The Last American Vagabond - Structural Shift In Governance: Private Data Centers Armed w/ Drones/DEWS As Critical Infrastructure

Starting point is 00:00:01 It starts with a simple question and ends an objective reality. Through our journey from there to hear, we find one another and ourselves. And as the next 24 hours breaks free from our last, we gaze onward in reflection of the day. Tell you're okay, close. I have to stay in July. Welcome to the daily wrap-up. Sunday, September 20th, 2026. Thank you for joining me today.

Starting point is 00:00:44 A focused conversation around artificial intelligence, but specifically around how it is in this, I mean, a few cases we're going to discuss, but in a focal point, changing the way we engage with society. Now, we've been talking about this quite a lot. In a couple of different ways. In a great reset kind of way, not left or right, but just, I guess, government, but even above that,

Starting point is 00:01:06 trying to reorganize and reimagine the way that we engage in society, but also the way we understand and engage with authority. Now, to be clear, if this is something you haven't heard before, you think sounds crazy, let's remember or rather point out, this is the people, just in particular, around Donald Trump right now, but more than that, around any number of wealthy people, you know, Elon Musk types that go left and right. This is stuff that they openly discuss.

Starting point is 00:01:30 Many of them written books about Curtis Yarven as a central conversation around the inner circle of Trump and the philosophy there, but they talk about this, about how this needs to be done. And you won't be surprised to find out that the markers they lay out and have discussed for years are literally, like exactly what Trump is doing. Now, he may have a different narrative or justification.

Starting point is 00:01:50 Maybe he doesn't even know he's doing that. And maybe I'm wrong about why. Either way, he's doing the things. And, you know, and by the way, Biden before it, been leading here. But I'm discussing today is this interesting evolution around this conversation through protection of the data centers. And at the same time, what AI is working on in ways that we're not talking about.

Starting point is 00:02:10 Now, we've long discussed the AI created drugs. Almost put that in the title today, but it's more of a side part to the larger conversation, but this is already happening. It's been going on a long time now. But now we're getting into a weird overlap where groups like Anthropic have lean heavily into biotech.

Starting point is 00:02:28 They just opened up in San Francisco, their first real world, or at least the one, I believe they said it was their, first, now that I'm saying that I'm, make sure I'm not incorrect, but I believe it's their first, uh, real world wet lab, as they call it, an AI company making a real world biotech company where they're going to be doing, you know, genetic engineering and, and all the stuff that we're used to hearing about and even more so when it overlaps with AI, because

Starting point is 00:02:53 that's what it will mean, AI involved with their process, the whole reason they're leaning into it. And so that's alarming to me in its own right. Now think about the conversation of what that led to. The gain of function direction. And I even have an article will point to where we discussed AI as the new gain of function and a different conversation, not the Fange-related one that I'll point to today that I do still think is relevant in that direction, but that AI itself is going to be the new step into kind of experimentation in that direction.

Starting point is 00:03:21 And so now if Anthropic is working on that, there's just a whole world open there. It's just one company I'm talking about of where this goes in that same direction of pandemic and bio-conversation. And at the same time, and this again, only one space. spotlight because I felt it relevant today, but there's many of those kind of conversations of what they're working on at the same time. They're now openly discussing through Republican legislation giving data centers armed defenses. Now, two parts to look at it, I guess two ways to look at it. One side of it is taking private companies and giving them, and I actually pulled this up for a reason

Starting point is 00:03:55 to make sure I had this exact phrasing right. I use this in the title because this is what they actually said verbatim. A structural shift in governance. This is coming from. from the U.S. government, cotton and one of the person will mention in a second, calling it a structural shift in governance. I saw that and almost fell out of my chair. I'm like, isn't that that that's literally what I've been saying and they're framing it as the way they're going with AI.

Starting point is 00:04:17 But it's a lot more than that, right? But a structural shift in governance and they call it the privatization of a sovereign enforcement power. So it's just make you terrifying. The privatization, so a sovereign enforcement power being, you name it, nuclear weapons. That's not what they're talking about here, but they do mention by name direct energy weapons,

Starting point is 00:04:39 as well as autonomous drones and everything else that you're getting in the AI world. Just look at Gaza for a glimpse at what that looks like. Now, what they're talking about is, well, these are super important. We have to defend everything because they're tied to everything, and so therefore we need defense. Now, they're not government, are they? So they're talking about giving them private access

Starting point is 00:04:58 to the privatization of sovereign enforcement power, meaning, I guess, oversight through the legislation they create, but they're a private company deciding when and how to use lethal force based on the idea that they're in risk from, you know, left-wing Democrats, crazy left-wing terrorists or right-wing fascists or whatever the name is that day that they're using to make you think that Americans or, you know, your neighbors are the enemy. But what we're talking about is a massive shift in giving that power to people like Alex Karp.

Starting point is 00:05:27 People like Elon Musk, right? The leader's Vanthropic. Larry Ellison. Those are the kind of people that we're talking about. Larry Fink, all of which are literally in this category and giving them that authority. Alice Carp talked about spraying cat urine from drones on people he didn't like. I mean, these are terrifying few. We're going to get into this today. But the bigger part of this is also the nationalization side, because I'm not sure which way this seems to make more sense and which one's more alarming because what I just mentioned was the privatization, right? And that's what I'm kind of focusing on, like giving them this power,

Starting point is 00:05:59 but then at the same time, the other side of it, which will point to Alex Karp, actually discussing this and it feels kind of couched to me, the idea of nationalizing all the data centers, which has been an ongoing conversation. A lot of us have been talking about how possible that direction is. But now you open the door for that to be given. Well, they're the government now. They are a contractor, whatever you would frame it as, therefore, the U.S. government is using its authority to protect its assets. So what does that mean for the Alex Karp's in the almost of the world? Are they now just as profitable? Or is it? Oh, they have more? power than ever. Well, when you consider the technocracy side of it, detachment 201,

Starting point is 00:06:33 and how they're worming their way into literal military and government positions like Mark Andreessen with the Defense Department, OpenA, I mean, it's crazy. We'll talk about all this today. You start to realize, hold on, we're already there. This is literally already happening. Well, yes, I've been saying that. But I'm hoping people can start to recognize this is not some fringe idea. It's not some secondary thought. It's building around you. Not the analogy of the, you know, as it builds around, literally it is building around you. And we need to make sure we're paying attention to that. Now, I'm going to start with a point around drug experimentation,

Starting point is 00:07:07 or rather just experimentation using bio and all kinds of stuff, because it's relevant to overlap first with the willingness of our government throughout multiple administrations left and right to experiment on you, whether or not you say it's okay, whether or not you even ever find out about it. And then overlapping that with the kind of stuff Anthropic is working on and whether or not that same conversation, which it is as being had, and then overlap that with the bigger conversation of where AI is going. And the protection of all that they're building through this very conversation.

Starting point is 00:07:37 And we will touch on Iran again. If we have time, I plan on discussing some things around Iran that are important and a conversation around the United Nations and Donald Trump. Now, if we don't have enough time for whatever reason, that'll be pushed off. But I'll get to it one or the other because it's not necessarily time sensitive. But if you haven't noticed, today there was a conversation of Trump saying he's, you know, or rather more so the media reflecting some areas of it, almost a blackout by the left-right corporate media,

Starting point is 00:08:02 which tells you something that he has, what did the term they used was officially or formally, removed himself from the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Security Council, which is interesting. But he did that already. Year 25 and even before that, Biden brought it back. But what's interesting is he's only doing it now and stating it as formally, even though it's already happened,

Starting point is 00:08:24 because, well, they just found out through a UN investigation that they're guilty of war crimes. That also just happened. A massive statement from a UN fact-finding mission said, yep, they just bombed that school, they bombed that gym. Multiple examples, they committed war crimes. And then within two days, Trump goes, ah, UN security account, I'm out of here, or rather, human rights, human rights counsel. Okay, so I said that wrong.

Starting point is 00:08:44 We'll talk about that if we have time, but the point is that clearly the whole global shifting dynamic is happening. The U.S. will always have a seat as a permanent founding member. and they'll always have a security council seat, but the point, and of course, I'll get into all the nuance, but the point being is that they're now pulling away from the Human Rights Council

Starting point is 00:09:01 and as they're acting like the people committing, you know, bad things in the world aren't being stopped. It's a weird situation. I see it as relevant only because it seems of the shifting governance of the globe, U.S., particularly, but in my mind, but the global governance dynamic.

Starting point is 00:09:17 When you think about the AI part of that and where this is going and the global nature of it, it's hard not to see the breath of this conversation. So let's start with a couple quick health points that I think are relevant that bring us into the point of the experimentation. Now, you might have seen this. This is just frustrating.

Starting point is 00:09:35 This really is just an additional point to start with on health, but I just wanted to point it out because it's just frustrating. And it shows you the kind of way, the way that they're thinking, even somebody like Oz, who has this, you know, error, you know, people in the independent side, oh, he's the good guy fighting for your health freedom. I guess none of that matters once they join. the evil, you know, the team of the government, left or right, whether it's RFK or anybody. I mean, just look, guys, I need to walk down the list of all the things he's literally

Starting point is 00:10:01 challenging, challenging double crossing, the opposite direction. RFK, Trump, you name it. So Oz, here's what he has to say. Then I'm sure you've seen it. Give you a number you'll never forget. If we can get the average American to be so healthy, so with it, so vital that they just want to work a little longer, they want to, not elect, you know, it's elected, they want to work longer.

Starting point is 00:10:18 It's worth a trillion dollars to the U.S. economy. Wow. our nation needs to be a healthy country. We owe it to our people. This president fights. Right, right, right, because healthy equates to more work all the time, right? I mean, what a disgusting, like, grotesque inversion of every... People can choose to work more if they want to.

Starting point is 00:10:36 Not everybody has to work because they're healthy. Not everybody has to work more because they feel better. Some people don't want... I mean, the idea of that is so disgusting to mash those things together. But so even if you don't... Aside from what I just said, are they making us more healthy? Or is anything they're doing bringing more health to this country? I mean, as I simply wrote, which is just, I think, obvious to everybody,

Starting point is 00:10:58 I guess they think healthy is more deadly RNA shots, more PFS, more glyphosate, more pesticides, etc, etc. And down the list of a 50, you know, everything they promised the opposite, die, you know, you name it. They either don't think we're smart enough to see what he's doing or don't know what else to do but lie. And on top of that, being awes of somebody who frames himself and maybe is besides whatever else is going on. I'm just saying that. Like, who knows whether it's blackmail, you name it, but it's weird to see people who seem to care about things suddenly start, you know, more so RFK than anybody. But this is just, we need you to get healthy. Well, you're the ones poisoning us, but you need us to get healthy so we can work more for you. And then wait a second, a trillion dollars for

Starting point is 00:11:40 the economy, where does that go? Do we see that money? No. So let's work harder so the government can gain more money it can keep from us and conduct wars we don't want. I mean, it's just impossible to not take this as an insult. But you guys know this. On the point of the health side of it, two important things from Ice Age Farmer. His account is now unshadow show. He says something interesting. So diesel is collapsing around. I mean, other parts of the world, guys. I mean, it doesn't need to be explained. It's pretty damn obvious what's driving this. The war they created. The shortages they're driving because they refuse to accept that they've lost this. And it's getting catastrophic. Trump just keeps going after this and then when that's over, it'll go right back down.

Starting point is 00:12:22 It's like, okay, well, even if it does, which it won't, that's literally impossible based on the repercussions of how long this has gone on. But even if it did, what happens to all the people that suffered throughout this whole process? People that have to spend way more money than they can afford because if you're a problem, it's insulting. But the diesel issue is crazy, just like gas, same thing, but diesel is particular because it happens. It's supply chain.

Starting point is 00:12:44 So on that note, two posts he has, diesel is at record highs. Some places it's completely out in the U.S. and other places in the world, the IEA, the energy minister, or the International Energy Association or administration, the WEF and FAO already published the response to this crisis. Fuel rationing, plate-based road limits, farm AI, water caps, then digital ID. Well, wait a minute. You mean, isn't that just literally the list of the things that they're doing anyway? Yeah, welcome to the plan, guys. Well, the obvious, oh, COVID-19, digital IDs.

Starting point is 00:13:23 Oh, terrorism, digital IDs. Oh, dangerous, fill in the blank, digital IDs. That's where we're living, guys. And so it's obvious these things have been driven from every possible angle, which he has been pointing out. As folks try to cry out, start to cry out, he says, and the political willpower is manufactured, the policy recommendations released over the last six months

Starting point is 00:13:43 will be pulled off the shelf. That's his opinion, but I happen to agree. He's got his substack here, by the way he's reading. it's well done. We will no longer be free to consume energy, food, or water. His point is that it'll be, because of a choke point, they've created, it'll be rationed for your safety, for your benefit, whatever they narrative, or name it as,

Starting point is 00:14:02 this will be used to control the flow of society. That's his argument. I happen to agree. You can disagree. It's kind of obvious we're going in that direction. I mean, even if you don't think these people are that, can you not stand back and recognize? Let's just, okay, fine, let's just say Iran.

Starting point is 00:14:18 boogeyman or, you know, evil Muslims out there in the world. What if they do that? What if the evil Saudi Arabia, you know, whatever, the guys you think are the boogeyman, which by the way right now are clearly embodied as the U.S. government in Israel and maybe in the minds of Britain, maybe it's the UK, but all of this together, that is the issue right now. This is easy to accomplish, right, to create the choke point and then take control of that choke point. So just the point is not about who you see is the boogeyman. It doesn't matter, especially since you can prove it is, but recognize the problem we shouldn't allow to become whether or not you think the U.S. or Israel who is the problem. And that's really the idea here. He says, we will no longer be free to consume those things.

Starting point is 00:15:01 We will instead, henceforth, request permission from the technocrats. Now, you feel, say technocrats, say former, you know, for, you know, why am I saying foreign governments? It's where my mind had a little witnessing former foreign governments. You know, I mean, you can fill in the blank with whatever you think the worry is, that that is my point, that it can still be taken advantage of. The technocrats remember just simply mean the idea that was created by the technocracy in conversation. Was Elon Musk grandfather and others of that time frame?

Starting point is 00:15:31 We're creating the idea of some kind of technocratic, technocrat, whereas Zabigneubrizensky wrote the technotronic state. These are like hypothetical things. It's been outlined for a long time. and it was about trying to shift like we're doing right now into the technical run governance, the engineers and the scientists and the doctor, but that's not really what it is today. It's just the elitists and the Silicon Valley type. So you know, it's like you don't actually get the guys.

Starting point is 00:15:57 I mean, some of these people are actually pretty talented when it comes to what they do, but of course it's clear to me. They're using it for bad things in the world. But anyway, back to the point. It says the natural order is being inverted. The technocrats are attempting to insert themselves as the sovereigns. So we see this the very same way. And this, again, why do you think that's how they see themselves recognize just asserting

Starting point is 00:16:16 themselves as in control? But they write these things, guys. And this is why it's so relevant that Donald Trump wants to rename intelligence as AI, supreme intelligence. I should forgot to mention that in the beginning, which is obviously relevant to what we're getting at today, that Donald Trump is either unwittingly or knowingly rolling out the profit class of the AI time. And that's what he's doing. And that's what they believe in.

Starting point is 00:16:38 At least that's what they want us to believe they believe. since they write about it. Inverted. The technocrats are attempting to insert themselves as the sovereigns between us and the living world, between us and the God.

Starting point is 00:16:50 A family can no longer thrive, I swear I shared that, off the abundance of nature. We are now restricted to what their system will afford us. Now, that's really interesting when we get to this clip that Elon shared.

Starting point is 00:17:04 Weird, how split this is. Even people like where they're going, that's a utopia. Some of us going, that looks like a nightmare. It's interesting. We'll get to that second. But think of that when we get to that point.

Starting point is 00:17:15 A family can no longer thrive off of abundance. So you don't get to go have a garden in the grass. You don't get to grow naturally and walk through an orchard. These things are cultivated within some kind of a controlled ecosystem. Now you may see this where you get into the philosophical argument. Say that, well, isn't that we do in land anyway? Well, it's arguably, I mean, at least as a human can perceive it, sort of infinite, as opposed to having a controlled, you know, whatever you will.

Starting point is 00:17:39 It'll make more sense when we get to. it. I don't want to say something that seems, you know, like one of those, like a futuristic idea of like an orbit where there's something circling and you're inside of a certain area. And it's, you know, there's been in all these futuristic movies. That's not unrealistic. I mean, just since, let me just show it to you real quick. We'll come back to this. I'm sure you've seen it. Most of you anyway. Something like this. And it's been a lot of these movies right there, you know, like that kind of thing. Now, as much of some people may think that's where we have to go, whatever. The point is that what argument people are saying is

Starting point is 00:18:06 that, well, you know, I don't want to be in a controlled, you know, I want to be able to have my space and, you know, it's a different philosophical view on where things should go. Now, what he's saying here is diesel is simply the pretext. In a way, I think he does argue that this has been manufactured. But either way, that it's about the drive to get to the point to where it justifies what they want to roll out, which is fuel rationing, plate-based road limits, farm AI, water caps, and digital ID. So the obvious argument would be this was done to drive that.

Starting point is 00:18:38 So he also points out, this was the next day. Event 201 for food. It's an old thing. I think it's 2015. Yeah, 2015. Food chain reaction. Now, what's important to point out is that, you know, the government does these things. It doesn't always amount to some nefarious plan, just as a rule that it's not always anything.

Starting point is 00:19:01 But it can, and it has very clearly. Now, the way I look at it is more so like, okay, event 201, I truly believe there are people that were there for that, that didn't think they were planning something problematic, or that maybe, I'd not even think, who knows if that was even like the idea that it was all being planned out or more so that there was actors that did so throughout it.

Starting point is 00:19:18 I mean, it's hard to say for sure. But I think we have to acknowledge that I'm sure anybody that's been following this knows that that was part of it. There's no question about that at this point. Even the idea of the lies about what was really happening, the idea, you know, we were there day one, still pointing out.

Starting point is 00:19:35 But, you know, thinking about the idea that these things, these events are utilized in many ways as map roadmaps. And again, the point I made is that realize that not everything is always nefarious. It doesn't mean we shouldn't question every part of it. But there's elements that don't, you know, if you jump in every shadow, you'll miss everything, in my opinion. I think that's a problem for today. But either way, back to the point, you have another kind of event where they're mapping out

Starting point is 00:19:57 exactly where we're going. Now, some would just go, well, they're just preparing for what's inevitable, right? Well, like the Earth conversation, it's like, well, what if the inevitable isn't that we destroy this planet and move somewhere better? What if we just don't destroy the planet? What if we don't, you know, that's, it's an interesting, again, the way that people, it's like thinking that we're inevitably going to have climate change destroyed, so we have to go to the next step. Well, wait a minute, I'm not convinced that's even actually happening the way you think it is. And that's where we get to these arguments, right? But this is interesting when you find out

Starting point is 00:20:25 that John Podesta's Center for American Progress, you know, that John Podesta co-hosted a tabletop exercise with the, what is it, the World Wildlife Federation, WF, Cargill, Mars, and a CNA. Food chain reaction, a global food security game. Now, I'm sure there are interesting things you can read through here and find. My guess, though, would be that you'll find things that are probably in some ways overlap with what's happening because even, let's just say for sake of conversation, this wasn't a mapped out nefarious plan.

Starting point is 00:20:55 You're going to hypothetically map out what you think might happen in a certain event. You're going to find correlations. Doesn't, but consider that it might have been planned. As always, you know my opinion, guys. we shouldn't assume anything without knowing that we can prove it. But either way, these things are the roadmap for where that goes. Now, like I said in the first part of it, let's just say this is not necessarily nefarious plan. There are people that have nefarious intentions.

Starting point is 00:21:18 Numerous, numerous examples that are swirling all around, more than I ever seen, at least that we can acknowledge, like publicly, you know, self-evident, who would take advantage of something like this. And even drive these kind of reactions out to make themselves look altruistic while they're driving into the ground, taking advantage of the collapse. That's how I would see this. And it says the event imagined a food crisis

Starting point is 00:21:41 brought about by geopolitical instability. Again, which is not hard to predict with where we are in the world. And maybe they want that. Maybe they see it and don't want it to happen. But either way, it's easy to see that that's where this is going, and say climate change,

Starting point is 00:21:54 prompting price spikes unrest and mass migration. Right? The simulation concluded that isolationism, and this is where I find the most relevant part. whatever it is, whatever they conclude, right? All these elitists and insiders, and they publicly conclude based on the way their game goes, that isolationism made things worse.

Starting point is 00:22:12 The fix, of course, more global governance, say carbon tax, carbon tritzy, and that's the crazy part to me. Now, even if it wasn't all nefariously planned, like these are still things that people that actually have good intentions are blinded by and believe a carbon tax will save, probably because they're not very intelligent or whatever you think it is,

Starting point is 00:22:30 because to me, I think it's quite self-evident, but I'm sure people disagree. Either way, even if you believe that we need a carbon tax, the point is they will then abuse that. They'll give themselves passes as corporations, and we've all talked about this. So at the end of the day, global governance. A meat tax was discussed.

Starting point is 00:22:46 We've talked about that. And because now, as we enter a real food crisis, literally driven in by the ongoing war, plus everything else we've gone through, these solutions are now being pulled off the shelf. So there we are. 2015, right? These things seem to be driving forward.

Starting point is 00:23:03 So bearing those things in mind, talking about experimentation and knowing where we're driving, keeping that food shortage kind of supply chain point throughout the entire conversation, because it'll be relevant in multiple points. Let's talk about briefly human experimentation. Now we've talked about this so many times, by the way, right here, I believe, a great article originally from the free thought project. US Army has admitted to conducting hundreds, 239, to be exact, hundreds of germ warfare tests on Americans.

Starting point is 00:23:32 It's literally listed as Operation C spray. I'll point back to in a second, where it says down here, between 1949 and 1969, which is, of course, plenty more after the year. COVID happened well after that. Open air tests of biological agents were conducted 239 times. Now that means open air on civilians.

Starting point is 00:23:53 Insane. People don't know that. And this is publicly public information. Now, this is 100,000. and third Congress, second session, 1994. John D. Rockefeller. Now, this is public, just so that's clear. This is not secret.

Starting point is 00:24:10 Nonetheless, I doubt it's well absorbed from the average population. Now, here's what it says. During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel have been involved in human experimentation and other intentional exposures conducted by the Department of Defense. often without, of course, war today, often without a service member's knowledge or consent. Even that sentence alone probably would floor some people out there who just can't accept

Starting point is 00:24:38 that that's how our government has always operated. Now, this is why this is relevant, whether we talk about Anthropic Next and biotech or whatever else that they are capable of this. And as far as we can tell, have never stopped. And this is alarming because it shows you a consistency of their nature, a consistency of their lack of principle and integrity as far back as you can look to this very moment. It's hard to ignore. For example, thousands of World War II veterans who originally volunteered to test summer clothing.

Starting point is 00:25:09 A lie. In exchange for extra leave time found themselves in gas chambers testing the effects of mustard gas. And what is it? Leavesite. It mashed a word together, but other chemicals. Additionally, soldiers were sometimes ordered by commanding officers to volunteer, ordered to volunteer to participate in research or face dire consequences. For example, several Persian Gulf War veterans interviewed by committee staff reported that they were

Starting point is 00:25:38 ordered to take experimental vaccines during Operation Desert Shield or face prison time. That's not different, guys. It's just different the way that they put it in front of you. They knew they could get away with a lot more back then. It's just different the way it's framed. Experimental vaccines or go to prison. Now, interesting in all of this, the time frame, you know, Persian Gulf War, you know, it just even then, just like now, framing the enemy as the evil villain monster that's doing

Starting point is 00:26:10 all the terrible things to everybody while they're literally prodding and poking their own people and poisoning them. In the Persian Gulf War, now that does not mean good, bad, just you can say bad everywhere. I wouldn't disagree. Just recognize these people are not what they pretend they are. Not then, not now. In the Persian Gulf War, U.S. troops were intentionally exposed to investigational vaccines that were intended to protect them against a biological warfare. Right. But of course, you could go, well, they wanted to protect them. But yes, they hurt mostly because they were testing on them to see how these things would work. That's not helping people. That's, I mean, arguably, that's for some kind of high-level test to make sure they could use it when they need to, probably for the inner circle and the elitist. However, some of the studies that, I'm jaded. Yes, you know that. However, some of the studies that have been conditioned.

Starting point is 00:26:54 conducted, had more questionable motives. Basically the last paragraph is like, well, they did it for good reason, right? Trying to make sure, safe for this and that. Of course, that goes back to whether those threats were even genuine or whether they were going to do it. And so they projected it on their enemy. I'm never saying that the other side is not capable of any of this. You know I don't think that. Governments all across the board are all capable of things like this in my mind. But just think about who we're dealing with and how historically accurate that is. Consider that that's the case, is all I'm saying. For example, the Department of Defense conducted numerous man-break tests,

Starting point is 00:27:29 exposing soldiers to chemical weapons, in order to determine the exposure level that would cause a casualty, i.e. break the man. Similarly, hundreds of soldiers were subjected to hallucinations. You know this one, an experimental programs conducted by the DOD in participation with or sponsored by the CIA. That's M.K. Ultra, it mentions it further down. Way, way more than just psychedelics,

Starting point is 00:27:51 forced rape and all kinds of horrifying things if you want to look into the studies they did on soldiers and other unwitting people, including people in high, you know, there's documentaries made about it. These service members often unwittingly participated in human subjects, as human subjects, in tests for drugs intended for mind control or behavior modification, often without their knowledge or consent. So, you know, mind control or behavior modification. Do you think that's actually stopped? I mean, why would anybody think that? Why?

Starting point is 00:28:24 Because they got called out for it? Look, you can actually literally prove that I think it was, what, 72, I'm off top of my head. When they say they stopped MK Ultra, you can literally prove that it did not stop when they said it did. Now, whether it's today, that's hard to say. But if we know that, well, then what discernible reason would they have to stop it? Especially since they're literally talking about behavior modification, even mind control today. my point is that is where we are. That is the Charles Lieber, Bob Langer, all of it.

Starting point is 00:28:53 Even the neural, all this stuff is about DARPA-level influence. Tell me I'm crazy. I mean, I guarantee there's a thousand other things you could be used for. That is where it continued to to this point. Now the question is, if I'm correct about that, what else has been being done with that in mind? COVID-19? Any other thing?

Starting point is 00:29:15 Who knows? I'm not saying I know, but realize that that's the kind of stuff I think they're capable of. And what did they get done with that? If that was what it was, all types of real world, I mean, global results. If I'm just pointing out a hypothetical. Now, these experiences put hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members at risk, you know, on top of risking their lives for what they think is a good, you know, at the time anyway, a righteous cause and may have caused lasting harm to many

Starting point is 00:29:45 individuals. Now, this gets even more, even more disgusting when you find out that they went out of their way to not give them resources, benefits they deserve. Oh, you know, just like the Iranian soldiers that died who aren't getting resources and benefits because they go, well, we're not in a war. Literally. I'm sure you've seen that story, too. I just talked about it about a week ago. Even though Trump literally just called it to war for like the third hundred times, you know, and heck said they just too, you know, but we can't give the ones that died for our crazy war. Anyway, I digress. Every year, thousands of experiments utilizing human subjects are still being conducted.

Starting point is 00:30:22 This is in 1994. So why would it have stopped? So when they're doing this, and this is within Congress, I doubt this was meant to be public at the time, it's saying, I could be wrong about that, but it says, utilizing human subjects are still being conducted by or on behalf of the DOD. Well, that's an alarming way to frame that too, seeing as how we know they've got weird little, you know, satellites all over the globe in weird little tucked away dystopian places where they're doing terrible things, you know, like Prospera, by the way, which isn't even where I was thinking

Starting point is 00:30:52 about when I said that. But that's, they're doing weird biotank experimentation. The point is like the U.S. government, DARPA, you know, all around the world in foreign countries. You know, Georgia, for example. I mean, how long have they been saying? The U.S. government's got lab. They're testing. Weird smoke comes out. We get sick. Look it up for years, decades. Veterans, who did not know that they were exposed to dangerous substances while they were in the military, therefore would not apply for or receive the medical care or compensation that they are entitled to. Meaning, you know, they didn't even know they were being exposed to it. So when they later get sick, but it says even if they knew they were exposed by the military,

Starting point is 00:31:32 it would be difficult or impossible to prove the military had not kept records, which they wouldn't, of course, because it was a secret operation. So the bottom line is, if you can't prove that it was connected through your military service, which they can't, then you're going to get nothing. And the government knows they were doing that. I mean, can you not just take, I mean, it's gross enough to biologically manipulate people that could kill them, obviously, and then affect generationally their family. But worse to then just go, oh, yeah, what do you mean? What thing? You know, go die in a corner.

Starting point is 00:32:01 We're not going to give you any help. many experiments are tested had that tested various biological agents on human subjects referred to as Operation Whitecoat you've heard about this one i think we've talked about it a couple times were carried out at fort detrick of course now it says 1950s but let's remember this did not even slow down investigational drugs used in the persian gulf war now these are all such like categories there's individual examples it's horrifying just realize that it's been done repeatedly. Gulf War, for at least 50 years, the DOD has knowingly exposed military personnel to potentially dangerous substances often in secret. Then it goes on to find,

Starting point is 00:32:42 outline its findings. They issued a report in 1994, which stated that between, you know, the same stuff we're already talking about. MK Ultra, DOD, numerous examples. Says the CIA has not released the names of 15 of approximately 80, 80, 80, 80, organizations that conducted experiments under the MK Ultra program. 80 organizations. Think about the lasting effects on all this. DoD has repeatedly failed to comply with required ethical standards when using human subjects and military research during the war or threat of war.

Starting point is 00:33:13 And that's a specific category. Look at where we are right now. This has been consistent. You go back through Syria and you will find these examples where there's experimentation being done and they rationalize it. Why well they're doing evil things? and they're not playing by the rule.

Starting point is 00:33:28 So, well, as every government's ever said, about every war in history, so bad we can't have one of them that just goes, well, we're going to be better than everybody. We're going to actually, now, you look, I get the argument, well, then they're going to get the event. Well, it doesn't mean that you don't fight back, guys. It means that you don't fall to their level.

Starting point is 00:33:44 You don't use the thing, you don't use chemical weapons and white boss. By the way, most of which aren't even more effective. That's why you'll find that it's usually the ones like these groups that are using them, because it's not effective for the other groups to use them in a sense of war. Look at the comparison between chemical weapons and massive bombs.

Starting point is 00:34:01 Massive bombs are far more destructive. Chemical weapons are just vicious. That's why they're used by Israel and the United States. That's the point. That's why it was used in Syria by the United States framing Assad repeatedly. Aaron Motei still has amazing work on that. It's easy to demonstrate. Now, anyway, plenty more examples, guys.

Starting point is 00:34:22 It shows you a very, very clear track record up until the very date they're reporting on this that they had continued to do it as it says continue to do it now just for sake of kind of uh what's the word um connectivity i guess there's a point though i can't remember the word you know to bring this together from other conversations we had i'm sure you remember the clip we used to play i'll just play the short one this is just 26 seconds of a documentary which i can't remember the name off the top of my head i have it written down i'll try to put in the show notes talking about Dietrich. Today. We have over 1,300 documented cancer victims right now just in a one-mile radius. I'll be quite honest with you. It's changed my life. Serratically, sometimes I don't even know who I am.

Starting point is 00:35:05 1,300 people in a 1-mile radius. What's causing so much sickness? It turns out, all these victims have one thing in common. They live next to a military base called Fort Dietrich. I still find that insane, just that one clip. But the documentary is crazy. They talk to people in the town and the girl, there's a young girl like probably 18 talking to him at a bar. And she's like, oh, yeah, everybody knows you don't drink the water. Imagine that being said.

Starting point is 00:35:32 Imagine if that was something they were saying about Iran. Oh, how the Republicans and Democrats would cry foul about how terrible the government is in Iran and how they won't give themselves what the, you know, free water for people. You know what I mean? It's just, it's insane. What has, it's, anyway. the contradiction, what they pretend they are while they do everything. But so the Fort Dietrich aspect is just one example that we know of.

Starting point is 00:35:55 So on that note of the ongoing experimentation, I want to quickly note yet again, all to this to this day, 2019, but it's still the point today. I've mentioned this many times, but it's clearly relevant to what we just read, compulsory moral bioenhancement. So what the argument is here, if you haven't seen it and plenty of other examples, there's like four of the studies they can find with the same point, is they're arguing that I'll just read it really quickly. this is to say that it is, as they argue, and this is from the NIH, morally preferable for compulsory,

Starting point is 00:36:24 forced, they put moral, but, you know, bio-enhancement to be administered without you knowing that they're doing so. And he says the argument for that is that, well, if this bio-enhancement should be forced, I guess they just decide that amongst themselves, well, then it's administration, giving it to you is a matter of public health, because they're altruistic, right? And for this reason, should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that covert secret administration of these forced bioenancements better conform public health ethics than a forced, a public forced one. Well, yeah, because you're not telling us you're forcing it on us.

Starting point is 00:36:59 I mean, that's insane. So what that would mean is if it's a secret bioenhanagement, you do it through something that's normal, your regular flu shot or the food or whatever else. That is what they argued. Doesn't mean it's happening. Maybe it's just one guy, but realize there's a consistent. in all of this, is they see themselves as the morally superior. And this is my point.

Starting point is 00:37:18 Who knows if, where's the name in here? You know, whatever, the writer of this actually, oh, it's right here, Parker Crutchfield. Maybe he truly believes in the altruism of the industry. But he's wrong, right? And so he writes this as well, because we're all good people, then we must do. Some of them exist. So keeping that in mind with what we just went through. And again, Operation C spray was just one of the most provable examples in San Francisco.

Starting point is 00:37:40 1950, Navy secret biological warfare experiment where they sprayed over the San Francisco Bay, just to, you know, see what happened. That's literally the argument. To see how the city would fare to a bioweapon attack. So they attacked him with a bioweapon. What? It contributed to one death and ten illnesses. Now it says speculation, it's pretty clear, in my opinion, that this went down this way.

Starting point is 00:38:04 One of the most obvious. Compulsory today, if they feel it should be. Now, overlapping this with Operation Warp Speed, it's not, it's hard to see, it's not hard to see the parallels, guys. And whether or not that was entirely what happened, or that there was something that happened alongside whatever they were doing. So here's one of the discussions in 2020, exposed warp speed with Whitney Webb, we discussed this, chips, gels, and sensors on the way and Trump's COVID-Sy-op.

Starting point is 00:38:31 Again, guys, telling you, this stuff is way, we're way past this, but it's just yet to be shoved down our throats, you know, no pun intended. So this is one of them. We also discussed it here. The eugenicist mindset propelling operation warp speed with Whitney Webb. Remember, this is Moncef Salawi, Donald Trump's administration. This was all driven from the current person in power. Now, then we can also talk about Stargate, also with Trump in power. Now, it's not unique to Trump alone or Republicans, but it's important to note the consistency.

Starting point is 00:39:00 As we discussed in 2025, Stargate is Operation Warp Speed 2.0. I genuinely consider the continuation of it through AI in the way that I see it playing out. Not every single aspect of it. And I'll include the ones we discussed again from this is Rachel Blevins. Who's no longer with them, I don't think. But either way, it's a great article. Make sure you check the website out, Jason Bassler, Matt Agarist doing great work. And this is one where we discussed it in the context of COVID in 2020.

Starting point is 00:39:28 In coronavirus, we trust medical surveillance state for a government that's experimented on you 239 times. Think about how crazy that is. Now, to put a perfect cap on this alarming conversation, Jessica Rojas put this clip out. 19. It's where I'm fine. Anyway, Clinton's executive order, 13139 remains on the books today, allowing the experimental drugging of our troops without consent. Now, I'd be willing to bet you that you could find a way to absorb that into somehow,

Starting point is 00:40:01 under some national security rationale, the population. Or they'll just do what they want anyway. But it says every president since Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have kept it active, which means right now. They aren't protecting the military. They're testing them as lab rats. Now, now you start to see how relevant this is, as well as when we get into the fact that, well, Anthropic is literally now working on drugs, as they call it their wet lab.

Starting point is 00:40:30 Oh, maybe I got that wrong. Oh, it's in the other article. Anyway, we'll come back to it. A real world lab. Not AI on a computer. Not to imagine it, but an actual biotech lab working on real life things that can get people sick. They could hurt people. Like, as if AI couldn't do that.

Starting point is 00:40:53 We'll come back to this, though. Just thinking about how alarming that is in a lot of different ways, because if they need somewhere to experiment, well, we're currently in an active war. Well, we just showed you that in an ongoing reality, anytime under warfare, they rationalize the most extreme things. Because, you know, war. Well, here's the clip. Widespread use of vaccines. What is contained in the vaccines and just how many of those vaccines that were given that were in fact experimental. The experimentation of individual

Starting point is 00:41:19 military members by the bureaucracy of the military medical establishment crosses all party lines. Military experimental use of vaccines have been conducted during the past 50 years. The senior Bush administration ordered the use of experimental vaccines anthrax and botulinum during the buildup of the first Gulf War. The Clinton administration ordered the experimental use of the tick-borne encephalitis vaccine in Bosnia. Perhaps one of the most devastating executive orders regarding vaccines came under the Clinton administration. Executive Order 13139 essentially orders the use of experimental vaccines and or drugs

Starting point is 00:41:51 at any time without the service member's consent to be given to anyone in the military as long as the president or the Secretary of Defense approves. So nothing new, right? Nothing new. So it's pretty clear that 1994 post that. is the same. You know, they do a congressional review saying 1994 before they've been doing it with no consent all the way up until this moment. Well, clearly it never stopped. During the first Gulf war, it was not unusual for a service member ordered to Iraq in 1991 to receive 10 to 17 vaccines

Starting point is 00:42:22 in one setting. Thousands of U.S. and coalition military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War are now seriously incapacitated from unknown causes. One common thread for all military personnel were the vaccines. Many of those who did not deploy became ill. also. Unfortunately, the U.S. military medical establishment has continued to conduct on an ongoing basis operations such as Project Badger and that that has been referred to as a Manhattan-like project that involved the Tri-Service Vaccine Task Force. Credit for the best vaccine research should go to Gary Matsumoto in his claimed book entitled Vaccine A. Matsumoto concludes that the government covertly experimented on troops using squaline, which is an oil-based booster used to make vaccine stronger.

Starting point is 00:43:02 Squaline has only been approved for use in experimental AIDS and experimental malaria vaccine. And we've talked about squalien more than once. Since a large percentage of U.S. forces tested positive for squaline, it has led many individuals to believe that the anthrax vaccine could have been a primary clinical trial for an AIDS vaccine experiment. What the DOD should have disclosed to the troops is that squaline causes life-threatening diseases. Now here's one way to think about this, and this just goes back to Mekovitz and plenty of other conversations we've had, Judy Mekovitz, is the conversation, the question, rather, of whether or not that or something else, other shots, is what caused, which is essentially an autoimmune, you know, a vaccine-induced immune issue.

Starting point is 00:43:43 That's what AIDS, actual auto-immune, you know, is it autoimmune? I'm just blanking on all of a sudden. But we talked about this, you know, the Vades conversation was a vaccine induced. It's the same thing. So argument was it was a, you know, a virus was causing it. Well, since we can see the conversation, you know, the conversation through COVID-19, I'm thinking of an article or a show I want to bring up. here we go.

Starting point is 00:44:14 I'll bring this down so you guys can see it. I want to finish this really quickly, but I, you know, just see you guys can see it. I'll come right back to it. Deep dive, vaccine acquired immune deficiency, immune deficiency, that's what it was, syndrome, HIV inserts in the SARS-COv 2 and the aftermath. Now, the point was, the, rather the thought you should be having, question, is whether or not that or any other, that just being the point of the clip we're watching, is what led to some kind of an outbreak.

Starting point is 00:44:41 Because that's the point Mikavich ultimately makes when you get into the vaccines before it, that this was either a random mistake because they were, you know, didn't do these properly or because they were genuinely experimenting. And it caused just like we saw the COVID-19, rather COVID-shot, Vades conversation, the same kind of dynamic. And it got called something. It became its own problem. Just like we have SIDS and SADs and all these weird categories.

Starting point is 00:45:04 And if you actually look into it, it literally is a category for we don't know what caused it. But yet we go, oh, that's sudden infant death syndrome. syndrome, look it up, guys. It literally means we don't even know what happened. That's all that means. It's insane. And so, I know, adults too, it's, there's something else going on. So I'll include this for you. But think about how deep that may go. I'm sure most of you already have these thoughts, but the idea of where this goes into something, you know, where these larger problems are just repercussions of what they're doing to you. I'm not suggesting it's everyone, but worth considering, especially with what we just went through.

Starting point is 00:45:41 Lupus, crippling arthritis, that the anthrax vaccine could have been a primary clinical trial for an AIDS vaccine experiment. What the DOD should have disclosed to the troops is that squalene causes life-threatening diseases such as lupus, crippling arthritis, and multiple sclerosis. On May 11, 1999 at an Air Force briefing held at Dover Air Force Base, Air Force Sergeant General Charles H. Rodman II denied the use of squaline in the anthrax vaccine. He was backed up by Army Colonel Arthur Freelander. However, six weeks later, the FDA identified the presence of squailing in two separate vaccine lots. With the reintroduction of the anthrax vaccine prior to the second Gulf War, up to 50% of Air National Guard pilots resigned rather than take the deadly vaccine.

Starting point is 00:46:24 And not even close to the only example, right? Getting caught, nothing happens. Here's a quick clip of the one we played as an intro for many times, which is the swine flu conversation. I mean, and it's as caught as you're going to get. Just like today, it seems. that no one's ever actually held accountable. As long as you make them look embarrassed, apparently that's enough for the system. Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation.

Starting point is 00:46:54 And Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak, a pandemic. Dr. David Sensor, then head of the CDC, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, is now in private industry. He devised the swine flu program, and he pushed it. You began to give flu shots to the American people in October of 76. October 1st. By that time, how many cases of swine flu around the world had been reported?

Starting point is 00:47:21 There had been several reported, but none confirmed. Where did this so-called deadly variety of flu? Where did it first hit back in 1976? It began right here at Fort Dix and New Jersey in January of that year when a number of recruits began. to complain of respiratory ailments, something like the common cold. ...active... ...as much... ...to the...one gibbages to the one gibbage.

Starting point is 00:47:48 Did you know some... ...you know some... ...risks of serious complications following the shot. But did it? No, I had never heard of any reactions other than a sore arm, fever, this sort of thing. Judy Roberts' husband, Jean, also took the shot. Yes, I looked at that document. I signed it. Nothing on this. Said I was going to have a heart attack or I can get Guillainbury, which I never heard of. What if people...

Starting point is 00:48:10 people from the government from the center for disease control what if they had indeed known about it what would be your feeling they should have told us did anyone ever come to you and say you know something fellas there's the possibility of neurological damage if you get into a mass immunization program no no one ever did no do you know michael hatwick yes dr michael hatwick directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program at the CDC. His job was to find out what possible complications could arise from taking the shot and to report his findings to those in charge. Did you know ahead of time, Dr. Hatwick, that there had been case reports of neurological disorders, neurological illness, apparently associated

Starting point is 00:49:00 with the injection of influenza vaccine? Absolutely. You did? Yes. How'd you know that? By review of the literature. So you told your superiors the men in charge of the swine flu immunization program about the possibility of neurological disorders? Absolutely. What would you say if I told you that your superiors say that you never told them about the possibility of neurological complications? That's nonsense.

Starting point is 00:49:25 I can't believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that. I've said that Dr. Hatwick had never told me of his feelings on this subject. And he's lying. I guess you would have to make that assumption. And why does this report from your own agency, dated July 1976,

Starting point is 00:49:57 list neurological complications as a possibility? I think the consensus of the scientific community was that the evidence, relating neurologic disorders to influenza immunization, that they did not feel that this association was a real one. Oh, if you did know then, got it. Just so you don't miss the obvious. Did you know? No, we didn't know.

Starting point is 00:50:25 Well, it says right here. Oh, well, we didn't think it was real. Well, so you knew then. Nothing happened. You guys know this. I thought that clip the first was enough, but I grabbed the full thing just to, that part I wanted you to see. You guys, I'm sure have seen this on this show.

Starting point is 00:50:37 If you watched this show, I've played it more. than once. But just think how crazy that is, nothing happened. Nobody went to jail. And even when you just talk about the idea of withholding information, informed consent, lying on the documents, nothing ever happens. Flock adding things left and right, their contracts, Trump and Biden and Bush and Obama lying, cutting things out, reneging on what they want, doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. We've seen that. And now that reverberates through society where people start going well, then I guess I can do whatever I want, I'm powerful, I can take what I want. Isn't that what the good guys do? Like, that's what younger people.

Starting point is 00:51:08 are absorbing from that message if you don't realize that. So why is this still law? Good question. Thank you, Jessica, for posting this. I mean, so realize that's still right now. They can rationalize doing that to the military right now. And guys, I think we know that's very likely. So Anthropic launches AI drug discovery program joining tech giants and betting on health care. That was June in 2026. Anthropics life science head, Eric Couter Abrams, said the company will focus on discovering treatments for neglected diseases that traditional biopharmaceutical companies couldn't, wouldn't consider active targets.

Starting point is 00:51:51 That's an interesting direction. And there's plenty of thoughts, you know, like, so what does that mean? Neglected diseases, you know, and so what, so we think about the, usually the reason that doesn't make sense is because, from a business perspective, is because it's very difficult to get these things passed and tested and approved, at least at one point it was. And then the idea being that there's not going to be as much of a market, that it's going to be harder to approve. So everyone's going, how does that make sense? Because guys, it's going to be AI. Now, they're not saying that. And there's people asking, like, is that going to be the case? It's going to be,

Starting point is 00:52:21 whether it's the research as they, as they, you know, actually, I'll show you real quick. Right here. Where was that? There. This is from 2025. Clod for Life Sciences. This is Anthropic. and it says we are focused on building the tools to allow researchers to make new discoveries and eventually to allow AI models to make these discoveries autonomously. Now that's talking about the same thing. It's talking about life sciences, talking about the, this is the exact same conversation. Read the full thing for yourself, it's very clear. So the point, and even they even kind of walk this back to the conversation now, but the point

Starting point is 00:52:58 is they're saying, so realizing that you have AI doing the discovery, the research, the checking, and the production. That's kind of alarming, and it's that full circle loop. Why do they need us? Just every dystopin in the future. Coutre Abrams didn't say that what Anthropic would do

Starting point is 00:53:15 if it finds any promising drug candidates. Traditional biopharmaceutical companies would typically test them in clinical trials. But see, this is the point. There's only one or two ways you look at this. Either they're going to the MRNA, moderna direction, which is where I'm leaning, which means in their minds,

Starting point is 00:53:30 they don't need clinical trials, as insane as that is, even with, all the failures, that's actually what they're still pushing. Then even the new shots they're putting out, do you realize they've gone from four or five year testing to like a few months? Even though we all saw through COVID, they're just still doing it because we're distracted with Ron and whatever. It's the same thing.

Starting point is 00:53:47 They're doing rapid testing new MRI shots with their same because they're using the same model and just changing the antigen, changing the input to the computer model. That's exactly what we discussed during that time frame. So what they're saying is, well, you know, typical companies would have to go to clinical trials. So maybe they don't have to do that because they're going, well, it's AI, it's MRNA, it's computer screen stuff, and we'll pump this out and give it to Moderna and they'll make the shot. That's terrifying. Or they do conduct clinical trials and they simply just test these things on people, even if they're made by AI.

Starting point is 00:54:19 Now, I think the former seems more likely, but either one is alarming to me. So here is April 3, 2026, TechCrunch, Anthropic buys. Oh, so it was April. sorry, the point of when they bought that lab, buys biotech startup, coefficient bio, by the way, that was already using AI to make drugs. In $400 million deal, Anthropica's purchased the stealth biotech, hold on real quickly, this one. Okay, yeah, so just to be clear for the timing, I want to make sure it's clear in our mind

Starting point is 00:54:59 in the timing. So in June of this year, they launched the AI drug discovery program. So remember, they already have different physical elements going on now, or the point being this is about the, sorry, I'm saying this confusingly. So they're creating their AI direction from June forward. My point today is that they're actually putting in, like, so you could have argued at this point, we're talking about, you know, on computer screen investigation. But what we're hearing now, and that's what I'm going to get to, is the on the ground,

Starting point is 00:55:28 actual location. I just want to make sure that wasn't confusing before we get to the article. So this is in April. So this is further back. But the point being is that we're talking about the actual location. purchase of the location. I couldn't find anything interesting in Coefficient Bio other than the obvious.

Starting point is 00:55:43 Anthropic has purchased the stealth, stealth biotech AI startup. I'm not sure exactly what stealth means there. 400 million stock deal. Coefficient bio was using AI to help make drug discovery and other forms of biological research more efficient.

Starting point is 00:55:58 Wide open door, apparently. I remember that point, they're talking about the full circle here. Eventually to allow AI models to make the discovery autonomously without inhuman involvement. So to 18th, two days ago, Anthropic quietly sets up biology lab. Now that just struck me as wild. I mean, it's no different than having any of them. I mean, I mean, Elon, he's his own weird dabble and all

Starting point is 00:56:31 that weird stuff, but just having anybody that's in, you know, you're talking about artificial intelligence, not some real world biological study. The only reason this makes sense is because we're talking about AI drugs, AI creating real world things that are being used on people and we already saw how that worked and played out, at least in some ways. And then on top of that, even if you think that's the inevitable direction, think about who we have behind these things. That's why I started with what I did. Even if you think this is an inevitable thing and is the best case scenario for drugs, the people behind it don't care about you. Anthropic has quietly set up a laboratory to do physical, biological work as it pushes its artificial intelligence

Starting point is 00:57:12 ambitions into the world of drug science. That's what, so back in June, they were already talking about the AI direction, but I don't think people thought it meant real world labs. At a time when fears of AI are gripping the public, excuse me, the startup has built a wet lab. So it is wet lab. That's what I thought. A wet lab. A place for physical experiments in San Francisco.

Starting point is 00:57:33 Two people familiar with the matter said, Anthropic has said it wants to unlock treatments for rare diseases. And its biology work has gone beyond in silico or computer evaluations. I'm not sure what that means exactly, other than they just want to wade into real world biology, which is terrifying. I mean, what right do they even have the ability to do that? Are these people, biologists? Are they doctors?

Starting point is 00:57:59 Why would somebody who can, I mean, there may be an overlap, but in most cases, somebody who can write code and create AI is not going to be able to. to actually do real world biology. In, you know, in most cases, or just, I would say, you know, other than if you learn both of them, let's put it that way. Quote, we believe that to do biology, the final test is still, okay, this is, the way they've said this doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's misquoted, well, we read it out.

Starting point is 00:58:28 We believe that to do biology, the final test is still and will be for a while in real lab work. Okay. And he says, we absolutely are doing that today. And I would describe our approach as being typical of what you would see in most biotech companies, where there's some amount of that that we're doing in our own facilities and some amount of that that we're working on external partners on and working with. Okay. So it seems the stated the starting kind of just absolute is, well, we believe that,

Starting point is 00:58:59 why are you even doing biology? So obviously that's what people are asking. Wait a minute. biology? Why are you working in real world wet labs? So they just start with, well, we believe that doing biology, we have to do it. So you get what I'm saying. Like they're starting as the absolute being that we have to do it. Therefore, we feel like it has to do some lab work and some real world. The question should be, why are you involved with this at all? Not explaining as if we know biology, obviously. So here's why it makes sense. That's not, I mean, to me, that's insane.

Starting point is 00:59:29 It just, I mean, you tell me what you think. Am I wrong? Do you think that this makes sense for them to be working on? I just, I don't think it lines up. up. And that's whether or not you think they're nefarious. I just feel like that's weird and of its own right. But then on top of that, obviously these people, history, for Anthropic CEO Dario Amadai, the effort is personal. Let me know if I'm pronouncing that correctly. The mission of the company, he says, is to develop powerful AI in such a way that benefits the world. Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure. That's what they're all talking about all the time. How can we benefit everybody else at our expense? And it says, by far, we see the biggest opportunity for that in

Starting point is 01:00:04 life sciences and that's motivating everything that we're doing. Now, opportunity for your profit or for people to be helped? Quite the question. But here's the crazy thing. As it gets into this idea of the AI risks and danger, which are obviously there, the question is, do they actually believe them or care? So it says, like other biotech companies, as if Anthropic is a biotech company now, is embracing physical automation, said the two people who spoke on condition of anonymity. normal, right? So we're talking about now using AI and then robots that are running by AI who are creating the things you're making experimentally for things that go in people's bodies. And it says the startup wants to push how it's cloud AI can direct robotic units to carry out

Starting point is 01:00:48 science experiments with limited human intervention. Perf, that's how all the best things are made. Still Anthropic believes that human oversight and involvement are essential for safety. Don't you love that secondary statement? Wait a minute. So again, going back to their previous statement that said, hopefully we can get to a point to where it's autonomously done without involvement. They can just make the discoveries. They can pump it out. But of course, as an afterthought, well, we still believe that human oversight necessary. Well, do you? Are you just saying that because you know that's what we want? Look around. They don't think that. None of these people think that. If you look, and here's an important point when we get into this idea of this next statement.

Starting point is 01:01:24 In the past two weeks, some of the researchers warned that AI could lead to human extinction, obviously. And of course, Trump's going, it's a hoax. Does he not know what the word hoax means? It hasn't happened yet, guys. It's an idea about what might happen. The guy's an idiot. And Anthropics said it found examples where its systems could have been used toward biological weapons development, which meant some skepticism. Okay.

Starting point is 01:01:46 So let me ask you something. If you're going, wow, this is alarming. And it could kill everybody and they buy all weapons. And would you rush forward and go faster? You would not. Unless you didn't care about those risks. So either they don't believe the risks are there or they don't care that they're there. because what's happening, regardless of them going, we see dangers, is they're going faster.

Starting point is 01:02:05 And this game they play where they're at, it says right here, Amadai, the CEO also calls for a developmental slowdown and then literally didn't do that. He's lying to you guys. It's about framing themselves as the ones that care. Well, we don't because they know that we are all worried about this. The whole world can see that the American people are terrified about data centers, about AI, and they're all expressing that. Like, it could be, it's possible that that's a false impression.

Starting point is 01:02:29 and that the numbers are all lies, but that's what we're being shown. So I guess that could be the lie. We can think about what their motive may be, but I think that's the case. So my point is that even when they have to put it back, like, well, most Americans are concerned, it's pretty obvious.

Starting point is 01:02:43 And you can see that yourself by looking at the general picture. But so knowing that, that people are very worried and that we're all pushing back and they start to call you terrorists for caring about data centers, clearly there's an issue there.

Starting point is 01:02:54 So they go, well, we see it. Yeah, AI may be bad. we should talk about this. Let's slow down a little bit. But then when they don't do that, and in fact, you look and they're going faster, you need to immediately go. They're lying. They don't mean that.

Starting point is 01:03:08 They want us to think they care. So we ignore them until they're done. And it says, at the same time, Anthropic is preparing to go public in a potentially $2 trillion IPO to raise more money for such AI development that they want to slow down. Now, here's the thing. The important point that was mentioning a second ago. I mean, you guys have to really think about this because this is pretty big. basic. These people run companies. He's a CEO, which means he has a fiduciary responsibility,

Starting point is 01:03:36 legally speaking, to make money for his company. So on an easy surface level point, you would argue that it's obviously not what his board would accept if he's out there going, we may all die, this whole thing, our entire business model may actually kill everybody. No way he'd be allowed to say that unless they actually discussed that doing that might help the company because they see we're concerned. That's possible. But it's worth thinking about that. You really think these people are out there going, maybe we should slow down on the business model

Starting point is 01:04:04 that'll make us a trillion dollars and then risk losing that by somebody else being first. No chance. So my opinion, is this hype about worrying about this and Anthropic being the concern is obviously false, in my opinion. But either way, the way to look at this is obvious. Because there's worthy debate to be had about this. There's some kind of a, you know, a sciop going on within it,

Starting point is 01:04:26 which is we know there's danger. here. There's no way around that. And especially since Trump wants you to pretend, as he's out there going, there's no damage or danger. It's all a hoax. Then clearly there's damage. Clearly there's danger if he's doing that. Kind of a joke. But clearly we all see that there's risks, right? It's obvious. It's self-evident to see where these risks can take place. So whether or not they're lying, it matters. But if they're lying about the risks, we're going to be doing the same thing, right? if they're not lying about the risks, we're going to be doing the same thing, right?

Starting point is 01:04:58 Like we're, so I find it an interesting conversation. It's worth debating, but it doesn't change in a material sense what we're doing because we're fighting this because we have our own concerns, whether or not they see those concerns. So keep that in mind as this goes around the whole, you know, anti-AI versus not.

Starting point is 01:05:14 It's not, you know, it's, I remember what I was saying this whole, like this whole year. I have a feeling, like a sense of dread that this right now is, is just about pacifying us until a certain point. Different than before, which is more, you know, I don't know, up in the air, long, ongoing, sort of just pacifying people for different, like I'm of the mind that this change is necessary for their ongoing control.

Starting point is 01:05:39 Whatever that, all the things we're discussing, all the things we've discussed in the past, the control grid, as Catherine calls it, which is being built, which is just the new infrastructure for the technocratic states, what they're building, that ultimately that, we need to be distracted. So if we can be put off just long enough for that to happen, once we get past it, it won't matter whether we see it or not.

Starting point is 01:05:59 My personal feeling on it, call me a conspiracy theorist plenty do. It's all rooted in absolute fact that you can prove. The only questionable part is their intent around all the things we can see. That's what I think their intent is, but you should see it too. You know, question it rather. So Anthropics staked out its intention to start running drug programs at San Francisco in an event in June. It says he, his view is that AI could fast track development.

Starting point is 01:06:24 for conditions previously thought to be undruggable. Oh, good. So more AI created pharmaceutical drugs for things that we didn't have before. That's what we're all blustering about or whatever clamoring for. To too difficult to treat. The technology could speed discovery, for instance, of bi-specific and try-specific antibodies. Ooh, now we're getting somewhere. Complex molecules that can be directed at multiple points on a targeted protein or cell

Starting point is 01:06:51 or hit multiple targets. Yeah, yeah. We're talking about the exact same kind of terrifying direction, gain of function, genetic modification, COVID-19, MRNA direction using AI, though, which I actually think was part of it the first time either way, but realize by specific, tri-specific antibodies, complex molecules that can be directed at multiple points on a targeted protein or cell. Guys, this is the extension of the same work under the AI frame. And that is exactly what got people sick. Now, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. for all I know, this will work and save everybody's lives. I don't think where we came from with the people that are driving this is going to amount

Starting point is 01:07:28 to anything but more problems. Because what we saw during the COVID-19 time frame was clearly an overlap of this very thing. You know, antibody dependent enhancement, the idea of multiple things at once. I mean, even their universal vaccine conversation is questionable for very same reasons, as they said themselves. Didn't stop them from working on it, though. Rick Bright, Dr. Fauci, multiple times. Trump doing the same thing.

Starting point is 01:07:52 Trump and R.K. Jr., talking about their own universal flu in COVID direction. That's all still happening. All this has to be relevant, guys. Now, I'll include the Stargate article from Derek Bros. Stargate, Trump partners with technocrats to promote MRI injections, AI, transhumanism. More relevant by the day, this is their AI drug platform. I talked about the AI-created drugs conversation in 2023 with George Webb, an interview. Also talked about the being primed with a life switch, the idea of the

Starting point is 01:08:21 COVID shot being sort of a precursor to something that comes next, in his opinion. We talked about AI, 2025, AI itself being the new gain of function. And it's very easy to see how that plays out, guys. I mean, you can see the connection. And it's just, that's what I believe they're doing. And then, of course, I'll include the one I mentioned, Trump's new gain of function, at least as I argue it could be, you know, considerably similar of the way it could be used. And plenty of peer-reviewed science finds the same concern.

Starting point is 01:08:51 and this is called the bacterial feinge system. Look into it. It's just my opinion. I think it's concerning plenty of science out there was saying this could be utilized in the same way. And Trump's leaning into it. Surprise, surprise. Oh, and I followed up on a, I think a week later,

Starting point is 01:09:07 talking about the bacteriophage system in function, which is another, it's deeper in this conversation. Now, talking about the AI overlap to this, right? So that's just clear in the AI in biocide and the idea of where that's connected to, and the technological, the bio, I mean, all of it with Anthropic. I'm going to play this clip first and show you what Elon Musk wants you to see as the future, right, where we're all clamoring to go, right?

Starting point is 01:09:31 Then we're going to talk about the idea of what they're doing with this and how they're planning to protect this. Now, there's two questions to ask before we even watch this, right? And by the way, that's where the picture was today. It was a screenshot of this video. Is, right there. is this actually what it will look like or at the very least actually what they're intending now if that's the answer if the answer is yes is that even what you want does that look like

Starting point is 01:10:02 utopia to you even if it looks green and nice or whatever they're inside your weird little pod at the end of the day is that what you want now the second question is is that even what it will look like. So, you know, my point would be is even if this is actually where it goes, is that really what you want to go for? But secondarily, I think we need to ask whether that's actually, like, my gut very clearly tells me that what they're painting here, as much as I don't want it anyway, is not where this is going. But this is how they want you to see the utopia of their building. And guys, historically speaking, these things never, these people will profit all the way down and realize, even if this looks nice to you, do you think the Epstein class is going to

Starting point is 01:10:43 to do right by you? Do you think the elitists who have been robbing you blind your entire life and shoving you into a war are going to create a world that they can't exploit? I'm sorry, I'm jaded. I think history makes it obvious. These are the people at the top. But let's watch this first, as Elon Musk says, this is the future we shall bring into being. So there's no question what he's pointing out here. Now, this is a Canadian filmmaker, Ozzie Alter, I guess. And here's the clip, about three minutes long. Together, we built a new future. where natural and artificial minds collaborated. All AI created, by the way.

Starting point is 01:11:25 Was in harmony. But above the skies is where we became limitless. Luna was the first site for large-scale space engineering. It was from here. We pushed onward. On the red soil, we built our first interplanetary city. New Olympus. Slowly, the essence of Earth took root.

Starting point is 01:12:12 Mars was now our second home. Have a lovely night. In the asteroid belt, we tapped into nearly infinite material. We rose above the acid clouds of Venus, proving the harshest worlds could be reimagined. You know, we being as one unified collective, because that just happens naturally, right? Not by war or, you know, forced collaboration. Yeah, you got greenery and nice, but you're also inside of a dome. You know, it's interesting.

Starting point is 01:13:04 Callisto linked the moons of Jupiter. And with time, I emerged as a thinking city. Super AI thinking city, right? That's a huge part of this, not just living other places, but a super AI controlled city. Now, obviously, the first part of it is what you go back to, right, is that, okay, well, Earth is in harmony. Okay, well, that's a big conclusion to start with. How in the world do you get to that point? Now, the idea of becoming that, you know, what we're talking about in the global, you know, space and all this stuff is going to be fought over clearly with the world we're living in unless one group unifies or takes control of everything. That alone is what we're all fighting from a long point back. But either way, you know, the idea that Earth is in harmony.

Starting point is 01:13:52 Well, if you're starting on that point, you know, the idea, I mean, there's a lot of assumptions in all of this. many things to come back to are the technological direction, the idea of having a AI super controlled city, which applies to the earth point to start with, but the idea of if we actually even think this is plausible, that the very people we're discussing are even capable of creating and leading us to this direction. Look at the people in power, the top of every single country you want to look at. But I mean, I don't think those people are leaders, quite frankly, but either way, the point is the current system and those people and the technocrats driving it don't want to, to help you? Or do you think, what about the Democrats? They call terrorists. Are they welcome?

Starting point is 01:14:31 See how short-sighted this is? They love these lofty futures. They do this to get you excited if you actually think that's what you want about where they're driving you and then lead you off the cliff like Piper or whatever the analogy is. Our path was no longer found. It was made. 40 kilometers beneath Europa's surface. The silence broke. On I.O. we learned to channel the chaos and some worlds were not found

Starting point is 01:15:33 they were built you know at the end of the day you know as long as you're willing to live under your supreme imperial force you know there's no way around how this is being taught look it's obvious that that is the way that they viewed that

Starting point is 01:15:53 and if you listen to them Ellison or Andresen they'll literally spell it out for you that what you need is that or Trump talking about the AI direction what you need is one central source one group deciding about all of it. They're just building out the future,

Starting point is 01:16:07 the direction that we're going in. You listen to the AI gospel, you listen to the AI prophets, and they decide your future. Now, you may think that's crazy, and maybe I'm off base, but again, they've written about this. It's literally the way that they describe these things

Starting point is 01:16:19 when you actually get into what they're saying. So at the end of the day, that, to me, is not even possible without, unless we get past the kind of kinetic and violent and selfish and spiteful world that we currently exist in, or rather I should take that back, ruled by the selfish, spiteful, manipulative people

Starting point is 01:16:37 that we currently live under. Because I don't believe that's the majority of people. I feel like it's obvious that they project themselves as good because I think most people at their core want that outcome. But either way, you know, this whole reason we have, this whole thought we have about most people being, you know, miserable, hateful, that's what they're always projecting. I just don't believe it.

Starting point is 01:16:56 We all have our moments. We're all, we can all be selfish. We can all, we're all a mixed bag. The idea that most, people are evil and spiteful and mean, that's because those people are at the top. That's what I believe. Who knows where we'll go or what will become? It will become.

Starting point is 01:17:25 The rest lies beyond. You know, I mean, you don't have to take this as inherently nefarious. The person maybe actually, you know, makes that because they believe that's the future they want. My thought is that Elon Musk shares this as somebody who is quite literally at the top of this paradigm, or at least one of them. Of course, then it takes advantage of a clip that got 45 million views to go, hey, boring company, check this boring company out. How shameless you are. It's your platform. Just post about that. You'll get 20 million views anyway. But either way, that is what they're projecting. I very much want to stress that I don't think it's even remotely. I don't even think that's what

Starting point is 01:18:09 they actually want, quite frankly, but you guys can decide. Here's the article put out, I think it's a Swedish media, but it says Elon Musk provoked heated reactions with video and message. This is the future we will achieve. As it says, part of the user welcomed, part of the users welcome the message with enthusiasm, translated, while others expressed skepticism and concern about the direction in which technological development could go, but also the Earth planet. Right? That's kind of my original idea.

Starting point is 01:18:36 So you say it's in harmony, you know, in harmony, well, again, there's a conversation to be had about what that means for the original location and why it would be striking out. Because this idea of population, I don't want to get into all the side conversations, but there's a lot of lies swirling around driving this. The post comes after Trump's announcement that he will establish. We'll talk about this next, a special body called the AI force, generally talk about this direction, which should follow the development of artificial intelligence in the U.S. An AI force.

Starting point is 01:19:05 What do you think that amounts to? And appointed a new, get this, AI coordinator whom he literally called an AI emperor. I mean, come on, there's only so many things we could brush off as Trump being Trump. This is aligned. As you'll see, as we go through this, Supreme Intelligence, something he's talked about before, that he's now pointing as one of the three options to rename artificial intelligence, creating an AI coordinator called an AI emperor. That's insane.

Starting point is 01:19:36 Because I find AI force, this is, it could be a typo, by the way, I didn't read, I didn't look for the true social post, but you would say, I found AI force. Like I founded it. I founded this company. I found this group. He says, I find AI force. Similarly,

Starting point is 01:19:49 a similar, I found it. It's probably a translation the way that reads. Anyway, I founded Space Force. So he's saying, I found Air Force or AI Force, whatever that amounts to,

Starting point is 01:19:58 the same way I found is Space Force. So it's a military installation. You not see how terrifying this is. So AI Force becomes what? A drone army? I mean, there's only a few ways to see where this goes. And as we get into next, the idea of giving these private data centers

Starting point is 01:20:13 the autonomous, the, what do they call it? I'll read it more in a second. The autonomous drone systems and direct energy weapons or nationalizing them and doing the same. He goes, which is a space force, which has achieved tremendous success. Okay. And says he added that he would soon announce the new AI emperor, who that would be. Can you only guess who that might be? Honestly, with how clumsy and bombastic it's been, it might as well be Peter Thiel.

Starting point is 01:20:40 I bet you that's that we get something on the nose like that. Sorry, can't, it says, sorry, can only be individuals with high IQ. And in fact, when he wrote that, he literally referenced himself, by the way. The White House, excuse me, the Wall Street Journal states that this is the first time Trump has announced a particularly, are a, it's against the translation, a federal body that should monitor the intelligence. Is that what that is? Are we really pretending that this is a body to monitor the direction? Guys, this is a body to dictate what they allow to have. It's not about making sure it's safe.

Starting point is 01:21:13 So the way that the media goes out of its whites, I think that's frustrating, to be honest. It's not about safety. I think that's obvious. Now, here's what he put out. Burke Sterling says, for the slow one in the back, the fact that he included supreme intelligence

Starting point is 01:21:27 should be a clue. September 19th, he posted this on Twitter. Many people think that the words, artificial, apparently as an individual word, and then intelligence as an individual word, because he said the words, artificial intelligence, are inaccurate. Now, I don't even know what that means.

Starting point is 01:21:43 Inaccurate or in eloquent? Okay, so let's replace it with extreme intelligence. Okay, so walk me through how artificial and extreme intelligence are more eloquent one or the other. I'm just making fun of him. He always does this. The guy is, I don't know, I don't know what you call it. Trying to pretend is something more and better than he is. I don't know.

Starting point is 01:22:02 That's just, it's just lazy. More eloquent, okay, I actually think the point is they needed to rationalize why they name it something different. Either one or two things. Either it's about trying to name it something different to muddy the water so we don't know what we're talking about or because Supreme Intelligence has more meaning than we realize. I have a sneaking suspicion, Supreme Intelligence is going to be the one that gets chosen.

Starting point is 01:22:23 If you talk about Supreme Intelligence, what does that bring to mind to anybody? A higher power. In most context, it means some kind of a God conversation, guys. That's what it's been used as. So that's a weird thing to do. Now, again, is that him just being clumsy? Is Peter Thiel back there going, damn it, Trump, you're putting out in the, I don't want you saying that or was it by design or is Trump just doing what he thought who knows i really believe

Starting point is 01:22:45 this is something deeper whether they want us to think of them as ai profits or that's what they believe they are i think there's something in that again don't take don't miss here that they are don't forget rather this is these are conversations they've openly had in books in interviews in podcast this is what they believe a far more elegant and accurate description of this new phenomena would be superior intelligence, which is, I mean, I guess, artificial meaning superior. So basically he wants to put superior extreme or superior extreme or supreme. So what he wants to stress is it's better. Artificial, arguably means it's, you know, just not real, right? He wants you to think better, more advanced, you know, understands better than you do. I mean, that's what these things all mean.

Starting point is 01:23:34 It's the supreme. It's the highest. It's the better. It's, that's not. the truth. At least not right now, at the very least, I think that's part of what this is. But he says, a far more elegant would be so superior, extreme, or supreme. This is a poll, and I would appreciate everybody's voting. Well, I guess we'll find out. I think I get a good, I think, you know, as this person even says, this post gives anti-Christ vibes, clearly. The Christian right? Crazy. So here's an interesting point. Amanda points this out. Here's what he said. Thank you to Amanda Gagnon for posting that. December 11, 2025, here's the actual document.

Starting point is 01:24:12 He says, well, thank you very much. We have a big signing right now, and we have a tremendous industry where we're leading by a lot. 2025. It's the AI, artificial intelligence. He says, it is always thought it should be SI, Supreme Intelligence. Oh, so he didn't list the three back then. So clearly he has an opinion, which is supreme. How much you want to bet, that's what happens.

Starting point is 01:24:33 But he says, I guess somewhere, along the line. They decided the word artificial, and that's okay with me. That's up to them. Okay. Apparently not anymore. So first, Supreme Intelligence was the only one he was talking about. So it's obvious, I think that's where that's going. 2025, the idea that they were leading by a lot, isn't it weird that that's the opposite of what you were told? So you have this conversation remarks on signing with reporters in 2025. Then the next year, suddenly the conversation is, well, we have to hurry because China's going to beat us. And we already know where that came from. Open AI, Andresen Harrowitz, Palantir, paid for this lie,

Starting point is 01:25:11 which is a lie. You can prove it right now. And what's important to point out is that he knew that too. He knew it because it was, and he goes on. It's a massive industry. We're leading China. We're leading everybody by a tremendous amount, he says, where the electricity is being built by them at every plant. And of course, this is where they either played him or he's lying to their reporters because the idea that they could build become their own little power plant. It's not what's happening. It is possible. But that's not. what they're doing, the amount of energy they require for them to build their own. It's not what's feasible for them, and they're not doing that. So he lied to you, or he got lied to and got played himself.

Starting point is 01:25:44 Who knows? They're building the electricity. We're getting them rapid approvals. And who knows, maybe that's where it goes. At the moment, you can show that's not happening. People's energy bills are a whole thing. But either way, the idea that they are leading and beating the group that they then use to trick Americans into thinking we had to rush into this.

Starting point is 01:26:03 the dangerous, alarming thing that we all know is going to be bad. That's what they're doing. So they don't care about you. They don't care about the outcome. They don't care about the world. They care about their immediate profit and gain and control.

Starting point is 01:26:13 How we don't see that, I don't know. So the next one they share, that you may find this relevant or not. I'll include it since it was put in. Amanda Gagdon also includes this from the Jewish Encyclopedia.com. Here's the document. And this is just under the psychology of Kabbalah.

Starting point is 01:26:28 It says the soul teaches the Zohar has its origin in the supreme intelligence in which the forms of the living existences may already be distinguished from one another and thus and this supreme intelligence may be termed universal soul which appears to have an important conversational point in Judaism.

Starting point is 01:26:47 Interesting. Now you may find that relevant. I think it's irrelevant regardless of, you know my thoughts about the bigger conversation of Zionism and Judaism. The bottom line is that's pretty interesting with Trump's connections to Zionism and Israel and Judaism. It's interesting. Who knows? Maybe it's just a coincidence. Thank you, Gagnon, for pointing that out.

Starting point is 01:27:07 So here is Mark Andreessen, one of the people that were involved with pushing all this, how Trump swindled Americans and sold out the country to technocrats. Just a good show to catch you up on the bigger picture of where this goes. So here is an interesting point that Alex Karp made before we talk about the data center arming. Edward Dowd says, very interesting interview by Alex Karp here. He's speculating AI companies in his weird, sporadic, like sociopaths, way that want to be nationalized for liability reasons and hints at no IPOs. Well, isn't that very interesting? Now, imagine they know already that there's not going to be an IPO.

Starting point is 01:27:44 Imagine they know that these are going to be nationalized. Wouldn't that change their actions? Wouldn't that, I mean, yes, guys, not only could they wildly profit from knowing these things, but also the idea that it just changes ever the way. I mean, everything that they are the government at that point, in a sense. You know, they're part of the government apparatus. And I kind of think that's already where we are, guys. So who knows if that's what happens?

Starting point is 01:28:05 Because I'll break it down again afterward about whether, you know, is either nationalize it or arming private companies. But either way, it's insane. Either way, they're both discussing the idea of arming them as national critical infrastructure. But the idea here, he's speculating that companies want to be nationalized, which I don't think he does. This is what Palantir wrote. Alex Carp on what model companies are really asking for when they call for regulation

Starting point is 01:28:30 and why they will be nationalized. Don't forget. Trump aggressively said no regulation on AI. He's still arguing the same thing. Lutnik, despite getting pushed back in Congress and they stopped that. Last I checked, Lutnik came out and said, it doesn't matter. We're doing it anyway. To a room full of MAG of people at the time. He said, no matter.

Starting point is 01:28:46 AI, we're not going to, we're not going to hamstring these people. They're going to go with no regulation. And he was very clear about that. And I believe that's where we are. I think it's quite obvious. So when he says regulation, he's talking about nationalization. And he goes, it's a weird twist. They're asking for a, well, I'll just play it.

Starting point is 01:29:01 First line of defense is you're liable for your own actions. So it's a weird twist. They're asking for societal regulation to get out of the first line of defense, which is if you build a technology that can destroy 10% of the world. Did he just slip on saying the universe? I don't know, maybe that's not relevant. Pretty weird, though. Build a technology that can destroy 10% of the world. that has civil and criminal liability attached to it.

Starting point is 01:29:37 The first step is to say, okay, it is not, the first step isn't to say we get out. Okay, but first of all, if you destroy the world, none of that matters. Kind of an important thing to think about, right? So there's civil liability if the world still exists, you know, in any discernible way, if that's even what you think will happen. But it's a weird point to make.

Starting point is 01:29:55 Well, if you have technology that can destroy the universe, the world, well, there's liability. The world's destroying. Like, it's, there's a weird thing to say. I think it's just, you know, these people love to play into your rationale, knowing that they're so far above any kind of rational decision making. They don't care. Again, these people live in a different world.

Starting point is 01:30:15 Out of it because we want to self-regulate or we want regulation. The first step is to say, okay, it is not, the first step isn't to say, we get out of it because we want to self-regulate or we want regulation. The first step is to say, okay, you've disclosed this. What are you doing about it? Right. And the second step is to say, if you're not doing it, you're not, being responsible here. We're going to have to get people involved. That's going to be also very

Starting point is 01:30:35 complicated because regulating these things needs people. You need people who understand them. Another problem we have is seemingly everyone who understands this is on some payroll. Yeah, well, look at that. He just outlined exactly what we're all saying. Okay, so the only way to do this to regulate it is to have people who know what they're doing, regulate it. Turns out the only people to know what they're doing are on the inner circle. Well, there you go. It's all over, right? I mean, that's, guys, that's already, he just laid it out for you in plain color. That's what's happening. These people are dictating the future of where all this goes.

Starting point is 01:31:06 And as you'll point out in a second, as even Trump and others will point out, like this, Trump himself is advocating for one sole group entity, AI team who are running all of this. And we're talking about private companies who have very clear allegiances to genocidal governments and plenty of other horrible sociopathic traits who are going to be able to control as, I mean, think about, okay, hypothetical future. you get groups like this who basically gain control of what becomes some kind of super intelligence controlling thing. And whether you think it's like an AI thing the way we know it or just information that

Starting point is 01:31:42 gives them insight to things we can't even fathom. Information being key to being, I mean, if you know what's going to happen before, it happens, for example. I mean, predictive program or rather, anyway, just we've talked about this before, like the idea of the digital twin discussion. Now I'm going to lose my train of thought. shoot. The idea, shoot, I knew I was going to do that.

Starting point is 01:32:04 Basically, though, you give them the power to be able to do all this, the future that they could build can be whatever they wanted to be. There's another thought I was going to make there. But the idea of the digital twin discussion, you give them the kind of power for where they can dictate that. There was an important point there. But anyway, the idea being that these people are not the kind of people that we should give that kind of power to.

Starting point is 01:32:22 I think that's obvious. And so what he's did, let me go back, just let's see if it refresh my memory. Hold on. And the second step is to say if you're not doing it, you're not being responsible. We're going to have to get people involved. That's going to be also very complicated because regulating these things needs people. You need people who understand them. Right.

Starting point is 01:32:38 So, yeah, the point was that, you know, then they control that. And so you're giving that complete control. I guess that's the general of the point to the inner circle of people that control everything, whatever that looks like. And that's what it was. Like, you know, whatever you think it amounts to, even insight into future information. You know, you're giving this select group. the kind of power over the globe that it makes them AI emperors.

Starting point is 01:33:01 Does that then shift entirely from even like nation states to AI centers? I mean, this is literally what I think they think they're doing. Just consider that next step. And that's my point is that he's literally admitting to you right there. The only way this goes forward and it's clearly going forward is that we have absolute control because no one else knows what we're doing. Another problem we have is seemingly everyone who understands this is on some payroll. So it's like, you know, it's like who you're going to trust.

Starting point is 01:33:28 You know, when we built nuclear energy, we built. He says who you're going to trust. That to me feels very forced. And it's like anthropic going, we're worried about the direction. He knows he's laughing going, you can only trust me in his mind. That's what I think. I don't even think, know why you would even say that unless you wanted to make it look like you cared about who you had. It's weird where you think it through.

Starting point is 01:33:46 The bomb. People did it because they payroll. So it's like, you know, it's like who you're going to trust. You know, when we built nuclear energy, we built the bomb. People did it because they believe. They were not on the payroll. That's a very, not to get into that conversation. It's a very different story.

Starting point is 01:34:03 Anyway, liability that you're talking about. How does that get written into the S-1? What do risk factors sound like? This is the thing. You're assuming that there will be an S-1. Okay, maybe there will be. The only way to deal with this kind of liability is to go to the government and say, nationalize us, please.

Starting point is 01:34:22 You know, a lot of times in business, people don't say what they want. they're leading you to the conclusion. The reason why people don't have not understood this is, again, every investor and there are a lot of people who think they're going to make money, they're like, oh, the businesses are the mark. What is the first lesson in poker and in life? If you think the other person's the mark, you're the mark. You are the mark. That's not even the way that's actually said, by the way. It doesn't make sense. What he means is if you don't know who the mark is, you're the mark. But either way, he's making the point that, you know, you have, you have to, I mean, the way you're framing this is sort of like

Starting point is 01:34:57 you're either being played or you're playing people, guys, it just shows you the way that they see the world. They're sociopathic deceivers, all of them, these inner circle people, that's what they're talking, am I wrong? Look at what they do. Look at how he's describing a global discussion of AI and superintelligence. And it will be nationalized simply because of the liability issues that are talking about. I really can't suss out with, my opinion is this not what he wants, obviously, money and profit, but in the sense that nationalization will take that to some degree

Starting point is 01:35:30 unless they're already on the inner circle, which I think, so it's kind of a nuanced conversation, but I still can't read whether that's exactly what he's playing into it or what he really wants. But I think the direction either way is the same outcome, for us anyway. So getting back into that,

Starting point is 01:35:48 let's talk about the idea of arming these things. Daily caller put this article out, Hannibal 9-9. The United States is arming the data center owners with military-grade weapon systems. Now, it's not what it says. There's a bill legislation going through discussing the possibility of that. Orwell also included an article I'll include as well talking about a follow-up to that in August, about doing the same thing from satellites. Pretty clear, this is building.

Starting point is 01:36:14 So this is from June 12th, 2026. New Republican legislation could be arming Black Rock. owned data centers. Now, it's not just about Black Rock. This is clearly about a general conversation of data centers being national critical infrastructure. A new Republican-led bill proposed in both the House and the Senate, and I mean, just showed you something, guys, could arm companies that own data centers.

Starting point is 01:36:38 Now, again, this may not happen, but my mind is this is inevitable, especially when you get it coming. Usually what happens is you get a bill, you know, passes through, and then it goes, the fact that when you get things rushing through both sides, it's obvious there's pressure. and it's obvious that there's an agenda here. Still doesn't mean for sure. Maybe this is all designed to make us push back, so you get a watered down version,

Starting point is 01:36:58 which they always believe they were going to get. Question at all. Either way, engage with it in front of you, and the simple idea this evening before should show you what they're thinking. The Critical Infrastructure Airspace Defense Act was proposed in the House by Republican Tennessee Representative Matt Van Epps on Tuesday

Starting point is 01:37:16 and could arm the owners of assets that the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be critical infrastructure with anti-dron weapon systems. Now, here's the point on top of it all. This could be expanded. What if it becomes flock cameras? What if it becomes any number of things that connect the things together? Suddenly, you've got a national drone every, you don't bump that power line or you're

Starting point is 01:37:41 going to get shot by a drone. Like this is, you may think that's crazy. This is what they're talking about. The proposed legislation follows statements from key investors raising warnings about domestic terrorism targeting AI data centers. Well, critics point out that the data centers may be doing more harm than good. We already talked about this, that you're a terrorist if you resist data centers, according to the U.S. government.

Starting point is 01:38:04 But the idea of, you know, the critical drone infrastructure discussion, guys, this is not hypothetical because, you know, we already have to some degree this happening. But if it's nationalized, we're talking about the government, then we see the government, look at what's happening in the streets of the United States, aren't really. going to quibble-blood taking Americans out if they need to. On the other side of it, you have private companies who may decide to shoot based on what they argue is a threat to their company. You know, it depends on which way it goes.

Starting point is 01:38:29 Either way, I think it's clear that these people don't bach at taking people out. Just take a look at what Palantir is doing in Gaza with Israel's doing with the help volunteer. Now, it says the proposed legislation follows statements from key investors raising warnings about domestic terrorism. Now, it says, quote, the bill proposes a structural shift in governance. And this is a direct quote. A direct quote from Christabel Randolph.

Starting point is 01:38:54 He is the director of the Center for AI and Digital Policy. The bill proposes, and this is what I'm trying to show people, more than just this, a structural shift in governance. The privatization of a sovereign enforcement power. Seems insane. Seems like exactly what we're all talking about. The authority to disable or destroy aircraft operating in national airspace. Now, I guess we're only talking about aircraft, so drones, but I doubt that's the only thing

Starting point is 01:39:26 this applies to. It's just a threat. So a Democrat protest or a Republican protest, depending on which side you're on, that suddenly gets deemed a terrorist threat because they have connections to something Kas Patel said or whatever we're talking about. We already have seen this play out. Now, yes, this takes it to a much further degree, but look at where things are escalating to.

Starting point is 01:39:43 I'm not saying I believe that's where it's going. I'm just painting the scenario that this could lead to for why, and the reasoning being we should stop it now. And it says, you know, it says the biblical poses the structural shift in governance, the authority to disable or destroy aircraft operating national airspace, and it's transferred to corporate actors. Corporate actors like Palantir, like XAI, with profit motives, competitive interests, like I said, fiduciary responsibility and minimal public accountability. When you're talking about a billion dollar transactional deal, guys, the things they'll rationalize would blow your mind. They make movies about this stuff.

Starting point is 01:40:21 Or here's a good example. That doesn't mean it's all real. But if you understand, like things like House of Cards, for example, the series, it's crazy how they can outline things that we know happen. And yet because they made the show people act like that's fantasy. That's how that works half the time. But realize, this is the kind of stuff these people are capable of. But it goes on to say, you know, this shift alone, these kind of weapon systems in the hands

Starting point is 01:40:48 of corporate entities with profit motives. should shift or should warrant deep skepticism. Now, Van Epps's bill in Congress is a copy of the version introduced in the Senate by Republican Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. Well, that's my point. They're just pushing this through. The bill would allow the private ownership of air anti-dron technologies, including directed energy systems, projectile-based systems, and net capture systems along with other weapons platforms.

Starting point is 01:41:16 AI data centers, quote, could potentially qualify as covered critical infrastructure facilities under the bill if the Department of Homeland Security after consulting with the Department of Energy designates them as high-risk sites, which is what they're discussing right now. Multiple layered safeguards in the bill are designed to prevent abuse, overreach, or misuse by private companies or their contractors, Cotton says. Actions may only address a credible threat to the facility. Okay, so safeguards, right?

Starting point is 01:41:44 Prevent abuse and overreach, misuse. Okay. Tom Cotton, Donald Trump, Biden. are you guys doing that? The ones who are supposed to make sure, are you guys concerned about misuse and corruption and overreach as you conduct illegal wars and bombs?

Starting point is 01:41:58 Come on. But who knows? Maybe they do it, but we'll stop them, unlikely. Do we really think that makes sense? Do we really even think that it matters? So suddenly Palantir decides that a protest was an actionable threat

Starting point is 01:42:12 because they had some kind of a weapon and suddenly the government goes well, they had a weapon. End of the day, how do we even know? especially when we get into the AI, everything means nothing, nothing means everything, kind of deep fake world that's building. The end of the day,

Starting point is 01:42:25 the idea that we think for one second that they would care about abuses, overreach or misuse, while these people are blatantly corrupt, is laughable. So actions may only address a credible threat. Well, geez, look at what they've already turned into credible threats.

Starting point is 01:42:38 People standing in the street. People who are protesting ICE agents. I mean, this is just focused on right now because you can go back a thousand. They shot people in protest more than once in this country. The end of the day, credible threat means whatever they rationalized to mean. We already know that. The legislation would counter this exact threat by granting the authority to use counter unmanned aircraft systems.

Starting point is 01:42:58 AI. Well, that's what it will be in my opinion, but technologies to private owners of critical infrastructure facilities, which means far more than data centers, guys, that could mean anything. Now we've got drones flying all over this country, policing Americans and for other purposes. They're already using it on the border, guys. It's just a matter of, it's clear where this goes. How do we, unless we stop it. I don't mean violence, but it matters about what you care about. What do you want? Speak out.

Starting point is 01:43:23 How do we make sure we're not protecting those $50,000, $75 billion investments? Oh, and of course, Black Rock CEO Larry Fink comes in with the obvious. How do you protect my investment? I've got $50 billion invested in this data center. Nobody wants. How do you do that? Government jumps up and says, we'll use drones. What if I build a little structure?

Starting point is 01:43:46 it's worth a thousand dollars. That means everything to me. Government, you're going to come protect that one for me? Well, what's the real difference here? They decide that's valuable and mine's not. Do I want that? Do I think it's valuable? I don't want the, I think that's the point is what most Americans want and don't.

Starting point is 01:44:01 Also continues to show you the illusion that they care about what you want. The living embodiment of our collective will that we never actually see. They decide and they don't care what you think. So Larry Fink is going, you know, as a private shadow bank CEO, we're going to, we demand and that you take care of our investments, because clearly those people are actually in charge. And it says, we have to re-look at everything because the role of drone warfare, Fink said in his speech.

Starting point is 01:44:27 Right now, didn't they say that about Iran, the drones? It's clear what they're trying to do. Right now we're looking at it internationally, but you know, one of my concerns is it could be a domestic terrorist using $3,000 drone. Yeah, they're really pushing this idea. Well, they're the ones doing this. The idea that somebody, as it writes in the article, actually,

Starting point is 01:44:45 that they recognize that people are so completely unhappy with what they're doing that they worry that somebody may do something about it. That's what it amounts to. So yet again, they don't care what Americans think. What they care about is what Larry Fink has to say. You know, the guy who's very close in Trump's inner circle right now, which matters for those that try to pretend Black Rock is that, you know, and really is, by the way, a very problematic and alarming villainous element in the whole conversation, but I guess it's okay when they're abruptly part of Trump's inner circle or in his first administration and lets them take over American finances or the, you know, in general American address,

Starting point is 01:45:21 this is an important reality to understand. It goes back a long way. So here, continuing, is AI good for you? It says, critics of this rhetoric such as Tucker Carlson. I agree with what he says here, have raised the concern that if you have to defend

Starting point is 01:45:38 these investments from domestic threats, it could be a possibility that they're not beneficial to American citizens. Yeah, clearly. He goes, quote, it says, this is what Tucker said. Larry Fink is concerned that ordinary American citizens as he just said,

Starting point is 01:45:51 we'll use a $3,000 drone to destroy these billion dollar investments. I think what they want you to assume is he means terrorism from abroad, but either way, I think it's clear they're framing us as terrorists should we resist data centers. Tucker says, why would he be worried about that?

Starting point is 01:46:06 On May 13th, he says, but Larry Fink knows. In fact, he's admitting that people know this is bad for them. Easy. So bad that they might be willing to act, commit an act of terrorism, a felony for which they could be imprisoned

Starting point is 01:46:17 for a long time. I agree. Now, should they do this? Should they act in violence? I don't agree with that. But the point is, they may rationalize this because of what's with the, as we'll get into, the sound, the water, the electricity, the destruction of their home, and many of the things that we haven't even gotten into yet in the long-term effects.

Starting point is 01:46:36 The point being, people might be willing to act out. And so they're so aware of that that they now see Americans as they always have as the threat. Only 33% of Americans support the rapid development of AI data centers, and I bet you it's less than that. Water usage is one of the biggest concerns, as you know, as we've discussed, they literally choose to use fresh water. Guys, please look into this. It's very easy to see. They choose to do it. Why? Because it's cheaper for them. They could use non-potable water, which is what you would call it, not drinkable, but just not necessarily dirty, but just not drinkable water. And you know why they don't? Because it causes scaling and build up and they had

Starting point is 01:47:13 to clean it. I'm not making that up. I literally went through it in the show and it makes me sick, that they're choosing to use the water that we know we can't, that people are worried about. They're sucking, like, Elon Musk laughs in the face of people about water, and then they end up having a water issue. This is constant. End of the day, they're choosing to use it because it makes them more money. A large data center could use up to 5 million gallons of water per day,

Starting point is 01:47:38 equivalent to a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people, according to the Environmental Energy Study Institute. Now, for the argument that they can reuse water, we already talked about in the last show. even if they do, which some of them do, that water then is dumped into natural areas and it's far more toxic, but they then still use the same water.

Starting point is 01:47:56 There's a downside either way. Even if they reuse it, it's not forever. And that water, then it either dissipates or they dump it out, chemically treated, or it dissipates, they put more in. We went through all this in that show. Either way, it consumes an incredible lot of water, but if they reuse it,

Starting point is 01:48:13 it actually also, and actually more so hurts the environment. Virginia could see an unconstrained energy, could see a unconstrained energy demands rise by 180% by 2040. 180%. So this argument about how they're going to build the road, he got played or is lying to you, probably a little bit of both.

Starting point is 01:48:37 And it says as the state rapidly develops new AI data centers, according to Virginia joint legislative audit and review commission. Another concern, though not mentioned as frequently as water or energy use, is noise pollution. Data centers can emit constant low frequency noise that affects residents well-being. I mean, I don't have the video on hand. I probably should have, but it's, it's piercing. I don't know how that's even allowed if they can arrest you for having your radio too loud. It's unbearable. And it sounds like metal screeching and tearing and it's all day. It doesn't stop. It's insane. Like that's like some, that's basically like levels of torture.

Starting point is 01:49:13 I'm not joking. You can look into the idea of sustained sound. It's torture by the U.N. by any number of people. And that's what's happening in these places. And you may think of overblowing it, guys, look these things up. It'll give you, it puts my teeth on edge, even thinking about that sound. The concerns have boiled over in localities across the country with taxpayers ousting city council members over data center deals or even banning them outright. Or in the alternative, or rather the other side of that, you have local councils banning your involvement. deciding you don't get to say what you think and rolling them in anyway because they have deals.

Starting point is 01:49:52 They're being paid off behind the scenes. The largest AI data centers in the United States are owned by a handful of companies. Randolph from above says, as you know, Microsoft, Google, Amazon meta, and a small number of hyperscale operators. Now, it's not a hyperscale. We're talking about Palantir. We're talking about XAI. We're talking about BlackRock.

Starting point is 01:50:11 Those aren't small anything. But either way, the result is a federally subsidized security perimeter for the most powerful corporations in the technology sector paid for by taxpayers. Right. Just like the largest ever one-ton bomb sale where you pay for it for Israel. Or it doesn't make it because you're being exploited every second. That's what it is. Federally subsidized and these are, that's Larry Fink going, you better protect my investment.

Starting point is 01:50:41 Direct energy systems. If enacted, this bill would give private citizens in the United States access to military-grade weapon systems. Certainly should be alarming. Let me see if something jumps to mind. Let me see if I have this save real quick. It's kind of crazy from how long ago this was. No, it doesn't look like it.

Starting point is 01:51:06 There was an old clip from Fox News. Goes back a long time ago where they do an entire clip about direct energy weapons, taking down planes. And it's just funny how people still act like this is somehow a conspiracy. It's just like geoengineering. It's amazing what people can continue to tell themselves isn't real. Either way, the point was these things have been around for a long time and the idea that they're going to give access to random companies

Starting point is 01:51:34 and to use weapons that we might not be able to identify is pretty crazy. Granting AI data center operators counter drone authority on the theory that physical destruction of servers as a national security threat creates a legal and regulatory foundation that could subsequently be used to justify. this is what I know is going to happen if this goes forward, far broader use by the companies which currently operate with little to no regulatory oversight.

Starting point is 01:52:03 And that's just in regard to how they can use that force. But we know this will broaden out. Right now Trump's already using that. Same with Biden. The idea of a national security interest broadens out to whatever they want to rationalize what they already want to do. It's also unclear if any of these weapon systems will be AI powered. And I think that's very clear.

Starting point is 01:52:21 Are we really going to pretend that an AI company, a data center driving as not going to use AI to much as obvious, but I guess it's not for sure. Quote, the key concern about all these technologies is not necessarily their physical characteristics, but their decision-making architecture. Well, this is obviously, I think, why these things are relevant.

Starting point is 01:52:42 Why we already know with Palantir working of the strategic partnership for Israel's genocide, there's Alice Carp right there. There's Peter Thiel, right there, as they're literally a mass assassination, allowing that AI and their drones and their bombs systems and guidance systems to execute real innocent children, women, and people. Lavender is the more focused one for buildings.

Starting point is 01:53:08 It's all very, very publicly documented. So it's also worth noting that this is one side of a larger point. Now you're giving these people literal weapon systems. Okay, so let's not forget. We have meta, open AI, and Palantir. in the government, literally, colonels in the military. Detachment 201. That's a real picture, by the way.

Starting point is 01:53:37 I put those symbols on, but that's a real picture. Those are actually members. These are people, these are the, what were they again? The chief information officer, I forget, specific position. And they got put not as a white lab coat military, which exists, but it is an actual fatigue, actual military, as if they went through boot camp and everything else. They did not. They don't deserve that.

Starting point is 01:53:58 They don't work through it like everybody else. but they were handed colonel positions, which means they can order anybody beneath them, as Brad Miller told us. So with that, with Mark Andreessen being appointed an advisor position at the Department of Defense, it's kind of obvious where this goes. Now give them weapon systems, and you tell me where we are.

Starting point is 01:54:23 Just include, by the way, their future for where it goes after that, after you give them the weapon systems to enforce their will, the network state coup and the engineered transition to tech Zionism, which is literally what they call in their books. Tech Zionism, or rather, in Svini, Vinny Vichon, Valaj, can't remember how to pronounce his last name, the former CEO of Coinbase, who was, he's in this inner circle of conversation.

Starting point is 01:54:47 He wrote the book about the number state agenda. Shrini Vassan, I think that's what it is. He called it tech Zionism. Now, I find that relevant, but I'm just sort of pointing out to the bigger conversation here of where this goes and the ideology behind what they're discussing, and that's what they're building out, and you're going to give them tech weapons systems,

Starting point is 01:55:04 very concerning to me. Now, as we're also pointed out, this is from August, 2026, Polish startup, ERIS shield, ERIS shield, hired to protect data center satellites with high power microwave weapons. So is anybody confused about how clearly this, like this is everything to them, which they don't care what we think. Now, let's overlap that with what Trump just said today. at the strongest or the strong request, he says, excuse me, of the United States military,

Starting point is 01:55:40 which who knows if is even accurate. Trump wants it, so it's happening. And for national security purposes, of course, that's the point. I have agreed to convert the magnificent Trump ball arch, whatever that, how do you say that, planned since the civil era. Oops, that's weird. Oh, I guess somebody read it.

Starting point is 01:55:58 It's a little video. But planned since the Civil War era, against not, of course, not called the Trump, you know, anyway, at the receptive circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial Bridge into, he's turning this arch into a top grade military complex to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use, hang it, the large number of drones, snipers on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition and. storage. There will be no facility like this anywhere in the world, which, you know, he says

Starting point is 01:56:37 about everything anywhere, so who knows if it's even true. But it goes out of the 59 top cities and capitals, Washington, D.C. is the only one in the world that does not have a art. Okay, wait, so you say it'll be like no other else in the world, but we're the only one doesn't have it. Typical stupidity. But it will now and by far the greatest, but it will now and by far the greatest of them all. Does nobody watch these things for him? Now either way. think about what he's talking about. So now he's talking about turning this thing into a military complex with drones.

Starting point is 01:57:06 Doesn't that feel weird what we just talked about? So now suddenly that this arch is becoming some kind of central military complex with drones control. Okay, so now what national security infrastructure is controlled by drones, data centers, defended by drone, like I just said, guys, this is the future.

Starting point is 01:57:24 Not that even if you want, even to pretend we even want what, what Elon Bus points out, that's not even the reality anyway. That video is not what is coming, guys. Or at the very least, show that video with drones flying over there, policing everybody. That's what we're talking about. It's alarming to me. Now, I hope I'm wrong, but this is what he's pointing out.

Starting point is 01:57:43 As Tiberius says, this is actually really interesting to me. IBM in 1979, here's what they wrote. A computer can never be held accountable. Therefore, a computer must never make a management decision. Doesn't that seem relevant right now? they're literally outsourcing these conversations and decisions. Comes that comes along with, Pentagon blames flawed AI for the strike that killed children at the girl,

Starting point is 01:58:12 the girls school in Iran. Think about that. As we just got done talking about the idea that AI is not dictating blah, blah, blah, with Palantir and Israel and then, ooh, AI, that was the reason. Oh, so you are allowing AI to make these decisions. This is what I argue is they're shocking and shocking. competence because by stating this to get themselves out of their own trouble, it completely ruined the next step they all want to take, right? Because now you're going, see, they're going to

Starting point is 01:58:40 use AI and dictate their feet just like we told you. And I'm willing to bet you that's actually Trump-Hegseth level stupidity and others around them are going, damn it, that's my gut. Either way, you're now going to look AI, which is a larger part of it, but they weren't supposed to say it, is my point. With Israel, they're pushing the button as fast they can't, like, it's all been written about. So this is where we're going with them putting these autonomous drones all over your world. Now, to finish with Iran and UN overlap, let's remember, 26, January, Donald Trump, and rather, I think more so the people around him, but they are actively trying to recreate the global order to pair with their new global structure. That's what I argue is very clearly happening.

Starting point is 01:59:26 So either way, what I'm seeing is that Trump is trying to play a role in that. Remember, he calls himself Emperor for Life of the Board of Peace. Now we have an AI Emperor. It's like, this is clear, even the terminology. So his Board of Peace seeks to reimagine the International Order. This is this conversation we had in January. I think this is undeniable. We also talked about the, as even the UN itself, called a tangential security council.

Starting point is 01:59:52 Oh, I'm sorry, that was the other discussion, the Board of Peace. that's what they called that. But then this is Trump's new WHO. $2 billion. He's talking about building his own. All of this shows you that this is about their own version of this stuff. It's pretty clear to me.

Starting point is 02:00:05 Now, talking about the U.N. side of this. You might have heard this. This came out two days ago. The U.N. report cites possible U.S. war crimes in deadly strikes on Iran school. United Nations fact-finding mission found reasonable grounds to believe, which we all know is the reality.

Starting point is 02:00:22 The United States carried out two strikes on a school and a sports center in Iran earlier this year. Now, here's what's crazy about this to me, that both constituted war crimes. Do you realize how many they've done since then? So it's, you know, so that we quibble about whether or not, they have consistently bombed schools and hospitals and centers. And, I mean, the middle of Tehran, openly, everyone's around watching.

Starting point is 02:00:45 And, you know, it's like when we back and quibble, I mean, I get why it has to be objective, but it's just crazy that we even debate that we're talking about this. But it says the independent international fact-binding mission on Iran also found that, of course, Iran's crackdown on process began in December, amounts to crimes against humanity. So, you know, look, obviously, as I've always said, I have no doubt that Iran or any other governments, any government of any country would conduct whatever it thought it needed to,

Starting point is 02:01:09 to reach his ends. You may disagree. I just think that's what these people lead, you know, at the end of the day, there's levels of evil and bad, I think, but I think all of them would justify it because they see themselves as some kind of altruistic control of the world. So just consider that. The point, though, even knowing that they're possible that they could probably know just moat everybody down, you have a lot of evidence that showed two things.

Starting point is 02:01:31 One, which is that they were clearly attacking or being attacked by armed militants, not people from Iran. And we also know as a fact because it was admitted by Trump and Netanyahu and others, even Pompeo, that they had people in Mossad agents next to them on the ground, as they publicly stated. They armed and funded the courage to do the same thing. So, guys, there's not a question. They literally created armed proxy forces to create chaos in Iran. They've done it many times before.

Starting point is 02:01:57 This one was very clumsy. And for whatever reason, they admitted to it. So that means that at the very least changes the dynamic of why Iran was shooting at people. Because even the unions that supported the original protest that was genuine after it became obviously not what it originally was, they pulled back and said, we don't support these foreign militants attacking the government, even though they were protesting the government. You see, there's a big difference between four. foreign action versus engaging in protest against your government for change, which actually happens often in Iran, according to Robert Ilakash. And he's shown me, it's very clear. So, is that true? Who knows? The evidence, I argue, it shows you the opposite, especially not 60,000, 100,000,

Starting point is 02:02:38 a million, whatever Trump keeps saying. So why do I think it's included? My opinion is this is what they do. Now, the UN comes out and says, God's a genocide, but Hamas bad too. It's what they do. No, you may, you may think that's true. But in the context of what you were doing, it only helps you kind of water it down. So you don't get attacked because, oh, you only call us out, what are not the other side? Okay, only one group is going to make a genocide.

Starting point is 02:03:02 That's all we should be focusing on at the moment. In this case, did they or not do this? If you want to put out two reports, focus on the U.S., focus on the other one, they do this to give themselves cover because they know Israel and the United States are going to viciously attack them. They will anyway, but they do this to make it go see,

Starting point is 02:03:18 we're bound, do we think both sides do it. Well, I don't think that's even. even remotely the same case. We're talking about a deliberate, targeted bombing of a girl's school and consistently ever since and an allegation that they attacked protests, which I guarantee the info, even at the UN mission, comes largely from U.S. sources and other people that that's where that's coming from. Or on the ground, the evidence is not even close. But let's even say that it's more than they said.

Starting point is 02:03:41 I mean, anyway, you could question it all day long. One side you can prove definitively, because even Higgs-Seth put out his own map showing you the bombing, and now there would be the, this mission found, the same. The Iran side of it with the crackdown on protests is driven by, imagine you have a mob rushing in armed by a foreign country and then you shoot those people and then everyone else goes, you killed all those innocent people. How do you discern that after the fact? And so I think that's what they're doing. That's just my opinion. Now, because its report published Thursday examined by U.S. conduct in the war that began on February 28, the Iranian government's response

Starting point is 02:04:13 to nationwide protests, see, they mash them together like their equal conversations. The mission said it could not establish a death toll for the protest. Of course, you see the difference, but had strong grounds to believe deaths and injuries significantly exceeded the government figure of 3,000. So you can't prove it, but we're going to include it alongside a verified thing we tell you we have grounds to believe. Doesn't that feel? You obviously can see it.

Starting point is 02:04:39 Even if you think Iran did kill more. They don't know that. So why is it included? Because this is the cowardly act of the UN, even the fact-finding mission, to worry about politics. the U.S. related findings focused on a pair of February 28 strikes that reportedly killed 180 people, most of them children. One struck a primary school for children, ages 6 to 13. That was Minop.

Starting point is 02:05:01 The report cited credible independent information asserting that 157 people were killed. 123 of them children found no evidence the school is being used for military purposes. Outdated intelligence apparently identified the school as part of an adjacent military installation. See, they're now blaming AI for that misinformation. The report said the failure to verify the building was military objective before the strikes went beyond negligence. The fact that they didn't care to look and just decided to go with what AI said, I actually don't believe that's what happened by way, but that's what they're arguing, is clearly negligence.

Starting point is 02:05:36 So they're guilty either way. You don't get to blame the computer. Rather, the U.S. directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acted recklessly as regards to the possibility that this would happen. Yep. The U.S. fact-finding mission also said it found reasonable grounds to believe the U.S. forces were responsible for the strike. So not only did they direct the strike, but they were the ones that conducted it.

Starting point is 02:05:59 That is different. The report concluded that the strike violated international humanitarian law and amounted to a war crime. Okay, so now we're concluding that it's a legitimate war crime, but let's go back to that. We can't prove it. We talk about Iran just to make a self-balanced. Frustrating. Now, again, even if you think it actually happened, you have to understand from a report standpoint, they don't have the evidence to make that claim. They're saying we think

Starting point is 02:06:20 that's likely. Over here, you're going, we concluded this was a war crime, saying U.S. forces failed to take feasible steps to verify the school was an objective. See, so the difference is, even if they didn't verify it, that's a war crime. But they're going farther and to say that they bombed this and if it was intentional or they just didn't care, it's a whole other story. But they're saying regardless of their narrative, they did this and they're responsible. The mission reaches similar conclusion. At February 28, the strike on that and a sport center determined. A two-year-old girl was playing in front of her own home and got murdered. The UN report found reasonable grounds to believe that the U.S. made a precision strike missile was used in the

Starting point is 02:07:00 strike, meaning they precision strike targeted these locations. Now, this is disgusting because the missiles, the precision strike missiles they're discussing, detonate above their targets dispersing 180,000 tungsten pellets over a wide area and producing a distinctive pattern of small holes according to a public available information. Precision strike missile. They're murdering everybody they possibly can. It's exactly what Israel does, those bombs that explode above the ground. And the Pentagon has said it is conducting a formal investigation, but it has not released

Starting point is 02:07:38 its findings. Yeah, that's what you get. We're investigating. sick. Okay. So the UN cites them as war crimes, or, you know, pot that they committed war crimes. September 18th. Okay.

Starting point is 02:07:53 Now really quickly, in February, I don't know why that's, there we go. February 4th, 2025. Trump withdraws from the U.S., the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Now again, remember, they're a founding member. So too is Iran, by the way, which means they have permanent status. Unless, by the way, they stop their, rather they have status, but they would lose their voting if they don't spend, they don't fund, which we'll get to in a minute. But they also have permanent veto on the Security Council as the founding, you know, rather as the core five or whatever, which is just frustrating. The reality is the only way any of this can change is if all five of them vote and agree and everybody else, it's just insane. It's never going to change. Because at any moment, all five of those inner people have to decide it's okay, which, you know, you've got a little bit of balance with China and Russia, but at the end of the day, clearly, any one of them can be to anything, so they just dictate whatever. And if you have terrible groups like this, then they dictate terrible things.

Starting point is 02:08:50 So the point, and I'm talking about all of them. But the point is, in 2025, Trump pulled out of the Human Rights Council, different the security council, not the entire UN body. I think that was all here. This was just simply says, Trump says, I've always felt the UN as tremendous potential. Funny how his narratives change, don't they? Because he really just says whatever you think you want to hear or whatever you think somebody wants to hear.

Starting point is 02:09:12 and he goes, it's not living up to the potential right now. Quite a different thing he says now, isn't it? Now, realize it's not that he changed his opinion. Though his opinion then and his opinion now are contradictory, just so that's clear. But either way, at the time, he was trying to be more passive. Oh, well, they're good and they do good things, but I don't like what they're doing.

Starting point is 02:09:29 Okay. So he pulled out of that human rights counsel. Now, this is 2025 a couple days after. this is fax.org.c.n. U.S. cannot withdraw for a body. It no longer belongs. Hmm. Interesting.

Starting point is 02:09:47 Okay. So I thought this was fascinating. Just as a quick aside on the reality of where the U.S. is in the U.N. dynamic. I'm surprised I didn't know more about this. The United States is no longer a member of the U.N. human rights agency

Starting point is 02:10:01 as of January 1st. January 1st. So this is, going to make you laugh as the perfectly petty action to Donald Trump. Now, realize he's been calling out the UN and different things, but it didn't materialize into Tim taking action like this. He passed that executive order about kind of pulling away from certain things, but they want to be involved with this in certain ways. They want to influence decisions, right? So again, on the 1st of January, they no longer were a part of this. Let me explain. It says the United

Starting point is 02:10:32 Nations human rights counsel stated on Thursday, January 1st, that as of January 1st, the United States term has ended, making it ineligible to withdraw from that body. So when Trump, the next month, goes, we withdraw stomping his feet. That's what they're saying. They're like, well, you can't withdraw because you weren't part of it. And I'll get into why. Now, it says, for the record, the United States was a member of the Human Rights Council

Starting point is 02:10:59 from January 1st, 2022 to December 31st, 2024. Now, since January 1st, 2025, the United States is not. no longer a member of the Human Rights Council and automatically became an observer state. Now what this means, and this is getting into something that most people probably don't even know about. Now, I knew about this, but this is, I learned a couple of things in going through this. So you have observer states, which are, you know, 193 of them, everybody other than the main councils and the core are called observer states. Other than, well, actually, in regard to the people that don't engage with the voting process

Starting point is 02:11:31 or the actions, they are parts in which they get to engage, but mostly they're just a kind of a tangent or part of this and they engage in like major things. And like I said, major changes would involve them. But so the point is they shifted into that position, which isn't what you would expect for somebody that is a founding member and in the core security council. And it says like any of the 193 other UN member states that are not council members. Now, it says any observer state of the council cannot withdraw from an intergovernor, given governmental body that is no longer a part of.

Starting point is 02:12:04 Like they're kind of calling them out for this stomping movie did that was kind of silly. And it says, continuing, U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday, signed an executive order withdrawing from that council. And it says the human rights council is composed of 47 member states with approximately one third of its seats up for election each year. Member states serve three-year terms and may be re-elected once. So that's why you get the shifting of people that are in the hosting, you know, it kind of fluctuates, right? But what you typically have is this active involuntary.

Starting point is 02:12:34 from, you know, these core elements. So what's funny is that on January 2025, they just got pushed out because of just by their own action. And then when they got, I think when he did that kind of because of the reaction, it's kind of embarrassing. Like, you're pulling out of it to make a big political statement.

Starting point is 02:12:51 The reality was you were already out of it. And so I think he saw an opportunity. You'll see why this is relevant to be built to go to the next part. So this is April 5th, 2025. despite withdrawing, U.S. still managing to influence the UN Human Rights Council, according to times of Israel. So what you get is Trump playing his weird little game

Starting point is 02:13:10 and stuff he does everywhere else. So believing that they are, you know, super superior than everybody, that clearly as he acts and what they all seem to think, is that you then pull out of this council because you're trying to make a point, even though you were already kind of out of it, but then still trying to influence its outcomes.

Starting point is 02:13:27 And having some effect, because you're the United States power and you're willing to sue and attack and slander and cheat anybody. And it goes on to say two months after President Donald Trump announced a halt to the UN Human Rights Council, again, even though they were already out of it on the first, Washington, rather, is influencing its work by applying pressure publicly and behind the scenes. Seven diplomats and rights workers said. So what I think is important, because what it shows you is even Trump recognizes why it's important to influence these councils. So the question is, why did he pull out?

Starting point is 02:13:59 He's trying to get something. He's trying to get to look like he changed something. At the end of the day, right now more than ever, there's less respect than ever for these people. I don't think they have much influence outside of their force, power, and threats, which even that is diminishing. The United States left its seat empty during a six-week session of the 47 member council ending on Friday, the Democratic 2025. But its lobbying and pressure had some success.

Starting point is 02:14:23 They said the U.S., which has accused the council of an anti-Israel bias, that you watch the consistency of that logic being the only reason they pull out of the UN had focused on blunting a proposal by Pakistan on the creation of an international, impartial, and independent mechanism. The most rigorous type of UN investigation on Israel's genocide and occupation of the West Bank. I put the genocide term in there, but that's what they're discussing. So Pakistan's going, look, we need a high-level UN investigation of what they're doing, that we all know they're doing. The illegal West Bank annexation, when you can see videos every 20 seconds of settlers, beaten up old women, burning houses down, dancing about dead children, every day.

Starting point is 02:15:08 Those are the people that are cheering on rape, guys. And my point is that Pakistan, whatever, their problems are saying, people are going, we need to investigate. And the United States says, how dare you hate them? You're anti-Semitic. I'm not joking. That's clear. And that's what's happening to this very day. Trump, Biden, same thing. The council already has a commission of inquiry on the Palestinian territories, but Pakistan's proposal would have created an additional probe with extra powers to gather evidence for possible use in international courts. A March 31st letter sent by Brian Mast, you know, the guy the worthy, his IDF uniform in Congress because he's clearly not American, chairman of the U.S. Foreign House Committee, I shouldn't

Starting point is 02:15:47 joking, but he's clearly acting in interest of a foreign state, whether he has U.S. citizenship or not, basically cautioned against voting the proposal through. it says any HRC member really the motion of investigating Israel's crimes he says any member state or UN entity that supports an Israel specific investigation will face consequences as the ICC face wait so what if they commit a crime doesn't matter if you investigate them we'll attack you like we did the ICC like Bolton and Pompeo they will threaten your families will threaten you personally will threaten to sue you because that's what good guys do right they attack the international bodies that investigate crimes.

Starting point is 02:16:26 At the end of the day, I'm not saying they're, guys, they're corrupt like anything. The end of the day, you're talking about an investigation into what everyone knows is an ongoing genocide,

Starting point is 02:16:34 an investigation into an ongoing land grab, and by saying, not if you investigate them unjustly, but if you investigate Israel, you'll be attacked. Not like this is new information. This is by every day, this is clear,

Starting point is 02:16:48 but yet again, showing you back in 2025, that was one of the main focuses of why the UN was an issue. it appeared to be referring to sanctions approved by the House of Representatives on the ICC. Yep. As if that has any bearing on what goes on, the U.S. government sanctions an international body. But it says in protest of its arrest warrants for Israeli minister, you know, Ben-Gavir, Smotratrits,

Starting point is 02:17:14 yep. So because they want to arrest the obvious war criminals who basically laugh and preach about how they should kill every Palestinian, how dare you. quote, the U.S. seems to be trying to have it both ways. It doesn't want to pay for or participate in the U.N., but it still wants to boss it around. So this is my point, guys. It's important to them. That's what you need to take from this.

Starting point is 02:17:37 Now, it says the U.S. and Israel are not members of the council, but like all U.S. member states have informal observer status and a seat at the council meetings in chamber. So that's where they were in 2025, right? So come forward to two days ago, September 2026. So see, the pattern here is it. So now we got an accusation of war crimes. The game of acting like you're not part of it

Starting point is 02:17:58 or acting like you are pulling out of it when you weren't part of it in the first place. Okay. So now Trump pretends to pull away, even though it's not the case. Why? Because they accused him of war crimes. Now here's the thing. I think he genuinely thinks he can sidestep accountability. He might be able to anyway, like all of them,

Starting point is 02:18:16 like all U.S. politicians, but I think more than that, because I know he sees he's being seen more than most in the past, which I think actually drives him crazy because he's wondering why he's getting focused on and not Biden or Obama. I think that. But then ultimately he thinks by pulling away from the council that he can avoid accountability. U.S. withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council after U.N. mission cites possible war crimes. The United States has formally withdrawn from the U.N.

Starting point is 02:18:41 That's why we went through that. That wasn't necessary. The Human Rights Council, one day after a U.N. backbinding mission, one day says there are reasonable grounds to believe U.S. forces committed war crimes. Now, you know what's funny when it's crazy to me? I don't see any mainstream media reporting this. Not Fox, not CNN, not MSNBC. How do you explain that? My brief look at it suggests that they think this is old information.

Starting point is 02:19:04 Well, Trump pulled out of it back in February. Well, he didn't, though, because they were pushed out or rather were by factor of the process moved out on the first of January. So they misreport that anyway. Then it comes back around that he does this. And the story should be Trump pretends to pull out of the Human Rights Council. to cover for his crimes, and none of them, not left, not right, report on it. That feels like obvious obfuscation of something weird. It was like a big story.

Starting point is 02:19:31 The U.S. State Department announced that Washington has ended its partnership and participation in the council. Yeah, which already happened. Accusing the body, here comes, of promoting what it called an anti-American rhetoric. And adopting an overly accommodating approach towards governments it accused of repressing its populations. Now, I'll go to the full statement, which includes Israel. an anti-American rhetoric. Well, then on top of that,

Starting point is 02:19:54 that approach towards governments that accused of repressing its popular. So all he's really doing is Iran, you're helping Iran. Just like they love to all. You are your Hamas. You love Hamas. They'll do, they're just lazy.

Starting point is 02:20:06 You'd be such a better way to frame this. But of course, you just make them the enemy you're fighting. Well, I thought they were Hamas. Now they're Iran. Like, it's just lazy. Because if you look at the bigger picture, I mean, I'm not suggesting the UN as an honest body. But it's multifaceted.

Starting point is 02:20:20 It's not all one thing. even like especially the members but within it you have to recognize that israel's committing genocide you can't question that the u.s on all sides is right there with them and so if they're trying to investigate them that would be justified and so you're acting like they want to accommodate the people that are hurting or pressing their populations that's you that's you and in fact there's plenty of examples where they are calling out repressive pop so at the end of the day this is him stomping his feet because he wants them to do what he wants them to do that's what i believe i think that's very obvious So here's what Iran put out about this statement.

Starting point is 02:20:53 They used to claim the U.S. government that they respected international law. Now the truth is coming to light. Neither human lives matter to them nor international law. The United States has formally withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council one day after the fact-finding mission. Oops. Reload the Tehran Times. Deputy Foreign Minister says U.S. cannot escape war crimes responsibility by leaving the council. There are some other stuff in here, but that was generally the point.

Starting point is 02:21:23 is the highlighting went away. It's ultimately them saying, look, you can't get away from this, right? You're responsible. The United States is going to escape responsibility by simply backing away. Now, that doesn't mean they're going to be held accountable, but we'll see.

Starting point is 02:21:36 Saeed Erichat, who is off at the State Department, I haven't been watching them lately, just because they feel like a waste of our time, usually, but ultimately as a good journalist in my experience, it has been very vocal, I believe he has Palestinian history, and he's been, was next to Matt Lee

Starting point is 02:21:51 and others calling out these things. This is entitled on the 18th. Washington withdraws again from the Human Rights Council and challenges the credibility of a UN investigation into Iran. Now, there's some important points he adds to this, but I really do think flesh this out. President Donald Trump's administration renewed the United States withdraw from the United Nations renewed. See, he knows what's going on. Asserting that it does not recognize the credibility of the findings of a UN report that accuse U.S. forces of committing violations, even though we all know they did this. Even Israel told us that they did this. That's what happened. They said that the U.S. They blamed the United States. So the idea that they're even trying to pocket this is insane. And it says, and don't forget, if you haven't seen the show and I can bring up the image again, Pete Hagseth, with all of his stupidity, stood up in front of the State Department or at the Pentagon and put a map because he was trying to brag about his bombing of where the bombings took place. One of the journalists literally said that right there is where that school is on social media. You can

Starting point is 02:22:51 verify it for yourself. It's literally in the target like the main center, the epicenter of the bomb. They admitted it themselves, and here they are trying to pretend that they know they're going to get away with it. That's what I think. The U.S. State Department stated that Trump administration considers the Human Rights Council a discredited institution. So then why are you still trying to dictate its actions due to what it describes as the

Starting point is 02:23:14 council's continuous failure to uphold its values and its direction of what it considered an anti-American and where they left this out, anti-Semitism. rhetoric, in addition to what it described as appeasing repressive regimes. Not really. I mean, I'm not siding with the UN, but that's funny. Anyway, the point is anti-Semit. Look at the consistency of saying the UN calls out Israel so we can't be a part of it. Emphasizing at the same time that the protection of the civilians is of paramount importance

Starting point is 02:23:47 to the United States. It's, you know, as vans or anybody else going, we just don't bomb civilian. It's laughable, guys. It's laughable. Like, you could almost feel like they feel stupid saying it. Nobody believes that. Even if you take what we can prove, like historically, every war you can ever,

Starting point is 02:24:04 every war in the U.S. has ever been involved in, you could prove not accidental but targeted civilian bombings, everyone. And you're going to sit there and tell us that you didn't just do this? Pathetic. The current withdrawal does not represent a new beginning in the Trump administration's relationship with the Human Rights Council, but rather an extension of a policy that began during his first term.

Starting point is 02:24:21 2018, the Trump administration then announced the United States would draw from the council, justifying the decision by what it described as bias against Israel, even in his first term. The administration also criticized the council's repeated focus on Israel, again, and demanded extensive reforms before the United States to return. So get this. In 2018, Trump's only demand was stop attacking Israel and we'll come back. The United States returned to the council under President Joe Biden, 2021, after. Now, in my opinion, try to read this as the government, not Biden and Trump, but just the U.S. government and maybe even different tax on how to achieve the same thing. Just for sake of conversation, that's how I read it, but read it for yourself, how are you like?

Starting point is 02:25:05 But just for right now, think of it this way as we read through it. The administration also criticized the council's repeated focus on Israel and said they have to stop that for a return. The United States returned to the council in 2021. one, after the new administration considered direct American engagement more effective than withdraw. So the question is not whether they felt they should be part of it, but rather that they could affect the outcome of getting them to stop criticizing Israel more so by being involved than not.

Starting point is 02:25:32 Think about that because you could look at it either way, despite acknowledging that the council was flawed and needed reform, even the Biden side, including what it described, even Biden, as a disproportionate focus on Israel. Okay, so guys, the only difference is the way that they frame themselves. The narrative is ultimately the same. And you could argue that they just as a collective as the U.S. government said, well, we tried it outside. Let's try it inside this time. Not Biden, Trump, just the government.

Starting point is 02:26:00 Or maybe they are different, but either way, they amount to the same thing. Stop calling out Israel. The February 2025 in that, in 2025, he issued an executive order, Trump, stipulating that the United States would not participate in the Human Rights Council and would not seek membership in it. But again, as I told you, the first didn't matter anyway. The administration justified the decision with accusations that the counsel protected human rights violators. Well, I mean, it's crazy anyway. And practiced what it considered bias against Israel. That's the point. In addition to accusing other UN institutions of failing to confront anti-Semitism. So now,

Starting point is 02:26:38 in Trump's second term, you're still criticizing Israel, we're still involved, we just pulled out of the council and the idea being you're not stopping other states from from anti-Semitism you mean speaking publicly in ways that aren't even anti-Semitic you name that but even if they are they have the right to say what they want like this is just crazy on the surface how do people not see this in 2025 Washington also decided not to participate in the universal periodic review of its human rights record a mechanism that is supposed to include every single member all 193 states, a legal study published by the American Journal of International Law considered the move exceptional as the United States could become the first country not to participate in this mechanism

Starting point is 02:27:24 since its establishment in 2008 if it maintains the position until the end of the current session, which appears they did. So just, I mean, think about pretending like you're the righteous one caring about civilians while you, you know, I mean, everything we went through. The last one being that you just don't participate in the investigation of human rights records. I mean, we can all point out that the institutions can be biased, but the idea that you're pretending that only because they call out the most obvious example of those rights violations, that that's the bias, then you don't actually care about bias.

Starting point is 02:27:54 That's your cover. Supporters of the decision believe that the council suffers from chronic biases, especially towards Israel, and that the membership of countries with poor human rights records weakens its ability to perform its mission. So that's what Trump and the rest are claiming they believe, or maybe they do. but critics believe that the withdrawal deprives Washington of an important diplomatic tool

Starting point is 02:28:15 to influence the council's agenda and hold the government's accountable from within. Now, it's obvious the latter is clear. I think they gave it an effort to think the world will they go, please come back and we'll stop criticizing Israel or however you think that would play out. The issue of the Iran report highlights the difficult contradiction between Washington's rejection of international oversight mechanisms and its simultaneous and, it's simultaneous insistence on emphasizing the protection of civilians. Right.

Starting point is 02:28:44 So you're rejecting the fact that they care that you're killing civilians, but then you pretend that you protect civilians? Clearly, that doesn't make sense. The United States says that the protection of civilians is of paramount importance, but rejects the findings of a UN investigation that concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they committed war crimes. It speaks for itself. Now, again, you could argue that UN's lying, but again, that's not true.

Starting point is 02:29:06 You can prove they're not. So whether they're honest or not, that point speaks for itself. self. We can prove you kill those children and their response is that you don't care about human rights. Legally, the missions report does not constitute a binding judicial ruling like it ever does from the United Nations, but it represents a documentary record that judicial or human rights bodies may use later. I mean, here's one of the reasons why this is not even, like, they want Trump's version of this drives actual teeth, action that they can use against other people because that's what they want. So arguably, if you wanted to have an international body, I kind of don't, to be honest,

Starting point is 02:29:41 but this is how you would operate, one that doesn't, it's not able to go, you have to do this and you have to do that. It's more of an entity that can, you know, it's interesting to think about. I still argue the better direction is to have none of this, but realizing that if we're in a world with tyrannical governments, that this is one of the only ways that can actually be somewhat influenced or managed, this is exactly why we shouldn't even want any of this, guys. Government is the problem. I digress. Different story. Between the two, positions, the practical result remains that Washington is abandoning one of its platforms through which it can influence international investigations, even while retaining the ability

Starting point is 02:30:16 to criticize the council and its decisions from outside. Trying to play best at both worlds. The truth is, I think they recognize they've lost the plot, that everyone sees them for the pariah they've become and being a part of it is only going to work against them. That's what I think, and their best bet is to back away and frame them as a broken group. even if that's partly true. Like it's, I think, obvious that this is desperate. And I'll include my show about when they bombed the school.

Starting point is 02:30:44 We said over 100 because it was developing February 28th. Disgusting. It was very clear then, I think. Now, of course, keeping the UN conversation going before we finish with a few other points of Iran did this. So he's over here screaming about how the UN's bad and they hate Israel and we're not a part of it. And how, this is why I mentioned it briefly. The whole way this works is the,

Starting point is 02:31:05 they're a founding member. So they're always technically part of this, you know, they have a veto power and the security council, but as the general part of it, they're only part of the human rights. Like basically they, the whole January 1st part

Starting point is 02:31:19 and being out of that, they become an observer state. Not part of the security council part of it, but the rest of it, which means they're not actually involved in the sense of the human rights council. But on top of that, they've got a larger voting discussion,

Starting point is 02:31:32 not the veto power, but the voting discussion. And this is where the money comes. comes in. I did actually know this, is that ultimately, if they don't pay their dues essentially, which Trump's always griping about, that they don't actually get to vote, which is, you know, it's clearly the veto kind of makes it universal anyway, but it does make a difference. And here's why I'm saying all of this, despite all of the griping Trump's putting out there, and all they're saying, it's obvious they still see value in this because even though Trump said I'm not paying until they do

Starting point is 02:31:59 X, Y, and Z, just like he said Iran is not going to get this until they do X, Y, and Z, he folded on both. September 16th, the U.S. government pays $725 million to the United Nations, easing its debt dispute with the world body. So he ate crow. That's pretty embarrassing. And you also note that barely anybody's talking about these stories in the mainstream media. Now, the Trump administration paid $725 million to the United Nations, this on the 16th per Reuters, according to the organization on Wednesday, reducing Washington's large debt, not removing it, but reducing it and ensuring that they keep their vote at the UN General Assembly. Oh, I didn't say General Assembly.

Starting point is 02:32:39 That's the important part. Say the Human Rights Council, Security Council, and the General Assembly. We're all 193 are involved, but there's a specific grouping. You know, rather no, I take it back. The 199 can vote in the general. Security Council is one thing. Human Rights Council is a specific group. And I read the number a second ago.

Starting point is 02:32:54 Sorry, keeping these numbers in the top of your head is, you know, there's a lot. But either way, sorry, I'm confusing you. Back to the point of the General Assembly, they need the pay their dues to be able to vote in the General Assembly. So the fact that he paid any of it after criticizing any of it is a testament to the fact that they want to be involved and they recognize the value in it.

Starting point is 02:33:13 To them anyway. Now, Trump has criticized the global body for not living up to its potential and slashed funding to many UN agencies. When asked about the plan payment last month, the U.S. official said payments will be contingent on continued reforms on the U.N.

Starting point is 02:33:27 We received $725 million yesterday from the United States for the U.N. regular budget. And we also received $102 million from the U.S. for peacekeeping on Friday. So just completely falling back on us. So this is funny. The U.S. still owes $1.3 billion to the regular budget.

Starting point is 02:33:48 Now, that he paid any of it seems to suggest that he's going to pay it off. And he says, he said, adding that with these payments, the $725 million, the U.S. is no longer in jeopardy of falling under Article 19, which would mean that, for 2027, which would mean that they couldn't vote in General Assembly. And I believe that would mean for a longer period until they can, I mean, because that's all the way to 2027. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, a member state loses its voting rights in the General Assembly if it arrears exceed, if its arrears, I think it's not paying, exceeds two years in annual

Starting point is 02:34:20 fees, although grace periods are possible. So clearly he's keeping up to some degree. I just found that really interesting, don't you? September 16th, 2026. secondarily, September 19th, Trump to put a raw nuclear threat at center of upcoming UN General Assembly. Well, look at that.

Starting point is 02:34:40 So it's obvious they know they're failing, guys. Like, this has to come across as obvious. He's screaming about how the UN's useless and doesn't matter, and you guys are ridiculous. I'm pulling out of the council. But see, they know they can influence the Human Rights Council. They know they won't lose a security seat because they're founding member.

Starting point is 02:34:56 So the difference is whether they get to vote and influence the General Assembly. And so quietly a couple days ago, he gives them almost a million, you know, three quarters of a million dollars to make sure he can stand up and go raw and bad at the General Assembly. Now, technically speaking, he would have been able to speak either way. I'm just somebody pointing out that they want to keep up in their involvement in the General Assembly and the voting process.

Starting point is 02:35:18 I just thought the timing is was funny. But it says Trump to put Iran nuclear threat at center of upcoming U.S. General Assembly speech. Trump said, this is funny, expects Operation Epic Fury to end soon. and when it does, gas prices are going to go, that video, you know, it's like, the war's going to be over soon, like all those videos and we played all in a row rapidly.

Starting point is 02:35:38 Everyone's making fun at this. Epic Fury is going to end soon. The three-day war, oh, it's not a war, excuse me, oh, it is now. Gas prices are going to drop, you know, based on what? Yes, they will go down some, inevitably, but the reality that this is going to spring back

Starting point is 02:35:53 to what it was is literally impossible. The repercussions of how long this has gone on, I'm not going to say I know for exactly where it will go, but it will go on for a while. That's obvious. So they matter, they care. They want to influence the conversation, and I think it only shows you that they're floundering.

Starting point is 02:36:13 Now, to finish with especially pathetic action, look, guys, again, I've said many times. In regard to Iran, it's pretty clear that they've lost this war. Now, that doesn't mean it's over. Hypothetically speaking, if suddenly for one or ever reason tomorrow, you know, China, Russia, everybody just decided to decide with the U.S. government, well, suddenly that would change things, wouldn't it? You know, so you never know what happens tomorrow.

Starting point is 02:36:37 But at the moment, clearly they've lost. And then the reason you never know what happens tomorrow, that's why Trump is trying to shake things up in hopes that he kind of gets a little bit out of it and doesn't look like he lost, right? Let's pretend like this happened. Let's lie about this. Let's offer 13 different deals. You know, just desperation. I think we have to see it that way now. So my point, though, is that they've been trying to mix this up. aggressively to not, you know, to gain something. And they want you to think that it's Ron's fault or that Ron's suffering. You know, I think they're waiting for an opportunity to assassinate somebody else and

Starting point is 02:37:07 they're just not getting it. So what we've been expecting is some kind of walk back. Like from early on, right? The idea that what we say right in the beginning, like middle part, we thought, and there was even reports, who knows if it was accurate, came out saying inner circle and in the Oval Office, we're discussing whether they should just walk away from war right now and claim victory. Remember that?

Starting point is 02:37:26 I think we know that was true. my opinion. But so I think the reality is they were considering going, okay, let's just remember, oh, then it shifted to with the straight back open and we'll win. It's like, well, the straight was open before you started. Guys, it's just, and they're stretching, reaching for some kind of an outcome.

Starting point is 02:37:42 So this, as I said, was about as pathetic as I expected it to be. Hegg Seth's going, it's not our fight. It's yours. Go have Europe. We don't, what do you mean, Ron Wharf? This is your thing to do. This is pathetic. We are not counting on Europe.

Starting point is 02:37:57 but they need the straight of Hormuz much more than we do and might want to start doing less talking and having less fancy conferences in Europe and getting a boat. What it means is we need to help or we're going to fail. We already have failed and hopefully if you can evolve yourselves, maybe that will change the reality. Thanks, Streamyard. Let's try that again. We are not counting on Europe,

Starting point is 02:38:34 but they need the straight of Hormuz much more than we do and might want to start doing less, talking and having less fancy conferences in Europe and getting a boat. This is much more their fight than ours. How can you even say that with a straight face? By the way, I'm just going to note, I absolutely hate, like, when you do something to a clip, then do your thing. But if somebody puts the, you know, clash report, puts this little symbol right in the

Starting point is 02:39:00 middle of the video. You didn't make that video. You're sharing clips that everybody have access to. So, I mean, I should have just even found the real clip. But anyway, that aside, it's your fight. I mean, think about how embarrassing that is to even say right now. How they must be laughing at these people. How he must be thinking about how embarrassing it is to say that.

Starting point is 02:39:19 It's not our fight. You mean the fight that you won? Didn't Trump say the war was over 75 times? So how could it be over if it's their fight? Yeah, like I even need to walk through that. We all know. That's just sad. And so it needs to show you that they are trying to deflect.

Starting point is 02:39:37 They're trying to shove off responsibility. I mean, and you know, just in case you don't know this, while this is going on, Israel's bombing Gaza, they're bombing Lebanon relentlessly, you know, during the ceasefires, because that's not a joke. And somehow that's just something our corporate media can't talk about or new media or anybody. So, lastly, just on Iran updates in general,

Starting point is 02:39:59 skim through some of these really quickly. America must implement our conditions first, Iran says, and this is, again, showing you how clearly Trump is in the power. I'm joking. How obviously Iran has been dictating this since April, at the very least. The respected Qatari government, as well as the respected Pakistani government, are currently engaged in continuous consultations with us. That's what Iran says.

Starting point is 02:40:20 There are ongoing contracts and meetings. We have informed them of our conditions, and the Americans themselves are aware of our conditions as well. Continuing since basically April to say, we're not even talking to the United States. They are getting messages through people they want to contact that are talking to us. We're not even relaying information. Now, in the other way, they relate information to us through Oman when they've asked us to make a deal more than once has come out more than once. But it says, and we are waiting for the Americans to accept and implement them.

Starting point is 02:40:49 So as Trump's last statement that, you know, when they basically, I think today or yesterday, when somebody asked him, what's the status of the war? He goes, well, we're at the point where we destroy their civilization or they all die or they make a deal or something just like that. That's literally what he's still saying. And Iran's like, they know what they need to do. clearly they're concerned. Our conditions, they say, include the release of our frozen assets. Secondly, they must announce an end to the war at all fronts, which includes Lebanon, as they've been clear relentlessly, which I found not even within a U.S. power to accomplish

Starting point is 02:41:18 outside of attacking Israel. Refrained from interfering in our international affairs, which they probably won't do. Stop cooperating with opponents of our revolution. Halt any form of aggression when they may just mean the Iranian. That's the, you know, state of Iran revolting against 79. That's how I would read that unless they mean currently within the country that they're, you know, fighting back the outside forces. I think that's how they refer to this.

Starting point is 02:41:42 The Iranian revolution is just the, you know, the state of Iran in general. And it goes, stop cooperating, holding a form of aggression against our territory and lift the naval blockade. America must implement our conditions first and only then can negotiations follow. That seems pretty damn clear. This all from today. Iran prepared to help achieve peace between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. So see, they're working political, you know, if they can achieve that, you know, that would be a huge defeat for the U.S. government. Because that's important, both Saudi Arabia, but also Bob Al-Mandeb and Yemen and everything, even though they technically lost control of that.

Starting point is 02:42:20 Iran weighing withdraw from non-proliferation treaty. Now, this is interesting because I guarantee you it's going to be used to resurface the cries of, you know, nuclear weapons. But okay, it's going to be funny for two reasons, if and when, because you're already telling us they have nuclear weapons. So what will be the difference of whether or not they're in the treaty? Okay. But secondarily, realize that the treaty is not about weapons. I mean, technically it is. But realize that all they're talking about is nonproliferation while U.S., Israel, China, and Russia are all going in the direction of tactical nukes.

Starting point is 02:42:54 So it's not even real. This nonproliferation treaty is supposed to be them removing nukes from the conference. So Iran's basically saying, why are we even signed on to this thing when we're, you know, seeking civilian nuclear programs? So I, I, it doesn't see, it doesn't have to signify they're going to make nukes, but that's also possible. I mean, honestly, just like North Korea, makes the most sense out of anything. But I genuinely believe that they don't want to do that. Whether it's a religious reason, which I do believe is the case, or if that's now passed

Starting point is 02:43:22 because of what's gone on, that at the moment they recognize it's not in their interest to do that may happen next. and it's their right to do so like it is every country. Iran says straight of removes will remain closed until its conditions are met. So they're stressing this. Now, of course, Lebanon all day has been being bombed by Israel. Nothing new there, sadly, people being killed, innocent people, downtowns, Beirut, no big deal, ignored by the international media.

Starting point is 02:43:48 You know, and they strike Hezbollah stronghold. Nope, that was downtown. Those were children, but, you know, keep lying. Head of the National Security Commission of Iran's parliament says the claim, made by U.S. Secretary Bacent that Iranians are queuing for hours in gas are nothing but baseless lies. And of course, it would be in Iran's interest to lie about that. But again, we're not

Starting point is 02:44:08 Gaza. There are public information to access. And as far as I could tell, I don't believe that's happening in Iran. I know what's happening in the United States, may not queues, but extreme gas problems. So it's funny that they need to project. Just like Peg Seth goes, they're living out of religious prophecy. They're actually not. That's you in Israel.

Starting point is 02:44:24 And you can easily prove that. But the fact they need to project that shows weakness. So I'm not sure whether the accuracy of this, but I think it's interesting that if they were projecting what we're dealing with, shows the same thing. Regional countries involved in U.S. attacks on Iran should not expect restraint. So Iran is warning. All of your other countries, I know you see what's going on. I know you see how we're bombing you in the U.S. isn't helping you. if you keep doing this, we're not going to, it's going to be bad is what they're saying. Maybe they're not even able to say no. Maybe these are, which is what I think, which is what I think,

Starting point is 02:44:56 These are, you know, puppets in chief that are put there by outside forces, so it's not their choice to say no to these bombings. Now, Saudi could be a different conversation, but the rest. Saudi, Middle East countries will be considered complicit if the strikes on Iran resume from U.S. bases around the world. Same point. Now, it says Iran received information to the United States with the backing of some regional countries

Starting point is 02:45:18 is preparing to resume actions against Iran. That was 14 hours ago. The military said that any U.S. attack would trigger sustained strike, on U.S. bases? Does I say U.S.? No, the military said that any U.S. attack would trigger sustained strikes on U.S. bases.

Starting point is 02:45:33 So they're getting wind from something that they're building another attack. And that maybe what they want them to think, who knows? And they're simply saying that, and I think they've said this before, but that they will have sustained attacks. Means a lot.

Starting point is 02:45:45 That means like a continual, like nonstop attack. Average French diesel prices hit record 241 euros. Same in the United States. Record $6 and something. I forget the number. You can't pretend that's Biden, guys. Not like Biden's innocent.

Starting point is 02:45:59 They're the same problem, but you can't pretend like that's Biden. Trump says Houthis agree not to fight. Same point. It's just embarrassing. This is him doing the same thing. He's out there saying the same thing. The only difference is to Houthi said, look, we have a ceasefire. We're upholding that for now.

Starting point is 02:46:13 That's what they said. As they attack a U.S. ally, that was Saudi Arabia, who just asked Trump to get involved and he basically said no. So there's nothing but weakness in all of that. So Trump trying to pretend like the Houthi's, He's going, please, Trump, don't bomb us is a lazy, pathetic move. Because it's not the truth, and they're literally attacking an ally that they're too pathetic to fight back. Rather, just in a weak position, they know will not benefit them, or they don't have any munitions.

Starting point is 02:46:39 At the end of the day, just understand that that's not the reality. And I believe, my opinion, is at the moment that it's in their interest, this won't matter to them. You know why? Because they well know that Saudi Arabia through the United States or the U.S. through the Saudi Arabia, was attacking them through every ceasefire of every agreement they made all through Trump's last administration or the fact that they were being bombed in the ocean

Starting point is 02:47:00 because they were defending against Israel's genocide. You think they care about the U.S.? The government is my point. And by even the Houthis, it's funny when you look into these things, these groups, rather the Ansarala movement, these groups are all very vocal about the fact that their enemy is the government,

Starting point is 02:47:16 not the peoples of this country because they have social media guys. They know. They understand that many people like us or not, whether they actually hate us or not. They know it's in their interest to not be aimed at anybody but the government because the government is something we all are seemingly focused on. Explosion near Iraq, I don't know. That'll develop.

Starting point is 02:47:33 What's interesting, though, is that we saw the Israel discussion with Iraq. We saw the recent bombing from Iraq and they blamed in Iran. So maybe that's them bombing back. Or, I mean, at the end of the day, it's an occupied territory. You're bombing a country that you occupy. This has happened more than ones, by the way. Katari Prime Minister says the Middle East must eliminate Surveillance. of discord. So no state can impose danger on others. Okay. Well, you could argue he means Iran,

Starting point is 02:48:01 or you could argue it means Israel. Who knows? I genuinely think we should be asking that question. Things are shifting. Israel launches air attack near southern Lebanon. So continually attacking Lebanon. Cutter able to resume normal gas production a few weeks after Hormuz reopened, meaning they're saying, look, if we can get this reopened, we might be able to up and run in a few weeks. which nobody expecting, if it's reopened, and which is completely contingent on Israel and the United States right now. Last few, the Ansarala Hutis, Saudi Arabia,

Starting point is 02:48:36 launched 28 strikes in Yemen over 24 hours. So the U.S. is leaving him high and dry. Last I checked, it might have changed today. But Saudi Arabia, on the most impoverished country in the world, maybe same for Gaza at the moment, 28 strikes in 24 hours. Bombing civilians is what they always do, or just indiscriminately bombing.

Starting point is 02:48:56 I can't speak to that definitively right now, but historically, that's what they've always done. And just the idea that they're attacking a group that is, you know, fighting for actual, you know, same things we talk about. Right now, what they're doing is fighting to control their own territory. And Saudi Arabia is bombing to control it back. Iran's foreign minister heads to U.S. for UN General Assembly. Okay. So Trump's going to go there and talk about how bad guy Iran and nukes, which are, you know,

Starting point is 02:49:21 you take it for what you will. Last time, therefore, a minister tried to show up. I think it was Argosi. they just didn't let him in. Even though they're a founding member of the UN. I said that last time. So let's see what happens. And as I said, oh, this is a, oh, it is Argoschi.

Starting point is 02:49:39 I didn't even think he was still, anyway. Bottom line, though, is that this is going to be interesting because, I mean, just like I said last time, how you can accuse them of crimes and then as a founding member not let them come in to defend themselves, it just shows you how weak your argument is. and I think that's what's probably going to happen this time. We'll see. So that's where we are. Ending on a few important points, Chris Menahan, citing Mark Dubowitz,

Starting point is 02:50:07 citing Congressman Brad Sherman, citing Tennessee Haller, Israel's favorably all negative, just with the Dems. The general electorate has turned against Israel, not just a left issue, the American issue. Yeah, guys, because everybody sees that they're committing... It's not difficult to understand, but, you know, U.S. Congress who are beholden to them want to attack you for it. Every Israeli official and voters should watch this clip and it needs to be translated into Hebrew. Yesterday I spoke with the Israeli

Starting point is 02:50:34 ambassador. I don't think he or the majority of Israelis realize what this day. Oh, so your first action is to hurry, help the Israelis that we don't want or help or what. Oh my God. These people are so obviously on one side of the conversation. Mark Dubwood says the collapse in public support for Israel could trigger a financial and economic war against the Jewish state. The architecture for it is already taking shape. So now you're going to frame it as an attack against the Jews because you, I mean, you're talking about the government of Israel that's committing war crimes and genocide around the globe and that people don't want to associate with that and that you're

Starting point is 02:51:12 forcing us to do that to cause war? Are you suggesting that they're going to go to war with us? I mean, how in the world would it mean that the U.S. would go to war with Israel because we don't want to associate with them? So the only way I can read this is you're suggesting Israel. will attack the United States because we don't have an agreement? I could be wrong about that. But of course, remember, this is the CEO of the FD,

Starting point is 02:51:32 which is a Israeli compromised organization, in my opinion. Continuing, Chris Menahan cites Israel-Hyom, Mary Maddozen's platform. This is one of the Israel lobby's top guys writing explicitly in Mary Madeline's outlet, Israel Hayom, aimed at Jews and Israelis, that the goal of merging the U.S. and Israel's military, is to make America dependent on Israel.

Starting point is 02:51:59 That's this guy. Guys, this is not a joke. I mean, think about how crazy that is. The most important, Israel, most importantly, Israel and the United States should deepen their military, technological, intelligence, and economic integration to such an extent that inflicting financial harm on Israel would also carry a significant cost for Washington.

Starting point is 02:52:19 Now, you wonder why that's the, you know, he talks about an economic war? My God. I'll include the discussion about this, realizing that even that 219 NDAA, which is stalled in the Senate right now, rather the entire NDAA with 219, only further integrates the U.S. and Israeli militaries. But you can clearly see why that's relevant as they're collapsing. And I'll end with this. Just to remind you, in case you needed a reminder, Rabbi Jeb says, hey, Grock, yes or no. Did the Israeli government talking about AI today, guys, just pay Trump's former campaign manager, Brad, Brad, Paskol, millions, foreign operation explicitly designed to influence what AI tells millions of

Starting point is 02:53:03 people about Israel. Grock, AI, says yes. Brad Pascall, Trump's campaign manager, digital lead and manager, via ClockTower Acts, received millions from the Israeli government directly. Through Havas, a FARA registered group, contracts and reports document explicit efforts to create website's content aimed at shaping, convincing, manipulating how Americans view AI systems like chat cheap, or rather aimed at shaping how systems like that respond on Israel issues, literally shaping the way that we, like lying to you in case you missed that.

Starting point is 02:53:42 Even if you don't think it's about lies, it's, you're paying to convince people of a certain idea while you're committing genocide. Guys, you can't miss where we are. With everything we discussed and the reality of where AI is going and what they're currently working on. I mean, you could arc this through so many conversations. I just thought it was easy to see what we did today. And I'm hoping you can see the continual line through the entire conversation, from the testing on people all the way to where we are right now with the actual ongoing war. It's impossible to miss.

Starting point is 02:54:12 And now whether this is all part of the same thing, or you've got the technocrats back there seeing an opportunity to rush through what they want or we're distracted. I mean, you read it how you want. The facts are there for you to decide how to read it. the one thing we can't misunderstand is this is happening. It's all right in front of us. From, I mean, the reimagining of the system itself from them, you know, trying to muscle the system currently into supporting genocide. I mean, all of this stuff is literally getting us to a place to where we will not be able to do anything after a certain point.

Starting point is 02:54:42 That's my opinion. But I think those are clear, like statements, actions, systems in place. I guess it matters on how they use it. But, you know, again, we're talking about people that just covered up the Epstein files. Groups left or right that have been ongoing supporting the most genocidal state in the world, continuing to conduct wars that have left people dead around the globe, lied to us, attacked us, removed our rights, called you anti-Semitic, called you a fascist, all because you spoke what you thought.

Starting point is 02:55:12 And these people are going to be the ones to allow you to be free? Now, look, I'm not saying that we can't have a future like that. What I'm saying is these people won't be the ones to lead us there. You do that. You do with that what you will. Thank you for tuning in today. I love you all, as always. Question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.

The Last American Vagabond - Structural Shift In Governance: Private Data Centers Armed w/ Drones/DEWS As Critical Infrastructure

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