The Last American Vagabond - Trump Administration 2024: IMA Discusses Cabinet Picks & Policy Proposals

Episode Date: December 3, 2024

Today the Independent Media Alliance brings you a panel focusing on the incoming Trump administration, its cabinet picks thus far, and the policy positions they are proposing, as well as those officially put forward by Trump's administration itself. We discuss the possibility of the senate not confirming Trump's original picks and what the implications may be, and the different political ploys that may be underway. We also focus on the possible openings for positive change within Trump's proposed solutions and cabinet picks, objectively compared to/balanced alongside the many warning signs of his very proposals (feigned or otherwise) solidifying a technocratic control grid.Source Links:Co-opting Freedom: The Bitcoin Sleight Of Hand & The New AI Control StructureNew TabIssues | Donald J. TrumpWhat Is Agenda47: What To Know About Trump’s Policy AgendaTrump cabinet: Who has joined his team so far?New TabTrump Confirms Plan To Declare National Emergency For "Mass Deportations" Using "Military Assets"(4) Whitney Webb on X: "Under the last Trump administration, then-AG Bill Barr legalized pre-crime prosecutions at the DOJ. In 2019, Trump called on social media to surveil users to identify would-be "mass shooters" before they commit any crime. I now worry that the main AI "predictive policing"," / XMeet the Spyware Companies Preparing to Unleash Their Tech During Trump's 2nd TermThe New Trump Administration & The Technocratic/Zionist Coup Of The United StatesNew Tab(4) Donald J. Trump on X: "The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the Dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER. We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar or, they" / XHoward Lutnick and the Commandeering of the Department of Commerce(4) If Americans Knew on X: "The FBI has raided the house of an American journalist over her pro-Palestine work amid the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza. https://t.co/9BZbEZmk35" / X(20) Gerald Celente on X: "Get ready to go to war with Iran...Miriam Adelson is going to make Trump earn that $100M" / X(20) AIPAC Tracker on X: "Donald Trump has selected pro-Israel sycophant Kash Patel for FBI Director: "We need America to wake up and prioritize Israel." https://t.co/vlvyNoJom1" / XNew Tab(30) Disclose.tv on X: "JUST IN - China bans exports of gallium, germanium, antimony, and other key high-tech materials with potential military applications to the United States — AP" / XNew TabThe Co-Opting of Bitcoin: BTC Nashville, Peter Thiel, Donald Trump, and RumbleNew TabTrump transition team ethics pledge appears to exclude president-elect | CNN PoliticsBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back to another panel with the Independent Media Alliance. Today joining us myself, Kit, Steve, Hivore, Derek, and Catherine to discuss Trump policy in general. But there's a lot to get into around this topic, obviously. I think everybody out there has their own particular part of any upcoming administration and their direction and their policy that interests you more. So today we're going to go through starting with some of the discussion of some of the policy, or rather, excuse me, some of the administration picks and some of the directions they might be taking. and then kind of just have a general conversation

about how we see the Trump administration, the policies being proposed, how we see that going in our predictions and our thoughts on where it might be going. I think an important point to make right of the gate is to recognize that these are all floated right now, these are proposed policies, some of which we can relate to some precedent

from Trump's previous administration, things that we know they're more likely to put forward, but by and large, this is going to be a hypothetical conversation about what is likely to happen. And once we get to a point in which we're actually seeing things happen, we'll be able to compare that to what we're discussing today. So welcome everybody today. I was wrong last time. I believe this is the fourth panel for the IMA so far. Lots more to come in general. So I'd say we start

off today with a, why don't we just throw it to Kit to start since this was your proposed panel today. And we can just start off with, really just start wherever you'd like. But I thought it'd be a good place to start will be around some of the policy picks that you stand out to you on really whatever direction you think is most important as you see it going forward. Oh, okay. I'm expecting to go first. I can jump in if you'd like if you want to go ahead. Rather than policy, I think a useful discussion would be about,

because as you said, policy is still just hypothetical at this point, is about the kind of presidency is going to be. And I think, for me, what I would expect would be a policy and a presidency, which is about regaining credibility in quotes. I think the meta narrative of the world at the moment is an establishment trying to regain credibility. And I think in the specific instance, Trump needs to regain some of his anti-establishment credibility.

So I think for the first six months to a year of 2025, you'll see Trump do stuff that he probably wouldn't have done last time. A few easy wins thrown out like, For pardoning Julian Assange, for example, that would be something he could do. I think that would be, wouldn't be surprised if that happened. I think he will give RFK the free reign to at least talk about stuff he's going to do. I think that I've actually played it very cleverly already. I think the rumours that he was distancing himself from RFK post-election,

basically two days after the election, which they immediately counteract and say, no, we're not. see and they and then he names him to be confirmed by the senate and everything um that's a clever play that wouldn't have been done last time trump did dump all his anti-establishment stuff basically immediately last time and i think this time he worked i think that's what's the most interesting thing to talk about how he would like play up to anti-establishment stuff this time in order to regain some bona fidees really quickly guys last time we had a little bit of some audio carryover if you guys could help me this time I'm hearing a little bit of feedback.

We tried to address at the beginning, but just try mooting your microphones as we're, as other people are talking. That'll probably help in general. But I agree with the opening point in general that I think that, you know, I mean, again, I think it's clear my opinion of the kind of my pessimistic view of government in general. I would see this through a lens of how we can, how they can play the population more so, whichever partisans I were talking about.

However you see it, I would agree that it would seem that there is an interest in trying to really play out the idea of challenging the system, which I think personally, Going to the picks is very hard to make that argument with some of the, I mean, straight out of, you know, deep state swamp, Zionist, technocrat choices that we're seeing picked just for just for cabinet position so far or rather tapped, whether they actually become that position or not, I think is interesting. But I do agree. And I think that's a, it depends on how you see it playing out with what their objective might be. So why anybody else jump in just kind of starting points, policy picks or rather administrative picks. We were we were just saying, Ryan, on a.m. wake up like an hour. and a half ago that, you know, from day one, it's been pretty obvious that the prerequisite

was Israel first and then loyalty to Donald Trump as a either a co-first or a close second. And then the, you know, the bait and switch with a number of these different appointees who say nice things on camera or say things that, you know, people with a couple with a couple of brain cells left to rub together would be like oh yeah well that that does make sense you know say that and then there's also interview after interview where they're pledging their undying loyalty to the zionist entity where you've got pam beyondy talking about you know rounding up and deporting uh anti-semites where you've got just example after example of massive government overreach and complete trampling of every existing right that we have remaining and yet people who uh ought

know better who have previously pointed out the similar flaws and a lot of the same people and certainly the same type of person uh are cheerleading because uh you know it makes the liberals cry or whatever i just did a quick shortlist just my quick thoughts where the different factions i think that are to be strong in this second administration. Israel, of course, the Times of Israel itself just published an article saying, who are the Jews and Trump's inner circle and how will they affect his second term? And then, of course, I think the defense military industrial complex is going to have a strong presence, pharma, you know, Mehmet Oz and others. And for me, the big one is technocracy or big tech. I think that's the key. And I had chat yesterday with Pat Wood, Patrick Wood of technocracy.

and he's going to give a presentation this weekend, he said, but he's talking about techno populism. And I think that's sort of the cutting edge of all of this. And again, the definition of techno populism says it's either a populism in favor of technocracy or a populism concerning certain technology, usually information technology or any populist ideology conversed using digital media. It can be employed by single politicians or whole political movements, respectively. and it says neighboring terms used are technocratic populism, technological populism, and cyber populism.

And to me, that sounds a lot like the Trump administration with Elon Musk, where they've merged populism with technocracy. And that just seems to be, I think, what they're going to be doing. I'd like to jump in here real quick if I could. I'm going to have to jump off in a few minutes. But basically to pick up there on the techno populism angle, I think that is really important. and besides maybe some potentials like Kit was talking about for Trump to, you know, do some anti-establishment things to try to get his street cred back, I think we can already clearly see what Steve was talking about, the numerous people who are associated with Israel, who have,

you know, outright supported Israel and Zionism. You know, Trump's already saying he's going to lift any limits on arms deals to Israel. He's already saying, you know, as soon as he gets into office, They're going to start limiting free speech on campuses to go after anti-Semitic propaganda. So I think we're going to see the increase in that. And in terms of the technocracy aspect, Jim O'Neill, who is appointed or at least nominated to HHS deputy secretary, who would serve under RFK if they're both chosen. He is the former CEO of Peter Thiel's The Teal Foundation. So, I mean, that to me is everybody here and hopefully in the audience is aware of Peter Thiel

and understands the importance of that. I'm also working on another investigation for TLAV right now, looking deeper into Elon Musk and specifically his role, you know, why he's so so much embracing Donald Trump. And I think there's some really clear obvious examples. That would be, for one, he stands to benefit immensely, financially from all the different military industrial complex contracts that his companies have. And I'm specifically looking at his Star Shield program, which started to be report on late in 20 to 23, and it has, you know, bits of information I've been dripping out this year. But what we've come to realize is that it's a $1.8 billion classified contract.

And more and more details are pointing to that the contracts probably with the National reconnaissance office, which handles all the satellites and the surveillance around the planet. And using Starlink and in this Star Shield program, Musk, especially now with Trump in office, it can expect to get more financial business, but also to help the military industrial complex, the U.S. military, the U.S. intelligence apparatus, to have the ability in their own words, to see anyone anywhere on the planet to a degree that they've never had before, you know, where they're basically saying the head of the NRO in a recent discussion about this said, there will be nowhere for anybody to hide.

You know, of course they're saying this is just for bad guys, for terrorists. But I think that's another aspect of creating this technocrat dream of being able to monitor everything on the planet. And in order to allocate resources, of course, you know, terrorism, catch bad guys, all that sort of stuff. That to me is another big picture that a lot of the Trump supporters aren't seeing. And I'll just throw this one in real briefly, since I can't be on too long today. But Trump also just this week announced Chad Kronister, who's currently a sheriff in Florida. He's supposed to head the DEA. Just one interesting connection here that our fellow

IMA member Whitney Webb has written about in her book. The sheriff, Chad Kronister, his wife, is Nikki, what is the name, De Bartolo and her father, Edward de Bartolo Sr. He was known for his mafia connections going back to Ohio where he was in business with Les Wexner, who of course was one of the finances behind Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner was part of the mega group, which is, of course, goes back to Israel and Mossad connections there. So this sheriff out of Florida, who's being appointed at the head of DEA, his wife and her family have connections to the mafia and his, her brother actually used to own the San Francisco 49ers and he was fined like a million dollars and, you know, given a felony conviction for some shady business deals he did. Trump actually pardoned him during his first term.

So again, you can see that sort of coming full circle. Trump pardons a friend and then that friend's brother-in-law is appointed to be DEA, head of the DEA. So, I mean, I think we're seeing a lot of just swampy different connections going on that hopefully more and more people will be paying attention to. Yeah, I definitely agree. I think that it's obvious that this is going away from what was generally promised. And I think that's what I'm so interested by to see the reactions before we even get into policy of the people that are being tapped, they're so transparently. I mean, outside of the kind of like you narrative of the insiders to fight from the inside, which there's some level of logic to,

but it just does seem to be pretty outstandingly, you know, a deviation. So anybody have any opening thoughts about policy or picks so far before we kind of just jump into the actual different policy categories? So I have been watching the battle over the Secretary of Treasury. One of the biggest issues faced by the U.S. government right now is how they're going to modify the global dollar system. So you see an effort all around the world. The dollar was weaponized with sanctions starting in 2014, and that process is really, you know, killing the goose that laid the golden egg because more and more people are now trying to move away from the dollar.

And the question is, how are you going to track them back into the dollar or force them back into the dollar? And if you don't, how are you going to re-engineer the military and cost of capital economics, including, you know, sitting down. much harder on the domestic populations within the G7. So there's fundamental economics in the system that are changing, and you have to evolve with it or find a way to significantly defend the system. And so you see, as Trump is deciding these different financial and sort of the financial side of his picks, you're seeing the debate of what you do and how you do it.

And there was a real tense debate, over whether Scott Hassan was going to be chosen, as Secretary of Treasury you finally was, versus Howard Lutnik. So Howard Lutnik was the co-chair of the transition team, and he is the head of Canter Fitzgerald, which is one of the largest primary dealers. So if you look at all of the funny business

at the federal government, from the bailouts to $21 trillion missing to FASB 56, Howard Lutnik is one of the key people moving the money out of American retirement funds and into the Treasury and then it disappears out the back door. So you're basically, you know, this guy is the guy

who's had an unbelievably successful career and become a billionaire financing one of the greatest bank robberies in the history of the world. Okay? Which is why it's so interesting when they talk about re-engineering government and the Doge initiative.

They don't talk about, well, let's look at, you know, keeping secret books. Let's look at getting the government back into legal compliance with the financial management laws. Let's look at where the $21 trillion went. Let's look at where the $23 trillion on the ballot. They're not talking about any of that. And in fact, Lutkin in his speech and different interviews at Bitcoin, 2024, and different interviews was very, how can I describe it,

was very encouraging of privatizing the land and minerals at the federal government. He basically said, we don't need to worry about $36 trillion of debt because we have $500 trillion of land and minerals that can be monetized. So, you know, sort of the plunder team versus if you look at Besson's record, he's much more of an equity investor and an equity builder. And if you listen to his recent statements, he talks about how the U.S. is attracting capital from all around the world, which right now is true. So it was really, in the financial world, it was really sort of the plunder and private equity guys versus the equity investors and the equity investors won, even though you would think the scent was not sort of a Trump pick. Lekin has been a very close and loyal guy. And I continue to believe that the Republican establishment really supported Trump. You know, they've decided he's the guy can get the control grid for them, whereas.

you know, Biden and Harris were not people who could get the control grid done. And, you know, if anything, this signals the sort of mainstream Republican establishment raising their fist and saying no to Lutnik and the plunder team, which I think is very interesting. We do have the point of Commerce Secretary overlap. And so why don't we start with the conversation of finances in general, since you start there in general, Catherine, talk about Donald Trump's business around the, dollar because I do find this to be again the general point of like very contradictory to any of the floated directions. Trump recently said this on the 30th. The idea that BRICS countries are trying to move away from the dollar while we stand by and watch is over. We require a commitment from these countries that they will never neither create a new BRICs currency nor back any other currency

to replace the mighty US dollar or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye is selling into the wonderful U.S. economy. They can go find another sucker. There is no chance that the bricks will replace the U.S. dollar international trade and any and any country that tries should wave goodbye to America. I've got plenty of thoughts. Who wants to start on that?

I would just say that I think that this, you know, for one, Catherine mentioned about a lot of good things there with Howard Lutnik and Ryan, you and I were there at the Bitcoin conference in Nashville watching Howard Lutnik give his big speech. And for those who also don't know, Howard Lutnik was also one of the next-door neighbors of Jeffrey Epstein and former Hillary Clinton donors. There's a lot of weird things about him. He also coincidentally did not show up for work on 9-11 and the Twin Towers

collapsed with his building, his company inside of it. Yeah, that's the article I wrote there about the co-opting of Bitcoin, which I know was covered on the previous panel. But I think as far as the bricks things go, my main thought in that is specifically that I think this is going to play up And I know some folks here have done work on this, going to play up this angle of the bricks versus the U.S. hegemony, you know, the multipolar order versus the old world order and just dynamics around that. So whether that means people who, because a lot of people are starting to look at Russia and China as the opposition to the NATO world order. And this is going to kind of play into the storyline that maybe Trump is taking that back and he's, you know, taking a stand against whatever the bricks are up to. Personally, my view is that neither of them are for liberty and are going to be good for people in the long term. And that's just another false binary that people are falling into, which is I know a big part of what we've been trying to push back against here.

So, yeah, I don't have any specific thoughts beyond that. That I just think that this discussion in Trump's comments against the bricks are just going to play further into that binary. Well, what it does is it sets up the eminent, you know, immediate accelerated collapse. of the dollar, especially if he plans on implementing tariffs on top of the income tax. Yeah, that's a recipe for absolute disaster with an immediate solution being, well, here's a series of tokens that we're going to go ahead and move our financial system onto. And we have our strategic Bitcoin reserve that we've paid down X percent. percentage of the debt or have deals with, you know, debtor nations.

And Catherine can probably speak better to how that's, you know, an absolute strangulation of both what's already garbage fiat currency. But, you know, the international dollar along with the ease of implementation of what's ultimately going to be on the and ACBDC. So here's the challenge if you're running the dollar system, and that is the Bretton Woods system was we pay and fund the global military protection of the sea lanes and the satellite lanes, and we allow everybody to play on an open platform, and you can sell into the U.S. market,

which at the time was the largest consumer market. Now it's the EU was larger. But so we fund all the expenses of running that open platform. and you get to play on it as long as you use the dollar. And so you got a tithe from the dollar, and that tithe helped pay for all the expenses of running the platform. You still got the expenses of running the platform, but the tithe is being eroded.

So how do you evolve the model? And that's the big question. And do you have to shut down the platform? I agree totally with Derek. If you look at the latest pronouncements from the bricks, both at the bricks meeting, but then at the G20 meeting in New Delhi, they're fully on board for the global BIS digital ID,

CBDC, biometrics control. So it's almost two different flavors. I think they're arguing about who's going to be the middle management for the control model. So neither of those guys are a savior. But if you look at the fundamental economics of the dollar system, it's got to be involved in the question is how do you do that? just to add on bricks i would my feeling is that it's kind of weak sauce a lot of what we hear about

bricks i was listening to lavrov this week and he's like yeah the whole bricks payment system it was lula's idea in brazil like a year or two ago and you hear all this talk but nothing is really coming of it it's almost like bricks has been concocted as this punching bag for the western egemonic model well but here is what's coming in they are working on a payment system but what's real, and it's been going on since the East Asian financial crisis, is they're trying to do as much trade as possible in their own currencies direct. And if you look at the efforts China has made to move currency hubs and trading platforms around the world, and then to Moscow, the Moscow Central Bank put an office in Beijing, and they're using gold to make settlements. That's all

very incremental, but very slowly and steadily, it's chipping away at the dollar reserve. You know, both the trade market share and the reserve market share. That's real. There is an erosion of the market share, and that erosion is going to be accelerated because the sanction, the way the sanctions have been used is very short-term and short-sighted. The dollar is giving up a lot of market power, you know, by scaring people. And I think one of the things that really scares them is not just what they've seen from the sanctions so far. But when you combine that with what they're seeing in Gaza and in Israel, I think that combination is very, it makes a country and their financial officers take a deep breath and go to the long, slow, hard work of building

alternatives, which takes decades, but they're working on it. And that's real. And just to add on both of your points of the dollar collapse, I really, I'm a fan of Andy Shackman's thesis of Miles Franklin, where he says that it's almost like they're intentionally accelerating this, this collapse and pushing bricks because, I mean, it's too obvious, you know, you've had a McKinder and that thesis for a century saying, don't drive Eurasia together and everything that we're doing is precisely driving everyone. You can't be that stupid. And so I think the point is to accelerate this

to accelerate the transition to whatever Right. Right. But remember the dollar system is still unbelievably dominant and strong. And the assets that it controls are still right now the United States is in a huge

bubble with capital from all around the world coming in and the U.S. market, Financial Times just published a big piece that's correct about how The worst bubble in the planet is the U.S. equity markets because both with respect to the dollar and the U.S. equity market, there's no other game in town. And so, you know, it's what it's what the economists used to call dangerous and dominant. It's still very dominant and very, very rich. Well, so what's interesting to me is that it seems that we're generally arguing that no matter

what people are thinking that the direction seems to be this kind of controlled demolition for the next phase, the CBDC. What I find interesting is that, you know, from Trump's perspective, and this is something I can't stop seeing across all these different actions, from the smallest part to the largest dynamic, that they're using the problems that we know are there that they've created to roll you into the next problem. And so Trump's coming at this from the brick side of it, right? Like, you know, that we're going to go after that, which by the way, doesn't, again, doesn't seem to jive with what we're being told, right? This seems to be solidifying the control of this structure, even going with Bitcoin and using it against the way it's actually challenged

of the dollar it should be using it to bolster it. So the question is, and this is so well played if you think about it, or rather the point is that if he's going after it that way, and we're arguing, well, that's going to actually accelerate the demise of the dollar. And some of his insider is going to go, yes, you see wink, wink, that's the point. Trump is 40 chess move to destroy the dollar. But I don't think that's the case. I think he's genuinely a part of the establishment. So it's a point is that it's so interesting how you can walk that line and make it, you know, take these actions that are, I guess, in line with what he wants his base that thinks he's fighting as the outsider to think he would do.

but essentially in a direction that brings in the CBDC. So it's like, how do you fight past that? It's just a broad question that we don't have to answer. It's just so interesting how they play it. So let me ask you guys a question that I've been trying to figure out. So we have Elon Musk. The Financial Times just wrote a great piece about the fact that Tesla is the most subsidized electronic vehicle company in China.

Okay. So this is a guy who's getting massive subsidy from the China. government. As was just pointed out, he's getting massive contracts and subsidy from the U.S. government. So he's basically a government contractor, right? Massive, massive subsidy. This is not a private entrepreneurial effort. And he has a company who is working on putting a mesh network, or putting a network in the back of your head and hooking you up to his satellites. which is, you know, clearly being billed as one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful surveillance tool in the world.

So I can't imagine anybody whose record is more deep state than that. And, you know, and imagine if the CBDCs can get hooked up and the social credit system can get hooked up to the back of your brain and run through satellites that you can't shut off or protect yourself from. So why am I constantly being told in the world? many, many circles that I can't criticize Elon Musk because he's one of us and he's fighting for freedom. How is this achieved? In a couple of different ways. One, because we live in the most propagandized country on the face of God's green earth ever in the history of always. And number two,

because the most craven opportunistic, well-heeled thought leaders have been telling absolutely everyone for years now that Elon Musk is the smartest guy in every room that he walks in and flowers literally spring up from, you know, where he's trod. And people buy into that. If you can convince people for years that everyone who talked about Harvey Weinstein was crazy, or everyone who spoke up about Hollywood was crazy. They said Dave Chappelle was on crack and all that kind of stuff. If you can convince people that it's okay to invade countries based on nothing, except for, hey, I kind of think we should invade this country, then you can definitely convince them that Elon Musk saved free speech by not allowing any of you to see who the people on X-Corps are that actually own Elon Musk and the platform with only disclosing a handful of the banks that he drew loans from in order to get that $44 million.

dollars. So I mean, I've said this before, but I've never seen the inversion of reality on display the way that I have over the last, I don't know, 18 months. I think some important points to highlight. One, I don't think it's the majority, my personal opinion, that is falling for most of this. And I think that's part of why it's so aggressive. But it's definitely a large portion of the population. But I think it comes down to the savior complex, right? There are people, and I'm specific. talking about that smaller, let's just say, 49, 51, the 49% that's falling for it. I think it's that we have been so conditioned to need somebody in power to slip in and save us from this. And so that's the obvious always been their point, but it's ramped up like crazy. Then I think we add the reality that, like we're talking about in general, where they're

floating almost the problem as the solution, but as long as the good guy's pointing to it, then it's the right choice. You know, the good guy, AI, the good guy brain chip. And I think that's as simple as it gets. And I, to your point, Catherine, I'm actually of the mind that it's rapidly shrinking. And I think that's why there's so much kind of flailing desperation when we can see through all of this stuff because it's just not working anymore. So there's a positive spin to that, you know, and I think that with Elon and the rest of them, I mean, it's just so transparently the opposite. You know, you're saving free speech while you're literally censoring people. I don't think that's working. But I think it's about people that need to believe in that. You know, so to bring it back to

the dollar in general, you know, to this tweet, you know, I think what's interesting is on top of just the idea of doing the, you know, what is kind of bolstering the establishment position from an outside perspective, if you will, that's what they want to see it, neither that they won't be able to create it? Like, so in what world are you saying you're going to stop them from doing what they would want to do, even if it does counter your objective or not back any others? I mean, it's, you know, 100% tariffs, which by the way is attacks on you, America, you know, And what's interesting about the whole thing is that it is an authoritarian position. There's no question about that.

And so it comes to this idea where you're through this illusion, flimsy as it is of an outsider to get in the mind of Americans that were supposed to be like this. This is the might-nakes-right perspective. And it's exactly the opposite. But here's the thing. It's an operationally un-poss-it. It is operationally not possible to put 100% tariffs on. In other words, if you look,

look at the speed it would take us to replace and make the stuff we use. I mean, you know, somebody the other day is a defense contractor said it brilliantly, he said, the only way we can have a war with China is if China keeps making our weapons. So it's not, you know, what he's saying is not operationally feasible and everybody knows that. Yeah, and add this, by the way, to the point. This was just recently, at least disclosed TV reported this. of bans exports of gallium, germanium. I'm not sure this is what, at timone.

You don't have that one. What is it? Antimony. Antimony. Thank you. And these are just, you know, rare earth mineral, important, you know. So it's, I think to your point, Catherine, I think this, if you, like, James Corbett has written over the years about the engineered fall of the West, that very much feels like where this is going. Yeah, that's, if I can just jump in there, that's what I mean, I think that

mirrored, the two things we were to talking about there. I think for the long, you say what do you expect from Trump's presidency, I would, I think Trump is the managed deterioration of America. I think Trump is a transfer team for the shift from America being the global hub of power to somewhere else. I'm not sure exactly what that will be, but I think that's what we can expect. And I think going back to the Elon Musk question, that's a very interesting question. Elon Musk does want Neuroink. he does want a carbon tax. He said that before. He does want digital currencies. He's he's right there at the forefront of all of that and is currently anti-establishment because the

grander propaganda thing here is to define what the establishment is. Define it for us. Then kill it in front of our eyes and claim the establishment is gone. And what's in the establishment? Well, that's not technocratic stuff. That doesn't count. That's all rebellion stuff. Digital money. Elon Musk like that. That's rebellion. and stuff. That's anti-establishment stuff. What's the establishment is the dollar. What's the establishment is the wrong kind of politicians in the Senate. So we'll stuff the Senate with a bunch of loudmouth idiots who sound like they're rebels when they don't even understand anything. We put an idiot in the White House who just blouse on about nonsense and we'll claim that we've

somehow overhauled the establishment whilst at the same time pushing nothing but establishment agendas the whole time. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, go ahead. I just want to add real quick to that, where I feel this second time around, it's even more unnerving because it's more insidious, as Kit just explained. And, you know, here's just one more example. Jay, who's last name I can never pronounce, Jay Batacharya,

who's going to be the head of the NIH, apparently. He's proved. He did a lot of good work with COVID, but I just saw a clip of Peter Thiel speaking, how he referred to Jay as, his friend. And then you start seeing all these connections. I'm like, wait, Jay is friends with Peter Thiel. And then Thiel may, you know, maybe he's wittingly or he might wittingly or unwittingly carry out ideas that Thiel has suggested them because he trusts Thiel. And so, you know, just other things we haven't brought up either Sebastian Gorka, right, who's this crazy warhawk tied up

with British intelligence. And so, yeah, you see all these, you know, if you pull back the weeds, You see all these sort of maggots underneath. And what's interesting about it all is that these are, I mean, Bottichar, for example. You know, of all of the picks, I would say like a gabbered point is I don't, it's better, I guess, than some of the other ones we're talking about. But I agree that if you look deep, if you look into it, he was promoting the shots at some points saying, you know, yes, get this. It's good for some.

Get the booster. And so, you know, again, to your point. And this is always the fair objective way to frame it. Maybe he's just wrong. But it still doesn't change the fact that he's wrong in a very important. way and that's being chosen for this but i agree with you i think it stands to reason with the teal overlap and these different things that these are people that are more apt to lean in that direction if they're you know whether they believe it's right or wrong or not and i think that's it's an alarming

aspect of it the the um um corca example you know these are people that are they demonstrate exactly the same problems as everybody else they claim they're pushing back against but because it's under a flavor of maga or at least feigning to the right it just gets ignoring And so in general, I mean, I'm all about the administrative picks, at least what they're putting forward before they gets confirmed or not, I think are very, very important to talk about. But generally today we were going to get more into the policy. But I think the idea of the picks themselves tend to overlap. So feel free to jump back and forth, guys. So let me bring up one policy.

So I've been watching Doge very carefully. And obviously it's, you know, it's just an invention in everybody's mind right now. but it has been announced that the first audit that Doge is going to do is of the IRS. And I want to point out two things, because I have a very suspicious mind. Last year, Janet Yellen said that the American people owe $7 trillion in back taxes, uncollected taxes.

And if you audit, if you were going to audit the 21 trillion that's missing, you would audit the Treasury, the DOD, HUD, and the New York Fed. You wouldn't audit the IRS. You can't find anything there. If, you know, if you were going to audit all sorts of other serious financial crimes and sort of the breaking of the financial management laws, it wouldn't be the IRS. What you would do if you were doing the IRS is you would be trying to collect the $7 trillion.

And if you look at what Palantir does and the, you know, sort of the power of its software, software is perfect to track down and try and collect that $7 trillion from everyday Americans. So the one thing I would say is that it looks to me, if you look at those, that you're looking at something that's much more designed potentially to plunder than to really fix things. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with that. And I think the point, again, as to whether this even becomes something, whether they've been nominated in the first place. but I think that what it's being outlined as,

I think we actually expressed this in the last panel as well. It's just sort of like this very obvious trap door or whatever you'd call it a trap in regard to the artificial intelligence example. You know, where it's quite on the surface of it. They're openly already leaning in pointing to using AI to better, you know, make things more efficient. Where in some cases you could obviously point out that that probably would have some level of effect in a positive way, it's good.

Here's something to understand. And if you're going to use AI to do that, it means you're going to bring in corporate contractors to use AI to do that. You're not going to give AI tools to the civil service. And in fact, it looks to me like they're trying to destroy the civil service so you can have a complete corporate takeover of the government. I mean, if you want to get to taxation without representation, what do you do? You do digital ID, CBDC, and you kill the civil service.

Yeah. And on top of that, the large portion of the AI elements are going to be these Israeli startup companies. And I was just covering this recently on the show. And that's very alarming. Even just the spyware itself, which is intertwined with all these, Derek was just covering this. It's about almost 50% of the market of spyware alone is rarely startup companies. You know, and it doesn't have to inherently mean that these are malicious. But if you understand the overlap there to the intelligence elements, I mean, it's a very alarming. point. So now we're talking about rolling out AI, and this is just one element of what they're using these for, for efficiency. And that's going to end up being internally interwoven with just

about everything financialist country does and a lot more. I don't know why that's not a huge red flag. For those out there from the right side that don't see the threat for Israel, make it China. Right. I mean, in your mind, whatever it is a foreign entity that has that kind of access, is very concerning to me. So I just want to point out, Matt Gates, who went down quickly as the nominee for Attorney General has never received any contributions from APAC or pretty much any. And if you go look at his current page on Open Secrets, he's only got $9,000 he's ever taken in from PACs. Most of his money is from individuals. So he's no APAC.

Massey, many people hope Massey would get the Department Secretary of Agriculture nod. He also refuses to take money from APAC. back spent 400,000 plus trying to get rid of him. And it didn't, you know, it didn't even bump his numbers at all. So it didn't work. But he clearly didn't get Secretary of Ag. So, you know, it, it does seem that Israel is sort of a gatekeeper on the nominees. And as we mentioned already, Pam Bondi, the replace gates, again, still just the nominee is openly, aggressively pro-Israel. And the point to say, the point to make in all these is not just pro-Israel, but pro-Israel at the expense of American rights. And this is very clear based on the way they

discussed this in the context of free speech and a lot of other things. Well, and Beyondy has an Epstein overlap, too, that shouldn't be ignored in terms of examining how she might behave in that AG position. Absolutely.

Well, so on that point, then, let's get into some other specific policies. So do any other thoughts if I could just finish on the picks, like the a lot of it is going to be a more fluid situation than like a lot of it will be putting names out there and seeing how the public react right um and and like people said at first when it was

rumored that he'll be distancing himself from kennedy people complained that didn't happen in the end Kennedy is now put forward to whatever it is health secretary or something um but the this is this is itself sort of a reality tv like episode where Trump can basically name whoever he wants in order to get his good boy points because they all have to be confirmed by the Senate anyway so even if he had he can pick people he has he knows he has no chance of ever getting the job and I think there are several on his list already that won't be approved I mean I can't think of the guy the FBI guy he was just named cash with Al thank you yeah maybe Kennedy himself.

There are several. And that way, when nothing changes, people say, well, he was, Trump was handicapped by the Senate who wouldn't pick his guys. And then he'll be tricked by the deep state again. Sorry, wrong. Right. No, I say the same thing.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I think this is a very easy part of this to see. Like, I make the same point with RFK Jr., for example. And again, my perspective comes from the left-right paradigm is a ploy from a government entity trying to rationalize the choices they want, right? So I see it either way at the same point that the RFK point is that he gets floated, and knowing the Senate or just the government doesn't want him in that position. So then Trump can stand back and act like he tried.

The Democrats wouldn't let him. And, you know, it ends up being the same dynamic or more so from a two-party part of it that Trump is putting forward people that he knows they'll push back on. So the other person who's just a little bit less bad ends up being the one, but that's the one he wants it all along. I mean, these are easy things to wrap your mind around. It's the lesser of evil's dynamic on a Senate confirmation situation here. And I think that that's problematic because all these people, like, can you imagine all the different

people that could be put forward out there that maybe aren't politicians that are just, you know, educating certain policy? I mean, to pretend just like with the presidential dynamic that this is the best that they have to offer, these are insider swamp creatures, you know? So I agree with your point. I think that I think, I mean, what do you guys think in general? Quick question. Do you think conservatives are seeing through this in a large way?

Or do you think this is more just my over, you know, hope, wishful thinking opinion? I see a good portion that are buying into it. I'm not as, I'm more cynical being, you know, from the Balkans myself. But just to go back to the, when you mentioned policy in the techno populist angle, you know, I was looking at one of the unpolitifact, right, mainstream news where it says Trump wants to end a mobile phone application that migrants used to access customs and border of protection services, even though his administration launched the tool in 2020. Again, it's like the whole Operation Warp Speed thing.

And I think his handle before swore by hook or by crook, because of migration, they want to deport people. How are they going to classify sift through who's been deported, who's not, you know, digital IDs. There's clips of Trump years back talking about using these technologies to, you know, close off the border and all this stuff. And the EU next year is onboarding the EES entry, exit system and Etias. So now when you go to non-Europeans going to Europe, you're going to have to

first apply through a social credit system before you go. And then when you get there, they're going to take your eye scans and the fingerprints. And I think they're going to do the same in the U.S. in every country, matter of fact. So they're going to be building these entry, exit systems in every country around the world. And so I think that's going to be part of the technopopulist plan. And I think we'll also see North American integration somehow. They'll be pushing that. And then you've got the war aspect as well. I think Trump is the guy for pushing war with Iran and perhaps pivoting to China. And the morning Canada with the United States, I think the last couple days, if you saw that.

So there you go. Go ahead. Yeah. No, to kind of put a cap on, you know, how the right has reacted to these picks. Some of you guys know that, you know, like 25 years ago or whatever, I used to do Renaissance festivals all over the country. And there was a particular event that would happen called Mamosa Monday, where after a particularly grueling week that involved trying to entertain middle school and high school kids for three days during the week when you're supposed to be preparing for your weekend work, you then had to go into your weekend work, which was also a three-day weekend. And then see, have Mimosa Monday. And so at Mimosa Monday, every time somebody would show up,

everyone who was already there would go, yay! And then when they would leave, everyone would go, boo! And it went on for the better part of the day. And that's where the population is right now in terms of team sports mentality with how all of these picks are going. They'll throw a Cash Patel or a Tulsi Gabbard or an RFK at everybody. Go, yay! And then, you know, they'll ring up,

a dude for DEA or the, you know, all of the Bolton and Mike Pompeo acolytes. And then they'll go boo. And then they'll just go on with their day. Because that's all the energy that, you know, a lot of people have to give to this. And if you can capture a new cycle where it looks like the other team is angry, then you feel good. And if it looks like the other team is like, oh, well, that seems to be a reasonable blah, blah, You're like, oh, what the heck is this, you know, Deep State, no good Nick doing in my administration. Yeah.

It's like getting a trade for a player that you don't like from another team. And that's the mentality that it's being approached. It's certainly the level of discourse that I see about it, especially from a lot of the mainstream alternative media. Yeah, I saw a recent study that was going around. No, I saw it was, I don't know if it's recent. I saw a discussion of a study that was going around that it might not. not be recent, but the point being that in the general recent time frame of politics, like last decade, it seems that we generally focus more, which we all see, we are led more by the ideas of

what they're putting forward than what they actually do, which we all know, but this is just being statistically mapped out, how people tend to just fall into what they go, we're going to do this and we're going to do that. And we all know that they're just saying what we want to hear, but yet people seem to be swayed by that more than ever. You know, so I agree. I think it's very obvious that this is, you know, if the best they can do is, you know, be happy. The other side's irritated. Well, I think that's very much engineered. So let's start with a very large example of all this that workers is pointing to in regard to immigration, right?

The idea of the mass deportation, like this is one of the biggest policy points that I think, you know, that I think it'd be really hard for him to pull back on this. Some of the rest of the things they float when they're running, you know, they tend to float a lot of things that don't come to pass. That one, I think, will be a very hard one to pull back on. the largest mass deportation effort in American history. So I think there's a lot of things to stand out in this immigration point in general, like some of things that like Forbes is writing, for example, to prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving any benefits and birthright citizenship or citizens of undocumented immigrants,

reinstitute a travel ban, for example, from other countries. The one that stood out to me was mandate extreme vetting of foreign nationals, blocked other grants to things to cities, and ultimately like these policies that lead to more invasive spying on Americans, right? So some of these things you could point out are legally makes sense. But the worry is whether these are just a segue

into more surveillance of Americans, whether on the border or not. So let's talk about immigration. Start wherever you want. Anybody want to tell you? I would say we're at the point where we're not really talking policies anymore. Policy isn't the word.

What we're looking for is excuses. The American excuse for digital ID is illegal immigrants. They round people up, put them in camps, take their biometrics, whatever because we hate the you mentioned the European ESS coming in

that's meant to be about efficiency that's about efficiency and saving time and saving money but it's the same exact thing in Britain as well it's going to be about stopping immigrants in other countries it will be about securing the border because of pandemics and so on and so on

these are excuses to do what they always want to do they're not policies maybe they'll mass deport people maybe they won't. They'll certainly spend a lot of money building camps to store illegal immigrants and then government contracts from it for what you're doing it. But whether or not they actually deport anybody, it's it they don't care. They can just say they did for one thing. They can stick a headline on the New York Times that says they've deported 200,000 people since June and no one's going to be able to say they didn't.

That's a good point. Yeah. I mean, I think in the idea of the mass deportation, it would be difficult, I argue, to not do something, right? Right. So like, but I think it's interesting point that this could just be, well, what are the rest of you think about the actual legitimacy of the entire program? Do you think that there will be a mass deportation or to Kitt's point, do you think that's just the entirely floated guys? I guess what I'm saying is I think there are very clearly people within the Republican side that do have a very clear agenda within that from a specific, like not just the means to an end, but really do have an interest in this for other local reasons or other political reasons. So what do you guys think? Is that something that will happen? Or is it just a complete feigned? you know, it's vain. So here's the thing. If you say this from the White House, then the sheriffs are going to get active doing it. And you can't stop them from doing it because they would be deporting people who are here illegally. I will say I agree entirely with Kit that these are not policies, their excuses.

And if immigration doesn't work, they're planning on using election fraud. So Trump has made a really big deal about using digital IDs for election fraud. But if you look at many of these policies as excuses, in including war, the goal is to control the domestic population. You know, not to fight with the Russian population, but to control the, you know, you need an excuse to control the domestic population. I don't know if anybody saw the interview with Joe Rogan and Mark Andreessen, which was very much designed to make Silicon Valley look like your friend. But one of the things, I was floor, I was on the floor, Joe Regan said, Rogan said, yes, you know, we absolutely need AI to govern because it's all too complicated for humans to govern.

And you just, you said, I can't believe I'm hearing this. So no wonder it gets paid so much money. Yeah, I like the phrase, algocracy. You know, back in March of 2020, I was in Spiro, Scorosis, now defunct program. And I mentioned that COVID was all about bringing in global algocracy or rural biology. And now you have Rogan and big tech guys saying, let's bring in Algoncocracy rule by AI. And just today, I think, you know, Off-Guardian has done a great job with this where Danny Rankorn in Canada, his thesis was that COVID was sort of a, what did he say, like a simulation for war, where you had rationing and the free speech, almost martial law. This today, in South Korea, the president declared martial law.

and the article actually said he didn't really specify anything he's like something North Korea he's like and he actually said for freedom and to protect the constitution so sort of like war is peace you know freedom is dictatorship so martial law and it's the same

they just use these different pretext of pandemic climate war to carry out the same measures of rationing well they they call it all war in the end it wasn't a pandemic it was the war on COVID and it's not it's not good climate change it's the war on climate change.

The war on drugs, the war on terrorism is always about putting people on a war footing. Right, right. I mean, and the central point here, and that's a great thing to bring up here in regard to how the rationalization, you know, whatever it is. I think they, and I think as Steve was covering this morning, I think they're even referencing like stopping fake news. Like this is all about fighting the information more, you know, and literally using real world kinetic like martial law.

And so the point is, this is what we see, hopefully as an American perspective, that this is what's coming, right? This is what is literally the rationale to get us in that position. Even if you think that position will help fight the problem. You know, it's like everything else. The Patriot Act, these things never go away, right? And the point I was making this morning on a wake-up is even if you think this is the right move, and even if they have the best of intentions, what happens if three weeks in, Trump has a heart attack and then advance or whatever?

And somebody takes power who does want to use it that way. You know, I think that is Trump. But either way, the point is anybody could use this to effectively remove your rights, you know? Well, I go ahead. Post 9-11 America has been about building the dictator's toolkit for the incoming administration, regardless of what party affiliation may be in power at any given moment. And that's been going on unceasingly. And it's amazing how people haven't necessarily put two and two together on that and made the connection that, holy crap, it really could be literally. literally anyone, even a cartoon character like Donald Trump.

And that's how that, you know, governance is done. In terms of continuity of government, there's a number of different ways that you can apply it. And powers of the executive are one of the aspects that are least discussed in terms of how this operation is conducted. Yeah, the executive order dynamic is obscene. And it's this complete circumvention. And I argue that's how a lot of this stuff is actually going to come to pass as we were talking about this morning, right? Well, Fox News, we were referencing that joke this morning where it literally opens their

show the other day by saying, man, I can't wait for Trump to just executive with order his way through this. I was like, how depressing is a statement like that, you know, when they control every aspect of the current situation, it's crazy. But so let's talk about some of the more specifics, like under the crime dynamic, vowing to invest in hiring and retaining police officers and specifically, as Derek was talking about earlier to increase their protections from legal liability and then rolling out the stop and frisk dynamic under guise of getting illegal immigrants deploying federal troops including the National

Guard. So let's be clear. You mentioned this about foreign troops coming home. So we're in Posse Kometadas level here to restore law and order when local officers refuse to act, which is important because that's usually where you start to see the breakdown, right, where the enforcement arm starts going, you know what, we're not going to enforce your broken laws. Well, now he's trying to set an authoritarian level to go, well, we'll just come right over the top of that, or death penalty for drug dealers and drug cartels. I mean, that's the Philippines dynamic, right? I mean, these are all very alarming, even if you're going after bad guys in your mind. So anybody want to talk about any those specifics of the crime aspect? The protection from liability is interesting. It reminds me

of a long time ago, one of the, a good documentary, underrated documentary, I saw called Hot Coffee. I don't even have heard of it. It's wonderful, wonderful documentary. It's about the case with this old woman spilled McDonald's coffee in her lap, burned herself terribly. And the propaganda that out, when she sued McDonald's, there was this massive propaganda push. And people were talking about, well, the frivolous lawsuits bringing in pursuing people, because your copy is too hard, it's ridiculous. What we need is massive reform of the, massive tort reform to stop people being able to bring lawsuits against companies so easily. And that's essentially what happened. It was a publicly justifiable case, but she had

terrible burns. But what happened is companies got legal protection out of it. So you can see how much, like a few lawsuits against police for doing their job hit the headlines. And we've seen that over the last few years. This guy sued the police because they broke his wristwatch restraining him or something. And he gets a million dollars out of it or something ridiculous like that. They will use that as justification. They will create it to use it as justification. They're going to say, our guys now, because of Black Lives Matter, because of Antifa, whatever, can't do their job properly without being sued, and it's not fair. That will be their argument.

I would be shocked if that didn't happen. Yeah, it's crazy to me that we get to a position where, I mean, look, it's obvious to anybody objective that there are examples like that, where there is an unjustifiable attack on or going after them for something they didn't do intentionally or didn't even do. But it's incredible to me that we err on the side of more protection when the argument should be, well, we should be holding them to the highest standard, the higher standard, right? We should be making sure that they are held to that screw.

Like, that just makes more sense for somebody who is, I guess in my mind, it's the same as like the U.S. government, the global foreign policy dynamic, where they go, well, Russia's using cluster bombs, so we're going to give our guys cluster bombs or that's not even the way it actually went down, but the argument being, well, then you're just the same. Just rationalizing, we're going to do the same thing back. That's the same kind of thing we're talking about, that they should be held to a much higher standard. And I'm with you.

I think this is about creating a situation where there is no ability to go after the enforcer, you know, and it's an alarming step in the direction more so of an authoritarian control structure. Add to that, the digital aspect, you know, which I think is where all this goes and then it's insurmountable. Just remember, though, you have had, you have cities all across America where essentially there is no or very little law enforcement and you've gutted the police and you put in Soros prosecutors who won't prosecute crime. And you do have a serious crime problem because you you you've basically gutted your enforcement and that is a problem in cities and it's a big big problem for the real estate community in those cities and remember

you know trump is somebody who understands and sympathizes with real estate i think that's an important point people tend to overlook is his he's very big business right he's very much i mean even in the context of like removing regulations he always starts to frame it in a way that it's like pro freedom and there is a very clear argument be made with that but it's a dangerous level when you're emboldening the corporate side while moving regulations. If you're going to move regulations, then it should be not emboldening them at the same time. Like, that's the point about suing and so on. So I want to bring up a question.

I want to go back to Howard Luckin talking about the fact that the U.S. has $500 trillion worth of real estate and minerals. We know under Trump in 2018, the United Geological Survey started to survey all the mineral resources in the country starting at the ground level going down 3,000 feet, including finding the rare earth minerals that would replace what has been coming from China. So there is an enormous effort to understand what the resources are within North America and see if you can't get more of what you need. We know that Trump has said he wants to drill oil aggressively. And many people don't realize around the world. The federal government and the states combined, oh, a huge portion of the

land, particularly in certain states like Alaska. I think it's 70% of the land in Alaska. Which is entirely constitutional, by the way. Right. We know two things on some of the Bitcoin trial balloons. They propose that you could sell your Bitcoin secretly, and if you invest in real estate, you could do it tax-free. So basically proposing a 1031 swap. So, that, you know, if I bought Bitcoin at a penny and I sell it, you know, with a government buying program at a very high price, then I can keep it secret and I can convert, if I put it in the right kind of real estate, no taxes, so tax free. The guy who just got appointed or nominated to the Secretary of HUD position is someone

with a long, deep history in opportunity zones. Now, does everybody know what an opportunity zone is. It's a tax, it's a tax plan that was really created in response to the tech, the tech industry who had huge capital gains on their stock. And basically, if you sell stock or sell any investment and roll it into real estate or business in an opportunity zone, you can roll it in tax-free. And if you leave it in long enough, you're tax-free forever. So you've avoided all your capital gains taxes. So now we've got Howard Leibkin licking his jobs over $500 trillion of real estate, RFK proposing that people be able to get out of Bitcoin at a high tax-free as long as they put their money in real estate. And now we got an opportunity zone guy over

at HUD. I don't know if you remember this, but during the riots, during COVID, we did an analysis of where all the riots were, and they were very much contiguous to where the New York, or where the Fed offices were, but also very contiguous to opportunity zones. So if you look at where the riots were in Minneapolis, you know, it was basically a way of clearing all the real estate and getting a hold of all the real estate at the base of a big opportunity zone in downtown Minneapolis. So, you know, I go back to the plunder opportunity here. If you are going to, you know, take the U.S. out of its lead position or even break it up because we know there are people who would love to break it up. You know, the big question is who gets all the assets and how are you

going to reposition all the assets? Because the assets on the U.S. balance sheet are extraordinary. Probably makes it more Freedom City dynamic. Just, you know, half joking, but that's where this seems to be going, right? This is a kind of sidestep. And again, the same kind of point in general that I'm seeing everywhere under a guise of, you know, some breaking away from the system dynamic when really, it's just kind of beginning the new step. I mean, I'm seeing this technocracy rise all over the place. There's a lot of that happening right now with Trump's administration. I mean, one point that I wanted to talk about before we, I don't know how much time,

we had time in general today, but it is about this overlapping dynamic of his ethics pledge, the transition pledge, the, have you guys been seeing that conversation? I mean, there's very much a policy dynamic there. And I mean, that does overlap with the foreign policy point. Well, first, since we are on the foreign policy overlap, I want to, since you mentioned China, it is one of the things he's discussing about taking a hardline stance on China. And I do think that has to do with the overlap of the rare earth mineral foreign policy issue, but for restrictions on Chinese own infrastructure and so on, I think those are interesting points in there.

But for me, the overlap of this. And again, this point has to do with anybody. It doesn't matter if foreign entity is this timing right now where Trump hasn't signed the ethics pledges. Or rather, it's an ethics and a transparency pledge, something he signed into law more so in 2020 that he did last time as well. But it leaves this opening gap where there's no cap on. donations. And you don't have to divulge from where those donations are coming from. They don't have to divulge your conflicts of interest. So that's the financing of the transition, correct? But both, yes. So that opens up all the funding for the offices for all these different things. And so that's

one of the most alarming points is they're pushing back on that in general saying we don't need it. We're going to be a fully self-sufficient organization. And they're using their own bot. They're walking out of Mar-a-Lago. They're not using government emails and computers. And I mean, part of that to me is like I get it, but I'm very concerned. So in conjunction with the idea that you're not divulging where your money's coming from. So you have no caps. Trillions could be flowing in from Israel, China, we'd have no idea, no conflicts of interest divulged. And then they're working in their own area, self-sufficient, not taking money from the government. And so my point is there's this gap right now where that's happening. They're already getting access to certain information. I find it to be

really alarming. And I think that speaks to some point. So one thing I will say is if I was running a transition, presidential transition, I would do the same thing. So I can see why it feels and looks alarming. I think if they don't have ethical standards and full financial disclosure when they go in, you know, that will be very alarming. I do want to bring up, I think the number one or one of the most important policy goals right now that's desired is the Federal Reserve has a big problem and that problem is called the US Constitution and as long as the Constitution exists they have you know that the Fed is a creature of Congress Congress created them Congress can cancel them and they're not independent and

so if they're going to move forward with a control grid they need to find a way to get rid of the Constitution or get free of the con or at least the Federal Reserve to get free of the Constitution and how are they going to do that and And that's one of the things absolutely to watch in this administration. One way they can help get rid of the Constitution is to basically be able to control government payment systems and operations. And that's why if you're Doge and you get rid of the civil service and replace it with tech contractors, you know, but Bing, that's how you do it. You've now got control through basically the intelligence agencies in the central bank. And Congress no longer controls government operations.

I can't help but again, the overlap of the technocratic side of that, right? Like all these different overlaps. And I mean, even going back to the same point, like the influence of another entity in all of this is something that stands out to me more than anything. I mean, there's obvious corruption taking place. But to me, I can't stop seeing how that intertwines, right? I mean, is that something, is that more, Catherine directly, do you think that's something that is more of a oversized concern or do you think that's a right on the surface? No, and here's the thing. What happens over time is power accrues to the guy who sort of controls the infrastructure and handles things operationally.

So the way the U.S. got the power to do the sanctions is literally we evolved the Internet and the hardware that carried the Internet to the point where 99% of digital communications and transactions went through the U.S. in a way that the U.S. could assert legal and financial and operational. jurisdiction. You know, and so if you end up with Amazon, Google, and Lockheed Martin running all of the payment systems and operations in the U.S. government, they end up having tremendous power. You know, it comes over time through just their operational control. And that's why, you know, we've seen really a dramatic reduction of operational control by Congress is more and more. I mean, the rise of the deep state is the rise of corporate contract. defense contractors, big tech firms, and banks ending up controlling and running all of the government's operations, including their financial transactions. Well, and this was a point I was trying to make when people were doing cartwheels over the nomination of Cash Patel.

Cash Patel is one of those guys who believes that the deep state is just Democrats we don't like, as opposed to what Catherine just laid out in terms of the operational infrastructure of how the deep state moves. Right, which is why we're... It was very strange. I was watching a recent interview that Cash Patel did, and he said, you know, day one, I'm going to shut down the federal, the FBI headquarters in Washington and turn it into a deep state museum and send the 7,000 agents out into the rural areas and countryside. And, you know, it's like the, you know, the cultural revolution. But here's the thing. If you understand how federal bureaucracy works, you know that you can't do that without.

congressional approval. You can't, you can't fund a travel budget that can do that. You can't move your staffing levels all over the country without, you know, those staffing levels are controlled and dictated and influenced by the Appropriations Committee and OMB. I mean, you just, you're just, as the head of the FBI, you don't have the power to arbitrarily do that. Why would you say that? He should, if you look at his resume, he knows better. I think it's the same point. I think it's A lot of what they're saying at the moment is just about pleasing the people at the back of the big Trump signs. I'm like, we're going to audit the IRS is part of that as well. Like everybody hates the IRS.

So we'll say something about how we're ordered the IRS and we'll get all the people that resent paying income tax every eight. Oh, I think because Palantir already has an IRS contract, as far as I know, I think they are going to do. Well, I think they might do it. But I think the only reason to say they're going to do it is deplete. like they could just as easily have just put that in a two-line press conference in January. And a two-line press release in January and not make a big public thing of it. Right. I think it's the secondary part as well, though.

It's about, it's not just about, you know, it's about pointing to that, but also seeing the, being able to frame it as the Democrats wouldn't let him do the thing that would have saved everybody. Like, that's always how this seems to go, right? Like, Senate confirmation is the same point. So eventually you can, like, as long as they keep the, the zombie thing going forward and act like, well, we would have. I mean, I make this point about Obama and the rest. Obama would have changed the world, but they wouldn't let him do it. Like they constantly keep doing this.

Trump's term was the same thing. They tricked him or they did this. So I think that's where this plays out in the interest of shoving us into the next control structure. So Ryan, I suppose. You go, kid. I was going to say, we've talked about policy down the line, but there is the inauguration and the confirmation areas. Like, who do you think of the nominees will get their job and who do you think is going to be turned away? Yeah, good question.

Did you want to say something first, Catherine? Oh, so I was just going to tell you a story. When I was Assistant Secretary at Housing, I got a call from the head of public affairs who said, you're in real trouble with the Heritage Foundation, which is conservative think tank in Washington. I said, oh, well, that's terrible. Why do we just invite them over to dinner? So I invited a couple of people who ran the Heritage Foundation over to my house for dinner. We had a little dinner party.

And I said, pray tell, what have I done to offend you? And they said, well, you know, the secretary went up to Harlem and had a press conference. for Charlie Rangel and he told him he was going to fund all these projects in Harlem. And then he came back and told you to do it and then you're implementing it. And I said, well, yes, he ordered me to do it and it's all perfectly legal. And so, you know, I'm implementing his orders. And they said, no, you don't understand. You're supposed to make sure it never happens.

And he can say it's the bureaucracy because he ordered it, but you're supposed to just not do it. And I said, why is that? He said, because the point of the press. conference is to make sure that the white women in Westchester who watch the press conference think that we care about people but we don't want to waste any money we already already get the result from the press conference but you're the guy who's got to stop it so he has plausible deniability you just didn't realize that's so depressing and you know what's most depressing katherine is that we know that that's that's policy as usual or business as usual but here's the

thing i was i was at the dentist this morning and the dentist said to me uh he said because I'm back in the Netherlands, he said, you know, how was it being over in America during the period of the election? And I said, well, you know, every four years we lose our minds. And then, you know, hopefully within some reasonable period of time, we get it back. And they just thought that was very funny because to the world, it does look like we've lost our minds. Yeah. And I keep coming back to the question that we, the role we have is media. How do we help the people watching this to understand,

what kid is describing or you're describing. This is theater and you need to get back into the real world and stop wasting your time on the theater, let alone getting played for a Patsy by the theater. How do we help everybody get back into the real world? That is the question of the time, isn't it? I mean, the same thing we're talking about, how do you reach somebody in a cult, you know,

like somebody who's like socially engineered, like how do you circumvent that? How do you show them that they're wrong? These are classic questions in this field. You know, there's a lot of, I think more than ever today, we're, for some reason, breaking through through a lot of them. Honestly, I don't know. I think everyone has their own opinion.

You guys want to chime in on that at all? Any thoughts? It's a complicated thing. You know, it's more of those. We each have our own ways we try and circumvent it, you know? It's a great question, though, and I think it's something we should be focusing on every day. You know, how do we show them this? And not just, as I said recently that we all can learn myself especially, it's not just, you know,

tell them they're wrong or stupid or do. something that make, you know, that's like, I getting, my point is you engage on Twitter all the time these days where you get pulled into these vitriolic conversations. And I think it's hard because, you know, sometimes you think you are being like they just don't want to and you want to call them out for it. But sometimes it's about just trying to do what we're saying. How do you reach them without making them feel stupid? Or, you know, one of the things I'll point out since I'm asking the question is you try to find common ground. You know, you come at it in a little bit of a where, you know, like as if you make them feel that you're on the same side, you know,

that we see it the same way. But did you check out this thing that seems to contradict that? So it lets their guard down first before you address something that might influence their opinion. But it's a difficult thing. Plant the seed, water it as often as possible. The approach that you're describing is something that works incredibly well in like small group settings or one-on-one settings. But from behind a camera doing a show, the best things that we can do is what we're already doing, which is highlighting all of the, you know, blatant hypocrisy, the obvious agendas, to people, you know, to people who may not necessarily see it, but from a number of different angles of approach.

And so what my buddy Slint says from the Beef Initiative is that, you know, the best thing that we can do is encourage absolutely everyone in our immediate spheres to change their consummate. model. And that's across the board. That's what you're putting into your body. It's what you're putting into your brain. It's what you're doing to nurture your soul and your spirit. All of these things. If that's the example that's being set and if that's the, you know, kind of the conversations that we're having in our immediate, then it does have an expanded effect going out in that the consumption model in your community can get changed relatively quickly just via food. And if you want to turn anyone on the planet into a conspiracy theorist, give them a couple of chickens to raise. Chickens are the gateway drug to conspiracy theories. They are because

you notice immediately how much better the eggs are. And then you start thinking about that and it opens up an entirely brand new world of thought that you wouldn't have ordinarily stumbled across had you just simply listened to any of us the first time. Yeah, well said. I love it. I mean, I think the main point of what we're doing in general. And I recommend you guys check out as Texas Slim in general in the work that he does. Steve talks to them often, you know, just challenging these models more than, you know,

the consumption model I think is a good analogy. The term even works in itself, but more than just food, just kind of like what you consume, media-wise and everything else. and reflect on how you may change that. And I think what's important is that people watching, I'm of the mind, and I know I say this often of a positive end. I think more people than not are beginning to see this or at least be entertaining these questions.

And I think it's because of the work that you're all doing here and the work that we're all doing with the IMA. I really do see that. And I think it's a positive note. But why don't we end with the conversation, the point that Kit put forward on who, you know, like our prediction, essentially, on the different cabinet picks

and the different people who will or will not, you know, go into as much depth as you'd like. Whoever wants to start. You want to start, Steve? I think that it'll be a difficult win for them to get absolutely everyone. I know that there are a number of different Democrats running around threatening to make sure the Tulsi Gabbard doesn't see the DNI's office. I know there are people that are big mad at Bobby and he may not see HHS. Cash Patel's a toss up because again, as with Gabbard, as with, you know, everyone who's been tapped, they are Israel first.

They've made that perfectly clear. Tulsi Gabbard has a longstanding history of being very, very anti. I think the focus group tested phrase she uses is radical Islamist jihadists, radical Islamists. I think that's the the gabbard phrase for it. But she is very much in favor of, you know, the Bush doctrine as far as, you know, preemptive strikes on countries that may harbor, quote, unquote, terrorist. But a lot of people don't like her. I think you're going to see the more, you know, quote unquote, radical elements that he's tapped get pushed to the side in favor of. of more establishment creatures.

However, if you put somebody in a position that's a politically appointed position in the first place, their power is greatly hindered by the bureaucracy that supports them. And so, you know, it could have all of the effect of a ceremonial appointment. Well, I think in general, my overview on this is that kind of in similar line with what kit and mostly everyone else is putting forward

today is that I think that these picks are designed in a way to distract, you know, to say like this, you know, to make rather rationalize and justify a pick that they otherwise wouldn't have wanted if it wasn't first they floated Pompeo and Nikki Haley, right? Like that's already kind of happened. So these ones are a little bit less or more digestible. The win and how is hard to say. I think the ones that I would argue my prediction more than anything, I don't think RFC Jr. is going to be loud. I think that was the point. I think that he, regardless of his blind spot for Israel, it has a lot, I mean, right now is in contradiction to a lot of what the other parts of the administration are doing, right? Even the vaccine direction, the MRNA direction. I mean, if there's

14 different things you could point out that he seems to be against that the rest of the administration is sort of at least allowing to go forward. So I think that he will be refused in Senate confirmation, and then they'll blame the Democrats. And that's how that's why they won't have to go after MRNA, which both, you know, I think all of them. Deal, Vivek, Musk, all of them are invested in one way or another in that direction, which scares me. But I think the other ones that are, the other one like a Musk is an interesting overlap. I can't tell whether that was one that was meant to not be or not, in my opinion, but I think the, I'll just end on my prediction. I think there's some that will be, are designed enough to make it, RFK being the one I'll point to.

But the interesting part is you have the rest of them, like the Hegseth, the Huckabees, Bonds that are aggressive. aggressive Zionists that are probably going to fly through with no problem. I think that's going to be a big red flag to show you that that's not the things they're worried about, despite how they're screaming about prophetic Zionist end time, like real conversations about how we're going to lead that. It's terrifying. But I think the, or like a Patel, same kind of thing, is that I think that's going to be the standout is that that gets flying by.

And then whether Musk makes it or not, I think is an interesting example of, you know, again, same point. If he makes it, I think it'll say a lot. Oh, go ahead. must us not need a confirmation he's not in a cabinet position oh that you know i'm glad you said that actually that's yeah he doesn't need a if if they establish a government uh department of government efficiency will he then require confirmation if they make it a cabinet department yes but i don't think they will make a cabinet department i think they'll make sure he doesn't need confirmation

yeah you got vavecram swami out here running around complaining about unelected bureaucrats while he's trying to become and I'm like, it's, I did life should come with a rim shot now. Just, you know, every time these clowns open their mouth. That's all right. So, Ryan, I have to tell you,

I do think that Bobby's going to get confirmed. Yeah. And the reason I think he's going to get confirmed is if you look at what I think the deep state wants to or the establishment wants to accomplish with this administration. They want to keep the young people, you know, in the tent

pissing out and not outside the tent pissing in. And I think, I think they're looking to get RFK to do that. They also know that the, you know, that the, what has happened with food and drugs has gone way beyond anything. You know, it really needs a course correction. So I think the establishment is willing to tolerate a course correction. I think one's needed. But I think they're going to use this to keep him, you know, pulling the young people back in the tent in a way that, you know, for many of us, it would probably be better in the long run if RFK wasn't confirmed. But I think the worst parts of the establishment want him confirmed. And that's what we'll get him confirmed because obviously the Democrats are still stinging

from what happened, even though they were the ones who threw him out of the Democratic Party. He had no choice but to leave. They made him. But even though they see him as a turncoat, I think. think the, you know, I basically think the central bankers and intelligence agencies will will overrule them and he will be confirmed. It's my theory. Real quickly in your mind, do you, sorry, Kit, real quick, does that make him in your mind somebody who's aware of that or that he's being used?

I think he's being used. And, you know, I think he will try and do get some very good things done in the food and health area. And if I were him, I would ignore. why various people are supporting me and I would just go and try and get them done. So, yeah, you're always, whenever you're in one of these, in a highly centralized system, you always have people using you that you would prefer not to have using you as the way it is. Interesting. Go ahead. Gett. I was just going to agree. I was going to say that I think Kennedy, they can't afford not to approve Kennedy. He was so much of the ticket. And his name still brings, the family name still brings such a cachet with it that I think they have to let him in.

And I think in some ways what he wants, whether he wants it sincerely or not, can be parlayed into important stuff. I mean, they want to do food reform. And he's all over food reform. He wants to make food healthier. Like the greater establishment plan is to make food like lab growing blocks that you have to scan your wrist to get access to from your local food vending machine. But, you know, there are similar things at play here.

We want to limit the amount of calories people eat. We want to limit the kinds of food people eat. I actually think, I think Gabbard won't make it. I think she's just there to be there. She'll be replaced with some other insider that no one's ever heard of. But I think Kennedy will make it. And I actually think my big, like wildcar prediction is that they will let him take Florida out of the water. This will be the big winning cause for the first six months of the year.

And they'll do it in, they won't actually do it. They'll do it in the government way. They'll have a year-long Senate hearing about dangers of fluoridation. It's not federally mandated, though. I'm sorry, I've got to jump in here real quick because Derek's not here to field this, but fluoride is already being removed from dozens and dozens of pounds and municipalities. The Surgeon General of Florida issued guidance for the entire state to remove it about 10 or 11 days ago. This is something that is becoming more and more and more.

prevalent. Right. Right. But that's, that's, that's, that's, that's my point,

really. Right. That is like, it's just like, look, look what we did. I mean, the mythos may be

that Kennedy will get credit for it, but I just, I have to point out that it's already happening. Well, Hoccho, by the way, is carrying up new programs to add more fluoride.

So there's going to be an opening there for something. So I agree with the, the big, the big opening is going to be whatever genius out there, it's already making fluoride pills

and fluoride drop to sell all the outraged soccer moms on both coasts who desperately what about fluoride back in their own water? I have a fluoride removal system because my girl lives in Marin County, which is one of the most heavily fluoridated counties in the entire state of California. And I got it direct, you know, it's a fantastic system. But it's only good for the sink. You can't do a thing about it through the shower. You would have to hook up a secondary one for your bathroom if you wanted one for your

bathroom sink for every bathroom. And it's, you know, but that's what it takes if you want to, you know, if you're unfortunate enough to live in a county or municipality where they still do that, particularly at the rate that they do and we're in. But excellent points made in general. Did you have some more ad kit? Was that, was that, I didn't want to cut you off? No, no, that was pretty much it.

Yeah, I think it's a good point, you know, is that it's all about the, I guess it seems like we all generally agree, generally agree that it's about presenting the illusion or rather just the narrative, the construct, you know, whether maybe some positives come out of or not, it's about more so presenting it a certain way. So what I think is really interesting is what we kind of highlighted there is that I guess it comes down to whether we think they want it to be appear, wanted to appear as if they won or not in a long term sense, right? So if they want the people to think that Trump and his team are succeeding in their mission, then I think, yeah, it makes sense to have RFK be a part of that. But if they want them to feel that they are the

still under the attack of the Democrats, which that's where my mind kind of goes, where it's about constructing this illusion that they're still under the fight, which will drive more support into the final stage, right? But I guess that's the end point. And either way, it still seems to be going in the same direction. I do see a positive of RFK in there for some of the policies like Katham's saying that I think are obviously good in a lot of ways, but I just, I have that concern. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

I think there's a lot of good things that we're discussed today. I think it's going to come down to January 20th forward and what after. actually rolls out, who's actually tapped, whether the confirmations are actually there. We have a while till we see what's really going on. We haven't even touched on the idea they pull some Democrat version of January 6th yet or something like that. I mean, there's a lot of big things that could happen in that time. Yeah, good point.

That's actually a really good point that we don't know what will happen between then. There's just weird limbo period that always happens where if it's good right now, Trump somehow tries to grab it, make it his, even though he's not in power. If it's bad, it's like this weird time frame where if it's bad, it's still Biden, even though usually they claim that he's not in power at all. You know, it's like this, everyone points to everybody else. I kind of feel like the Democrat version of January 6 would be a bunch of liberals showing up and then trying to get the Capitol police to go in and drag Trump out.

I don't know if I don't feel like that. I don't even feel like they would like take a podium or anything. Well, what's, I get the joke is well taken. But I think what's interesting, though, is that it would ultimately amount to the same thing it was last time, which I argue were not a bunch of Republicans going crazy. Right? I was there. I know what I saw. Yeah. You know, and it definitely wasn't that. It definitely wasn't. So again, it could be the same idea, right, where you just have another, a bunch of masked people that are FBI agents for all we know. And it just becomes some, you know, the point is it's all up in the air. And that's a great point to consider that we don't know how it we play. Alex Jones is floating that the deep, the deep state Democrats are planning some kind of a, we're going to stop them from taking power, which by the way, wouldn't be that surprising. But I don't know.

Again, it comes down to whether it wants to appear as if he has succeeded in all of this. And now they're going to just blindly accept whatever goes forward or whether they want more push to drive it forward. It's up in the air. Or maybe we're all wrong. And this thing, we've already been saved and we're all happy now. You know, so who actually knows? But that's a good place to pin it in general. I really appreciate these kind of conversations.

We're all going to look really ridiculous when it's 2035 when we're living in Musk's space cities and everything's fine. I really hope that's not the case. It's a terrifying future. But I think we should eventually have more of a direct panel on the idea of the technocratic overlap, the kind of freedom city, prospera, technocrat kind of overlap of all of this, which I don't know about you guys, but I really see the fingerprints that kind of it's poking out all over the place where it's kind of a step of power into some kind of a technocrat-driven mindset. I think that's where this all goes, but that's for another conversation, I think. But anything else you guys want to leave us with on the way out?

Anybody have final thoughts? No, it's fantastic. Yeah, I really enjoyed the conversation, guys. Thank you. And there's plenty more. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you so much for doing this. Thank you. Thank you. Catherine, Kit, Steve, and Hork and, and, and Derek and everybody else that, you know, we'll be coming to the new, the upcoming panels and so on. I do have one notification on the way out that I think the last insight we got from Odyssey was the new, the next update will be coming probably the beginning of January, a little bit further out that I wanted, but still coming up soon. So that looks like after Christmas we'll be getting hopefully the new IMA website, which will be. more of this will be funding through there. But lots more panels and interesting conversations coming

your way. So we'll leave it there. Thank you all for joining today. And everybody have a Merry Christmas. Yes. Absolutely. Yes. Before then, have a Merry Christmas. And leaving out with my tagline, as always, everybody, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.