00:37:34 and the NC2A Final Four. That's our priority this week. It's not World War III. I don't think that's my opinion, but I could be wrong in that. I think that we're growing in that direction either way. talked about earlier, but I just think it's important that we consider that. I think it's in the interest of the empire to make us think that that's what we all want. For all bread and

Starting point is 00:37:53 I don't, I think that's true. But the thing is at some point, Ryan, if we continue down this road towards a thermonuclear exchange, then that's going to be the end result. Because if countries like Russia or China or Iran or North Korea feel that the West will not, and Israel will not give up in regime change and will not give up in destroying their society, which we're witnessing now in Iran. They're trying to destroy Iranian universities, educational institutions, places of worship, UNESCO World Heritage sites. We're bombing and destroying all of it. Then, and if we do this to Russia continually with Ukraine, okay, at some point, these countries might get together and say, actually the biggest threat to our existence is the United States of America.

Starting point is 00:38:45 So they would then be justified to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States. And at that point, it doesn't matter what we think. We're into a world of hell, and the human race existence is then on the precipice of, you know, terminal decline or extinction at that point. And so it's, you know, I'm wanting to put. preempt you as well, I'm sure, and our colleagues in the more conscientious end of the media, are trying to preempt that from happening. We don't want it to get that far, which is why we do what we do.

Starting point is 00:39:23 But the average American, I don't think they understand the risks of what America is doing in the world, that this is not without a cost. Right. The cost will come home. So forget about your 401Ks or your retirement or your house by the lake. None of that's going to mean anything. If you allow our government and our leadership and our big industries, our big AI or big military industrial to continue down this road, you know, you might be fine for a while. You might be fine for a while.

Starting point is 00:39:54 You know, you might survive the collapse of the U.S. dollar. Fine. But, you know, that's not going to make you immune from the geopolitical realities of living in a thermonuclear armed world. And you have to be very careful. America has to again re-imagined itself in the world in the future. I want to stress too that, you know, this is not hyperbole. You know, for those that out there, you know, we could talk about the Samson option. We could talk about, you know, Seymour Hirsch's book about the, you know,

Starting point is 00:40:20 we can talk about all the different discussion points about why it's clear that Israel One is clearly willing and capable to act out in ways that, you know, destructive, potentially global catastrophe ways. But the point is that they would be capable of doing something. I can have a plan about, you know, using nuclear weapons should they be in a point of weakness or destruction. And it's like this is not something that should be dismissed as some hype,

Starting point is 00:40:41 you know, a conspiracy theory. And so it's in the past, the reason I'm saying that in the past, you know, I feel like people like Alex Jones will, will hype the idea of a world ending World War III and sometimes where it feels there are, you know, reasons to be concerned,

Starting point is 00:40:53 but in ways that keep people on the edge of their seat all the time about the, you know, every day is a new threat about we're about to be destroyed by nuclear war. And we're at a point where I've never seen it more, you know, like, I don't want to say likely. I don't want to scare anybody, but I think we're at a point where that is an actual possible,

Starting point is 00:41:07 where in the past it was always possible, but I feel like it was, you're dealing with people that were unwilling, you know, I would like to believe you had leaders in these countries that recognize that that would destroy their interests as well. And so it was always more of a where now I think Israel's leadership is literally belligerent and psych, you know, the psychopathy is there, you know, and that, that's what worries me about that. But let me give you a quick, a thought, thought experiment, Ryan. One of the, one of the, one of the, one of the, one of the flashpoints in world, world history, you know, between successions of em, empires and world wars is the boss for estates which effectively separates europe from asia okay let me give

Starting point is 00:41:44 you a thought experiment if israel launched a major military strike and what you know on turkey on turkey and i'm talking a serious strike what do you think the reaction of the united states in europe would be at that point do you think they would would they would they would they chastise or push back against Israel or would they find ways to demonize Turkey? I'm putting that out there because that would be a trigger moment for a wider conflict. It would depend to me on whether or not first they were like so I would argue the first way it would probably go is to blame somebody else, right, try to use a false flag dynamic. But let's just say they came out and said, we did this, right? So if that's the question, then I would argue, yes, that because of how invested they are, overinvested from the

Starting point is 00:42:29 U.S. government perspective, that they would have no other choice but to try to rationalize it. And I'd be willing to bet you they'd first try to downplay the idea that it was a nuke right or try to weasel in some tactical discussion about why it was okay because trump's been the one that's been pushing the tactical direction right so it's a good point to consider though but they know the turkey point is interesting to me though because i'm not really sure where i feel i feel like i feel like you play it both ways a lot and i think there's a lot of overlap with israel and turkey but i have seen the interesting turn in the conversation lately so you know what do you think on it well look um put put aside the political dimension and just the reality of the fact that Israel is now extending its aggression further right on the

Starting point is 00:43:10 doorstep of Europe. And then the question is, would Europe react to stabilize the situation or to defend Israel? And I would argue they'd probably reflectively would want to defend Israel. I agree. And the U.S. What do you think the U.S.'s reaction is? The U.S. is already making noises because Israel is broadcasting that Turkey is the next Iran. This is what Natali Bennett

Starting point is 00:43:32 and others are public saying. So they're already foreshattering that conflict, which will happen, probably, most likely, unless there is some political restraint coming from the U.S. And so that's my point, is that it's rational, maybe it's logical

Starting point is 00:43:48 to want to not allow Israel to do this. But yet they're going to do it and the U.S. and the Europeans will act accordingly. And what does that tell you about the state of the world? And then That goes back to the continuity of agenda debate, you know, or the tail that wags the dog, you know, at some point. You know, look, you know, people will point to the Brookings Institution's academic paper,

Starting point is 00:44:14 which path to Persia is published in 2010. And they'll highlight a certain sentence about how the U.S. were planned to pull out of the JCPOA and then use that to pave the way for a war on Iran. And somebody could look at that and say, well, That's the Brookings Institute. That's a policy paper. They're giving that to the U.S. security complex, and national security advisors and presidents will read that,

Starting point is 00:44:39 and that becomes policy. But that's one way of doing an argument there. But that argument is actually a little bit threadbare, because what I do is I'll go and look at who's funding the Brookings Institute. And I see the biggest Israeli donors, most powerful mega donors from the mega group funding the Brookings. And so what are you reading there? Is that U.S. continuity of agenda or is that an Israeli continuity of agenda?

Starting point is 00:45:07 I would argue follow the money. That's just me. Okay. Someone might have a different opinion. But that's a good example of how one can make an argument, but then it completely ignore 50% of the equation to come up with a biased conclusion that pretty much lets Israel off the hook. So what I'm saying is that influence is so powerful.

Starting point is 00:45:30 powerful that even if they attack Turkey, and even if that threatened the stability of the entire Western world and really put us right up against the wall with a nuclear exchange with the likes of Russia, that they would still not be able to resist it in America. That to me is extraordinary, if you think about it. I mean, you could argue based on, and this is not meant to be, you know, for those that are new to the conversation, let's say, a hyperbole or some kind of conspiracy theory, based on the evidence at hand, you could argue it is one and the same that these agendas have, like whether this agenda or just the national security direction of both these, it is one and the same. Yes.

Starting point is 00:46:08 We've made similar arguments about multiple countries, right? And I think you could just talk about the lobbying, but of any country, you can see how that could go in that direction, but the invasive, like, you know, what Israel's lobbying has become and what they do through this country can't be denied anymore. And that's what that's one of those things like we talked about the beginning, that cat's out of the back. They're desperately trying to hide that. But, you know, and so pulling that into it, what you described there would be not them choosing to go in line with that, but more so that they are not no longer in control of those policy directions. Do you think it's gone? It's gone well beyond it.

Starting point is 00:46:41 Ryan, it's gone well beyond that. Now, so if you look at now you've got religion, which has been injected, not just into the body politic, but injected down the military command structure in the Pentagon. And I'm talking about a specific branch of Christianity, Christian Zionism. And now this is basically by this is a process that has taken place over the last 20 years, whereby chaplains have been introduced into the military. They're doing baptisms after basic training. They're pressuring young recruits to adopt more of a sort of end-times worldview, i.e. looking at this confrontation with Iran as a holy war.

Starting point is 00:47:22 Okay. That's a real problem within the U.S. military. military and NGOs, legal NGOs are taking tens of thousands of complaints from active duty servicemen that are complaining that their commanders are trying to basically inject this and accusing them and not being Christian enough if they don't do X, Y, or Z. This was unheard of in the U.S. military before. And so the U.S. commanders are being taken to Israel for exchanges by an NGO called, I think it's a Jewish Institute for the Security of America, GISA, and they have these exchange programs.

Starting point is 00:47:56 These are admirals, Ryan, highest ranking U.S. officials are being taken for what I think is indoctrination in Israel, and who knows what else. Same thing as our politicians. So what that's done, now look at the tweets this week from Pete Hagseth and Donald Trump. God is great. You're going to feel the wrath of God and we're going to rain hell down on you. And then they're trolling Muslims saying, praise to us. Allah, one of the other treats this week. I mean, it's just insane. Yeah, look at this. You,

Starting point is 00:48:29 you crazy bastards, you'll be living in hell. Back to the Stone Age, says Pete Heggseth. I mean, so that religious Pete Heggseth himself went to the King David Hotel in 2018 in Israel and basically proselytized for the rebuilding of the Third Temple and the return of the Red Heifer. So that's what you have to understand, Ryan, and everybody. And you do understand. understand this, I'm sure Ryan is that that's why he was shortlisted for Secretary of Defense. It wasn't because he's qualified. He's by some senators who raised objections during the confirmation hearings that Pete Hagseth is the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in the history of the United States of America in its entire history. And many have also posited that he's the most

Starting point is 00:49:15 unqualified high-level cabinet member in the history of the U.S. government. So how he was selected though because of his religious fanaticism, because of his unhinged personal life. He got kicked out of the D.C. National Guard. He's an alcoholic by all reports suggest that he has all sorts of problems. So he was selected on that basis. And he was shortlisted by Howard Lutnik and Jared Kushner. They ran Trump's cabinet selection. Right. They ran it. So and Mary Mattelson could literally tell and Ronald Louder and all these mega donors who you're very familiar with, they, they, every single person that touch foreign policy and national security is handpicked, including the DHS secretary, handpicked by the Israeli lobby, or at least

Starting point is 00:50:06 they provide the shortlist. And so whoever provides the shortlist and picks the cabinet determines policy. And that's, that's not me saying that. Look at Obama's, campaign in 2008. Who supplied the short list for Obama's cabinet in 2008? City Group. City group. And what was, that was the year of the bailout. That was the year of TARP. That would, you know, so they, they had enough money into the campaign that they, what they wanted in return for their money was to select the cabinet. And people equals policy in American politics. People equals policy. So, again, it just shows you. the level of a penetration here that son-in-law of the president of united states is the best friends

Starting point is 00:50:55 family friends of the prime minister of israel and acts on behalf of the foreign government let's let's let's go into this a little bit more so you know the interesting part of this and this is obviously a very important and very relevant conversation like it's it's based on a lot of the evidence that's going around but a lot of it is you know it's considered to be conspiracy theory you know the conversation And as we were kind of touching on about the right conversation, you know, the conversation to have about whether or not Israel's guiding the direction or U.S. is guiding it or some of both. But as much as it may seem weird, like that aside,

Starting point is 00:51:28 because I think that might in some way be separate of, you know, the question being, do you think that Israel has not just, it's not just using this influence to dictate policy? Are you of the mind that there's more actual like coup d'etat level stuff taking place in the government? And I don't mean necessarily just the discussion today of the, you know, removing people from positions of power. But I think going back a long time, like so pointing to Citibank or Citib Group and Obama, you know, it's clear in my mind that this government has been selling out to the highest bidder for a long time.

Starting point is 00:51:56 But there's been a different shift as you're talking about with the Christian Zionism, which has been there, but more in my opinion pronounced today. So do you think there's more like a transition of power taking place as opposed to just influence? I think, I think as soon as Trump was sworn in, you look at who are the major stakeholders? It's big AI, big tech. Look at the front row of his inauguration. and Mary Madelson and the Israeli lobby. I mean, that was a coup.

Starting point is 00:52:21 So it's, and because there's an overlap between big tech, big AI, and Israeli intelligence, that's another part of this argument. But I will argue even further that what this has done is it's creating by injecting steroids into Christian Zionism, in terms of money and the Israeli alliance. and the Israel's backing of the far right in Europe also falls into this category as well. What they're doing is creating sectarianism in the West. And this is something that I witnessed firsthand in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in other countries, that that level of deep, deep sectarian violence, which is always imposed from the outside,

Starting point is 00:53:08 either by the British imperial or overlords the French or the Americans. They're now doing that in America. Pete Hegseth is now drawing a sectarian division in Trump between Catholics, Roman Catholics in the Republican Party and Protestants, and now banning Catholic services that have always been available for Pentagon employees or staff and have changed that because of the words from Pope Leo, for starters, basically saying that made a – I'm surprised, And this is an American Pope.

Starting point is 00:53:45 You'd think that the American administration would give a little bit of a wide birth to an American Pope, the first ever in history, Pope Leo. But he said he can't justify praying for warmongers, basically, for people advancing violence. And so, which is a reasonable statement. But that was taken as an aggressive statement by the Trump administration and the self-styled. Secretary of War. And that should tell you a lot of where their priorities are, where their mindset. They want to now draw a sectarian line between Christians in America. Joe Kent is, just coincidentally, Tucker Carlson, Catholic, Joe Kent, Catholic, Megan Kelly, Catholic,

Starting point is 00:54:31 Nick Flintes, if you want to throw it in there in terms of the dissenting MAGA camp or whatever, there's others. But they're now characterizing them as somehow, anti-American or dangerous. They're doing this to Tucker as well. He's quite open about his beliefs and his faith. But why this schism? This isn't something that we used to do this in America. There was a big Catholic Protestant schism in America. Certainly the election of JFK was controversial to a lot of people in the South in the Bible Belt, but in many ways he did a lot to heal that rift and we had a bit of an armistice for for 50 or 60 years but here we are again here we are again so it's it's amazing that Americans will be defaulting back into sectarian divisions

Starting point is 00:55:24 well this is such an important point though in the larger larger like even geopolitical conversation you know she i sunni kind of this is manufactured in my opinion for a lot of reason but what do you think about this point in so the charlie kirk conversation something that i've often brought up in this because it's completely my opinion. In relation to what you just said, I've called it the Charlie Kirk problem, dilemma. I think what happened right there was that Charlie Kirk became aware of the reality

Starting point is 00:55:49 between the actual divide between Zionism and Israel, where, you know, to the larger conversation, it is the same thing, but suddenly started to realize, or more so Judaism and Islam and same kind of point. And because I'm sure you followed that and you saw the conversations he was having and the stressing of the president about Iran

Starting point is 00:56:07 and getting attacked by the Zionist people and he was felt threatened and the whole thing. And so I'm of the mind that there's an interesting divide. And I don't want this to be seen as or heard as the right side versus the wrong side. Or they could all have the wrong opinions, you know, however you look at it. But that there's now a divide amongst what you just, you know, the Tucker Carlson, you know, that level and some of the other kind of Zionist influence in the same category. And I wonder if that is certain groups just suddenly seeing that Charlie Kirk problem, recognizing the Zionism influence that's not America first, that's pretending to be America first. And whether we disagree with what we should be doing, like the MAGA point, they still don't want another group stepping in and driving that agenda.

Starting point is 00:56:44 And so I'm feeling like there's this divide within that point. Do you think there's any validity to that? Well, all Tucker has done and all Joe Kent did is point out Israel's outsized and undue influence over U.S. policy decision making and military actions. And that's all they did. For that, for that, they're castigated. they're attacked, they're called anti-American, they're called anti-Semitic, all these other things. So it really is, it is all about Israel at the end of the day, but what they've been able to do for years is because by not having that debate, by avoiding that debate, and again, I think

Starting point is 00:57:25 we owe Tucker Carlson a tremendous debt of gratitude for interviewing Ted Cruz and really, really exposing just the madness of this extremist Christian Zionist idea that if you, those who, the Bible commands us to bless Israel. And if you don't, you'll be cursed by God, you know. And he did that on, you know, national TV, the equivalent of global TV. And in a way, and that's a high-ranking U.S. senator who's pushing this type of a cult. It really is cult-like. but it's never been challenged in a political arena until now.

Starting point is 00:58:06 And now the average person can look at that and say, Ted Cruz is like really off his rocker. I mean, that's just insane. John Hagee is crazy, and we can say that's just a pastor in front of a megachurch in Texas. But to see a U.S. senator or Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador, say these things. It takes on a whole, then you realize that this is actually

Starting point is 00:58:26 totally injected and infused into politics in the United States. in the United States, into decision-making, into budget allocations, all this stuff. And then you're like, we might have a problem here. And bring this back into, you know, just the reality that with all you just discussed, that we are being, Hegset and the rest are saying to their own personnel

Starting point is 00:58:45 that this is a war for Armageddon. You know, I mean, I'm actually completely blown away that that conversation did not completely overtake. I mean, I think we know why it didn't, but that is world shattering. Like you're telling them we're fighting for Armageddon, that this policy is being driven by some religious, prophecy. You know, it's just, it's, I don't think people wanted to believe that. It was just

Starting point is 00:59:03 too hard. It really, it's, it is, it is a bit of a shock for a lot of people. They don't really understand what they're watching happen in real time. But I will, I will say, you know, Ryan, and, you know, we black pill hard on politics and the, and the two-party system, of course. But the problem is, a big problem in the alternative community is no one who participates in that system. So they, like, there's not people like us in those. positions of decision making, there's other people that we have delegated to do that for us, and they're doing a terrible job. So that's one of the main problems. But we're looking at this situation. You're like, actually the solution has to be political here. And it's a good

Starting point is 00:59:46 example. Pete Heggseth, how did, if all of the objections came up during the confirmation hearings, how did he get confirmed? There's tons of Democrats against him. What happened behind the scenes. This is not a trick question. I think if we ran a multiple choice quiz, we'll say, who intervened to order all of those senators to vote for Pete Hegseth? Wild guess, you know, A, B, or C, it's the Israeli lobby. And so that level of interference into our politics to make sure that the most unqualified, mentally unstable, checkered resume, most potentially corrupt individual is in the most powerful position in the government, then where are we as a country? So are we the superpower? Because militarily and economically,

Starting point is 01:00:41 we're superpowers. But politically, is America more powerful than Israel politically? That's to me an open question politically, politically. Well, let me end with this question then in regard to the, you know, kind of the next step of the question as before is do you think that there is an effort here because like what you just described, I'm constantly seeing in every single category. I mean, look at the cabinet we're talking about with Bongino and Cash and Nome and Bonney.

Starting point is 01:01:09 Yeah. The opposite people have ever seen these positions. Do you feel that there's an effort from Israel or something else to not just control, but to like destabilize, to collapse this country? And if you do think that, what's the agenda there? Absolutely. Absolutely.

Starting point is 01:01:24 Also, this is all. also a natural conclusion of a lot of people want to put actors and reality TV people in positions of political power because all we care about really is the interface we have in media with our political leaders anyway are they good at sound bites do they look good do they have a full head of hair i mean america we're very superficial about these sort of things we always happen um so now you know reality tv star is president pete heggseth is like like a weekend news, Fox, he wasn't even good enough to be an anchor. He was a weekend host on Fox and Friends. He was like a mediocre Fox News pundit who's now in charge of a $1.5 trillion

Starting point is 01:02:07 dollar destructive military industrial complex. And so there we go. So this is what you get. Zelensky, what is he? He's an actor. He was groomed as an actor for the job as president. it. So Trump is really, to me, a type of a Zelensky, as is Heggseth. And what is Zelensky has no choice but to keep doubling down because he can't get out of the role that he's been cast. He's been given the power. He's been given the clout. He's been giving the money. And he can't stop. The minute he steps off the stage, he's finished. He probably is not going to live very long. I would argue the same is true with Donald Trump now, Pete Hegzeth, and some of these other Fox actors that are populated in the administration. Complete empty vessels.

Starting point is 01:03:02 J.D. Vance is another example. To me, he's like the Tony Blair of America. A complete empty suit, totally malleable. Tulsi Gabbard is an incredible, also an incredible shape-shifter. I mean, she is literally, she will bend to be whatever you. you want her to be so long as he's got a seat on whatever that train to power is. And she's proven that throughout her whole career, how she's willing to flip and remake herself and reshape herself in order to continue her career trajectory.

Starting point is 01:03:33 But that's what we've got as a political system. And we're entrusting these sort of people to making decisions for us. So yes, of course, Ryan, there are the decision makers behind the political facade. the Black Rocks of the World, global capital. The Israeli lobby, to me, I regard Ryan, as a type of an organized crime, international organized crime syndicate. Israel is the hub of an international organized crime syndicate. And the Israeli lobby is like the U.S. management branch of that syndicate.

Starting point is 01:04:09 And their job is to corrupt and to steer the U.S. government to make life favorable and conditions favorable for them to carry on doing whatever they're doing, whether it's stealing land, assassinating people, stealing things, laundering vast sums of money, trillions of dollars of money being laundered through Israel and its various affiliates every year globally. And in a way that overlaps with global capital and the transnational banking establishment as well.

Starting point is 01:04:42 So similar, it's part of a similar system. But still, where does that leave us? You know, we still have agency, I believe. If you don't believe you have agency and you're so blackbilled to think that there's no point in any political outcome, I would say that. I'm not a subscriber to that. I believe that there are the conversations and the debates that we're pushing and the points that we're pushing. We have punctured the mainstream consensus on many times. And so that's part of that process.

Starting point is 01:05:15 we're all part of that process and we have to keep pushing. But I'm not just going to sit there and just black pill and say, you know, there's no point in even being involved. Absolutely. You know, I'm not a Green Party supporter, but having met Greg Stoker recently and seeing his passion and enthusiasm, even though I'm not agreeing with him on every single issue, I support people like that getting involved in politics in the United States.

Starting point is 01:05:44 I think we need more people like that. that involved in politics. And if we do, I think we're going to have a better shot at getting the, seeing the result that we want, which is we want policies that reflect what the public want, what the public think. And as you rightly pointed out the beginning of our conversation, Ryan, the general public is anti-war for the majority. It's clear. It's shown in every poll and every election. So, but that's not where we're getting. So why is that? Yeah, yeah. You know, I, I come from more of a non-statist or, you know, more of an anarchistic perspective when it comes to,

Starting point is 01:06:21 you know, no government, I would prefer, you know, but I would, you know, if we are forced to live in a state of society, I agree with you. And I think that it's important that we influence the situation around us. But I'm all, I just, my eyes, I'm saying, I have complete hope for what you're saying, and we all should, whatever our opinion is. But I, I worry that that still leads us in a direction where we're, you know, giving away our agency, you know, to a higher authority to dictate, government action controlling our lives kind of a thing. But where we're at, the only path to that, I argue, is sort of the path that you're talking about with the effort to diminish that power.

Starting point is 01:06:54 Like so I would argue that's probably a great. I haven't looked into his campaign discussion, but Greg Stoker is probably going in that direction. Some of like Derek Brose and others, you know, have run for a mayor of Houston with the intention to diminish the government influence. And I think that's where we should be leaning. And I agree. And I'm glad to you.

Starting point is 01:07:09 Yeah, we need parallel. People need to build their own parallel systems and organizations. parallel institutions. I'm all for allowing, you know, for those things to happen. But unfortunately, if we ignore the behemoth, it's going to come crashing down on us wherever we are. That's the paradox. That's the problem that we face. Yeah, I agree. And this is why it's important not to just tunnel vision onto one thing, you know, be open to different ideas. You know, it's very important today. And, you know, I'll end with the point. So I was asking about that again with this, this point is that, you know, the collapse discussion. I'm worried about this because it feels

Starting point is 01:07:43 almost decoupled from the larger agenda to a large degree. And I think this is where you might see more of that schism between the extremist religious Zionist direction versus the technocratic direction and all the rest of it, which overlap, right? But, you know, if they're discussing this idea that we're fighting for Armageddon and the understanding of the prophecy coming from, you know, mentioned the Red Heifer and the idea of this Zionism perspective, to them, it necessitates the collapse of the West. And so it's like this weird counterintuitive thing. And so that's why I was asking is like, I'm worried that there's this, drive like the Heg Seth and the rest that is driving this to the point. It's like it's not even

Starting point is 01:08:18 Israeli interest, not it's in not American interest. It's just completely dehinged from anything other than this end goal. You know, and so that's why these conversations are so important because, you know, you've got to be able to see all these perspectives. And there's multi, it's multifaceted. There's many different agendas and players and all this. But, you know, you just got to bring it home from like I'm speaking for an American perspective, you know, and understand that we can't affect this. We can't have this change. We need to see the influence and the strings and all the different efforts. that are driving us here. You know, so to end, really, any other thoughts you want to include, you know,

Starting point is 01:08:49 are the things important, part of the conversation or just like upcoming events or things you want to shout out on the way out? Yeah, just on that last point, Ryan, you know, if we have generals or, you know, heads of the Joint Chiefs, I mean, Pete Heggseth just purged the number of top generals this past week from the U.S. military, including one that was, I believe, the former commander of the 8th, 2nd Airborne, which is the very, you know, division that Trump is mobilized to deploy for a ground invasion in Iraq as an example. How do we know what the basis of that purge was?

Starting point is 01:09:24 Was it because they're not on board with the religious doctrine, with the end times Armageddon worldview? They're not Christian enough. They're against the ground invasion. We don't know exactly. But I think the answer might come out later. But it is frightening. So if you or I, Ryan, are faced.

Starting point is 01:09:43 and we're given like 10 minutes with the top general in the U.S., who is a Christian Zionist, believes in the end times narrative. What are our chances of convincing him that he's wrong to abandon his eschatological, deeply held religious views about Armageddon and the U.S. playing a role in the coming of Jesus and Trump being a type of Messiah figure? Do we really have a chance of convincing him that that's, Are those beliefs so deeply held that there's no way that they're going to change their mind?

Starting point is 01:10:20 They're not going to have a real epiphany and come back to reality. I'm going to answer that. It's very, very difficult to tell, and it's very, I would say no. So if they are at the top positions in the U.S. military command structure, then even if the technocrats or the thesis. of the world who are clearly like, I believe my personal opinion is their atheists and their technocrats. They believe their God is technology. Their God is automation.

Starting point is 01:10:53 Their God is convenience. Their God is transhumanism. Then I really think that the religious fanatics would Trump, or no pun intended, would overcome the technocrats in that with nuclear weapons in tow, with nuclear weapons in tow. So this isn't, we're not in the realms of fantasy or conspiracy theories anymore. We're in the realms of reality here. We have to, we have to confront this. We really do as a society. We have to confront this because it's dangerous, I think.

Starting point is 01:11:32 I agree completely. Well, it's been a great conversation, Patrick. And I really hope we can do this again because I'm sure we could go into a lot of these different specific points and have a deeper conversation on it. So I appreciate your insight. And I hope people will check out your work. I'm sure my audience is very well aware of your work. But if you haven't, I'll include the links. And thank you for being there.

Starting point is 01:11:49 Anything else you want to add on the way out? Yeah, yeah. Just I'll drop some links in the show description. I appreciate that. And we are so heavily throttled on YouTube. And we have been for about 12, 13 years. But I'll drop the link to our channel. If anybody wants to help us overcome the algorithm, just like or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Starting point is 01:12:09 That would be massive. I'll put a couple of other links there to my substack, which I recently started, and also 21st centurywide.com. Outstanding. Well, thank you, brother, and I'm looking forward to talking with you next time. You have a good one. And as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.

Starting point is 01:12:27 Any generals and admirals have you fired? I don't know the exact number. You don't know the number. It's eight. Can you explain why any of them were fired? But just explain why was the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, Jeremy Jag fired. Why did you fire him? They all serve at the pleasure of the president.

Starting point is 01:12:44 No, I'm just asking you why. General Kane is a great example. I'm just asking you why. You can probably learn to Princeton what why means. Why did you fire him? They serve at the pleasure of the president. Why do you fire him? You can't explain why you fired any of them?

Starting point is 01:12:57 Gentlemen, times expired. part.

The Last American Vagabond - Patrick Henningsen Interview - The Dying American Empire, Lies About Iran & The Coup Within The US

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