The Last American Vagabond - The Pirate Stream: Dialectical Dissidents – Episode 23

Episode Date: January 30, 2024

Join us on today's episode of The Pirate Stream - Dialectical Dissidents. Pirate Stream Media is a new platform of dedicated content creators focused on circumventing the tightly controlled, manipulated, and outright censored media space of today (both corporate and independent media) with a commitment to objectivity, integrity, and a stark awareness of the two party illusion. The Pirate Stream, is our flagship podcast.!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v47pvr0","div":"rumble_v47pvr0"});Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): Texas Border Crisis The New Jan 6th & ICJ Rules Israel Genocide Accusation Has Merit Suspected Terrorist At Texas Border Works For Mossad & "UNRWA Is Hamas" Exposed As Israeli Operation New Tab (21) UnBaffle.me on X: "@unlimited_ls I find it telling/interesting that MAGA seems to be the only ones making any effort to unmask these "far right extremists"." / X (20) Unlimited L's on X: "🚨'Patriot Front' Group That Marched at World Trade Center Has Blank License Plates on Their Vehicles https://t.co/Y3aOJWEPO1" / X (33) Champagne Joshi on X: "More proof of the FBI infiltrating and eventually controlling as well as directing groups of Nazi’s. This is only two of dozens of instances of this happening but some people on this app seem desperate to have you believe it couldn’t possibly be going on in 2024. Now why would… https://t.co/ZS1x6rn9t0" / X How an FBI Informant Created One of Largest Nazi Groups in U.S. History | The Libertarian Institute Azov Battalion Tie To Charlottesville/CIA & Ukraine TV Host Calls For "Killing Children" If Russian The Patriot Front, January 6th & The "Vanilla ISIS" Psyop Not Just Azov: Documents Prove The CIA Has Been Cultivating Fascism In Ukraine Since At Least 1948 PATCON January 6th Was Always A Very Clear Government Operation & Important TN Bill/Dioxin Follow Up How/Why The FBI Manufactures Terrorism & Trans Activists Want To Force Attendance To Drag Story Time Parents Catch FBI In Plot To Force Mentally Ill Son To Be A Right Wing Terrorist How the FBI Created a Terrorist - The Intercept Why Does the FBI Have to Manufacture its Own Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave Threats? - The Intercept New Tab Cureus | COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign | Article Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - ScienceDirect Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population - ScienceDirect Dissecting "Disease X" and the Pandemic Agreement Sci-Hub | Summit proceedings: Biomedical countermeasure development for emerging vector-borne viral diseases | 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.08.061 Screen Shot 2024-01-27 at 11.59.58 AM.png (2720×1260) Safety and immunogenicity of VLPCOV-02, a SARS-CoV-2 self-amplifying RNA vaccine with a modified base, 5-methylcytosine: iScience UBS-seq: An ultrafast bisulfite sequencing method more accurately detecting 5-methylcytosine in DNA and RNA | Research Communities by Springer Nature BREAKING COVID-19 News! Germany’s Top Professors In Chemistry Calls For Investigations Into “Unwanted Proteins” in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines! - Thailand Medical News Chemiker zu mRNA-Impfstoff: Welche Folgen haben ungewünschte Proteine? Gain-Of-Function's Newest "Brain Virus" & Genetically Engineered Proteins To Control... Everything Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Do not attempt to adjust your settings. We have commandeered this channel and are now streaming our pirate broadcast. This is the pirate stream. Welcome to the pirate stream dialectical dissidents, episode 23. Nice to see you guys again. And of course, today, as you guys might have heard in previous shows and going forward, it will be Courtney and myself and we'll be discussing whether we're not, we're going to be considering a third mic in general.

But I think we like the idea of having somebody come, you know, intermittently through Tennessee and join us. We talked to Catherine Austin Fitz has said tentatively that she's going to be joining us upcoming soon. So, and of course, that's Scott decided to move on to other projects. We wish him the best. I think he's going to do great work. So rock and roll. And again, starting today, thanks to you guys and your outstanding donations to the last American Vagabond, we have got the new camera we talked about, but we also have a new audio interface. So right out of the gate, let us know if everything sounds okay. If you guys can hear us, make sure everything is working properly.

And, you know, we also have some fun little things here that like some sound noises I might use here and there, but probably not, but we'll see. But we have a lot to talk about today and some interesting discussions. As you know, I've been really hyper-focused on a few things recently. And I've been wanting to get to a COVID-19, the extra proteins, the DNA contamination and where this has gone since. So we might talk about that a little bit today, some discussion of Texas. hatcom and some different things,

as well as some artificial intelligence, Taylor Swift, and a really interesting thing that I'm looking forward to Courtney talking about that I'd like to learn more on in general. So first off, how are you today? It's always good to see you.

You too. I'm doing well. It's been crazy busy as we're going to get into. I spoke for the Senate for the first time of my life. And that was cool. Yeah, it was terrifying, but it was a good of course. Yeah, I can imagine.

I mean, you know, I just, it's so hard. Like, well, just right at the gate, what do you, Do you feel like when you're there, do you feel like anybody is genuinely concerned? Like, is this all just manipulation? Like, I've so jaded about every single one of them, you know, so it's hard for me to go up there and think that they're truly listening to what you have to say.

Did you feel receptive to that? Actually, I absolutely did. I was actually invited by Senator Frank Nicely, who is wonderful, a real patriot, very awake. He really knows what's going on. He's really fighting for our personal liberties. So, yeah, he actually asked me to come speak. I didn't feel like I was, you know, forcing myself upon them. Yeah, yeah.

But it was still kind of nerve-wracking and terrifying. But I didn't realize until afterwards when I watched the video that there were a couple of people kind of like it looked like they were kind of making faces. I'm sure. And I'm glad I didn't notice that at the time. But for the most part, they really were very curious. They were unaware of the topic that I was talking about, most of them. not all of them, but certainly it was new to them for the most part, and they were genuinely interested and concerned and wanted to know what we could do,

and they actually asked me to help draft a bill. That seems to be a little slower than I'd like. I'm not a particularly patient person in general. So I tend to want to get things moving as quickly as possible, but I've been on them, and it sounds like they're doing something called a caption bill, which basically means there is a topic presented, but they don't know the details of it yet. It sounds like a placeholder type thing.

It's a little frustrating because the things that I've proposed, it sounds like they have to make separate bills. And I've been informed they only get 15 per month. So it would have to. So some of the other things are going to have to wait until next month. This is stuff that I'm not familiar with. Sorry, just brought this up to look at the chat. But that's interesting.

So like I wonder what the logic of that is, why wouldn't they be able to just, Yeah, interesting. I'm not sure. Do you get me? I mean, I was not taught civics in school, so I don't know the whole protocol. And I certainly am not familiar with specifically in Tennessee. I don't know if there are different protocols. But I'm guessing it's the same fall of states.

I'm really ignorant right now. The truth is I just don't know. Yeah, right. It's designed that way, I think. Like it's so muddled and hard to understand intentionally. So, you know. Yeah, and we're not taught it. It's like not a basic.

So you look to them like, well, you know, they're the, they're the, you know, what's the right word for it? You know, the priests of this, of this whole thing. They're the authorities. I mean, I basically said that. I said, I'm not a policy person. I'm not familiar. I trust that you will be able to handle that. Yeah.

I really came in to, yeah, let's hope. You know, and I'm not even expert on the topic. You know, I really presented it as I'm coming as a concerned citizen. This stuff is new on my radar, but it is very pressing. Tell them what it is and we'll come back to it at one. Before we get to the COVID stuff, since we started with it. What's it called? So it's called natural asset companies, and it started back in October.

They had presented, I think it was October 4th, where they presented. It was the intrinsic exchange group, which is partnered with the New York Stock Exchange. So the New York Stock Exchange was double-dipping here. They were hoping to profit on both sides, but they were partnered with this intrinsic exchange group. The CEO is Douglas Eggers. He has some great videos talking about how rich he thought he was. who's going to get off of this or they. But it was backed by the Rockefeller Foundation,

IBD, IBD Lab, Abadir Ventures, Abadir Ventures, the venture firm that specialize in healthcare technology. You might ask, why would they be concerned with seizing our land? I think there is a definite correlation there, but we can address that later. Entertaining ideas, what could not find anything on. Some of the sub-partners are people like the World Wildlife Organization, the brainchild of Julian Huxley,

famously coined the term transhumanism in 1957, although Max Moore claims that he did. But he was also one of the progenitors of UNESCO and his very famous quote about how we have to come to love and appreciate on paraphrasing eugenics.

Right. So this is very much all part of a Malthusian agenda. And basically what they did was this partnership was to propose a rule to the SEC, to have a proposed rule to put a new categorized, of companies up on the New York Stock Exchange.

So the very important, there's a ton of reasons why this would be devastating for not just farmers, but I was presenting to the Agricultural Committee. So I really tailored it to farmers. But this would be devastating just to the United States of America, to all the people. It opens up for, but not just our federal lands to be managed and owned by foreign adversaries, but it also, it's commodifying the resources. So typically when you commodify something is about production value, this is the opposite. It's part of a de-growth agenda where they're calling it low yield or no yield.

It's part of the net zero. The goal is to get to the 30-by-30 agenda that the Biden administration passed legislation on and executive orders on. And they renamed it to America the Beautiful because 30-by-30 didn't sound so great. And people were rising up to what it was. It was part of this agenda that by 2030, only that 30% of the land and water could not be used or inhabited by human beings. This is a stepping stone to what's called the half-earth agenda, which was promulgated by E.O. Wilson, who was a biologist who wrote a book called half-earth. And that is exactly what it sounds like.

Only half of the earth, land and water could be used or inhabited by human. And the thing that was also really egregious about this and quite terrifying, in my opinion, is that it opens up for private land to be not just owned but managed. And I think that's really important because it's not just about ownership. It means you could own the land. And there could be, for instance, a conservation easement on this land where you might not even know. Let's say you've inherited a second, third generation and they've enrolled in a conservation easement. that gets put into this knack, and then the knack can decide that you can't farm on it.

Let's say it's oil-rich-stands for, because I don't think we've touched on that yet. So what is NAC and what does it mean so they know what we're talking about? It's natural asset company. Okay. So what they're looking to do is commodify things like, you know, the resources, natural resources. So it could be minerals that could be extracted. It could be oil. Like using the stock market kind of thing.

Like so they're going to be gambling on natural assets in the same way. Yes. So it's similar to derivatives and, you know, kind of they're out of thin air, literally thin air. They're commodifying and the way that they would monetize. So they think that there's, this is why I still even after they withdrew the proposal, spoke to the Senate because they're estimating that they have upwards of five quadrillion dollars to make. I don't really think they're just going to let five quadrillion dollars go. Right.

There, that's a lot of money on the table. You know, it's hypothetical money, but the way that they're going to, monetize is through carbon pricing and carbon credits. Right. So carbon pricing is tied to taxes. It's just a fancy way of saying giving people tax incentives or getting their net zero, you know, reducing their carbon emissions. And the carbon offsets are carbon credits.

So you could get carbon credits and that would be a way of monetizing. So since we got into it, let's go ahead and start with this. it's air, water, photosynthesis, like land, yeah. Just anything natural. Like so that's, so is there examples of this before this NAC proposal? Yes. So this has been long in the work. So I just want to say that this has been withdrawn.

This proposal has been withdrawn, which is a huge win. That does not mean we rest. Right, right. They will rebrand, which is why I've moved on to talking about the SEC proposed rule on ESG for farming. the USDA put $3.1 billion into climate-smart commodity project. I can talk a little bit about that, but that's horrifying. So these things need to be stopped. And I do think that there's legislation that I talked to, I talked to our Senate about,

putting some sanctions against things like conservation easement that they're now calling agricultural easements. You know, they rename rebrand. They've even co-opted the term regenerative. I got a lot of pushback on my show for when we were talking about how they only want regenerative farming, but they've co-opted the term. So it doesn't mean. So like sustainable kind of thing. Exactly.

So give me the horror story here, right? So what, not what they're proposing, but what do you see in this that is so alarming? What could this become that is like the nightmare scenario, why they should be concerned about it? So give like an example. So let's say that you were to purchase a land that was very rich in lithium. And you were going to start a lithium mining business. And this land then gets enrolled. Maybe it was land that you inherited.

It was from your great-grandfather. And you, so you didn't know that they enrolled in a conservation easement, which was a great tax break for them at the time. Right. And so now it's listed on the New York Stock Exchange. And China buys up a ton of this property that happens to be on your land with the conservation easement. No, not buying it like you own it, but buying into the NAC. You got it. Yeah, so exactly.

It's like a, so you're, it's like a casino in a way. You're gambling on, okay, so what are you gambling on? So like, whether what happens? I'll just give you the end of that. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. But so now they, uh, now they're invested in this property that you own.

Mm-hmm. And they determine that you cannot drill anything on that land. So you can't drill the lithium that you thought was going to be your business and you're going to be your bread and butter. You can't do that because it does not meet their, ecosystem management services requirements, you know, of low yield, no yield. But here's where it gets even more sinister is they can start drilling. You know, China doesn't want, they have their lithium, you know, monopoly.

And they can start drilling. And what would happen is it would be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. Okay. But now they have stock in it. So they have management rights of that land. So they can keep going. And so again, this was something that was not accepted or the proposal was denied. but it's been a growing concept.

It's been growing. So when you ask how it's been in the works for a very long time, and NACs exist in most other countries. So what's going on with the Netherlands farmers? A lot of this is tied to NACs. They have NACs there, natural asset companies. Some people call it NACs. Some people are calling it NAC. I know American stewards of Liberty call it the NAC attack or the NAC.

Oh, I call it the NACTACT. They call it the NAC scam. But, you know, they're different. They pronounce it differently, but it stands for natural asset companies. So back in, this goes all the way back. I think 1973 was one of the first books on, you know, valuing natural capital. And there have been several along the way. Deider Helm is a big figure in this. And he wrote a book on valuing natural capital. And that's the thing that we need to stop now because the Biden administration has jumped on this. So one of the other things that happened was back in 2012, the UN did a white paper on new accounting principles. So because obviously generally accepted accounting principles would not apply here. Right.

Because they're advocating degrowth and non-production. So that doesn't, you can't value that. It's under like guise of climate change, I imagine. Yes. It's all under climate. Climate, yeah, the climate crisis is how they're going to fix it. So they did in 2012. It's called the SEEA ecosystem accounting.

SCEA stands for systems of environmental economic accounting. And it's voodoo economics. It's like, it's just nonsense. But this was their way of creating a new accounting system to value natural resources. And the Biden, so in 2012, they have that and 90 countries at that time had already signed on to NACs. Okay. Wow. But the Biden administration back in January, 23, created their own version of, it's the same accounting system where they're valuing natural resources.

and they've created the United States variation of the UN's, you know, adopting the U.S. Is that the proposal? No. Okay, so what's the thing he's proposing called? The thing that- Well, you said the Biden administration put forward. What was the, so they've done a couple of things. So they can be on the lookout for it.

Right, right. So it's, we see if I can find the name of the, it was a, the accounting system they did in January 2023. Let me see. While you're looking in general, like so. It sounds to me like, you know, this is obviously. overlap with the whole ESG mindset, which in and of itself is sort of like the same concept, where you're gambling on whether or not these entities achieve their set goals for the

sustainable development goals kind of concept, right? And so like that's, and they'll get benefits and negatives based on that, but this sounds more like specifically investing in, you know, but that's what I was curious about. So what are they actually investing in? Go ahead. Okay, so just two things first. So they did put nature on the balance sheet, and that was the executive order January 19, 2023. They released the national strategy to put nature on the nation's balance sheet. And then the other thing that I was talking about is this. It's called the long name.

That's why it's national strategy to develop statistics for environmental economic decision, a U.S. system of natural capital account. And this is the natural capital account. And that's been around for a very long time. That's what really needs to be stopped. And associated environmental economic statistics. And it was done by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget Department of Commerce. And it was January 23rd.

And the other thing I was mentioning was called the America the Beautiful. And that's part of the Biden administration's 15-year green economy agenda. But it really was this 30 by 30 agenda that is to the plan is by 2030. to have only to have 30% you know in uninhabitable and non-use for human. And so what's the, so what to what end? So just preserve it is the idea. So yeah, the buzzword is conservation. So it's all under the guys that they're going to conserve the land.

But by conserving it, they mean that it cannot be used. So we already have a huge push for conservation in this country. Actually, in this state, there's, you know, tons of, you know, projects done in the name of conservation. I think this needs to be pushed back. You know, it's great to preserve the land, but honestly, I think the people who preserve the land best are people who live off that land and they value that land. So typically they create great, beautiful ecosystems. And so, yeah, it's done under the name of conservation. Although they're starting to change that around and call it like agricultural or agro-economics or.

Yeah. Yeah, and I do notice, I think, a difference from your mic. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's a connection thing we'll look at next time. But in any case, I'm curious what, what, yeah, no, we can hear you though. It just sounds like there might just a slight difference. I'm not sure. But what are they exactly investing in?

Like, is it about the outcome of something or is it? Yeah, it's about the, it's about the net zero. So they're investing in these carbon credits. They're investing in the conservation of this land. So it's, this is why I say it's like voodoo. There's not a value. They're trying to place value on the natural. So it's essentially like what would the water be worth to the land itself?

What's the water worth to the fish there, to the land, to the air, you know, as it goes through the crypt cycles. I guess what I'm trying to get at is so, okay, so a company, a government, a company puts money into what you're discussing. then what is the benefit for them doing that? Are they going to make money if you achieve certain metrics? Or is it if you don't do certain things? If you don't do things. Okay. So if you don't farm, if you don't drill, if you preserve, you conserve the land,

then you're going to get certain scores. I get it. Okay. So it's definitely an ESG type of concept. It's an extension of ESG. Yeah. Which is why that's the next thing. I'm, yeah.

Apparently the SEC did propose this back in 2022, and I just realized this. the SEC proposed a rule where all farmers have to comply with ESG. And then the climate smart commodities came out of that because climate smart commodities are all about censoring, monitoring, tracking your greenhouse gas emissions. So, I mean, that's really what they're, the lower your greenhouse gas emissions are, the higher, you know, your carbon offset would be. That's what they're investing in these carbon offsets. So, this is just such a. It's so diabolical. Well, you know, what's crazy to me is that you can have such a problem.

I mean, even if you argue that there's a lot of prominent people, which there are who are mainstream level, but the mindset that this is the right thing to do. There is a very prominent, large part of the conversation that thinks this is complete nonsense. And yet it's just this, you know, they just rush forward because they, I mean, it's, it's not like some fringe part of the community. We're talking like high level, Harvard, MIT, people that will stand up and be like, that's not the truth. Carbon is not the problem, you know, and yet we just still drive these things in. They tried to sneak it through during Christmas. I was like, this reminds me of our income tax as a Christmas present, you know, in the Federal Reserve, met on Jekyll Island.

Like, that's kind of what they did. Yeah. It was very few people knew about this. They've been working on this for decades. I mean, Nancy Pelosi presented a bill back in 1992. And talk about left, right, false dialectic. The Conservation Act of 1980, I think, paved the way for all of this. And that was the Republicans in 1980.

I mean, both sides have been pushing forth with there. The Biodiversity Treaty, it didn't get passed. But this has been in the works for a very long time, but very few people knew about it. I think they really thought they were going to sneak it through. It was Marlow Oaks, the state treasurer of Utah. Makes sense, right? The western states have a lot of land and farmland and a lot of these conservation lands, too. So it was definitely a threat to them.

And he was the state treasurer. He recognized the financial implications. of that and he got together 22 other state treasurers to push back against this, particularly push back against the, the period of the comments. The comments were originally only going to be 21 days anyway. No, it was super important. Yeah.

Because they'd never respect them, I mean, you know, people line up and come in to give their negative comments about what's going to happen and ever since like it changes. And the reason it was so important. So originally it was 21 days, which was unprecedented. Normally you have 30 to 45 days. sometimes even 90 days, and for something this big, 21 days with a very short period, they got it extended.

It was going to be January 18th. I was originally supposed to speak the 17th due to the weather. It was supposed to be the next week. They actually withdrew the proposal on the 16th. But they withdrew it because he raised the sound of the alarm, pushed back, extended the comments period, and then 25 state attorney generals got together. And they presented a legal argument for why it's unlawful. Oh, good.

And the fact that they pushed back. and that they put that comment through laid out the case that everybody who had submitted a comment would have legal standing. It really was about getting the numbers. And they felt the pushback because they withdrew. Good. I'm glad to see that it can have an effect. But you know, so often as we see in like, you know, like in California under Senator Pan, there was a very famous, I forget the bill, but about essentially forcing vaccination for childhood vaccines at the time, long before COVID. and it was unparalleled. I mean, we're talking thousands upon thousands.

And people did videos with like super high speed, go fast forward where you see them one after another, and all of them were like, no, this is terrible, the constitutional rights. And then it was like a hundred people that came in to be like, yay, and they passed it anyway.

You know, it's like, why do you even have the process if it really doesn't matter a resounding no when you still go forward? It's like the illusion of democracy, as always. But I definitely feel like this very topic is just, it's just indicative of where this all is going.

Right. I mean, we can see that they're trying to monetize everything. They're trying to control everything as well as kind of drive everything that is natural. Like I think, well, I mean, it's weird because the argument is that this is about preserving. Right. Right. But at the same time, I don't believe that's actually what they're trying to accomplish. There's probably going to be secondary things that happen in these areas we don't even see. But it just seems like an anti, like aside from the stated idea of preservation, very anti-human in its own right. You know, a lot of these things do. And I mean, that be confusing for some people unless you know the bigger picture of all of this seemingly undermining what is natural and human. But it's just very concerning to me because what does this amount to? It's just more controlled land is unconstitutional in and of itself by the federal government. Are we no longer allowed to access these preserved areas? You know, it's just crazy. Well, we're not allowed to use them. So I think it is, I mean, it's absolutely illegal. It's unlawful for them to put natural resources up for commodification in the capacity. And to regulate it then to, you know, then tell you that you can't farm on your own land,

you can't drill on your own land. And then, of course, the federal lands would be preserved under that as well. But they would commodify it. Yeah. But I think you're right about it being part of this anti-human agenda because I think it's a way they can not only bankrupt people, because they'll force a lot of farmers to have to sell their land cheap because of the regulation. Yeah, that's the way to think about it.

The current farming issue. You're right. They won't be able to keep up with all the different regulations or the different protocols that they'll require. And it's going to price farmers out initially. You have to sell their land very cheap. And now they're seizing up the land that can no longer be used. And then they can use it for whatever their purposes might be. But it's a great way to starve people.

Yeah. It's a great way to, you know, strip. them of their resources to be able to heat themselves, cool themselves, to have energy. I mean, we're talking about oil, drilling oil. They can't use. So we become, you know, dependent and they can bring us to our knees. And I think the other part of this is a way of pushing people into cities, these 15-minute cities. You know, I talked about the UN Centennial, this AI World Society that they're building. And Ukraine is the hub of that. And I do think that also, They're going to need to have land, or not land necessarily, but resources and space,

so some degree land for creating all of this technological infrastructure. You know, I mean, the robots, the AI World Society, the metaverse, and they're going to need resources. And there's a huge part of me that thinks they need space to terraform. And I know I sounded a little crazy. I said that on Twitter. I feel like a very few people got it. They're like, okay, that's a little awful. wall. But you think about it, we have fake meat, we have fake salt now. You know, they want to dim

the sun's rate. They're creating fake ecosystems. Fake everything. Everything. Seriously feels like that. That requires a lot of energy or more space. And I think that, you know, I think all of it is encompassed in this agenda. And it's just incredibly diabolical. I agree. I agree. I mean, even just as I'm sitting here, because like, when you brought this up of the day, I hadn't heard about it, you know? But the concept seems very familiar, but I hadn't heard about the specific iteration. And just as I'm trying to think about it, it's evolving in your mind, you know, the different ways. But I think you're right.

I think this very well may be solely about the farming issue. You know what I mean? I think it's bigger than that. But you could see how that one thing is so dramatically impactful across the world. And, you know, even just the control over what you can do for yourself. You're reliant on them for everything. I mean, that's probably just one facet of this large thing. But it is terrifying.

But I mean, Saudi Arabia can invest in an act, tell you can. it could invest in a knack that's on land that's in Texas that's very oil rich. And they decide you can't drill. I know Americans can't drill there, but they can. They delist it. And now they've got, you know, monopoly, not just on oil, you know, there, but on our own soil. I just don't understand on a side note why, like, look, it's, it's an uncomfortable thing, especially in the two-party discussion to have, you know, like a Chinese businessman should have

every right to buy anything anywhere as anybody else should, including, you know, But we should be concerned that they're surreptitiously doing it for the government. Our government does it every day around the world, right? But the government's doing so, which does happen today. I don't understand why that's even legal. Like, why would you allow a foreign government to buy land inside of another country? Like, that's just a, I don't know. That seems crazy.

And with China, because of the structure of their government, most of the people who are buying, I'm not saying there aren't, you know, affluent business people who may be investing in property all over the world and certainly in the United States. but countries like China, a lot of the people who can afford to do so are part of the elite class and they are part of the government. Same in this country, right? I mean, I would argue it's pretty much the same. And we should be concerned about that. That's what I mean is that we shouldn't dismiss the fact that there might be that I think every government around the world is doing this all the time. But it doesn't mean we should ignore it. We have to keep that context in mind that it's not some unprecedented reality that China. It's a back and forth between both of them. And I think that's clear. But anyway, I just think that's crazy that we would allow whether that is Israel, which is crazy. all over the place or, you know, any, an ally, my point, Germany, Spain.

Like, why would you allow them to buy land as a government entity? It just shows that, you know, I don't know, that there's more going on than we think of in any given moment. But so we were going to get into some of these other related points. So the next article you had here was partnerships for climate smart commodity. So is this like another adaptation of the same thing? When I spoke for the Senate, my argument to them really was, okay, they've withdrawn this proposal.

and I do want us to acknowledge what a win that is because it means our voices can be heard. We can have impact. That's wonderful. Oftentimes, you know, not the, I get, it's a false dialectic, but a lot of time people on the quote unquote, right, or people on the freedom, whatever you want to call it. But they tend to be like, yay, we won. And then they do victory dance and then they sleep. You know, I hope I am not offending anyone, but that's kind of what I see. Please, offend somebody.

And it's like, oh, wait, four years went by. Let's get mobilized and we have to vote for president. But don't worry, Trump won. So we already died. It's over. It's all over. But, you know, the left, and I don't necessarily mean like the quote of foot left. I mean like the, you know, people who are looking to enslave humanity who align with

the Marxist, you know, ideology or fascist ideology. I kind of put them all roads lead to tyranny. So we can argue about the splits of the details and the philosophies and, you know, the various governments that have imposed them. But all roads lead to tyrannating totalitarianism. So for the purpose of this conversation, we'll just say that. Yeah. So our government.

Go ahead. Right, right. Basically. But I don't, so I'm not saying. So that was basically my point. I was like, look, we need to acknowledge this is a win. This means that we can effectuate change. We are not powerless.

And we need to acknowledge that and celebrate that and keep moving forward because they are not going to rest. And I said, if you had four, five quadrillion, sorry, four quadrillion, five quadrillion. I'll have to look it up. Dollars on it. It was five quadrillion. That's ridiculous. It's like an unfathomal. Your mind can't even understand what that means. Exactly.

So it's just a number. Just think of it as like infinity. It's a very, very large sum of printed dollars. And if you thought that you had the potential to have a big piece of that, are you just going to be like, oh, we lost it? We'll just roll over. Probably not, especially not if you have a kind of megalomania or psychopathic. the tendencies, which I would argue some of these people do. So, yeah.

So that was my argument. I said, so we need to look at how they're going to try and push this through in other ways. And so I had proposed ways that they could stop some of what's going on. But one of the things, conservation easements, because it was, again, I was speaking to the Agricultural Committee. So I was trying to tailor it towards the farming. And I felt it was very important for them to take look.

I already know that there's a bill in Tennessee where they're renaming it, agricultural easements and they're pushing for them. And I said there need to be term limits on that. At the very least, there needs to be potential for buyback with, you know, honest kind of valuations. So these are some things I proposed. But then there are other things. So I learned that you have to have separate bills.

But I think that there should be an end to the carbon credits, carbon pricing. Absolutely. That needs to be stopped. So I had a couple of other things, you know, that I had proposed. But then I started looking into what else could be going on. I also gave them a list of like buzzwords to look out for, you know, obviously sustainability, which I actually left out. I felt really bad.

I texted them afterwards, but that's a big one. But, you know, the regenerative farming, now they're calling it agricultural easement instead of conservation. I got to remember that. Agricultural easement. That's very Orwellian. Right? Yeah. I know.

So there, but conservation is like a big one all through everything. So now this new thing, when I started doing some little digging on, you know, where we do. Give me a favor really quickly. Let me play this clip that shows about the money thing just for a moment so I can take a poke at your microphone real quick. So this clip here is interesting just to give me a moment to mess with this, which gives you the kind of context or tries to at the very least contextualize, you know, or rather show you that you have no way to understand mentally how much money this is when it ultimately gets to that level. And we'll be right back. And that's wild. I'll say it really is.

That's a, you get this over just a touch. There you go. It really does show you how, I mean, I mean, we were talking five quadrillion. It's just mind-blowing. Now, let me know, let me know if this sounds a little better. We'll go to a little toy with it might have been a connection. We know if her sound sounds better to you guys. Yes, absolutely.

But so back to this in general. So go ahead and continue what you're saying. So partnership for climate smart commodities. What they did was they had the SEC proposed another rule a year, I guess two years earlier. It was in September, it was in, I think September of 2022. and it was that all farmers have to comply with ESG. And then a few months after that, the USDA, so the United States Department of Agriculture,

announced that they were going to spend $3.1 billion on climate-smart commodity project. So climate-smart commodity projects are all, this is all connected, it's all tied in. So it's all about monitoring and censoring the, you know, greenhouse gas emissions. So it's all about getting to the net zero, the carbon zero, the low yield or no yield. I mean, they're calling it all sorts of different things. But that's what it's all about. And they have spent an insane amount of money. They even put $40 million into Farm Journal. So they're working on good propaganda publicity campaigns. And they're, yeah, so it's in all sorts. I mean, Costco's involved, ADM, all. all these different food companies are now partnering up. And they have these different apps.

So things like, I think, Comet tool. There's an agrocrop. It's all these technologies that help to monitor. And, you know, yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's just so, well, the whole thing, it's, it's, it's rooted in such, like we, like we started with, such a very least disagreement. But the fact that it's such a politicized topic. And at every angle, you're using this thing that is disputed at the highest level to dictate our actions, to control what we can buy, what we can eat, what we can even think and say. It's crazy.

And I think everybody's starting to recognize that this is, you know, at the very least, even if you think it's a real threat, it's still being politicized and used for their benefit. And on top of that, I think it's pretty scientifically clear that it's not. I mean, not that we're not destroying the planet, but the carbon tax and the carbon threat, which is what it all comes back to. is literally the life molecule. What do they do in a greenhouse? They add CO2. That is how things grow. Right.

So this literally, and we also have to go back to the Club of Rome, right? So the limits of growth document in 1972, their 1992 global reformation document, they admitted that they had to craft a propaganda narrative because it was, I mean, I'm paraphrasing, they basically said this. They said that it was basically junk science. Nobody was going to get on board. And so they had to create a common enemy. There's a common enemy for people to rally behind.

That's right. They could sell this narrative. And they decided the enemy of humanity was man. Right. That's why you are the carbon they want to reduce. Right. Right. And I think the first time I heard that was brought up by Richard Groh.

And I remember just it's very impactful. You know, like so there are in a lot of stuff like this exists where you can go back and look where they're like wax intellectual about what they're going to do to manipulate, you know, or control the situation. And they just don't think we, I think at those. times far back then they never understood the way that the internet would immediately

give you connection to this stuff and old archives and they thought nobody would see that stuff I think to some degree. Well it's so interesting when you look back at some of these philosophical revolutions history, I mean even like back in the Enlightenment period, you think about how the

printing press and the dissemination of printing material really through a monkey wrench. Totally. So many of their plans because now it was much more accessible to have information disseminated to the masses. It radicalized the whole thing. Like all of a sudden you're like, now you can share ideas and write down whole books and you know, share ideologies.

It didn't change everything. The same thing is happening now with the internet. Or mass to it, I should say, mass produce. Yeah, mass produce. And the same thing is happening with the internet. So now information that I think they thought they could keep under wraps for a very long time. Use against us even. That's what I mean, we all know the origins, right?

That's why I always use that as such an important example. you know, like the hammer can be able to house or it can kill somebody, right? Same kind of thing. And it's like these technologies we're designed to, you know, DARPA internet example to control us, to influence what we think. And I think we've, you know, I hope I'm not wrong. I mean, it certainly could be that we all are playing exactly into what we're supposed to, but that it flipped on them, right?

That this didn't work out the way it's supposed to. And now that's why they're so aggressively censoring. I make the same point about any number of things we talk about, whether it's like cryptocurrency or, you know, I mean, I mean, the more and more we go forward, though, I'm very almost anti-technology just because it's like, it seems like a safe bet. I just did a three-hour podcast yesterday with Joe Allen. And he wrote a book Darkie on. He's all about transhumanism.

He does the transhumanism segments on the Stephen Forum. Okay. But yeah, and I asked him, like, how did you even, like, how did you become the transhumanism expert, you know? And he said from kind of a pretty young age, he was just thought that technology was destroying humanity. And so he's kind of hard not to see it, you know? Not to say that he doesn't have some great advantages. Of course.

You know, what's funny, though, is we shouldn't, like, I was laughing about this this this morning, the way that everything, the dialectic works today, we're always like twisting ourselves and not to be like, but I didn't mean this. I didn't mean that. You know, it's like, well, you didn't say that. You know, we do it. I do it every day. Well, so it's a good kind of a segue in this.

And, you know, I think I'd rather spend more time on this on the, well, maybe we can end with this Patriot conversation. but since you this is kind of a good segue into like all the stuff is about like you know kind of hijacking natural you know processes or you know just all the stuff we were really discussing and how this can be used against us I want to you know go over I mean really just the main point of this which is the concept of whether or not there's unwanted proteins in this now I recently talked about the this conversation and this again if this was about the new gain a function research they were recently doing. And John Campbell talked about it as well. And it was about basically taking a coronavirus adaptation, the same kind of work they're doing, and altering it so it infected humans,

and weirdly also gave them this weird brain issue. And I'm like, well, that's pretty strange. It sounds very different. That sounds like something you would expect with other things like nanotechnology. And so I just thought that was very interesting. And then I went into alongside of it, the reality of where this is at,

which is they're at the moment working on and have already succeeded a long time ago, but this even further, genetically engineering proteins to control, as I wrote, everything. So is this like a contrived prions? Well, okay, that's a good, I went over the prions aspect of the COVID-19 injection and that stuff. And so that's one of the reasons why I was like,

this seems like more like something that they're experimenting with than just that it randomly caused a brain viral. I mean, I don't even why you would call it. That's why I put it in quotes, a brain virus. It sounds like a brain issue, a brain issue, which is neurological, which it could be, connected to something other than a pathogen, right? Right.

But in any case, yes, that's essentially what the first thing I went to. But my thought was, aside from what this new virus was or whatever the new thing they're working on is that they are provably, at least that they're putting forward with peer-reviewed research and public conversation, things like the ferretin protein, right? Where we've discussed where it's, it's, you know, as the Guardian discussed it, the Magneto protein, where they literally used it. Yeah, and I'll shoot, this is, this one's actually a better one to include, and I'll grab this really quickly because this one goes into the actual the actual the the magneto one was kind of like

an abstract discussion of what they're doing this is the specific work for the rockefell university it's called flipping a switch inside the head which discusses the ferretan nanopart particle uh protein and the point is that they're using this because ferretin is a protein it has lots of iron and they ultimately using optogenetics magnetogenetics and these different outside the body aspects to control these and influence them And the point is that they created injections, and it was using injections, to put this more so into a certain part of the body or the body in general. Well, they argued that it was a way of directing it into the cell that otherwise it wouldn't. Well, that's a, that's a, yes, that's a part of this.

But see, that goes back to Charles Lieber's work from 2011 forward where that's where the lipid nanoparticle aspect comes from. He used the fatty lipid layer in order to get his virus-sized transistor into the cell without killing it, right? But so this brings it all the way forward to that, along with Robert Langer's work as well as the co-founder of Moderna, where in this, this is 2017, where they were utilizing the ferret protein specifically to and using the same work to ultimately control. And that's not even ultimately to control what they thought, what they were and then ultimately what they could do. So in this study, they controlled the actions of mice. And they went as far as being able to relay internal biosurveillance. and he even talked about from the retina, from the cornea, like so actual visual information from inside these animals, so a human, a mouse, from outside.

Like, and this is the craziest part from when to get into the magnetogenetics, we're talking about stuff that can be done from quite a long ways away or even relayed. And the point is that this is a real thing, right? So back to the point was my conversation was about not just the ferret nanoparticle, but they're engineering proteins at this point to do all sorts of crazy things. And one of my biggest concerns was that, they're already working on ferret and nanoparticle, universal flu shots. They're like phase three trials right now, or for all we know, being given.

And then also a pan-coronavirus ferret and nanoparticle done by the, what is it, W-R-A-A-W-R-I-A-R-I-A-R, the military institute, the Walter Reed, something. I forget the name of it all. And so it's like a military project, you know. So all that being said, one of the things I got so concerned about, too, was that there was this discussion simultaneously of work to make plants under the guise of making things that tasted like meat essentially for people that, you know, fighting climate change. Yeah. That would produce proteins that they were told to produce. And I'm like, well,

that's pretty crazy. And at the same time, I'm considering how we're talking about how these things can be used to, like, it gets a little abstract. But the idea that if you're literally trying to find a way to get proteins into something without people knowing it, there's an interesting overlap there. But the easiest example, the COVID-19 injections, which all of a sudden, and everyone's going, what are all these unwanted proteins? What is all this DNA? And I'm like, man, I really hope this is not exactly what I think it is. But let me, give me your thoughts, jump in any time. Here's what this article says.

This is from this month, the 24th of January of this year. As early as January 2022, four renowned scientists wrote a letter to biotech, which that's Pfizer and biotech, the group that worked with that making the shots, and the founder of biotech to obtain information about possible problems in the production process of the vaccines. So let's be clear, first of all. everybody there were a lot of very prominent people that weren't giving attention by the media were screaming about this a long time ago and so they knew about it right well i don't mean even people i mean like doctors and people within the like regulatory like they were going wait a minute hold on like in

2022 and january so two years ago going wait a minute there's a problem with the process not only did not care they didn't even they just went forward oh yeah it's crazy they did respond but not in the way you expect it says under the title search for traces are our corona m rn vaccines contaminated. It's like it's pretty clear what they were talking about. The public broadcaster deals with the quote blockade of politicians towards critical questions regarding vaccination and the inactivity of the responsible party in this case the Paul Ehrlich Institute in clarifying the question of whether excessive amounts of DNA residues are contained in some batches of MRI vaccines. And we wrote about this in his blog. It says on December 2023, so go forward a year later almost,

another paper on the fundamental problem, and a lot happened between then, regarding mod RNA technology. And remember, this is the N1, which it says right there, methyl pseudo-uridine modified RNA, not the natural stuff, which is one of the reasons it lasts and recirculates. And I think this was deliberate, quite frankly. I think it was either on the most benign side of it, a way to make sure that it lasted, because that was always the problem in the past, is that it didn't reach where it was supposed to go. And they raised the lipid particles and it hurt people. And so they couldn't figure it out. That was one of the reasons I think they did that. but also I think as we get into next, I think there's more to it.

But it shifts the reading frame. We talked about the frame shifting, people talked about, during protein synthesis, which means that after the shift, some amino acids are incorporated so that proteins of unknown composition are function, our end function are then formed in your body. And the theoretical possibility of a ribosomal shift, at least in prokaryotes, I forget what that's what that means again. Through the introduction of the N1 methyl-sodurine has been known since 2016,

but it has never been investigated in, again, the Eukorite. Let me look these up real quick. These are the two things. These are microscopic single-celled organisms that neither a distinct nucleus with a membrane nor other specialized. So, you know, just read parts of your body that this affects with for people

that are trying to understand the basic part of it. But the point is they've known that this addition of N1 mettle sodium. Go ahead. As you look up? I'll look it up now. I'll just remember it from bio. With bacteria?

Yeah, that's interesting. Typically. But I'll see if I can find it. So my point was this simply that what they're saying is that all way back in 2016, they already knew that specifically. So they divided into two domains, bacteria, formerly ebeacteria and archaea, formerly archaea bacteria, organisms with nuclei are placed in third domain. That's the eukaryod.

and those are yeah they're evolved before prokate the prokaryotes are evolved before eukaryotes and they lack the new PI I think that they're part of the mitochondria typically mitochondria is the you know energy part of the cell right I think it just gets abstract for the point but yeah it's important understand these things but I do think it's tied to bacteria which is important the only reason I think that's important the reason I even made the association because they're trying to weaponize bacteria Absolutely. Absolutely. I argue they already have. But so my point was that so the N1 methyl pseudyroidine, which is what they added in order to make this thing reach, you know,

to make it last longer and so on, which is part of the reason this is so dangerous, is saying that they've known since 2016 that this issue is there. And so the point is that there's no way they weren't aware of what this possibility would be. So this begins to look like that they added this, which might potentially be responsible for producing these unknown proteins. and my question again is whether or not that's a deliberate process for something much more nefarious than we're really talking about today. And that gets into the potential use of other proteins, whether it's about controlling you or some other influence.

And we've talked about what's a Giordano, the neuro weapon neuroscience expert for NATO. And this guy, even recently came out and said, like, right in the beginning of COVID was like, they are aggressively going forward in this direction. Like they are trying. And he's talking about controlling what you think, what you think, what you feel like and I'm like man this is getting super crazy. I mean they they already have that technology. And then they can do it through light waves through optogenetics. But okay, but but not without something currently like they can affect you. But what we're talking about here is potentially to the level of like

you doing something that you didn't otherwise weren't otherwise going to do that you might even end up thinking you're like it's controlling what you're thinking like not just that you like right now I think the current state of it is if I understand it correctly is that they can influence certain feelings or something, but not to the point to where they could literally make you want to go do something specific or make you, you know, act in a certain way or even literally control what you're doing. They did, uh, the only one I really remember his name was Delgado, but he did a, my brain control, uh, remote brain control studies during MK Ultra.

Right. But, but that always included either direct internal. That's what, like, remember like Langer and Lieber go back. They were doing like wiring and that's still what net, uh, and we can talk. about the neuralink thing. I was just going to say, yeah. But so this stuff, this is why this is so crazy to me is we still talk about this as if it's, you know, theoretical.

Well, that too. But like that we're like, you know, clunky level with wires. I mean, we're at the point like you're talking about where we're using light flashes with certain, this is my point, certain things that have to be internal like proteins that can respond to that. Yeah. And then they can use that. So whether that's being put into you in some mass vaccination program or some other

manipulative term or it's only a few people or it's not happening at all, my point is that this is a level that we're not, we haven't been at as far as I understand until recently. Yeah. So, I mean, the chips, obviously, we just did the neural link. And then BlackRock has their neurotech. Similar. There are a couple of other companies, obviously Sweden did a few. But I think that gets a lot of attention.

But there's all these technologies where they are, I mean, certainly when you read the DARPA documents, they talk about this all the time. And even Facebook has a, you know, technology where you'll be able to. just think and then it'll type out your thoughts. Exactly. Yeah. It's all overlapped. Yeah. And this is where they're going.

And I, I know they have the, you've covered this before the internet of nano, bio. Bio nanosings. Yeah. That's the overlap. Yeah. So they're, yeah, the internet of things with the internet of nanobio things. And I think that's really where they're going, but they want to focus a lot of energy on the implantable.

And I think, this is just my opinion. This is speculation. but I think part of the focus on the implantable, the chip, is because I think the people, I think it's kind of like the vaccines, actually. I think that people will feel safe like, oh, well, I'm not doing that. So that's just for those crazy people. And that's not me judging people. That's just, I'm saying like that, that's the narrative, right?

Like, oh, they did that, but I'm safe. That's not, they can't control me or, but then they're not. So people aren't going to be looking at some of this nanotechnology that, you know, they could do through the air, they could do through. water, they could do through food. And I do think that they're working on that technology. And I have seen studies indicating that they are. I don't know how far along they are, but I know that they're working on that technology. And I think that the reason I bring up the vaccine and say similar is to think a lot of people who chose not to felt like, you know, regardless of what they may have

thought about others who took it, they felt they were protecting themselves, that that was their choice. But they didn't realize that there might be potential shedding, which is. Exactly. Of proteins. That's a spike protein. I mean, this is, again, and this gets into the very core question of whether that was a biologically engineered, you know, artificially. Like, this is what David Martin would talk about, you know, and so again, it all, you know, a lot of times I'm just giving you hypotheticals, right? But what I'm talking about here are things that are provably being done, but whether or not they've been put together is the question. Because what, pretty much everybody I think now is convinced that this was something at the very least was manipulated or made, right? And so

that would imply that they designed it to shed a spike protein, which sounds like a self-spreading vaccine at the simplest core because it spreads, they get sick, or not vaccine, even, self-spreading concept. And so then it becomes a question. Self-spreading by a weapon. Exactly, exactly. Any way you want to look at it. But the point is that the, whether or not that's all that's there, right? If we're talking about a protein and now we're talking about going back as far as you want to look, like we're talking about here, going back, I mean, this is 2011, where Charles Lieber with Harvard, who is still interestingly overlapped with this whole COVID conversation,

made what they said. And with the whole Epstein conversation, by the way. Exactly, exactly. Who worked in this weird technocratic direction about virus-sized transistors. And again, at this, you go forward five years, they're talking about, look at this huge chip, we're going to put on me. They're virus-sized transistors in 2011. And you can say they're lying about it.

And that's when we talk about the lipid layer he used to insert it in the cell. Hydrogel. Right. Well, and so, well, that's, say, overlap. but that gets even crazier. Yeah. But my point in all of this is, you know, so you point out the Internet of Bio-Nano Things,

which includes two, one of two things, right? Actual smart dust nanotechnology, which is very real, and we're long since past that being something that's applicable as we talk about internally, which then connects with the mesh network, which is what they're trying to connect between bodies. That is the Internet of Bio-Nanonof-Things,

and then you can access in electronics, like with Facebook, what you talk about. Or it gets to the more natural level where they're producing proteins they can manipulate with magnets and lights and so on, which is a real part of the research. So both of those things exist. So who knows what's actually going on? But I think what's crazier to back to this is that these people were calling this out,

how did I lose all that highlighting, even though the thing is still open? That's weird. Well, oh, well, I mean, they got the point across. There was some other important stuff in here, but. Yeah, it's weird. But basically, see where I was here. I mean, what we were getting into in general was simply the point that these things are, you know, they've known about this. I was right here.

I think it was since 2016. And again, specifically, which we'll go to the next point, the N1 methyl pseudo-uridine, right? That addition is what they've known about, which is what's causing these extra proteins. We're all confused about, right? And it says these unwanted proteins could also be observed in 21 mod RNA treated patients. That's interesting. and antibodies were also formed using these unwanted proteins. So there's overlap in both conversations.

The protein and what that can do in regard to like the ferrette aspect is on open-ended as far as I'm concerned, but it also giving you antibodies, which is like this self-spreading concept. But it says the nature author said in that work that no correlation to side effects was observed, although the statement is problematic for several reasons. And so it was also described in a comment on the work of scientists from USA and Canada. And get this. The cohort size was 21 people. So 21 people out of 21 people

had a moderate treated patients observed these specifically unwanted people, every single one of them. So it's like, okay, this is something that very clearly seems organized, in my opinion. And I'll leave it there since I don't know where the rest, there was other important parts here. Make sure you read it.

But so bringing this in, unless you have a comment, to the next part of this, which, well, first of all, this pegolated stealth nanoparticles and liposomes talking about all the way back in 2018, Pegalate, remember the polyethylene glycol, which is a part of these injections, and that's a part of you use these stealth nanoparticles and how that can guide them where they need them to go.

One of the parts that's so important is that the proteins, specifically talking about ferretan nanoparticles or ferretin proteins and the nanoshots are talking about need to be in certain places for it to work the way they wanted to. So we can talk about how this has been discussed and how they even talk about using graphene oxide to guide these things to the certain parts of the body. And that's kind of where I was going to go next with this. This one just shows you that another. new study that breast milk is contaminated by the injection, so it's even spreading to the children.

But, I mean, we don't have to get into this today. I was going to get into the graphene oxide side of it. The main point I wanted to make, I think, was, you know, just the idea that these things, whether it's graphene oxide or not, you know, the on-demand, remotely controlled, electro-responsive kind of stuff and dual drug delivery, getting into the certain locations. But you tell me, do you want to get into this and then finish with the Pat Con discussion? We have a good time? Yeah, I mean, up to you. What were your thoughts otherwise?

Well, I was just, just play this clip because this will open up a whole other conversation. So I got plenty of time. So let's get into this. I think this is important. And then I'll just tell you, I have, I don't know if you can get this, but this was a where they talk about the internet body and they talk about the 5G connected biosensors that are being closed skin, cradles. Yeah.

So I think this might even overlap with that a bit. And because that's kind of the whole point here is that, you know, the unspoken point in a lot of these older ones, this is 1222, but you can go back to. like 2002, even before they're talking about graphene oxide vaccine. It's not like a contentious topic despite the weird pushback. But the point was, I still don't think the level of like the Stu Peters allegation of 99% graphene oxide is even remotely true. But you can prove that the, I think the expose did great work on this, that in their actual documentation, it shows they used graphene oxide. But it wasn't in the vaccine according to their documentation.

It was in this process they used to test something. But it says right in there that there is a residual overlap. So he proved it. They do have some graphene oxide in there, even if it's this tiny, tiny, tiny amount. But is that enough? What does that mean? You know, it's interesting. But I think I genuinely still feel that the reason that people came out so flamboyant

with that conversation early was because there was some validity to it. And that's how controlled opposition works, right? You use the truth to shy people away from it. And even myself was, I'm even, I'm using more resistant than usual because I'm like, well, they're blind. Like, I know they're lying. So it's like, but I do think there's more to it. So let's play this clip.

This is Dr. Astrid Stucklberger, University of Geneva. And she's claiming, and this gets into, you know, you take this for what you will. I'm not saying I necessarily believe in everything that's being discussed here. But I find it interesting that this goes into this very point about nanostructures. I mean, and again, if you don't remember, this stuff has been talked about a very long time. The idea of using like this article right here modified graphene oxide specifically for drug delivery. This is not a conspiracy theory. Whether it's in something currently used, you can decide for yourself.

She's claiming she's found things like nanostructure, nanobots. These two would be graphene oxide overlap, the nanostructures, the self-assembling nanobots. But she talks about parasites that attach to your synopsis, in order to control you, metals and graphene oxide. So the parasites was part of the DARPA-PALS project. They did a whole military project on weaponizing parasites. And what parasites specifically were we talking about? That overlaps a lot, like ticks and, right? Like all sorts of things.

This one was mostly hydra substances. This led to the DARPA hydrogel. Right. Well, just tell me, because I'm not sure. So in this case, what do you think parasites means? Because I picture like, you know, microscopic body, inter, like, what do you think of it? Right. This was, this was mimicking like a hydra, like a true hydra, but it was a synthetic hydra.

Interesting. And this did lead to the DARPA hydrogel. And it was designed to be able to, you know, move. through cells and then lodge itself in tissue. It was primarily in adipose tissues and fat cells so that it would stay there and be stored and then could be engaged as like a binary weapon that could be activated by a payload later. Yeah, see, that's a lot of this stuff is like that where it's like, you know, it's like setting the table and then something else will be triggering that later.

You know, I think George Webb and I talked about the like a drilling platform, you know, where the platform set, but then, you know, whatever's going to be actually. drilling to achieve the outcome hasn't happened yet kind of thing. And that's kind of terrifying. Yes. That was a long time ago. I don't remember what year that was. But, I mean, that was like long before 2020.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I've tried to find the article. Whitney's covered this in the past. Okay. In regard to hydro drill specifically. But I'll look for it. Oh, yeah.

I think this is the one right here. Just that she talks about DARPA a lot in the earlier. Like, I still argue, guys, that if you have not looked at her work from 2020, like right. And even before this, she literally outlines like everything we're talking about, like everything they're getting into. And it's really crazy. And this is about DARPA and Alder, I think it's right in here, you know, in the in vivo nano platforms.

And this is the thing that we're only just now getting people to understand, like setting this in your body to be able. Actually, that's this clip. You guys, it's going to be played a thousand times to open the show back to 2020. This is Forbes talking about a Pfizer project that overlaps with the same DARPA work. Wall Street and biotechnology companies have been very excited about this idea. And what essentially it is is trying to pack the cells in the body in order to make them into drug factories. And that's arguably what they're doing, right? And then think about even more so not just drug factories, but producing whatever proteins they then signal them to produce.

Now, I'm definitely finding a way to connect these things, right? So there's level of confirmation bias, but realize that it's just pop. because I'm just theorizing, you know? Yeah, of course. And so En vivo nano platforms apply just this large, broad concept and bring this into the internet of bio-nanno things, you know, and it's just the possibilities are endless, living foundries, kind of a similar concept.

And I thought she mentioned hydrogel on this. But in any case, a lot of these topics are, you know, just ubiquitous and for a very long time have been going on. Yeah. So let's watch this clip of what she's discussing. Important that Singapore understands. And you are not, you know, it is manageable because you're a country that can say, listen, no, we exit. We are not many, but these people, we cannot accept that you come here with your lorries and all your, your weapons, vaccine, equal vaccine, biotech weapon,

which we know today has nothing biological insight. It is nanostructure, nanotech, nanorobots, parasites under tubal cubes, small cubes, that attached to your synapses control you it's oxide graphene it's metal uh japan stopped moderna because there was metal in the vaccine there's enough proof so many scientists have are talking about that that now we have to stop what is going to happen and i you know and and pascal said that he he saw already there's how many vials have they already prepared uh i cut to that if i could speak yes oh yeah i would So that was her speaking about, you know, her research, what she's finding.

And that was, who was joining, was with them, was Pascal Najadi, the son of the World Economic Forum co-founder, Hussein Najadi. And he's, he's calling for the arrest and the, you know, he's very anti all of this. So, you know, it's interesting, you know, but so what she's saying, by the way, is not, like, this is what's so wild to me is that, remember this discussion? Japan finds black particles in Moderna vaccine. They also talked about finding metal and all these different things. It ended up being kind of pushed aside as like the industrial process. And there's like shavings. I'm like, well, that's crazy.

And it of itself metal shavings in your age age. It's like, that's wild. But it just shows you that there's something here. I mean, there's something going on here. And it very well could be that they wanted you to think this. I mean, that's certainly possible. But then brings us back to this very concerning point after what she's saying and everything we discussed and all the real like peer reviewed research, DARPA programs, all of this

stuff is real. Whether or not it's happening is the question, remotely controlled. electroresponsive on-demand nanotherapy. So whether it's in something you've already gotten, whether this is about how they're going to set up the next step. And, you know, my point is that I keep talking about, I think people need to be on guard for where this goes. And the bigger point for me was talking about the unwanted proteins.

And then this was the other point that I was going to get to. And this is about the fact that now here's, this is the new shot, one of the new shots. If you can believe they're still doing this. January 22nd. safety and emigensity of the VLP-C-O-2, which is a SARV-C-OV-2 self-amplifying RNA vaccine. But it's not even an RNA vaccine. It is a five-methyl cytosine modified RNA vaccine.

This is the new N1 methyl psodioridine. So the point is that if you read into this, the argument is that this was going to alleviate some of the other problems. And my point in reading this article was simply to show you that they're recognizing that the problem arises from. the N1 methyl sodium, which by the way, they knew. So it was like a deliberate choice to leave that in the shot. But now it's like they're trying to go, oh, wait a minute, we'll change this and add that,

which shows you that at the very least they knew at some level that this is something that wasn't working, but they kept using it. So I don't know. You know, you guys can decide for yourself, does that show complicity? Is that show awareness? Either way, they're now using this, which I thought I had something on that in general. But I went over this on a previous show discussing why this is concerning. but the last thing I'll show you on this was just Derek's recently discussed dissecting

Disseeking Disease X in the pandemic agreement. And one thing he pointed out in here, which I found really crazy. This is a 2019 document before COVID-19, which discusses, and it's, where was the title? Summit Perci, Biomedical, I forget the exact title. It's in the article here. You can check up for yourself. All the show notes are down there, all the links. But here's what it says.

as such an important sepi goal, which sepi again is the, what was it the, I'll look it up real quick. The group that, you know, funded by Bill Gates and the rest, it is the vaccine initiative. The coalition for epidemic preparedness and innovations, you know, pretty much vaccines. So here is what it says. As such, an important sepi goal in 2019 is to address both preparedness and rapid response disease X, which now they claim COVID was like the first, you know, whatever, by leveraging pre-developed vaccine platforms,

which in end of itself means they're not ready, such as injectable formulations of DNA, self-replicating RNA, recombinant proteins, and viral vectors. I mean, it's exactly, they basically shoehorned in, they jammed a square peg in the round hole for what they wanted to push into the medical field for this under guise that it was necessary and the best thing for you when they clearly didn't know what they were doing,

or that's the excuse to justify all the things they're doing they don't want you to know about. But viral vectors are things like mosquitoes, right? I mean, it's, or these different aspects, and they're telling you that it's part of them. They have GMO mosquitoes now. They have flying vaccinators, right? And this has been studies they've been working on. I just recently called up on that again.

So in any case, I think all of this gets really alarming. Yeah. I don't, go ahead. Well, I think just in terms of the proteins also, and this is a bit of, you know, my imagination. I don't, you know, I don't have any evidence on this. But just thinking about how prions do work and there, they are proteins that misfold. and they signal to other proteins. So they can, if you have some sort of a nanobot protein,

synthetic protein, then you could mimic the natural, the organic prion and have it coded to instruct other proteins to do whatever the algorithm says to do. And I don't see that that's so far out of the realm of possibility. I quite frankly think this has been, you know, this is my point about like smart dust when I talked about that is this was something that was actionable like was being, and I even discussed the group called dust networks, which was like one of the earlier, like 2011 or even further, where they're proudly talking about how this is the future. This will be the connected point between our smart cities and our smart grids. You know, and now we're closer to that than ever and weirdly we're not talking about that connected point. Right. And what they get into is how they were already doing real world tests. And this, it was very clear.

in the presentation. It even shows him like throwing sand in the air and circling. Like he has kind of a, you know, imitation of what the smart dust would be. So it's dust. And if they were already using it to track cargo and things, I mean, well, okay, well, how is that possible unless it's in the air? And I'm just like, so that's wild. And so you can show that this stuff has been real and has been utilized.

And today with where we're at and all the things we're dealing with, like my point is this has long since been used. And that's my opinion. But does that mean it's coursing through your veins? I mean, I don't know how that's not possible. if it's some kind of ubiquitous thing. But that's a pretty terrifying thought. How do you come back from that?

You know, I mean, I guess the point would be that if you already make it so far that you know you can't come back from it, once they eventually find out, well, what are you going to do? It's too late now. Well, why we make it work for us. Here's why it'll work. Here's the benefits. And some people will be like, yay, you know, I don't know. It just, it really does concern me quite a lot.

Yeah. And they recently just, again, even using emergent biosolutions, which is just had to Cadillic and Howard and all these different people, but it is January 12th for another DOD contract for anthrax vaccines. All these different angles coming out I'll include the article about emergency bio-solutions and how it's overlap with COVID-19.

And just lastly, wanted you to see this, how horrifying that is, you know? I've seen that. It's crazy. And of course, that's the Vaccine Compensation Act year, right? Yeah, yeah, exactly. And you can see the correlation with the explosion of all the childhood problems

and SIDS and ZADs and ZADs, and everything and just what a coincidence we're all baffled by all of the overlaps you know well i don't we can maybe save this well there was the uh the tail of swift thing and so on but uh i definitely wanted to get into this and i know we're already pretty long but this is an interesting discussion about uh the patriot front now we i just talked about the texas border crisis i argued was the new january 6th yeah and it doesn't have to mean that's the only thing that it is in no way does that imply that there's not something going on there and i think it's weaponized migration for sure in my opinion.

I think it's something else also. I think they're they're buying for a trap for vulcanization to get civil war. Yeah, well, good. Let's get into that. But let me set the table a little quick. So the, the Texas border crisis, in my opinion, new January 6th. So the point is, what's going on in Texas, I think there's something to that in regard to a trap. I also talked about my recent uncovering the fact that this guy who they misattributed to an Azerbaijani terrorist turns out to be

a Jordanian who was arrested in Egypt or yeah, in Egypt for recruiting for the Mossad. And so that for me was just very interesting in regard to how that might be playing a larger factory. He on camera pretended he was from Palestine. You know, it seems like there. And of course, he goes, you'll know me, you'll know me. It's like, it seemed very staged, right?

My opinion. But so all that being said, my whole point in all of that. Oh, and then Brock just put out a, well, clip of that weaponized migration and border crisis I'll include is, you know, how this relates to the larger point that, uh, Josh Walkos brought up in regard to Operation PatCon. I wanted to go into that, but I wanted to point out the whole Texas thing about why I think that that is like an current iteration of how these things play out. Before we go into PatCon, go ahead.

And what was your thought on Texas in general since we brought it up? Well, now you have, I think, 25 or 26 states who have signed on to stand with them at the board of Texas. and you need 36 to have a constitutional convention. And this is something that I talk a lot about how I'm seeing, you know, we've seen the left for really since the beginning of the country, trying to subvert the Constitution. And now you... I think both sides have.

Well, so, but now what you're really seeing is they're trying to work through the right. So at least then the narrative overtly on the surface has been very overt. the left. But now they're, they're working different narrative arcs through the right that will have the same goal, but they're much more palatable to the quote unquote right. It says the Tito-Totter we've always talked about.

Like it just over the years, it's always, it just goes back and forth on who's the, so one of the things that the right, you know, again, quote unquote right, but you have to work, you have to, you have to acknowledge that there are people who identify. Of course. Yes, that's definitely real. And they work through that that identity.

So these are the narrative arcs that they target their target audience. And through the right, typically it's been this idea of constitutional convention, like a convention of states. And that hasn't had a whole lot of traction. You know, it kind of crops up and then it fitters out, you know.

But what I'm seeing is that this opens up that possibility. And I think it would be a disaster. I think that will just be, I mean, then it's just game, the whole Pandora's box open. They can just completely subvert. So I think that that's,

part of the goal. And you think about, he's had all this time, why now suddenly we're concerned. Yeah. Well, I don't trust him. He's a world economic forum asset, in my opinion. But, yeah, suddenly he's concerned about the border. I'm not saying there's not a real problem at the border. That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying the timing is very suspicious. And I do think you're also seeing vulcanization. You're seeing a lot of people advocating for, right, well, this will be, you know, we'll go with Texas. And then America. we right now that's what they want they want to divide us the last the time we need to unify the most is the very time when they're vulcanizing us and i think that's a huge part of the goal no i agree i mean i i think i disagree with some of the parts but the ending i definitely think that it is a manipul i mean that's what i said i think that this like my point with if you guys don't remember

my point from january 6th is you know i call it the maga trap or whatever you want to call it the you know is that ultimately that this was be a setup not just for republicans but that was the utilization of the two-party paradigm, but it was about creating domestic terrorism and the idea. And clearly they didn't fall for it. Some people wandered in and got put in prison, but ultimately there was not what they expected. And I think this is where we'll get into the whole Pat Con part of it is this is an old tactic, infiltrating what they see as patriot groups, which is almost it's like laugh out loud insulting, if you want to, that makes sense. Like the idea that you have a Patriot group. Now, you can call, I mean, why they would call them Patriot groups. Like,

they can call them that, but you're calling them terrorists, but you're also saying, You're naming them patriarchs. The word patriots has very clear meaning. It's just, so I think it ultimately shows you the same reason they've always said, you know, and this was, this is written down in their own documentation from like FBI levels that

one of the things they look for is people who believe too much in the Constitution. It's like, my God, like it shows you that they think being a patriot, the real sense of that word, not the two-party paradigm version is bad because it makes it, because they're not really in line with the Constitution or your rights. They abuse it every day,

but they love you to think that they are. Right. And so in this whole thing, I definitely think that this at the basis level is about setting people up to come there and act like they're in which by the way, let's be clear. I would argue they have a constitutional right to do if they truly feel that there's a violation of what they're supposed to be doing alter or abolish it. My point though is that I don't think that's a it's they know that and they're trying to coax you into going to be able to justify the violence and call you the terrorists, which you may still think it's valid. You do what you think is correct. I think you're playing right into their hands. That's what I think. But to the other points, though, I don't know how, like, Abbott, clearly, like the point of the fact that you can show all these fences that are open, like, a half a mile down the road. And, like, everyone's seen that guy's video that went pretty viral, right? And it's not new.

People on the ground will say the same thing. And so I'm like, okay, so this is not about one of the other. One that shows you, and I look, and the main point was on my show was definitely, I think weaponized migration is playing a part of this. But it's not as simple as Biden or Biden in China. I think it's much bigger than that. And that's maybe where I think this plays over to Israel. where you have Abbott, a rabid Zionist and very clearly anti-BDS and all these things,

who recently visited Israel like at the end of the year. You know, and he's done that many times, which I think is pretty strange for a state governor to visit, you know, but that's a pretty common thing for that. But whether it's that or any other outside entity, it's possible that this could be something being done to the United States. But I would argue if that's the case that it's being done in coordination with our government. That's what I think. I think it makes sense or the other likely possibility, and this is, again, where my mind drifts to,

but that this is something about what's going on with Israel, Biden, and they're drifting sort of like toward the idea that, hey, maybe you should stop killing so many civilians. Maybe there's a reason for that. And then, of course, the guy that recruited from Assad and got arrested for it and is now at the border going, you're going to know my name. So all those things play a factor for me. But all of it said and done, the clear point for me was states rights.

I will always stand by state's rights in this. And I think that you can clearly prove that they're not, at the very least, they're circumventing the law to do. do what they want, which would be giving them amnesty or giving them, you know, the problem is that you still have a president of the, of the leader of the executive branch saying, yes, this is the law, but we're going to decide to let them in for this reason. So I agree, there's a law. And you could argue he's breaking that law, but do you know how many times Trump just decided not to follow a certain rule? So it's like, it's like, is it illegal? Technically, yes, but there's a whole,

you know, trust me, I'm on the side that there's a law. It should be about, you know, it shouldn't be ignored. And I do think that the Democrats and Biden are using that for political reasons. But it's not as simple as to be like, let's all form up on the border, defend our country versus the people trying to. It's like, whoa, you know, or go take our border back or Trump and them saying, go send your National Guard. It's like, wow, that fever pitch from Razor Wire immediate to Civil War, it felt very disingenuous to me, like across the board, you know. So that all being said, do you have any other points you want to Texas? Because there's, you know, but I, oh, and the last thing was that if we see that these gates are open,

you know, that means Abbott allowed them to continue to be open. Even if you want to pretend they're welded open, he could still, if he cared that much, he would just send people to close it back, right? But you're focused on this one tiny area where I guess, yes, that's where they're offering certain things and whatever else,

but it doesn't mean, none of it adds up. It shows me that your government all is creating this. That's how I look at it, you know? And so that, again, where it comes back to this very interesting point. And, oh, and just because it's overlapped, I think this is a clear example. of what this is, the Patriot Front groups.

Actually, we'll just, we'll do these next. They're out there marching again. Let's start with what he said here. Josh, Champagne Josh, Josh, Josh Walcos, says, ever hear of Operation Patcon, short for Patriot Conspiracy, an FBI program that infiltrated and directed Patriot groups

in the early 90s, using them to provide violence and politically antagonize. Oh, and it's just so happens that although they infiltrated these groups, they somehow missed Timit McVey, who happened to be smack dab in the middle of the groups,

they infiltrated. Quite the oversight. So first point here, we'll go to this PatCon document. This is from 2012. It says since September 11, 2001, more than 300 U.S. residents have been prosecuted for crimes relating to homegrown terrorism. It doesn't seem like that much when you think about it from 2001. That's 11 years, you know. And so, and that's within the reality that these are being people, largely being set up by the FBI and so on.

Half, about half were targeted by law enforcement using infiltration techniques. confidential informants, undercover operations. So that may seem okay to all people, just as it is, that they're trying to find the bad guys. But even then we have to realize that they're in these groups

that are then committing things that they then later point to. That seems pretty crazy, but it gets worse, obviously. Many of you, these techniques is bordering on entrapment. I think that's clearly what it is. Informants and undercover officers

are seen as agent provocateurs who are instructing people, provoking them to take illegal acts to then be prosecuted. Even the New York Times has written about this. It's very prominent. And this is in 2012.

The Associated Press series, starting in August 2011, revealed that the NYPD has engaged in widespread surveillance of specifically Muslim communities in New York without evidence of legal activity, often without producing actionable results, which shows you that they just focus on, you know, that's profiling. So that in and of itself is going to drive a certain outcome. And especially if you're trying to coax people into certain things, it says, but questions about when and how to use these techniques are not new and are not limited to Muslim communities since post 9-11. law enforcement has an obvious stake in trying to determine whether non-violent people who espouse extremist beliefs, which is protected under free speech, engage in violent rhetoric might become violent. Now more than ever, the government is focused on preventing potential extremism from being violent. Now, I wanted to just talk about this point for a second because it's kind of, it's a right down to the middle point, isn't it? Because it's hard to argue that, well, if these people are out there going, like, let's take it to the extreme.

We're going to, well, I mean, there is technically a law that if you're like, I'm going to bomb this place. Like they could, I think they can, let's just say you're like, I want to remove, you know, you're extremist. You're screaming, you want to remove people from the planet. These people don't deserve to exist, whatever, right? You're not necessarily saying I'm going to do X, Y, and Z. It's hard. A lot of people will be like, yeah, arrest that guy. Like, I think a lot more than we think.

But he has constitutional rights, right? He has the, he has the right to express himself, even if you think that's crazy. And even if I might be like, wow, that. guy's wild and he's probably going to hurt people. I don't, I honestly, I think I'd have to side with free speech because I'm a free speech absolutist. But I ultimately think that it's an interesting point. So at what point does your rhetoric become extremist? And, you know, they know, like he said, you believe too much in the Constitution. You know, you're, you're part of a militia group. Suddenly, you're an extremist. And when you're like, foundationally fighting for the rights of this country,

I don't know. That's an interesting point, isn't it? Where would you think that, do you think they have a right to profile you based on what you're saying and then even try? try to, I mean, what do you think? What do you think? Extremist rhetoric alone. Is that enough for them to continue to follow you and a lot of times try to coax you into things and entrap you? Yeah, I would agree. I would agree. But people are probably going to disagree. You know, that will, that means these people could be killing your family. And it's like, you know, these are, you could always create. You're willing to trade a little bit of. Hey, there you go. Freedom for security. You deserve neither.

Exactly. Benjamin Franklin, right? Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. But, you know, it's, it's hard because, you know, it can be abused at the simplest point. They can manipulate this. They can lie about you. And the point is you can always find a difficult choice within these kind of discussions. You have to just side with, you know, what is right. Well, it's also like what interpretation. So I say something and you decide that, I mean, we can take it's like in the most simplest

form like the hate speech. It's like, we decide what's hateful. Right. Exactly. Exactly. You could say something to me and I could be like, oh, that was really funny. You could say to another person. You could say the same thing.

And they'd be like, oh my gosh, it's a loose. I think I have a great clip for that. As much as I have plenty to criticize about Jordan Peterson today, this is a clip that will stand forever because it's exactly the point, exactly what happens. The idea that there's hateful speech, it's like, yeah, okay, that's self-evident, no problem. Well, let's regulate it. Okay, fair enough, because it's hateful, you know, maybe we'd rather that there wasn't any of it. Okay, no problem.

Who defines hate? well we'll worry about that later it's like no you won't that's actually the problem here's the answer to who defines hate those people that you would least want to have define it that would be the inevitable consequence

of the legislation because sensible people won't have anything to do with that like people who are power mad will gravitate to that domain to make an ethical case to exercise their controlling power over the language of other people what makes you think that your right to free speech trumps the right of someone to not be offended?

And I think that's really the level of our political discourse. God, that is crazy too. Like, offended? Really? What are we in kindergarten? Like, I can't even believe that's become. But haven't to sticks and stones, they break my bone. Worth may never harm me.

Classic. So it is to kindergarten. They literally look back to the very day. No more. Yeah. Offensive. Being offended matters more than anything. It's funny.

Not to go on a whole tangent. Did you see I did a whole thing on ARC? The, I assume ARC is an alliance for responsible citizenship. Jordan Peterson's group. Yeah. And the graphic is awesome. Yeah.

I mean, so, yeah, we've made it. But I put a bunch of like key elements together, but he's a pipe piper. The Higalian dialectic spiral and the overboros is there. And he's wearing the suit that he wore for the ARC, you know, opening speech. He's wearing the, like the two-faced suit, like red and blue. Oh, right, that's right.

Like half half. Three on the nose, huh? So, yeah, so I did a whole thing on how, and I named it, like, is Jordan Peterson's arc via right-hand dialectical arm to build West Green, to the play on, like, Westream. Right. I mean, it's really sad how he has changed, you know, and it's like, I mean, it's hard to get into how, and there's so many other things, but it is. You know, he does not seem like the person that was in that video.

I hate to say that. But, you know, people change and things happen, but, I suspect he was MKLW. Yeah. Well, something happened with this medication and he went to the hospital and it's like, my brother's talked about it with me. You know, he was a big, you know, I've never been, like I've always appreciated things like that that he said.

They've really gotten too obsessive with his work. My brother was a huge supporter of his and he doesn't even look at him anymore. You know, it's like very different. I won't talk to him because I did a whole video on him. But I talked about how like, I mean, I was a diehard thing. Like I was, you know, pretty obsessed. He kept me company in 2020 when I was, you know, pretty miserable. And I waited for him to come back.

And then the very first episode, and I don't know if it's the first one he did it all, but I think it was. It was him and Douglas Murray. And they did this podcast, you know, basically just saying how like Trump supporters were delusional and deranged and vengeful people. And they just need to get over it and move on. And even his wife, he Jordan talks about how his wife, Pam, he said, you know, you're always saying the judicial system in the United States is really corrupt. you think maybe that played any role and he gets very defensive like that's absolutely absurd

there's no way that could be they're just sore losers now regardless of what you think about Trump is like I mean I think it's pretty hard to deny there was rampant fraud and I think it was pretty transparent on both sides on both sides but I mean like this is you know pretty transparent and even if you didn't think that the

accusations coming from a Brit and a Canadian weighing in and making these judgments that are pretty harsh Yeah. And I was like, this is, I felt personally betrayed. It's like, what happened to my hero? Hey, well, maybe this happened.

Maybe exactly what we're talking about. Like, you know, like the infiltration of these resistant, like really, to me, this whole thing is not just about like infiltrating militias. It's about any group or, you know, or individual for that matter that has enough influence that they need to try to change their message or at the very least drive them in a certain direction or try to, you know, manufacture a reason to shut them down, right? So this says from 1991 to 1993, the FBI conducted an ambitious infiltration program codenamed Patcon, short for Patriot conspiracy. The word Patriot is an umbrella term, and this is their term for it, not what I'm arguing or at this article even.

Their term, Patriot was an umbrella label for a loosely defined movement of anti-government, racist, anti-Semitic, and or Christian extremists. Think how ridiculous that is. Like any, like of course, they're using the term Patriots, so they're applying it to who they would say is that. but the term patriot of all things, like isn't that offensive to you guys? It's strange. It's so strange to me. But again,

it shows you realities that they don't, they don't really believe in these things, I don't think. I actually quite frankly think the FBI has been an anti-American organization from day one. I mean, I've done whole shows on that, but the PatCon program is documented

in extraordinary detail in thousands of pages of FBI records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Interviews with people involved on both sides of the infiltration supplement this information. Patcon consisted primarily of three FBI undercover agents posing as members of fictional extremist groups called the Veterans Aryan Movement. So they're pretending to be part of this movement. Three Patriot groups were the primary targets of these three pretending to be part of the Veterans Aryan movement.

The civilian material assistance, Texas Light Infantry, and the American Pistol and Rifle Association. So just by their names, it just sounds like, you know, like anybody that supports guns or freedom or, you know, but who knows what they're involved. but I'm not familiar with the groups themselves. Patcon agents rove the country for more than two years. This speaks for itself, actually, collecting intelligence on those and other patriot organizations and on dozens of individuals investigating leads on plots from the planned murder of federal agents to armed raids on nuclear power plans

to the new American revolutions, of course. Despite spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and logging uncounted man hours, PatCon and related investigations produced negligible results in terms of serious criminal act convictions, I posit this is where they began manufacturing them. Because you just basically spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on this concept that was defining what you were doing and it didn't really work out.

So you start pressuring them. Because what they're really saying here, and this is what it goes on to talk about is that, well, they're still a threat. Just because they didn't do it. They're planning stuff. They're talking about it.

But I think they're involved with that planning. But nonetheless, that's where it becomes, well, they're extremist talking points. So we have to push further. And so then they really got the mandate to justify going, well, what if we nudge them, right? Somebody else could come along and nudge them, right? What if we give them a weapon or give them a bomb and help them plan?

Well, they did it. They were still going to do it. It's like, well, that's not true. Like, there's a whole level of conversation, especially we get into like, I'll just quickly show you stuff like this. This is something. This is actually from the Free Thought Project 2018. And this is a horrifying story we'll come back to you. Parents catch FBI in a plot to force their mentally ill son.

to become a right-wing terrorist. It is exactly what it sounds like. And I've gone deep into this topic. The kid was, I mean, I'll come back to it. It's, but the point is that I think that's what they started doing. Getting people that were lonely, you know, that might be otherwise angry at the government for X, Y, and Z. And they would push. And it says, and instead, Pat Con became an intelligence tool predicated on a series of suspected crimes,

most of which were discussed, but never committed. It's just right on the surface. The existence of Pat Con was not formally disclosed until 2007. Another group deliberately discussed exotic threats in order. This whole paragraph is the end of it goes on to talk about how most of these groups were like, I think we know there's an FBI agent in here. Like they don't know what's going on, but they send something's wrong. And so it goes into all these things they did.

So in one of them, which I thought was most important, it discussed how they went above and beyond and pretended to discuss exotic threats in order to provoke the FBI. So doesn't that then explain half of what we're talking about anyway? But they're like pretending to do threats and attack, let's go kill the senator. And they're like laughing amongst themselves. The FBI freaks out about it because they made it up. All of this is the, as Josh gave him, you know, the shout out for this for breaking this down.

I think is where we really get into the manufacturing of the very events, like even going as far as, as he discusses here, not just groups and what they would do, but whole events. Charlottesville. Yeah. That's what one of these are. I think this is really important. Big shout out to Josh. I love his work. excuse me how an FBI informant created one of the largest Nazi groups in U.S.

history. This is from the 25th, 2023, September 25th. We've talked a lot about, you and I have talked a lot about the Charlottesville connection. Ozzov Battalion direct tie to Charlottesville. The whole rise above movement group is an arm of the, of the Ozov movement. It's provable. Created by the CIA. Exactly.

We're trained by anyway. Well, I've done here too. The documents proved the CIA has been cultivating fast. entities in Ukraine, starting with the organization for Ukrainian nationalists back in 1948 and forward using Michael Lebed, who was an actual Nazi war criminal. The point is that not Charlottesville was like the creation of this domestic terrorism narrative in the United States, like the real going forward, they will not replace us, the replacement theory, even cars hitting protesters, remember? Like it all kind of spun out. It turns out,

an FBI informant confounded one of the largest and co-founded, one of the largest and oldest neo-Nazi organizations the United States, which they say is the National Socialist Movement, or NSM, a group connected to numerous crimes and violent events. Go ahead. What's that? I just like literally, like, literally, like, the American Nazi group. Right. Literally.

Exactly. And that's the whole point is that it's not real. I feel like they've manufactured this boogeyman, you know, which doesn't mean that there's not people in it that espouse the ideology, right? But that it's, that it's manufactured, you know? I just, I think, like, the whole socialist aspect, too. Like, there's a lot of buzz, you know, the concept seems very like, exactly. what you might expect within the two-party conversation, you know?

And then it goes, it says it connected to numerous crimes and violent events, including Charlottesville, the unite the right rally. So there's another aspect of the FBI being involved with the group that then led to what they did, which overlaps with what's going on in Ukraine. I just find that just so ridiculous. The documents, a trove of FBI memos, affidavits, and court records that his publication was dubbed the Fed files further indicate that the group, the national socials movement, allegedly had informants in prominent position throughout much of its nearly 50-year history,

once known as the Hollywood Nazis for its flamboyant demonstrations and crude propaganda. Think Patriot Front, guys. The new social, the national socialist movement has also been accused of being co-opted by the FBI in a lawsuit filed by former members who are now in prison. So it's very interesting to me. Yeah. And now we've got this Patriot Front group that's very ridiculously with all the uniformity. I mean, even going to the Ozzo movement.

Did you even change your outfits? Right. Well, that's like exactly what the FBI dress is like. But then they also switched it up. I think they did like black pants the last time or whatever. It's like it's just so antique hookarb. Right, right. But so this brings me to the whole larger point about like, so going back to Texas,

the Patriot Front, and I'll include these articles about how obviously these groups and going to January 6th itself where, you know, I very much think were operations meant to trap. And, you know, in the whole thing. I think so. So, you know, any thoughts before I kind of just last couple points, I think, but, you know, on is, what do you think? Is this happening? Is that, is that everything? Is that, you know, is that what you good? So I've never heard of Patriot conspiracy. I have just what means Pat Con. But, I mean, I always thought that there were intelligence operations that create. I mean, so little of what happens is organic because it takes a lot. First of all, people are just disorganized. Like I've been part of groups, like big, you know, groups trying to coordinate something. And it. It's a cluster fog. I mean, it is.

It's just, even, and most of these groups are former military. Like, they're very intelligent, organized people. And they cannot get, you know, yeah, they cannot get shit together. Like, they can't do it. So the only would do that is with, you know, some serious backing and money. And so you have an intelligence operation. Then it makes sense. Nothing else really makes sense.

And these narratives just come out of nowhere. And they have such an impact. And I don't think that that really happens organically either. On a very local level, maybe. I mean, if you live in one of these towns where everybody knows it's their neighbors, like, where we start, and, you know, maybe you get some organic culture. But for the most part, I just don't see that that's realistic. Most of what we're seeing are events that are intentionally, whether or not their

co-opted or created from the inception. But oftentimes, I think they are created to, you know, to incite division to create some sort of either a trauma response or to entrap people into the plot. And this is what I'm most worried about with Texas right now, you know, is that you have these, you know, like, depending on what actually ends up happening, if like groups come out and all of a sudden, you know, it just seemed like the only groups I see like screeching immediately to civil war are the ones you might expect, right? Like the specific right wing talking point kind of thing where, where there, I mean, there's no logical reason to immediately jump to civil war.

Like that was like the day that started was like, well, civil war, here it goes. It's like, wow. And people just, some people went for it. But I wonder if, if, you know, groups come out, we should be very skeptical about who and why they're there. I really feel like this is part of what's happening. And I feel like whether it's about distracting from larger things in the world or it's about just if you want to bring it to home, you know, people are saying, okay, this is happening to distract from, you know, other domestic problems. Either way, I think it's mostly about the election. And you're looking at it from a domestic point about keeping us divided to make like right now, let's not forget, Biden has lost like a dramatic amount of support because of a support for Israel. Like it's crazy.

And let's not forget that you're not going to have an election if we have civil war. Well, that's it. Well, that, but see, isn't funny that that was the, that was almost the narrative that preceded the civil war. Is it like, we're not even going to have an election this year? I know. But now if they actually succeed in sighting Civil War, they'll succeed in being able to stave off an election. Yeah. So you think that might be like the point?

I think that's a huge point. Yeah. I read a great article by Matt Taibi yesterday. And some things I don't agree with. But overall, he made this great. Like he just kind of outlined how ridiculous this game is right now where, you know, you remember the 2020 thing where it was like the, you know, the Time magazine, like the shadowy group that saved democracy. It was like they admitted to basically cheat. And last in our faces.

So ridiculous. So his point is that now, and we all saw it then too, where it was like, well, they're going to cheat. So we have to cheat first to get ahead. So it's just this kindergarten level mentality. And so now we can already see it. He basically just outlines the different conversations and how it's like a foregone conclusion. They're already pointing out how they're going to do this and they're going to do that. So we have to get ahead of it.

But each side thinks they're right in not, we're not cheating. We're responding to them cheating. You know, this is ridiculous. The whole defense is always the argument. Oh, well, they're going to create a weapon. So we have to do it first. Exactly what I said in my show. Or I use the example of cluster bombs.

So Russia's using cluster munitions and it's a war crime. So we have to use them too. It's like, well, that you're just the same. Like you don't matter who used them first. You're committing a crime. Yeah. But it just shows you that they're no better than whatever they say they're fighting. And quite frankly, I think they're worse than most.

But it's the same point, right? that overall, you know, it's, it's, if you cheat, you're cheating. So it doesn't, you know, but I can, I understand like the, the rudimentary logic of it. Like, if we know they're cheating and you think you're fighting for freedom, you know, it's like, well, we have to win because we have to, we're the good guys, you know, but that's what they want from you. You know, they want you to pit in and take this two party side. You know, I honestly don't know what the right response should be. You guys can engage with it as you see fit, but it's obvious for being played. I mean, I think that's so transparent. And his point was that it's going to be,

Like they're already kind of floating the idea that we may have to like suspend democracy to save democracy. And that's where this kind of idea comes from that we won't have an election. We have to have war to have peace. Exactly. I mean, it's the same people making these ridiculous arguments, right? So it's it's quite crazy. But we'll end with this. So this is a good large example of the kind of thing we're talking about.

Like if you haven't seen this by the way, Corbitt's three part documentary, this is technically our watch along of all of them. and the third part came out on September 11th, the last one. But man, if you haven't seen these, it is, there's not even, there's no room for debate. It comes directly from their own documentation, from what they got caught doing. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, any of these groups, they are mad, they are proxy armies of the United States government, of Israel, of Western powers. It is on the surface. But again, that doesn't mean every individual member knows that or as part of it. And some of the British.

That's why I just Western. Yeah, definitely. I mean, the British plays a prominent role, for sure. But the point is that these are assets. Osama bin Laden, you know, you go back, this was what blows me away. You go back to like Saddam Hussein. He was an ally until suddenly he was the biggest bogeyman in the world.

Same thing with him. The Washington Post called Osama bin Laden a warrior of peace. You can still pull up the headline. And yet, you know, and so it's odd that their worst people in the world were like, you know, think project paperclip in reverse almost. It just shows you that they don't really care. My point is that these people are manual. manufactured to a large degree.

And I think that's a lot of what's happening. And so I'll end by just showing you. We talked about this in July, 2023, how and why the FBI manufactures terrorism. Here's another one. Oh, I do want to point this out. So this is a story that you should read. Shout out to Matt Agaris.

He did great work on this. This kid was autistic and slight, you know, he had a lot of issues. He was mentally, like not a child, but wasn't ever going to mentally progress to being adult. And live with his parents. Didn't have any way to drive, any money, you know, and yet they targeted this kid because he was lonely. And because, you know, people in this position often want, will seek out anybody who wants to be their friend, you know, and that's what they did.

They saddled up next to him and they say, hey, buddy, we, we're best friends. And so he thought he had the first time his life, he's got a friend, you know, and they start going, do you like this? Do you want, what do you think of these ISIS groups? You know, like, just forcing this stuff on him until the point was they drove him to like, you know, the point is you could see through the whole process. He probably was just saying, yeah, yeah, whatever they wanted to do. say. And then when it came to doing something, he was just like, even though he was like, yeah, I agree, let's do it. And then it came to like doing it. He was like, no. So this kid was coerced, manipulated, never even once committed a crime. Everything came from their side. And yet they

still tried to arrest him. They still tried to, you know, and the parents freaked out when they found out. The parents, they found this information about the back and forth. It's worth reading because it's terrifying that this can even happen. There's another example of a guy that was arrested for planning to put like remote control cars with bombs at like some kind of new year's celebration. I forget. And same kind of thing. The guy was like not really all there and was involved and bought certain things. And at the end, he just was like, I don't want to do this. And then they arrested him. Well, he was planning it. He was getting ready. It's like, well, so now you guys don't even need him to accomplish anything. So it's like, you know, why even go through that process

to arrest him because he has a extremist ideas, you know? But the point is it's very real. This was where I got that image from. This is from The Intercept, the Sting, how the FBI creates terrorists and this one is also the intercept why does the FBI have to manufacture its own plots if terrorism and ISIS are such a great threat right this is 2015 you know I just think this is so transparent and I really am worried about what's going to take place on the border and how that will be used against us I mean really everybody anybody out there that's pushing back on narratives that they don't like you're suddenly domestic terrorists if you get that kind of forever going like 9-11 level stuff to where it's like anybody brown is suddenly a threat you know like it

wouldn't be that hard to manufacture that. Well, maybe more so today. I'm actually feeling a lot more positive about how much pushback we're seeing on a lot of these bigger topics. But I'm worried about it, you know? Yeah, I think the concern is valid, warranted, but I do think people are waking up. People are pushing back. I agree.

I agree. Yeah. That was the thing that the NAC withdrawing of the proposal. Yeah. Right. That was huge. Right. And as I always say, like with any of these conversations, whether that is in the

indication of them recognizing they weren't going to say. succeed and, you know, letting you think you've gotten away. It's still, it's a win either way. You know, you've had enough momentum to stop something you didn't want, you know, and so they regroup and try a different way. And so it's like, that's kind of the best we get these days, pausing them for a minute. If you can't push it back.

Yeah, exactly. Even if you're kicking the can down the road, you're still kicking down the road. That gives us more time. I agree. Well, I just like to end in general, like I said yesterday, you know, that there's we talk about a lot of stuff that can be pretty alarming, pretty unnerving, you know, but I really, I haven't stressed enough lately as I always used to. that it all stems from a positive thing.

Like, we have to recognize how much change like she's discussing that we can have on the outcome. If we truly cross party lines, you know, and I don't know, just do the right thing. You know, and I really do genuinely think that there's enough positivity enough good people fighting for good things to not kind of be overwhelmed by all the negativity. Like, it's easy to fall into it. And I get it. I mean, we talk about a lot of unnerving, scary things. But there's, I think underneath all of it is that we are stopping them. You know, so I mean, I believe that.

I feel like you can't defeat an enemy you don't know. So I, you know, I, people ask me this all the time. They're like, you seem really like positive and optimistic and teary. And you talk about such dark things. And, you know, the way I see it is that you're shining light. You're exposing the darkness. You're exposing the corruption. And I don't think that we can stop it.

I don't think we can come up with solutions if we don't know what we're up again. So I agree. I don't see this from like a doom and gloom kind of a place. I just, I want to be able to encourage you. people to do their own research, get involved, take on something they're passionate about. I mean, I think by design, we're, like, bombarded with information and there's sciops everywhere. But, you know, pick, so pick something you're particularly invested in and passionate about and get involved and make a difference.

Absolutely. Well said. It's good point to end on. So, and as, you know, we'll see you soon. I'm not sure what our time frame will be now, but we're going to, we're going to be, you know, setting up some new shows. We'll back soon. And remember, always.

Be a dissonant. Yeah. See you next time, guys.