The Last American Vagabond - Trump Creates State-Backed Private Cyberattack Force

Starting point is 00:00:00 It starts with a simple question and ends in objective reality. Through our journey from there to hear, we find one another and ourselves. And as the next 24 hours breaks free from our last, we gaze onward in reflection of the day. Welcome to the Daily Wrapup. Friday, August 14th, 2026. Thank you for joining me today. Have a few updates I want to get into before we get right into the show. The obvious title explains itself. There's an important executive order that I want to discuss that I'm sure you've all seen

Starting point is 00:00:52 and what it really creates under the guise of fighting criminality, which is pretty common for our government and governments at large. And we're going to talk about some of the things we discussed importantly around the cybersecurity, spyware conversation, how that connected Trump's administration, how that ties to ice, how that connects to the larger surveillance apparatus, and of course, some updates on Iran today. But a couple of things I want to update you on to begin. I'm going to talk about in the beginning, a recent thing we just put out today. Primarily Whitney, I think he's posting it actually outside of, she posted on telegram today

Starting point is 00:01:26 on elsewhere tomorrow, I guess, and I think she got involved with an interview and wasn't able to do it. and then Derek and myself are going to posting it today, which is the, I guess, artificial intelligence transparency pledge. Now we have the IMA, like outstanding tool that we put out there for everybody to utilize. I'm going to talk about that in a second. And also want to update some things on recently. I talked about it with Steve on the A&Wake Up, but what I've been dealing with in regard to my father, which is why I've been a little bit absent in what's going on.

Starting point is 00:01:56 I just wanted you guys to update you who didn't hear it on the show about just very briefly about something we talked about. with my father was in the hospital, who ultimately went in dealing with the blockage, was kind of backed up and ultimately had bio building up in his stomach and didn't know what it was. I thought it was cancer, went through this whole process, something very common, as I understand it, which is why they probably looked that direction, turned out not to be what they thought it was. Long story short, after months of treatment and all, you know, money and everything else, all they ultimately did was conduct a bypass around the duodenum and the pancreas area

Starting point is 00:02:31 where, you know, basically just circumventing what was causing the problem and then ultimately send him home. Now, what did I tell you when we talked about it last? I said, well, you know, I'm, you know me. I don't have very a lot of faith in the system, especially after what went through and actions I've seen taken in hospitals. But ultimately I said, you know, if this, if this is, if he goes home and he gets better and never has his problem again, well, this was a success. As much as I still may disagree with the way they do things, Western medicine, that would have been a success, right? However, if the problem gets continues and comes back, then that's not a success. That was just a financial profit for the industry of the medical,

Starting point is 00:03:08 you know, for the hospital, for an invasive surgery that was not dealing with the problem. And even to this very moment, which may shock people, people don't even believe me when I tell them this. They still, to this day, do not know what's causing the problem. Now, that's not that uncommon. It's crazy anyway, but the point is they're continually driving him in the direction of invasive surgical options without even knowing what the problem is. in many ways there are things that we believe could be taken to find out what the problem is that they're not even trying to accomplish. And so he's back in the hospital.

Starting point is 00:03:38 And they just put him through another surgery. And unfortunately, it looks like another one is in the wings. And what they were just telling him is what a lot of people were telling me back in the first point, which is now they're basically saying like, this is your life. You know, have to have a bag outside, like the whole thing, even though they sold him on the idea that the surgery would bring him back to his normal life. Now, who knows best of intentions and all that? we still believe we're dealing with some kind of an autoimmune issue, which is even what the

Starting point is 00:04:03 doctors argued is likely, but still have yet to even look further to find out. Now I'm not a doctor. You know, I could be missing something. But what's very frustrating about the whole thing is that it's something that we could have seen, we could have gotten around in the beginning before we got into multiple surgeries and the financial industry that goes around all of that and only ending up with the same problem that continued. Now, not to get too much into it because, you know, not everybody, this is personal. But it's just so incredible to watch this continue to happen and to watch the people, you know,

Starting point is 00:04:36 and a system we all can see. We can acknowledge, we can outline peer-reviewed science has covered what we're dealing with. And whether we're talking about the surgical options and, you know, look, post-COVID, let's be real. Leading cause of death in this country is medical treatment. It used to be three. Let's not pretend it's not one after COVID-19. But let's talk about all the rest of it, the shots themselves. statins. I mean, you name it. It's clear that we can, we're not being honestly engaged with by

Starting point is 00:05:04 the authorities with any number of these conversations, especially when it comes to health. Now, I feel like it's relevant in general to what we're going to talk about today, but nonetheless, I just wanted to point that out for people because that's where we are right now. And I'm, I'm frankly pretty terrified of what's going to happen. But I'm, you know, we're doing our best and he's more amenable to us because he has a lot of reverence for the industry. my late grandfather was a doctor and so it's hard to get past that but anyway if you guys have any advice you have any thoughts i mean i you know i rarely get back to all of it but you know how to reach out let me know if you've got somebody in the area that you might think may help we're looking for a

Starting point is 00:05:37 specialist now to actually get some in-depth you know look look at it from a perspective of a possible vaccine injury from a possible autoimmune issue that's being ignored and all of that but so that's what we've been dealing with in general on that side of it now another update i want to include which is where we're going to start the show today, which was around the IMA. Now, I'm actually just going to play the thing we put out today, but I think it's very important to not just play this, but to talk about it and understand where it's coming from because there's a lot of, you know, and I understand it, skepticism and hesitation about anything that outlines some kind of a, you know, we'll get into it and read it, and it'll be clear.

Starting point is 00:06:11 But the way to look at this in regard to what we're going to talk about, which is our IMA transparency pledge that I would argue is very clear, I don't see a world in which anybody can frame radical transparent. or honesty ever as a bad thing. And that's important to understand, is that we're, they're, oh, making sure, hold, let me double check everything is actually live here for a second. Make sure you guys are actually, no, it looks like that's not playing.

Starting point is 00:06:39 Isn't that interesting? Hold on, let me double check a couple of things really quickly while you guys are here because it does look like. Let me know in the chat if you guys are there, whether or not you're seeing the live show. I'm just checking Rumble. Looks like YouTube's not playing. Okay.

Starting point is 00:07:08 Okay. We're good on the... We're good on Rumble. So I'm not sure what else isn't playing on there, but let me know in the chat if you guys are having problems. For those who's been watching the show late, we deal with this every single time. So let's just keep going.

Starting point is 00:07:21 But the point is to discuss this from a point of where the world is going, right? We have artificial intelligence that is being thrust into our lives, no matter what we want, seemingly. And so obviously we get a lot of people in the community. They're saying, you know, there's just so much as become, I don't even like the term quite frankly, but so commonly uses AI slop everywhere. And it's obvious, right? In some cases and others, it's a little bit more surreptitious.

Starting point is 00:07:45 And so people are worried that there is content out there being created and knowingly in the sense of whether, I mean, AI content being created and being sold to you as it's not AI. But the problem is that not all of it's even malicious. There may be felt they're using it to manipulate you. but there may be people out there who think they're doing good with it. And maybe they are. I have a hard time believing in the end point. That's where it would go.

Starting point is 00:08:07 But my point is that we know that this stuff is misleading people. It's algorithmically channeling people into certain information, rather the omission of specific information. And so it ends up misguiding people, misleading you, and they become overly dependent on how these things work. And so we thought it was important as the IMA, as individuals, to put this forward and say, you know, and highlight why we think it's important simply to be transparent about the use here, about your use of AI, specifically chatbots, large language model, kind of stuff.

Starting point is 00:08:37 And I think that's very important. So to get into that, and of course, like I said, we're going to get into the other topics we mentioned. Actually, first, what I wanted to highlight on just on this segment in general, since it overlaps with Whitney and who we're going to talk about, Derek and I recently recorded, as I mentioned to you, our first episode of open source. And this was, originally, this is why I actually kind of soft-rolled on the Toka article, as I kind of briefly pointed to in the last show,

Starting point is 00:09:00 that was going to be our original focal point, and then we decided to do it on the specific part 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals article that they wrote years ago because it's wildly relevant and pertains to the global governance as clearly being driven by Trump's administration, including, you know, in addition to every other government

Starting point is 00:09:18 that's a part of the global apparatus we're talking about. But it was a great discussion. My point I'm bringing it up for is that I'd forgotten that it was, so basically this is a podcast for, and hangout that Whitney's putting on using Derek and I as the hosts. So going over their work. And so it'll be kind of a routinely thing where we go over larger articles and do our best to make it, you know, under an hour.

Starting point is 00:09:38 That's the whole point. So it's not longer than actually reading the article, at the very least that you can listen to while you're driving. But ultimately, they are going to be putting it out. So I think right now they're possibly putting out one more thing in the next week. This will come out. Otherwise, it'll be coming out in about a week. But ultimately, it's going to be not immediately.

Starting point is 00:09:55 that's what I, so just, it'll be coming out soon, look forward to it, make sure to, you know, it'll be, it'll be an interesting show. I'm looking forward to. Derek and I had a great time going over this. Now, 2024, we announced the Independent Media Alliance for those that don't know. Now, I'm not going to go through all this, but the simple point was an idea because of the pre-Trump second administration and kind of Israel War and all the different things that were going on. And as we talked about, we felt this really clear push to attack people who were starting to break down the two-party illusion. People who were starting to call out major central parts to the larger illusion,

Starting point is 00:10:30 not just within left or right. And we got called blackpilled and all the purity test allegations and all the stuff we went through, which are, and we were absolutely correct on everything we outlined in this point. Now, that's not to say we're right about everything. Nobody is, but the reality being that we were shown to be correct about the aiming from this point and why it was necessary. the fake new media, independent alternative media being the primary culprit.

Starting point is 00:10:57 Now, that is included just to point out that this is something that the IMA is now putting forward. Now, I'm going to watch this first. And actually, let's just do, I'll read through this first so it's more clear. So I put this out on TLAB. Derek put this out on his as well, Whitney, but putting on hers as well. The Independent Media Alliance announces an AI transparency pledge. Now, in September, 2024, Whitney, Ryan, Derek created the Independent Media Alliance. A collaborative effort focused on promoting objective fact-based media from a diverse team of journalists.

Starting point is 00:11:26 Podcasters, writers, and just as efforts to manipulate alternative media journalists and their audiences kicked into high gear in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election of that same year. from the beginning, the IMA's emphasis has been on countering narratives being seated within this alternative and quote media space, including but not limited to, as we started with the party illusion, support for imperial wars, fifth generation warfare, technocratic solutions to legitimate problems. And we talked about these things as a broad sense. Now, I'm sure people disagree with just saying that these things are. But this was how, I mean, understanding that there's a false paradigm is not debatable in my opinion. That doesn't mean it's all encompassing, but it's about being. able to acknowledge that. Support for Imperial Wars is something that seems pretty obvious that yet

Starting point is 00:12:11 is not actually how people feel. That's a little Trump game right now, or the fifth generation warfare dynamic and how it's being used against us through the new media and all of this stuff. Now, the IMA efforts were meant to build consistency as alternative media in the years prior to 24 had largely been against imperialism, digital tyranny, and embracing conventional U.S. presidential policies. With 2024, we saw efforts to undermine what we believe were fundamental precepts of representing a real alternative to the mainstream media, which has frequently manufactured consent for war and the erosion of civil liberties and constitutional rights, while also framing federal policies and elections as the preferred, if not only, solution to our collective

Starting point is 00:12:49 problems. Over the last two years, the IMA has held monthly panels and debates featuring alliance members and guests with the goal of dissecting these narratives in the hopes of providing a nuanced perspective to our collective audiences. While the IMA has seen a positive response to our efforts, we know we can do much more to combat the co-opting of the independent media by well-funded podcasts and mainstream alternative media platforms. In furtherance of this goal, the IMA is announcing two new yet related efforts that seek to provide new avenues for our collective audiences to free their news feeds from big tech interference. In creating the IMA, the criteria we originally used to choose members was based on which individuals and outlets do not fall prey to the following

Starting point is 00:13:34 narratives, lies associated with COVID-19, the lies associated with two-party illusion, the lies justifying the Israeli genocide. In addition to these essential points, we have come to believe that it is necessary to refine the criteria under which the IMA operates. We believe that this alliance of independent critical thinkers and journalists should be refined from the above to not only include those original ideas, but to express more given recent developments, the new proposed IMA criteria are as follows. Members of the IMA believe that no government political party or block of nations represents a savior from the villains of the old world, old world order or their efforts to create a new one. This is because we recognize that

Starting point is 00:14:13 the issues we face are largely driven by transnational networks of oligarchs and allied organizations have committed numerous state crimes against democracy, have manipulated our world four generations and have attempted to infiltrate alternative news and media in order to distract would-be dissidents from this reality. The same transnational, network is driving and enabling mass murder across the world recently in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, while also controlling the big tech firms and platforms that have been weaponized to centralized control over news and the free flow of information. We recognize that because of this control over big tech, these criminal oligarchs also dominate and largely control artificial intelligence,

Starting point is 00:14:54 which is being weaponized against the masses and being used to undermine true independent journalism. As a consequence, we believe that our audiences have a right to know, what outlets are using AI for their work, and to what extent? In keeping with these revised criteria of the IMA, as stated above, the IMA plans to introduce this new AI transparency pledge, a commitment to our readers and listeners that we will disclose if and how we use AI. And if not, I just read that weird, if we use AI or not, and if so, to what extent? Please read the full AMA transparency pledge. Now, this is ultimately the point about the AI, but obviously you can see the relevance of understanding why the artificial intelligence element is so important to what we were already

Starting point is 00:15:38 discussing. Now, again, to be clear, this is about simply choosing to, if to or not, it's not going to be forced on anybody, including even the members of IMA, it's their choice if they want to sign on to the pledge to be transparent about the use of AI. And I want to all point out more in a second, but realize, and this is not even about, there are parts of the members of the IMA who've already decided they don't want to sign on to this, and not because they don't support this. In fact, explicitly stating a 100% agree with the incentive. The point is there's other reasons of not wanting to pledge to something or not wanting or having a different nuance or direction. The bottom line is it's not about being pro or not AI in this context. It's context. It's about

Starting point is 00:16:16 simply being deciding to sign a pledge to your audiences to be transparent with its use. Now, again, maybe the others that are going to decide to do their own thing, and which is, by the way, what some are going to do. So I just want to be clear about that. This is not meant to be some kind of lined in the sand in that sense. Now, it continues rather the pledge itself, says the IMA recognizes the rising threat of AI as well as that of AI adjacent tools and their use of data sets harvested by illegal surveillance programs and other actors will allow for transnational oligarchs and would-be technocrats, the opportunity would allow transnational oligarchs and would be technocrats,

Starting point is 00:16:54 the opportunity to manipulate public perception and thus reality, to a degree never before witnessed. We stand wholeheartedly opposed to the use of AI to cognitively diminish the critical thinking and intellect of its users, something which transnational oligarchs and their allies have openly admitted to. And we are also opposed to the use of AI as a weapon of surveillance and as a primary agent for predictive policing, i.e. pre-crime. We also stand firm against the hidden externalities that will likely result from the rapid

Starting point is 00:17:23 expansion of AI tools, including the destruction of the natural environment and essential resources, e.g. water supplies, as well as the replacement. of human labor with AI and AI-powered machines, making much of the human population exploitable and even expendable in the eyes of the oligarchs. Journalistic outlets and individual journalists who choose to partner with the IMA, with the I may commit to disclosing to their audiences

Starting point is 00:17:46 if they forego the use of AI tools or if they use them. For those that choose to use AI, outlets and journalists will disclose how AI is used, e.g. in the research process, in the production of their written articles, emails, et cetera, whatever they decide to use The point is if you sign this, you'll simply make it clear to what degree and where.

Starting point is 00:18:04 By committing to this pledge, outlets are committing to commit complete transparency about AI use or lack thereof. So far, here, who has signed on. Finally, we offer to any and all independent journalists, content creators out there, indie media outlets, to take this pledge or make your own pledge for your audiences, regardless of any formal IMA affiliation. So the bottom line is this is a tool that we would like to put out. What you're going to see from me is this symbol. It'll make it clear that there was no AI used in any, you know, it's like the, no animals harmed in this product. Like that's what you're going to find this on stuff that we put out to make the point.

Starting point is 00:18:40 That's, you know, and this is all encompassing. Now, remember, we were using images largely because I found it a unique tool to work around the copyright allegations that were unjust in the first place. But because of the importance of this, and even though I don't argue, I argue that using images is not even a, like in my mind, it's about the creation of content, allowing this to think for you. But you could argue that's a small nuance. And so I just simply said, I'm none. I've made the decision for a personal choice for my, you know, for TLAB and what, for there not to be any. And everyone can make those choices for themselves. So I've also added, as Derek has as well,

Starting point is 00:19:16 basically our AI policy spot, which you'll see on the website now, just to post a similar thing. And then just, I really just posted the transparency section of this and simply posted for Our T-Lav version, as of this date forward, T-Lav commits to never using AI, large language models, and the creation of content of any form. Seems that's pretty simple. Now, again, should I decide to change that? The simple reality becomes, I'm just pledging to be transparent about that. But of course, my point is I don't see a world in which that will happen.

Starting point is 00:19:44 And this is exactly, by the way, why some people just don't want to commit to something that they don't know in the future will change. And I understand that. So I really want to stress about not making this to be some kind of a line in the sand, because there's people with good intentions that may be right. Same like the internet of using it to fight back or creating AI to fight the other one. I mean, I don't want to get into that.

Starting point is 00:20:04 I don't agree with that from my perspective, but who's to say that I'm right about this? You know, you guys can decide for yourselves. Now I'm going to play the clip of our discussion, just so many minutes long about just kind of walking through this and our opinions on it. And we'll get into starting from there, the connection. Well, a quick couple points about some MRNA shots coming

Starting point is 00:20:22 and then we'll get into the cyber security conversation. Hey everyone, this is Derek Brose with the Conscious Resistance Network, and I'm here with my friends and colleagues, Ryan Christian of The Last American Vagabond and Whitney Webb of a limited hangout. And we are all part of the Independent Media Alliance. In fact, some of you may know that two years ago, in 2024, the three of us founded the IMA. This was part of our effort to bring together independent journalists, content creators, and podcasters who we thought had their heads on straight when it came to the Gaza issue, the two-party paradigm, and of course, COVID. in 1984. And since that time, we've been hosting panels. We've been bringing people together to discuss important issues and trying to break through narratives that are being seated in the independent alternative media. And it's been a great success. But today we're coming to let you know we have a brand new initiative that we're launching right now called the Independent Media Alliance AI Transparency Pledge. We're really excited about this. So Ryan, won't you tell everybody what this is all about? Yeah, we're very excited about this because it's something we've been talking about

Starting point is 00:21:24 for quite a long time. We had a couple panels where it came up. It was clearly something that was expressed in the communities. People are having a hard time telling what is and is not artificial intelligence, where it's been used, where people allowed it to think for them. And so this kind of developed, Derek really spearheaded this to develop a pledge, to really just outline very specifically whether, you know, where, how and where you're using it to simply be transparent about your use of artificial intelligence. And it's a, it's a tool, really, that we wanted to put out in the community for people to choose to use, for the their own communities, for their own platforms, and started by the IMA.

Starting point is 00:21:57 And the idea of being something that you can choose to outline on, you know, to your, you know, we'll have our own pledges we're going to post on our websites to outline how this will be outlined for our specific websites, but the idea is simply just to be honest about your use, right? A pledge to be honest about how AI is or is not used in your content. And I think everybody wants that right now. So very important time to bring it out. Yeah, and I definitely agree, Ryan. I think this is really important for readers right to know instead of trying to rely on like, other VC-funded AI startups trying to distinguish stuff for people.

Starting point is 00:22:31 In developing relationships with our readers and our audience, we want to be open and transparent and so do the other people that are signing onto this pledge, which again is not exclusive to the IMA, you know, anyone can agree to it and develop their own AI use policy on their website just to let readers know how they are using it, if they are using it at all.

Starting point is 00:22:53 And, you know, you can't really go wrong with radical transparency and radical truth. I think a lot of us in the IMA are very committed to that, to those feelings. And so I think this is a great move in an era where AI is impersonating people and also, you know, trying to drown out real voices that are trying to hold power to account. Absolutely. So wherever you're watching this, you'll see the text to the full IMA pledge that the three of us put together with the help of other IMA members. And again, the idea is that this is just pushing this out into the sphere of the alternative media. If you're a content creator, a journalist, podcaster, and you would like to be transparent with your audience, which we hope you would. Again, whether you use AI or not, we're not telling you what to do. We're just saying,

Starting point is 00:23:40 how about we be transparent about this? I've already got my AI use policy on theconsciousresistance.com. Everybody here will have the same. And if you want to be a part of that, please do let us know or start your own pledge, circulate the pledge. That's the idea. We just want to really get this conversation going because, as we all know, it's going to become increasingly difficult to determine what is human and what is AI,

Starting point is 00:24:02 and we think that's by design. And I will say everywhere that I've shared this idea, the audience, you guys out there have been very receptive. It seems like you all want transparency and you are all sick of reading or watching something and knowing that it was probably made with AI, but that it's not being disclosed. And so that's what this is really about.

Starting point is 00:24:18 We're not trying to attack anybody who's choosing to use AI in one way or another, we're just saying, let's be open, let's be honest about it. And I'll add to that that I think, you know, on the back of what you said there, Derek, it's very important to hear that. You know, we all three have our opinions about how it should be or, you know, taking a all or nothing kind of a stance in a time where it seems important. But that's the point of this pledge is about just simply demonstrating to a degree you are

Starting point is 00:24:41 and not necessarily criticizing others for their stance. And so the point is that there's going to be varying degrees of that use. I myself have been using images lately. and my point is because of this pledge in the direction of it, I've decided to not do that anymore. But there are varying degrees out there people that use it and in ways that I argue aren't necessarily a violation of how I would argue is the most important part to focus on, which is the thinking for you, creating content using AI. And there are people out there that may use AI to fight back, right? And so the point is simply about being clear about how it's being used, not necessarily

Starting point is 00:25:13 criticizing those who find a way to use it. That's for individual choices out there. But I think that's important. Yeah, just one other thing. to add before you share a little more Whitney, is I think that the three of us, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think besides the general pledge about transparency, that the three of us here, though, have all committed to not using AI

Starting point is 00:25:31 in the production of our articles and the writing of our content. For me, that includes emails, social media posts. We're not using AI to produce our videos to make music for us, all those kinds of things. That's our particular commitment here. Everybody else will have their own way of approaching this pledge. most evidence.

Starting point is 00:25:49 Yeah, I guess just to add more information to that, we have some people that are using it in the IMA, for example, that have signed onto the pledge and are going to have a use policy. For example, use E.I. for spell checking, maybe the occasional thumbnail, things like that. But in general, regardless of how you're using it, in my opinion, and in our opinion, you know, it's about the reader's right to know because this should be about the audience, informing, the audience and it's important to inform the audience about how we're doing our work with this new tool being so widely available and used by people and also being used in ways that have raised concerns among a lot of our shared readership, you know, about in terms of how, you know, people

Starting point is 00:26:39 are, you know, using those tools to potentially do things that, you know, readers may not necessarily like. So this is about, you know, disclosing so that readers can choose what content they're consuming based on their own preferences and their own opinions about AI. And a lot of readers may not, you know, be affected by this at all, but there are some that care, and there are some that care a little bit and only care about certain things. So the goal, again, is radical transparency about how we're using AI and what we, and that we think people, you know, outside of the IMA should also consider having their own, you know, AI use policies. And that's why we've made this pledge pretty much open to everybody.

Starting point is 00:27:23 Yeah, absolutely. So if you're hearing this and you have a favorite content creator, journalist, podcaster, and you would like them to be transparent, maybe send them this video, send them the text of the pledge, and invite them to participate in this in whatever capacity they will. Before we wrap up, Whitney, did you want to share? I mean, I know that you are probably the most, faked person on the internet using this tool that we're all talking about this.

Starting point is 00:27:46 So this directly impacts you in terms of transparency and being able to determine when AI is used and not used. Maybe you want to speak to that before we wrap up? Yeah, well, obviously, of course, you know, the fact that it's been so heavily used to impersonate me and associate me with things I've never said. And I feel like in a lot of ways, been used to kind of attack my credibility and reputation that I've worked really hard for for like a decade. You know, obviously that colors, you know, my opinion a little bit, and I understand that not everyone is going to feel that way.

Starting point is 00:28:18 But personally, I feel like, you know, I'm being pushed and I think a lot of this broader discussion that the pledge is sort of related to about, you know, efforts to decide or for these different, you know, companies or institutions or sites to sort of say what's AI generated and what isn't is to basically push, you know, humans to verify, most likely through something. like digital ID or something so you can prove it's the real you and obviously because I'm a big you know years long critic of digital ID and related infrastructure um I have felt that a lot of the AI impersonation just like the extreme scale of it um you know targeting me and in my content has been sort of used to try and push me to verify in those ways which I have not you may think that for example if you follow me on Twitter or X that I uh verified by uploading my ID. I, because of my follower account, I was given a badge, so I didn't do that.

Starting point is 00:29:17 But anyway, it's been challenging to see all of that proliferate, and feel like I'm being pushed to do something that compromises my values. So the best, you know, all I can really do is let people know where to find, you know, my stuff and not every, you know, a lot of people still get tricked by it. But ultimately all we can do is try and have our, you know, readers and, and, you know, followers, go back to the source of where our content is made, and look for things like an AI, you know, use policy and know that, you know, I personally don't use it in my work. And if you see something that seems AI generated, including me, I did not have anything to do with it. So I guess

Starting point is 00:29:58 that's one example, at least, you know, in my personal case of why I feel like this pledge is important for me personally. So people can distinguish between a lot of this content that is is generated and also because YouTube is labeling content as AI or not, they know that I didn't have anything to do with it or at least I can help, you know, change the percentage of people that know by having it on my side. Great. Yeah, thank you for sharing that. Ryan, do you have any other closing thoughts before we wrap up and get out of here for today? Just to kind of put a fine point to what you're saying there. I mean, it's such an obvious, you know, because right now there's a lot of concern with these, and rightly so, of these kind of problem, reaction, solution situations to trick

Starting point is 00:30:38 people into calling for verification of ID. And that's exactly what he's highlighting is this, it's one of these kind of ideas. And what we're hearing a lot about are these AI or not checkers from mainstream elements that are misrepresenting people as AI. And so, and there's a lot of concern that this somehow is similar. The point is this is a effective tool against that. And I want to make, I want to be, you know,

Starting point is 00:31:00 to really highlight why that's so important is we're talking about being transparent of the use that you can then publicize in a way that then is counteracting the ability to the ability to the, then be labeled otherwise. Now, of course, that's still going to happen. And those tools from the corporate media and the, you know, establishment are there for the very purposes of censoring people. But if we're getting ahead of it with being transparent about it, to me, that's like the antidote to where this is going. One of the many we're going to have to find, I argue, as this thing gets worse, digital ID and everything else. But that's where this comes from is a solution to that

Starting point is 00:31:29 problem that's building around us. And again, I don't see how anybody could find a problem with being radically transparent or honest. And that's something that we strive to be. So thank you for Yeah, perfect. All right, guys. Well, thank you all for being here today for joining us. Stay tuned for more updates from the IMA. We are going to launch an official website very soon, working on some other projects. Stay tuned for more panels. Of course, you can find Ryan at the Last American Vagabond.com, the real Ryan, and you can find the real Whitney at an unlimited hangout.com and myself at theconsciousresistance.com. Well, that's where we're going to leave it for today. And again, hope to see you guys out there.

Starting point is 00:32:03 And we're still here. Case, that wasn't clear. For those just tuned, in. That was an episode. I am wearing the same coat. That was from earlier today. But, you know, I just felt that was important. And I think it's really important to address a little bit further, you know, and the idea of what we're talking about. I mean, what she pointed out is really important as well. It's weird timing right now, all these platforms, for those that are doing content creation, YouTube, they're now giving you an option to Klay, AI or not. And so what's interesting is that this is clearly, I argue, two things. Recognizing that's what people want, first of all, and then, you know, and using it against them is where I would see it going, not that they would do that just for you, but ultimately seeing that we're calling for it, but then, you know, the idea of being, and this is, you know, call me the conspiracy theories, people do. I think it's obvious that it's not about caring whether or not they disclose this from a corporate level, but ultimately finding a way to use it like we just saw. And I'm going to get into that right now. And this is, this is what was originally put forward as, as one of the concerns from some people out there about what this, you know, might be represented as what we're doing.

Starting point is 00:33:06 And that's why I think it's very important to highlight the point, which is simply just radical honesty. You know, I use this. I don't. I do, you know, I used to this degree. I just, there's no, when you make it clear, there's no way that could be misframed. But in this case, what I, what people are concerned about. And this is not new.

Starting point is 00:33:23 This from April 3rd, the AI detector as defamation machine. Now, honestly, I thought I was going to read through this, but I think, I mean, the real thing for me, I mean, I will do some of the parts to stand out. But it's just simply to understand that there are AI tools that are created, This one's called Pangram, which just like you have the flock cameras claiming they know that you're you and it turns out not to be. At the very least, even if it's accurate, there's an opening for inaccuracy. And some of these are 70, 60 percent. So it's not even viable.

Starting point is 00:33:50 But what really worries me, even if it's 100 percent accurate, is how it can be misused. And so that's the part that gets into is, of course, kind of a mainstream writer and mainstream journalist, both saying they were misrepresented by the thing that said they were using AI. So I'm almost a little suspicious of that in the first place. You know, as you get into it, like, let's break it down in two parts. Han Graham or things like it are claiming they can review written content and say this is so, you know, this much percentage AI to this percentage of certainty. And I mean, obviously, in a general sense, that seems like something most people would want. But the problem is that how that can be used like where, you know, people are concerned about to drive us to say, we need things to be verified.

Starting point is 00:34:32 We need things to be concerned. digital IDs and whatever else, see where that goes from a government side. Now, obviously, none of us are calling for government anything. That's obviously counterintuitive to everything, our entire worldview. But it's about realizing, as Derek points out from a volunteerist perspective, that, you know, if there's something they're going to be thrust, you know, putting into our lives, is something that we should be doing, not necessarily in the same way, but a way that we can do do to get ahead of what they're going to do to us. And so the bottom line is that people out there, in a real sense, whether or not government exists, want something.

Starting point is 00:35:04 to be able to decipher that. Or at the very least, I shouldn't, you know, again, not decipher it, but something, a tool that can be used to, from content creator side of it, to be able to divulge that yourself. Which is why I argue this is such an obvious sort of tool against that, because if we're already being transparent about it, even though they will use it anyway, it's something to be said, no, look, I did, you know, this is, it's no way I was used in this at all,

Starting point is 00:35:27 despite their claims. Now, what's interesting is you also have the mainstream side, Wall Street Journal and a larger writer saying that they were accused of it and it was wrong. And the Wall Street Journal writers saying, and the company was claiming they went through all kinds of Wall Street Journal articles and writers. And it was lots of AI. And I'm thinking to myself, probably. I mean, do we really even question that right now?

Starting point is 00:35:51 I mean, most these people are using stuff, maybe not writing entire articles. Maybe that too. I think we know that too. But at the end of the day, for information, for correcting sentences, like things that ultimately then insert content to manipulate the direction. And so this is what I think is so interesting. So it says last month, Mrs. Ballard, he was the writer,

Starting point is 00:36:08 was thrust from obscurity into notoriety when Hatchett, her publisher, announced that she was canceling her book over accusations that it was generated with artificial intelligence. This comes from Panagram, or Pangram, who basically was the one

Starting point is 00:36:22 that accused her of using it. But his evidence was itself authored by AI, which clearly creates its own problem, even if it's accurate, how something could that be inserted into the process to manipulate the outcome, which is what we've seen people do in authority. Or just that it's inaccurate, which is, you know, one's more deliberate, but it amounts to the same problem.

Starting point is 00:36:42 The PANGram's namesake product is an AI tool that purports to detect AI generated content with 99.98% accuracy. It's classified as 78.3% of her book. That's what the allegation was. For many passages, it indicates only medium confidence. Now, Ms. Ballard told a journal reporter that she did not perform. personally use AI, but an acquaintance she hired to edit it, the original self-published edition did. And then she goes, but please do your research on editors before trusting them with your

Starting point is 00:37:11 work. So is she lying? Is she getting caught using AI to write a book and ultimately shucking it off on her editor? Or is that the truth? And if that's the case, then what's the real difference to the reader if it is the case? And so why has it become an allegation about a lie when it seems, you know, and this is all up in the air because who do you trust? Neither of them is the answer, you question everything. Wait for facts. And if you can't find, you know, you don't just pick aside. But at the end of the day, I think it's clear that we know corporate media is using these things. And that's what I'm going to get into next. And it's clear that people are using them for some parts, if not all out there. And so this becomes a point to be made about why.

Starting point is 00:37:47 And this is where I agree with Whitney and the rest that this becomes a justification for more ability to surveil and confirm. None of us are calling for that. Hopefully we don't want that. It says in November, the University of Maryland issued a pre-print, an academic paper, not peer-reviewed, that it says that alleging that three freelance op-ed pieces that this platform for this writer and this platform accepted were AI generated. Now it says, this person, the writer, looked into these charges and concluded they were unsupported, that Pangemits isn't reliable enough to serve on the basis for such accusations. And I technically agree with that. And that there is strong possibility that other writers were manipulated.

Starting point is 00:38:28 Now, obviously we can see a world in which, let's just take an administration that's rife with corruption that was clearly misusing its power right now, would use something like this to accuse people they want to stifle of doing that. Imagine this tool was available. When Oz Turks op-ed was going around about Israel genocide, they say AI, not that that's even a good example since it wouldn't

Starting point is 00:38:48 arguably undermine the point of the facts, but you can see how this could be used to suppress content that people in power wouldn't like or companies. If you're getting called out for something, you did. Norfolk Southern suddenly goes, oh, you lie, yeah, you know, whatever. You can see where this goes. Now, it says, Pangem pitches its tool to publishing, publishing and media organizations as a way to protect editorial integrity.

Starting point is 00:39:12 The Maryland researchers used PANGram to scan over 250,000 newspaper articles, including almost 45,000 opinion pieces from this platform. The New York Times, Washington Post, they report that they found opinion articles, quote, are 6.4 times more likely to contain AI, which just me, I mean, I would agree. And I wouldn't, I don't think anybody would even balk at the idea that these writers are using AI to expedite their process, if not entirely. And they just go, well, it was my idea. I gave them the facts, and they don't see a problem with that. Now, I'm just speaking generally, those that don't,

Starting point is 00:39:46 that's what they would argue. We've heard this already. And it says the study includes a table that highlights 18 op-eds among them are three from the journal that were supposedly AI. Now, this is my first step was to run the article through Pangoram whose website allows for free scans. To the surprise, the same tool apply the same articles produced different results. Well, doesn't that just sound like every AI or not thing you can find? Well, yeah, it gives you a line. It gives you, and maybe it gives you some level of insight, but it's not consistent. It's not 100%.

Starting point is 00:40:13 So I guess a larger, or a third or fourth point would be simply in the whole dynamic here. Maybe we're, I mean, I think this is the problem, reaction, solution of it. It's just not ready yet. And so they drive you into this. using 74% accuracy. So we all go, whoa, we want better accuracy instead of going, how about we don't do this at all? Just a thought. And it says these wildly inconsistent results are enough to discredit any accusation based

Starting point is 00:40:39 on their and the pangram analysis. I agree. But you can see why that seems a little bit wild. They would come out and do that. But that's why I started with the first part, is that I sense that there was some AI used here and they even go into this. It says he said, and this is just quickly, they go into deeper parts of this. one of the people they spoke to said he uses chat GPT in a limited way and it says he pasts and

Starting point is 00:41:00 it says he says he doesn't paste text from the chat bot back into his draft but decides for himself which of the suggestions to incorporate so what are we talking about the guy literally does AI and then takes pieces of it puts it in his writing so he is using AI that's exactly the point but now they're quibbling about how but I didn't do it all with AI well okay but that's not the same thing though is And so now, but see, this is the problem for people like me, is that now you're going to be led in some subtle ways you might not even realize. But it says, and this is another one. Sometimes I have copy and pasted them into AI with the prompt check for grammar, spelling,

Starting point is 00:41:34 accuracy of statements. And this is where you get the syntax consistency. And it says she also had sometimes pasted AI output back into a draft. So another one that admitted using AI. And it says it is inaccurate and unfair to characterize work produced in the manner described as AI generate. Is it? Okay, well, what's the line? Are we just going 100% created or AI manipulate? And welcome to the reason that what we're doing is so important. Not because we're trying to verify anybody, not because we're trying to set some kind of line, but because everybody

Starting point is 00:42:09 everywhere sees the need, even corporate platforms who are trying to use it for their benefit of being able to, or rather being transparent about AI use. And that's the point. And it's not not everyone's going to do that. Plenty of other platforms are going to choose to ignore it or maybe because they don't agree with our stance. It's okay.

Starting point is 00:42:27 But our point is you can guarantee that we will be putting it forward. Now, you should question us too. Check it. You should. But the point comes down to the fact is that you can rely on the fact that we will be being transparent

Starting point is 00:42:38 about it, unlike a lot out there. And so that is an important way for this to go forward. And that's why Derek called on other platforms to do the same thing. Using the IMA pledge or making one for yourself.

Starting point is 00:42:50 Now it says the opportunity to respond before publishing, all three writers said they received no such communication, which is interesting to me, meaning that these people wrote articles about how they used AI without even reaching out to them going, hey, is that true? But now, that's a journalistic practice. And it is very clearly part of the due diligence process,

Starting point is 00:43:09 but it's not necessarily required. It doesn't make you a good journalist if you don't check with the person you're accusing of something, but it's interesting, isn't it? And it says, continuing last part here, I am in a position to defend my writers and myself. Of course, the platform. Of course, she's going to argue they didn't use AI

Starting point is 00:43:24 when it seems they did in some at least limited fashion. But she says, but Pangram has shredded the reputation of this writer whose book was supposed to be published. Now, that's a fair point. Now you can see in the same way, even if she did use AI and now she's lying about it, the point for me is about how it could be used in the future. Meaning, I'm not saying that's the case, but we should question that. Is that you could come out with a, you know,

Starting point is 00:43:47 you know, another Whitney Webb's another new book. coming out. Right? All of a sudden, they say, well, boot, you're blocked, your sensor were suppressed because we, you know, and accusing it of being AI wouldn't it effectively be a very damaging thing, wouldn't it? Even if it's false. So you can see where this can be used, guys. Now, I thought that when there's plenty of these going around, new ones as well, very important to consider. That's why we did this in the first place. Now, I'm sure more will come around this. I know, I mean, we had two panels that ultimately didn't happen, one of which was the AI impersonation one. Whitney was having satellite problems and we just kind of put a pin in it because she's the main, you know,

Starting point is 00:44:25 it's basically about her being manipulated and Catherine as well. But ultimately that will likely come around when Whitney's ready to do that. But on top of that, we're going to be planning on doing AI panels about this pledge, the larger conversation, and just about where this goes. All right, and so look forward to that as well. Now, really quickly, I just wanted to follow up on this since we didn't get to in the last couple of days. I know you've seen, I mean, and generally, some of probably half of what you're going to see today is stuff that many of you already saw in passing because I know you guys are informed. But I'm sure there are points we can be made today that you might not have thought about. I'd hope so. So let's get into it. So first,

Starting point is 00:44:59 a couple of follow-up points on the MRI shot. If you didn't see this, crazy on August 6, 2026, we put this out. FDA approves MRI flu shot. Just still insane to me. I thought Stargate was insane. You know, but here we are with multiple COVID shots, new MRI shots, self-amplified. shots, but he's fighting the vaccines. But at the end of the day, guys, and of course, I'm not going to get this now, but check this out. We went into this in multiple shows, the bacteriophane system, which I

Starting point is 00:45:24 still argue is, it's the one that went around as AI-created viruses. It's what it is, but it's much more complicated than that, and I do believe it's connected with the gain of function direction, as other peer-reveud science argues, look into it. It's included here. It's not getting the right coverage because it's being framed as something different, largely

Starting point is 00:45:40 in the corporate media. But on the note of the MRI shots, One thing we talked about that I haven't, you know, again, I wanted to include the next day we talked, and I forgot actually, was this post. Because this is now going back around right now. They're being called conspiracy theorists for being concerned about the blood, you know, the blood banks. I mean, this is not a new topic, guys. This goes back to the AIDS conversation and not because of what people would argue, but because of the tainted blood supply as Meekovitz and others have talked about. And so the same kind of dynamic we're talking about here is the fact that they were taking blood from people who took COVID shots.

Starting point is 00:46:13 and you may not think that matters. And of course, as this one says, American Red Cross, 2022, George was the only survivor of a bad accident as a teenager. His doctor said it wouldn't have been possible without blood donors. And this person simply says, is COVID-vaccinated blood labeled as such? Good question. 22. American Red Cross famously posted this.

Starting point is 00:46:35 This is 2022. They've never taken it down. And I've followed up, as we'll show you many times. We don't label blood products as containing vaccinated. or unvaccinated blood as the COVID-19 vaccine does not enter the bloodstream and poses no safety risk, both of which have been unanimously shown to be false. And just quickly, I can show you at least two, three, which I can't find the other one down there of studies that came out a year later, the year after that, proving that statement is false, which you all know. SARS-Cov-2 spike

Starting point is 00:47:05 MRI vaccine sequences or others that so specifically spike protein circulate in the blood up to 28 days and some which go way beyond that guys and these are here's another one right here i mean it's just wild to me right and i keep following up that was a year later this one simply says and yet another peer feed study finds you're wrong how is it that we can know this and you're still standing by that statement another one and we found another one red cross do you have the courage to find the event of course not posting crickets they don't care i just find that insane and so it's following up to the last conversation we had now understand guys that the science alone is not i mean there's so much evidence that shows you the spike protein is continually dangerous, that the MRNAC, I mean, we've gone through

Starting point is 00:47:44 all of this. And the science shows you that it continues to be in your blood. So had they taken blood from somebody who got vaccinated within 30 days or more, the reality that it's likely that there would be something in that, right? It's possible. Put it that way. It's obvious that it's there. And this has happened before.

Starting point is 00:48:00 I just want to include that because we had mentioned it and it is coming back up in the conversation. Longclaw commented this going, and this is another point, guys. I mean, somebody's calling out that Eli Yacobi guy right now and plenty of the others that are still allowed to do the thing X said they were going to stop, which is just spam propaganda. Why? Because he's propaganding for Zionism in Israel, guys. But Longclaw, my opinion, simply goes, hey, community notes, seems it's about time to correct this inaccurate info, which you can prove via peer-reviewed science is not accurate. And of course, two years later, you know, it's just, it's not there. They don't respond. Why is that? Why doesn't Grock respond? we should ask Grock at this point now, right? But the whole thing is the same is that this never followed up.

Starting point is 00:48:42 And I'm willing to bet you, well, you know, we should try with Grock and see what happens. I'm going to put this down and try that later. On that note, I thought it was important to remind you that here's RFK Jr., whether he's not able to, you know, tap twice in the desk if you're in whatever, if you're under duress, RFK Jr., and you'll let us know if you're not allowed to speak. The point is this was August 10, 2026. He literally came out and said, finally a president who stands for, medical freedom, informed consent, and gold standard science.

Starting point is 00:49:10 The main thing he sold on the idea of gold standard was the saline placebo. We heard him stress that to the ceiling. And guess what? If you didn't see the show, the flu shot they disapproved used literally an older shot. And yet here he comes after that and says gold standard. I mean, how can you be so shameless unless you're not in control? You decide. that kills me because you know what it's worse for me that he did do good work than somebody who's

Starting point is 00:49:40 always been a liar because it just it's almost it's worse it is and who knows guys i'm not who maybe he's literally being threatened you know i mean it's like i've never said it from day one we don't know that we shouldn't assume it the reality is he's playing the game gold standard i mean you can't make that case and then literally not do it and then keep making the statement unless you're an dishonest person tom fitton john solomon points out and by the way i'm actually we went through this study, and I hadn't reviewed anybody's content about this. We went through the study ourselves and broke it down for you. That's what I always do anyway, because I prefer it that way. But I broke down the study and told you just on the fly, I'm reading through it. Oh,

Starting point is 00:50:16 gosh, look at this. Paracarditis, compare that to the amount. That's clear, you know. And I just, you know, I like seeing these things of my own volition and then seeing it become something that's roundly talked about. It just shows you that we're ahead of these things. And this one, it takes 5,000 jabs of Moderna's just approved MRI flu vaccine, to prevent one more hospitalization, if that's even accurate, I don't argue it is, compared to the standard flu vaccine. I mean, its point is it's probably way, way worse than that. And so all he's highlighting is this is bad.

Starting point is 00:50:47 But it says, but the new shot causes six times more injuries. Tom Fitton says, why did the FDA approve another MRI jab on August 7th? Obviously, because they aren't doing what they promised. It's obvious, but I'm sure he's asking this to get people to look at it. The point is that everybody sees it. Here's Joseph Lopato from Florida. And this is Retsif Levy saying the faculty at Harvard are engaging in promoting the new flu vaccine, calling out people who are, you know, just pushing the thing that is dangerous.

Starting point is 00:51:21 Like I'm not talking dangerous, excuse me, dangerous because we think MRNA is dangerous, which we do, but dangerous because the study itself showed you that it was more dangerous than the one. I mean, the idea becomes use the other vaccine. So when we compare it, the damage looks like it's not as severe compared to things that also cause damage. If you compare it to saline, well, it's way more stark. And we told you that during COVID. And they just did it right in front of you.

Starting point is 00:51:48 As Joseph says, the same MRI flu vaccine that caused 15 times more serious adverse events than the number of hospitalizations it prevented. Doctors, read the paper, not just the abstract. Remember when they accused us of doing that? which some do, but it's just pretty clear where this goes. Now, Toby Rogers, this was FDA posting on the 6th. And he says, darkest day in the history of the FDA, a regulatory decision purchased by a wealthy donor to the Republican Party, Stephen Swarchman. I don't even think we need to break down stuff.

Starting point is 00:52:19 I mean, is anybody confused about Trump being a dishonest grifting president? It's not about left and right. It's not about Trump versus Biden. It's about the objective obviousness of what they're doing and calling it out, which I think most people are seeing. And so I don't even think we need to really make it clear anymore, but I will when it matters. But like, you know, there's a time where I thought we needed to really harp on the idea. Look at he's stealing from you. He's lying to you. But then, you know, January, February, March of 2025, we started going well, probably a little bit later than that. It's clear that

Starting point is 00:52:48 the Republicans are turning on him. The two-party illusion is breaking down. And I think we were radically ahead of that awareness. And it's now being kind of casually accepted as what everybody sees. Remember that. Mary Tally Bowden, Old flu shot, $269.50 for a box of 10, which I still think is insane. The new MRNA flu shot that kills more people, $1,47.50 on a box of 10. Thanks, Trump and RFK Jr. You're knocking it out of the park. Now, another thing to follow up on, John Fleetwood put this out on the 17th of July. Moderna injects first participant with experimental.

Starting point is 00:53:23 By the way, the other flu, MRNA shot is investigational. It's also experimental. It's listed right on their own documentation. M RNA 4200 cancer shot. Yeah, right out of Stargate, which is literally, oh wait, did I bring it up? I thought I did. There it is.

Starting point is 00:53:38 Which is literally one of the first things Larry Allison of Oracle literally broke down for you is AI-created vaccines. And they are rushing forward with this. And I mean, Trump literally ran NFK Jr. on the idea of stopping these things. Now, here it is. and make sure you read that. John has been good work there. Moderna announces first participant dose in phase one clinical trial. Investigational, again, another way to point out how clear it is that

Starting point is 00:54:05 investigational, which you should know, means the same thing. It's an experiment. Tumor-targeted cancer antigen therapy. Today announced the dosing of its first U.S. participant in phase one study evaluating M RNA 4200. So guys, they're not, I mean, it's just obvious that, I mean, I'm willing to bet you when this truly comes out that we'll find out that it's some overlap with self-amplifying because that seems to be the direction that they're leaning into.

Starting point is 00:54:26 Just my guess. Now, to get into the point of the spyware, which I think is very important and relevant to the part we started with about AI and transparency. We just talked about this, in case you didn't see it, Pallenture partners with major news organizations to use your data that they absorb with Pallentier, and they call it actionable intelligence in their own documentation. And then we're talking about Business Insider, Politico, Build, USA Today, and new, I mean, hundreds of underling papers within them locally all around the country.

Starting point is 00:55:00 I just continue to find this insane. So carrying this forward, something that Orwell will share with me that goes back to a previous conversation in 2010, just to kind of show you how long, like here's the funny thought I had. First of all, this is October 1st, 2010. Army embeds active duty sciop soldiers at local TV stations. Now, what I think this is, I think this obviously relevant and interesting that it's been going on so long, but really that this is what they have. I think, you know, this was under the guise of sort of like, you know, fighting back.

Starting point is 00:55:28 It's always like that. But realize that this is what had to be done. You know, I mean, this is like talking about going from tapping somebody's phone to just being able to absorb the data out of the ether. Like, that's where we are today. And so it's like thinking about this compared to what we're, even just the one I just showed you, a Palantir, absorbing data from the, from the news organization. I mean, it's not even hiding this anymore. This is just the escalation of, or rather the, I guess the escalation, but the continue.

Starting point is 00:55:55 continual the increase of how this has grown around our lives. And now we have larger, and this is where we're going to get into the next segment here, where it's gone from just working with this for surveillance to literally like this fascistic blend of these massive corporations that are arguably almost more powerful than the government, the governments that they're working through. And now are being given the ability to use their cyber abilities to attack people. And this is terrifying to me. I mean, like truly where this goes.

Starting point is 00:56:22 And I forgot to even grab this one. Because obviously this is what we're at. This is the continuation of this very point. Detachment 201. I swear, it's amazing to me how people don't know about this. Literally was, as I've recently talked about, Palantir, meta, and Open AI being given colonel positions within the U.S.

Starting point is 00:56:38 military. Not civilian, not white lab coats, literal. I mean, this is a real picture. That's actually them being sworn in as colonels in the military. And then, you know, I went over the whole thing with Brad Miller, who was, you know, very, very knowledgeable about this. And I just think it's wild to me.

Starting point is 00:56:56 There's a technocracy in uniform. Literally, you have Mark Andreessen getting an advisor position under Hegsef. I think I said Lucky Palmer Lucky getting another position. They're literally becoming the government, if not already, and this is just the illusory veil being removed. So what's happening now, as this article titles it, Trump deputizes private companies for offensive cyber strikes against foreign criminals. Now, you might have seen this come out, August 12th, expanding capability. abilities to combat transnational cyber-in-bet enabled crime, cyber-enabled, which is interesting, opens the door to just about anything. But what I think is important here, first of all, remember

Starting point is 00:57:36 that these EOs, as I've always pointed out, I mean, it's really a suggestion in a large sense when it comes to the way these things end up rolling out in a national, even global sense. Executive orders apply to the executive branch. Now, like we just saw with the vaccine point, I mean, aside from the fact that there was a whole bunch of other holes within that, that I'm not going to get into today. Steve and I broke it down. I don't, I mean, I just don't believe this is even what they care about when they're pushing other MRI shots. Regardless, it's, I think they know largely toothless.

Starting point is 00:58:05 Like, they're going to continue to do, as they told you before, well, we'll just recommend them. Okay, well, then they're all going to do what they want anyway. So it's ultimately not a real change. It's just Trump stating what he says he wants when not really doing it, which is like every other hollow promise he's done. Now, look, I hope I'm wrong. Even in just that one example, because you need to break up the MMR shot and whatever else. as RFK Jr. literally just said days before that that he recommends the MMR shot. There's no way to say that without acknowledging that means all three of them together.

Starting point is 00:58:33 That doesn't make any sense. There's something amiss, guys. So what this opens the door to is basically creating private cyber attack companies, I guess, but like cyber attack units that are run through companies. Now, I'm going to get into what I, as of right now, there's no tapped companies. But I think we know where this goes. And I'm not thinking Palantir because I don't think that's even, I mean, it certainly could be. But I think we're talking more specifically like Israeli spyware type direction. So first this article, Tech Times, August 13th.

Starting point is 00:59:07 For the first time in U.S. history, vetted private companies can conduct offensive cyber operations against foreign criminal networks. Now, again, foreign becomes very broad, especially with the definitions we're getting from this administration. As I'll make a point in a second, the transnational criminal organization, the TCO category they've created. I mean, we'll get into what, like Trendyaragua. I mean, guys, they're accusing people in this country being Trendy Aragua simply because they're Democrats. And we went through that during the focal point of that. So it becomes kind of, you know, like anything else, especially with corrupt governments, the ability to just broaden the scope. And now you're a terrorist because you're a Democrat or however they view.

Starting point is 00:59:52 So the idea that it's foreign criminal networks becomes the purview, the prerogative of Paragon Solutions or whoever is in this role. Now it says under direct federal authorization, meaning the U.S. government is tapping private entities and giving them the authority, arguably ostensibly with them giving the leash in the allowance to do so, but we know where this ends up going in the past, but giving them federal authority to conduct what would normally be a state department intelligence operation. Now it's interesting because this is like a lot of this, I think just taking the veil off. I think we're already operating this way, or they are, right?

Starting point is 01:00:29 That we're talking about these talentier types or the Oracle type, these companies that are essentially contractors and basically the way their government operates today and the way that the current network state direction and the, you know, dark enlightenment movement and Curtis Yarvin philosophy and Trump's entire administration are driving us towards this CEO-run country without the Constitution. That's what they're literally talking about. So I feel like this is just one more step in that direction of basically blending that line and allowing these companies to conduct governmental operations.

Starting point is 01:00:58 And again, have already been doing so. The signing resolves a legal barrier that has blocked private sector cyber action for decades. But it does not, but it does so by creating a new category of authorized private operator that sits in uncharted territory under international law. The, again, they're all national security. what was it presidential memorandum you know, the whole thing is they play that game with like the memorandum versus the direct, the action.

Starting point is 01:01:28 Bottom line is we're talking about executive orders where you have one person signing their, you know, dictate that people are supposed to fall. That's not how we're told this country operates. Now, as we can all see, this is not just, oh, well, because of this or because we're gridlocked or, you know, this is what it is now consistently, from Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump. It just, it hasn't stopped, guys.

Starting point is 01:01:51 I mean, really, to be honest, it was Bush that truly started the, you know, the kind of increased that degree as far as I understand, looking back. And Obama went crazy and was criticized by Trump. And Trump went even crazier than Biden. And now Trump's pointing back going, Biden did all that. They're all doing the same thing. Pointing at the other side. That's how this game operates.

Starting point is 01:02:10 Expanding capabilities to combat transnational cyber enabled crime is what it's called. We'll go through a couple parts to stand out to me in a second. The first category, cyber surveillance operations covers covert intelligence gathering from foreign systems. So already you're talking about companies who, again, are already involved with this as contractors, but who are then as a company conducting cyber operations against foreign state actors. Or at least they argue are the one that did something to them is kind of how this starts out. I'm just not open the door for any number of like international events or like, you know, incidents. I mean, it just, I feel like it's probably by design.

Starting point is 01:02:47 Or a way to say, well, that wasn't the U.S. government. That was this company. And, you know, you can, you be, it's like the public-private partnership kind of dynamic and how that can be abused. It says including access that would normally constitute unauthorized access under the computer fraud and abuse act. So basically now legalizing what would otherwise be a crime if it was done without the government saying it was okay.

Starting point is 01:03:08 Perfect way the world works, right? These are crimes. No, the government's doing it. So it's okay. the national security presidential memorandum threads that needle by framing participating companies as acting under the control and oversight of the U.S. government. I mean, and look at the kind of government we're dealing with. Do you have the confidence that they're going to be able to rein in these billion-dollar companies

Starting point is 01:03:30 that already act like governments? I mean, come on, guys. And this explicitly authorizes activity resulting in the manipulation, disruption, denial, or destruction of criminal networks, networks information systems. networks or infrastructure. That is not intelligence gathering. It's sabotage. Authorized by contract with the federal agency, which is crazy.

Starting point is 01:03:51 But think about this. You heard what Alex Karp said about spraying piss on people that he didn't like or, you know, all these crazy things they say. These are petty, vindictive people. So when you talk about, you know, you could rationalize a world in which they justify, claiming you're some kind of foreign element because Trump's calling that to anybody calling out Israel, So anybody calling out what's going on, right? They keep telling you that. They're working with foreign elements, Democrats.

Starting point is 01:04:16 Suddenly now you've got the rationale from these companies to attack Americans, or at least an American website, for example, and take it down under the guys that you're working with a foreign element. And then how do you even verify that? How do you go on to say that they're lying about me? It's the AI type of problem. They're going to say that that's what the intelligence showed, national security. I mean, this is a quagmire that, I mean, it just becomes more and more opaque,

Starting point is 01:04:38 and that's what they want. all I'm saying, first of all, is that you can see a way it's abused in the most obvious sense where vindictive people that we see right now use this against people that are not foreign actors that simply want to pretend they are and conflate it with the same things Trump are, is. But then just the way it's used normally in and of itself is insane, right? I mean, it's creating a circumstance where you blur the line of what government is, and that's exactly what they want. Per operation approval requirement is what they claim, right?

Starting point is 01:05:07 The government has to approve every single operation. I just highly doubt that's actually how this goes. Especially since I don't think that they're even in control, whatever we call the U.S. government guys, whether it's even there anymore, and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. I mean, let's be real about what we're watching today. There's something off, and it's not,

Starting point is 01:05:23 I don't think these are the people, I don't think the Pete Heggsets of the world and the cash Patels have any idea what's going on, let alone the ability to dictate what happens. Trump is included in that category, in my opinion, especially with what we're seeing today. But it says there is also a financial backstop, companies may be required as a condition of their contracts to maintain a bond or escrow of at least

Starting point is 01:05:44 a million dollars. So now you have this kind of weird black market slush fund, rather a black operation slush fund kind of thing. So how many companies? I mean, you know, you have a hundred of them is $100 billion sitting there, but it's probably going to be more than that. Either way, who knows what that amounts to, but it's simply a fund that will be utilized for them to conduct operations. The NSPM draws one explicit hard line. The dual directors cannot on their own authority approve any operation if it is likely to result in the loss of life or serious injury or if it would rise to the level of use of force or armed attack under international law because guys clearly they care about human life clearly they're concerned about international

Starting point is 01:06:27 law right so i mean of course they're going to we we will not censor you we will never violate your rights yeah and then they go on to do all of that so it just rings hollow to have them go we'll draw the line for when it hurts as they're murdering people in Gaza as we speak, as they're literally starved people to death all over the world. It's obvious they don't mean that. I'm sure we can understand. Oh, one last part in this here. Yeah, one last part.

Starting point is 01:06:52 At the end, it says what this means for cybersecurity firms. For the private cybersecurity industry, the National Security Presidential Memorandum opens a market category that's never legally existed before. Federally authorized, contractually governed. per operation offensive cyber services directed against foreign criminal networks. I mean, you basically become like a mercenary outfit working ostensibly for the U.S. government. It's almost like opaque and not even, I mean, exactly what I would argue they want.

Starting point is 01:07:23 Now, even more so, exactly what you would argue Israel would want to operate under and not have to worry at all by any of those things and just do what they want and act like they're operating under the auspices of the U.S. government, but not as Israel, but as a U.S. company that is absolutely Israel. That's what I read this as potentially, or rather the best way to say that is that's what I see this becoming, if not already the plan, my personal opinion. Without that last part, you can see how ever, regardless, if you pick Palantir, Oracle, it's just as problematic. I mean, not even aside from the fact that's also Israel included, but take one that doesn't. It's still something that I think will be abused like everything this

Starting point is 01:08:01 government's ever touched. And it goes on to say, the technical firm's best position to participate are precisely those with the deepest offensive tradecraft. Who do you think that is? Guys, it's not even debatable. Experience penetrating, surveilling, and disrupting sophisticated criminal infrastructure at scale. That technical profile overlaps substantially with the mercenary spyware industry whose leading firms happen to be NSO group, Israel, Intellexa, Israel, and their peers, largely

Starting point is 01:08:34 Israeli entities. And that's not my opinion, have spent a decade developing exactly those capabilities primarily for government clients. Now all it's happening is you're now going to take one of these mercenary spyware companies like we've talked about, Pegasus, NSO, ax on us. I mean, we've talked about all these. And allowing them to come out of the shadows like everything else we're talking about and just operate with a government badge.

Starting point is 01:09:01 I mean, this is like, I mean, you know, it's like everything else we're talking about. It's on the surface. It's in your face. And it's just kind of daring you to do something about it. United States designates eight cartels and transnational organizations. 2025. I was just making this point before. You know, Sinolawa cartel, Trenda, Rago.

Starting point is 01:09:19 We have seen them be fast and loose with the accusations of who is in those groups for, I mean, since this last administration started. So all I want to show you is when they talk about TCO, which is what you're going to see in their executive order. And it's something that they've already used frivolously to accuse other people of being a part of. of or working for, then it becomes anybody they want to, including MS-13. It says MS-13. I mean, the absurdity of taking a group that they lied about so brazenly and saying that this is how we're going to justify action by companies where, you know, you see where this goes.

Starting point is 01:09:55 Now, on that note, before we get into the executive order, I mean, this is what we're getting at, guys, these operational things that have been behind the scenes that are now going be given front row seats, or rather just for you to see anyway. The Israeli election interference and psychological operation industrial complex. I've talked about this many times. Here's the actual article from the Guardian and plenty of other platforms that were involved of breaking this down. Revealed the hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections.

Starting point is 01:10:24 This guy, his name's Jorge, admittedly works for the Israeli government and admittedly was part of manipulating foreign elections, many of which he argues. we're in the United States. Read it for yourself. Talks about being paid to conduct foreign operations, psychological social media campaigns. This is what they do, guys, and this is old, three years old.

Starting point is 01:10:47 So what we're seeing is this becoming a public operating entity, generally speaking, like things like, because right now they haven't really pointed to any specific entity. But this is the kind of thing that is filling the role. This is what they want. That's what's so alarming about this. Lucas, when I say that, Lucas, it just Lucas, Ellen Jinx, posted this. She's security and privacy, data protection, which she covers, I guess, I'm not from,

Starting point is 01:11:14 I just saw this today. USA is building a state-controlled private cyber force. It lets vetted U.S. companies conduct covert access, surveillance, and cyber attacks against foreign criminal networks or what they claim are those. U.S. companies will be authorized to target industrial control systems and manipulate disrupt or degrade, destroy cyber-controlled infrastructure. Okay. Well, now you've got Israeli adjacent companies or maybe just companies, but that's why I see this going, who are now rationalizing, doing this and disrupting and degrading infrastructure and I don't know, Iran, after they just told us

Starting point is 01:11:48 they attacked our water. Did they? We just got another lie from about attacking Trump or anybody yelled. Israel will lie like it breathes, guys. And we know this because it's been told to us many, many times over the year. Let me preface these remarks with I never, never, ever believe Israeli figures. I've been in the government too long to know that the Israelis are patent liars in their intelligence community, in their propaganda community, certainly, and in their leadership, they are inveterate liars. Let me say that again. They are liars. So you, oh, oh. So very understood by people to work with them. And so the idea becomes, well, you're in this position.

Starting point is 01:12:36 Or again, you could take Israel out, but you have a company who has an agenda, who has an interest. You have a foreign adversary or a, you know, a competitor, for example. Now suddenly you don't think these companies would take advantage to that situation. Many people would argue no. I argue that you don't understand the way that the world can and has operated. Not everybody, but in the power structures and authority and governments and adjacent elements. It's what they do. And people like Trump and Elon Musk would tell you that's the way the world works. Stephen Miller would tell you you're weak for not agreeing with that. I'm not saying I want

Starting point is 01:13:05 that to be the case. I'm saying that's the way it operates and they don't want you to see that all the time. And we should fight to change that. But it says including physical destruction. Operations likely to cause death, serious injury amount to the use of force can't be approved. We went through most of this. And I just want to point out her calling this out. This is where I had seen her the this is what got me going on this direction of this. So I want to point it out. And I I think this is important. I'll hide some of the things I saw as well. August 12th, again, expanding capabilities to combat transnational cyber-enabled crime.

Starting point is 01:13:36 Now, some of the things that stood out, one she pointed out, was simply as it says, create, manage, and maintain the program to authorize participating companies, in case you just want to see for yourself, as defined in Section F4, to conduct cyber surveillance operations and cyber effects operations against foreign cyber-enabled transnational criminal organizations. under the control and oversight of federal government. So you're giving government authority to companies. I mean, guys, it just gets more and more clear.

Starting point is 01:14:03 Now, this one says require participating companies to enter into contractual agreements with the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security. So now you're not just, you know, you're literally under contract. So, I mean, you are the government. And I think that's already kind of the point, though.

Starting point is 01:14:19 Now, you're not technically speaking, but I argue that this is what this amounts to. It's like being a government contractor. like Elon Musk, you know, you're tangentially part of the government apparatus. Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the program executive directors shall in coordination with Homeland Security Council establish consensus operating procedures for the program that ensures the federal government's complete oversight and control of participating companies' performance. So even right there, you then can argue that maybe from the other side of it, you have an opening

Starting point is 01:14:49 here for the government to start to control companies through this guise. Now, what did this become something they argue they need to do for national security, sort of like in a domain? And we're just going to sort of take over your company's resources when it needs, you know, I doubt that happens, but it's certainly possible. And so what we're talking about is the idea where the government opens the door for them to be able to have complete oversight and control of their company's performance. Now, you can argue that means in operations of cyber attacks, but isn't that what they do in general? It just becomes a weird overlay. Again, one of the main points is the merging, kind of the fascistic blend of these companies and the government itself. Lastly, it says any activity authorized by the program must be conducted,

Starting point is 01:15:31 a program must be conducted subject to the oversight, operational control, and legal authorities of the U.S. government. The question is, do you think that they're even capable of managing something like that, or will they be played? Or are they just lying to you? So in general, let's get into some of these overlapping points. Now, Oracle was one I already mentioned. Derek wrote an article about this in 2025, like most of the stuff happening right now. Oracle and the rise of the AI surveillance state under Trump. And we talk about this.

Starting point is 01:15:59 And here's an example, by the way, of one of those pictures, which I'm not doing now anymore, but still argue that helps circumvent the copyright attacks that we were getting unjustly. But bottom line is that this is something along with other companies. They're using, you know, one of, I argued the potentials for this. Now, less likely Oracle or Pallantier, but it's possible, but more so ones we'll get into next. But why this opens the door or is connected for me is because of this. This was just going around. I think it just shows you that, you know, these companies guys, it's not,

Starting point is 01:16:27 now you can, whether you want to argue it's infiltration, so it's like without their control or without their knowledge, that's part of it. That does happen. You can look at something like this and understand. I mean, very well, this clip could, it could represent infiltration, that she was sort of placed or put into the position to control. But maybe she's not.

Starting point is 01:16:44 Maybe she's just a person who's been manipulated enough to believe that her job is primarily about helping Israel or doing things that in many cases are illegal or immoral or whatever else, but because they're on Israel's side, which is just a weird thing that, like, from Palantir's perspective, that's a strange thing to do. You know, but it's so we all see what's going on and we see why and especially when it become something that they're involved with, whether it's genocide, illegally surveilling American citizens and then just shoving it down your throat, it's, you know, they're profiting from it.

Starting point is 01:17:15 But I think there's obviously a larger agenda. This just shows you what they're capable of. And then connecting this your mind with these kind of companies and what they're willing to do under what we just described if this is how they operate. Hit our website in an Arab country, and you saw your entire screen filled with an Israeli flag, which said, not only we stand with Israel,

Starting point is 01:17:40 we stand with our employees in Israel, we stand with the people of Israel, we stand with the military establishment of Israel. Now for the podcast, the on the screen, it's in this, this is at the, was it Israel Alliance Committee Council? I forget the full title. It's right there.

Starting point is 01:18:01 Anyway, it says that Oracle's executive chair, Safra Katz, openly boasts about supplying scary technology to the Israeli military to further its agenda in Gaza. There's a few things that we did. that I really can't talk about, to be honest, because to advance the agenda for the Israeli military. But our teams did a lot. We have some really profoundly scary technology

Starting point is 01:18:29 at Oracle, and we wanted to make sure that it was available for the effort. Let's just say that. OK? I was in the Kirya, and I go in, and I meet with everyone. you to match and I meet with. And on my way out, I run into, I don't know, five of my team who are all in uniform working. And to be honest with you, it's like my proudest moment. Oh yeah, in case you misunderstand what she's saying is when Oracle employees were in the IDF,

Starting point is 01:19:05 you know, no big deal. And you may not think that's a big deal. Frankly, I think it matters. I mean, look, I would, being in the U.S. military at this point, like in the middle, like post-Iraq war, That matters, guys, because of all the things that people were seeing the U.S. military do. Now, that's somewhat changed for other reasons, and it's getting worse again because of what's going on today. But it's obvious that people have become aware of exactly what they're doing. I mean, you can only see so many videos about how soldiers were raping people in Iraq until you realize that there's something, you know, there's something wrong culturally with the military, not just, you know, and, of course, which then gets framed as American people. Just like I would argue that what's going on there doesn't mean every Israeli.

Starting point is 01:19:41 It certainly means a clear majority like you could argue did during Iraq. That's the point, guys, we're being propagandized. But it's important to understand. You know, this is in what, and what they're supporting. Like, it's not even debatable that you could ignore. If you want to debate about the word genocide, then that's your problem because you're ridiculous. But at the same time, it's obvious that these are war crimes.

Starting point is 01:20:01 You know, so you're fine. Pretend it's not a genocide. You're going to tell me that that many children 300 killed in the last 300 days is somehow just what happens. It's just obvious these people have some kind of moral ambiguity or whatever you want to call it, if not complete lapse. And here she is saying we gave this to them. My proudest day was seeing our employees conducting, you know, I'll leave it there,

Starting point is 01:20:23 working for the government that we're talking about. So we also on, you know, 2025 talked about Larry Ellison and Stargate, talking about AI created, you know, AI created vaccines and AI created. And we also have, of course, Open AI and SoftBank, all of which largely, you know, open AI too for its own points, but specifically Larry and SoftBank. bank with undeniable connections to Israel right into this conversation. We can see that through today. Now, Whitney wrote this for TLAV in 2020.

Starting point is 01:20:55 Google and Oracle to monitor Americans who get warp speeds COVID-19 vaccines for up two years, the pharmacov vigilance that we never really talked about again. After Moncef Salawi, he just kind of backed away and realized, you know, people were going veyers, which we showed up, right? But it took so long people to argue and remember that this is something they were doing. They had their own database that they were concerned. And it was watching you. If you took the shot, and we know why.

Starting point is 01:21:19 They did not want to talk about that. But this is how far this, this goes long before even the COVID illusion, guys. But this has been an ongoing thing and they're part of this. Now, on top of that, is, uh, Whitney Webb, excuse me, for Unlimited Hangout, wrote this in 2021. Now, recently we talked about this. And I kind of went, I'd largely went over it, like I said, because we were going to make it a focus. And I kind of still plan on it. So again, I'm not going to go too deep because I don't want to make it.

Starting point is 01:21:45 make it redundant for the next one we do for them. But it's largely, we've actually, we've already covered this in the past. And it very much relates to everything we're talking about. My hope, though, is that we can do sort of a deeper dive on this very topic for the next open source. But she wrote this in 2021, Meet Toka, the most dangerous Israeli spyware firm you've never heard of.

Starting point is 01:22:03 And she talks, of course, about Pegasus, which is, we all agree is very problematic. But our point in this is that that becomes an over focal point that people ignore all the others. And it's very clear that this has been working, these kind of things. have been working their way into the U.S. government apparatus. Now, I'm going to be following, I mean, let's just say we don't do that. I'll make sure I come back to this and go in depth. But again, we've already talked about this.

Starting point is 01:22:25 And Josh actually, the champagne, Josh, he has a pretty good threat on this, breaking the step down. So I'll include that. Whitney just highlighted that this is what she tried to warn people about five years ago, which is, again, is the larger thing we keep talking about. Had people decided to do something about it, maybe we would be stopping this before got there, not as it's happening, right? So think of that today.

Starting point is 01:22:43 With everything we're talking about, let's do something. now instead of waiting for other mainstream alternative media to yell about it while it's already happening. Now, in this case, Heretz talks about Pegasus. And this is very important because, excuse me, it will be Pegas, but Paragon Solutions. It's one of the most obvious, one of the most known, one of the most reviled. It's like clearly been accused and caught of doing things that are objectively criminal. And this is the group that Trump's working with, guys, literally with ICE, with the U.S. government.

Starting point is 01:23:13 Now, this is Heretz from 2024. Israeli spyware firm, Paragon, sold to the U.S., which we've mentioned before, it becomes red lattice. But I want to really stress and highlight for you very clearly how these things happen. So first of all, you got a company that is undeniably Israeli run that is clearly, you know, sort of like when the APEC becomes something that's not Israeli. It's like this very flimsy transition from an Israeli thing that they shove in his American forward. and call it a U.S. thing.

Starting point is 01:23:45 And remember, this is the post-JFK conversation, right? That's one of the things they were trying to accomplish was exposing them and having them register under FARA before it was called APA. Now, the point in this case is that we have a company that was very clearly an Israeli spyware company that was accused of and found guilty of tons of crimes. I knew I was going to grab this one. And this is a different group, tangential, but standpoint, Israeli spyware firm NSO group found liable for hacks of WhatsApp users.

Starting point is 01:24:16 I mean, this is a very, very, very public conference. conversation. You guys know this. So what's happening here? Paragon, one of Israel's top offensive cyber companies, has been sold to an American investment firm, known as Red Ladis, an American cybersecurity firm. So you might argue, well, that makes it American. Well, okay, but wait a minute. Now you have a company in many cases that's object, like, you know, smaller, that absorbs these Israeli behemoths and they go, well, they're now, you know, and then the Israeli elements become the leader. It's not every case,

Starting point is 01:24:50 but the ones we've highlighted have been, it's undeniable. It's an Israeli-run company that is pretending to be a U.S. company. That is the article

Starting point is 01:24:59 that Whitney wrote for TLAV called The Prince and the Spy, which is about Comframe and specifically Letitia Lettem, letitia Lettem, I believe, who is an Israeli spy that's her right there,

Starting point is 01:25:13 who also created Carbine, which, by the way, Axon, you know, all, we've already gone over all this absorbed and it's all this Israeli spyware. That's what this all comes down to. These companies are Israeli run cutouts for Israeli intelligence. And that's what she makes clear in this.

Starting point is 01:25:26 I'll play the clip again in a minute from what they stated publicly in case people don't know. But as she highlights as well, the article in here that highlights Israeli elements telling us that these are meant to carry on Israeli intelligence operations. Now, the only reason they argue this was in his U.S. company in regard to the Comframe article is because Eric Prince was the front, even though it was created by Israel, run by Israel, and had Israeli employees, but he was there, so U.S. company. That's how that works. So in this case, Red Lattice, I argue, is the same thing.

Starting point is 01:25:56 It's just a way that they've now framed their most prolific spyware company as a U.S. company. That's my opinion, but I think it's quite obvious. Here is one of the articles from the Yahoo Finance. Red Lattis acquires Israeli spyware company, Paragon, for $500 million. Red Lattis is a U.S.-owned global defense company. Hmm. Well, it's worth looking back at that and seeing why that happened and what the global element really comes from. This is Times of Israel, 2025. Trump administration suddenly reinstates its contract with Israeli-founded spyware paymaker Paragon.

Starting point is 01:26:36 Well, at this point, now we're talking about the U.S. company, Red Ladis. And on top of that, now, remember, the point of this is how we can get out of these companies just kind of get built into this apparatus, the larger industry, and how they just become like these. background elements but are obviously driving forward a larger agenda. Now, I might as well play that clip really quickly. This is the next one we've been showing you before. I mean, we covered this a while ago. I think it was this one. I believe so, March 2026.

Starting point is 01:27:05 No, it was one of those anyways a while ago. And it's a gray zone article is rarely former Israeli spies now overseeing U.S. government cybersecurity. I mean, it's why I think this is so relevant, guys, because this is so on the surface. And this one, I know you guys have seen many times, but of course we have to play and we're talking about this and realize that people that haven't. Hopefully this opens some doors for them, opens their mind to the reality that they're so brazenly telling you, we make fake companies and we manipulate the things around us as Israeli apparatus, as Israeli intelligence, as the Israeli government. I mean, look, the U.S. government, I guarantee, does this around the world. We've already proven that.

Starting point is 01:27:46 It's about recognizing that these things, what we're talking about today, represent a very real problem, especially. now that Trump opens this door to some private, public cyber attack company things that I argue, as you've already seen, will amount to the companies we're highlighting today. I believe it will be one of the ones we're discussing. That's my opinion. If not a Palantir Oracle type, I argue it's more likely red lattice. Probably the most obvious choice. The NSO, the, you know, these other, you know, what was the other ones I was just talking about?

Starting point is 01:28:14 Anyway, I don't want to get too much into the guessing game, but it's about realizing that these things are what they're pointing to. It's just a question of what they choose to pick. First, let's play this, and we'll get into this article. What did they buy it from? Or I think they were buying it from. We have an incredible array of possibilities of creating foreign companies that have no way being traced back to Israel, shell companies over shell companies who affect the supply chain to our favor. We create a pretend world.

Starting point is 01:28:45 We are a global production company. We write the screenplay where the directors, where the producers, we're the main actors, the world is our stage. Did you see any surprises in Gaza? Surprises? Yeah. Like the intelligence surprises.

Starting point is 01:29:00 Pages, walkie-talkies. Do you know how many equipment, I mean, treated equipment do we have in these countries? You can't, you know, I do. You mean booby-trapped equipment? Not only booby-trapped and spying. Manipated equipment. All right.

Starting point is 01:29:15 In which countries you're talking about? All the countries that you can imagine. Hard to ignore, right? Point blank. Booboo trapped equipment, manipulated companies, hard to miss. And really, if you ask people like Kierkao, or, oh, by the way, I believe I mispronounce his name, somebody told me recently that it's, I forget, but you know what I'm talking about.

Starting point is 01:29:39 Or plenty of others that have been, you know, like a Wilkerson. Like, they will straight point blank tell you that this is what's happening. and we just can't seem to acknowledge that. And this is from December 3rd, 2025. Just really quickly, just make sure you read all of these in depth. The Pentagon, and by the way, I believe it's this one, we go through this pretty far in depth. It might have been this one. I forget one of these in here.

Starting point is 01:30:00 The Pentagon, Treasury Department, DHS, and a variety of other U.S. government agencies have begun relying on a firm launched by a former Israeli military intelligence operative to consolidate and protect their data. I mean, it's just like these stories, they just blend into each other. This is, I mean, you take everything we're dealing with this country, all the different points that have been changed. It seems all of them tie back to some kind of something like this. A company with deep ties to Israeli intelligence oversees cybersecurity across more than 70 U.S. government agencies. A U.S. Israeli intelligence company is overseeing cybersecurity across more than 70 U.S. government agencies.

Starting point is 01:30:37 And now you're talking about working with other, you know, these other elements to fight overseas in the same way. This feels like an effort to, like, whatever they're doing is now be expanded out in, like, you know, the Israeli infiltration is being run through the U.S. government like, you know, like every other day I think we've talked about hyperbolic, I guess. But overall, I do believe what we're talking about something that has been going on a long time and something that what we're seeing is, you know, almost like the U.S. government has become some sort of, you know, leap pad, launching pad for all this around the world. Just a thought, because obviously we can see this continue. And what I find so crazy is that Trump in particular seems to have, you know, loves to kind of push back in a little

Starting point is 01:31:14 ways publicly, but when it comes down to it, never pushes back against what they do. Never calls out. I don't even think he mentioned the fact that Netanyahu said, screw your gods a plan. Just move forward. Now, this goes on. This is the company they're discussing. Of course, interestingly, Axonis was founded by former spies in Israeli unit 8200. I mean, imagine if a bunch of former CIA agents created a spyware company, and that wouldn't

Starting point is 01:31:40 be weird for some other country to use them to work on their cybersecurity? I just don't get why this doesn't make sense, why this makes sense to anybody. And it says, which allows an operator visibility and control over all types and number of devices, collects and analyzes the digital data of millions of U.S. federal employees. The stated aim of this company is to centralize IT tools to identify and fix security breaches. Of course, we'll centralize and get all in the same place and we'll keep it secure. And what happens, like all the rest we've seen, like the conframe point, like plenty of others. where ultimately they use Israeli cyber security

Starting point is 01:32:12 and then ultimately get hacked. And then you question, well, did they get hacked? Or was that just simply a backdoor for that very, you know, that's the question. And historically, it seems pretty consistent. Now, what's interesting is they highlight this, showing you as one of the important points that this guy who works there was also working for Israeli military intelligence.

Starting point is 01:32:31 Well, what's funny is that's exactly what I'm pointing out about this guy when it comes to fuck. He's been working, had seven years. years in military intelligence, and he's currently the algorithm and systems engineer for flock safety. Seems relevant to me. You know, this is obvious that there's a massive thing that's happening. This article's from June 7, 2026, the unit that ate cybersecurity, from Stuxnet to a $32 billion

Starting point is 01:33:02 exit, how Israel's 8200 became the backbone of global cyber defense and a critical threat. Also, a well-written article. there's some different points in here that I, you know, I may frame differently, but just to give you the larger point, it's kind of the end point and the larger, the idea simply that, you know, it's both. Like, you can't be the backbone of defense, but also the critical threat that underlies, that rather that undermines that very backbone, because that's an oxymor. This makes sense.

Starting point is 01:33:33 And that's what people are, I think, largely hopefully starting to see or their governments aren't able to do anything about. Now it says to understand why the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency just rated its closest Middle Eastern ally as a critical counterintelligence threat, which we discussed, and why the exploding pager operation that maimed thousands of Hezbo members was even possible, you have to follow a single thread that runs through all of it. It starts in the Department of Energy Lab, around 2007, runs through a worm that escaped into the open internet on 2010, escaped, and ends in 26 with Google paying $32 billion for a four-year-old Israeli startup, whose founders all served together in the same military intelligence arm,

Starting point is 01:34:14 almost like there was a plan, you know? There's a lot of good information. The point is simply this. Stuxnet proved a state could weaponize code to break the physical world. Grim Beeper, which is what they ridiculously call the, you know, one of the most obvious terrorist attacks I've ever seen in my life where they put out a bunch of pagers for years and then just exploded them. a bunch of civilians.

Starting point is 01:34:37 That, they claim proved a state could weaponize the supply chain itself, just like the clip we played. And the unit 8,200 ecosystem proved that the human capital behind both could be spun into a commercial empire so deeply woven into global infrastructure that you cannot cleanly separate the cyber power we rely on from the cyber power we are warned about, in quotes. None of these three facts is new. What's new in 2026 is that they're finally being held in the same hand at the same time, like we just read.

Starting point is 01:35:11 That's the major EO point. By the Pentagon, by the regulators waving through 30 billion dollar deals, and by every S-C-I-S-O who just realized that where did this technology come from and who built it is no longer a marketing question. It's a threat model question. the same one Hesbola should have asked about his pagers. Well, now they are, right? But ultimately, I mean, this is, it shows you an infiltration of the global dynamic.

Starting point is 01:35:42 I just don't know why this can't get called out by the majority of people, because I know why the systems don't call it out. But my God, how do we not call this out every day? I mean, things like this everywhere, right? Walt's getting caught using a telemessage Israeli intelligence app that archives signal in the inter-services. of the White House. Of course, that gets largely misrepresented as signal gate, and nobody really talks about the fact that it was in Israeli intelligence app that he got caught with and he got

Starting point is 01:36:10 quietly pushed aside as an ambassador, you know, normal stuff. We have Trump releasing a White House app that has dangerous spyware, literally Israeli spyware, coming back under Trump's administration. This was March 29, 2026. Remember the app? We talked about it. I mean, it's insane. How many examples we have. Now, was this Trump knowingly trying to see this in-depth, or was he just being used. Don't know. This one's from 2025. Smartphones worldwide silently infected with Israeli spyware. This was the Intellexa. One of the companies that article argues is likely to be the one Trump's pointing to, like an NSO group or the red lattice element. And again, Derek writing this in 2024, meet the spyware companies preparing to unleash their tech during Trump's second term.

Starting point is 01:36:56 Saw it coming. Sure, I was sure wish we could have stopped this, right? Sell Bright being, one we've already dealt with, Clearview AI, we've already dealt with, we've already called out, already seen, pen link, more to come, unfortunately. Now, talking about Iran to finish up, I wanted to get a couple points in before we have to wrap. And ultimately, what I want to highlight is this connection, you know, to a couple of, well, actually, hold on a second. I think I mixed this up. Hold on.

Starting point is 01:37:27 I think this goes here. There it is. before we get into actually i'm glad i didn't miss that i was before we get to iran the carryover point to this is obviously the surveillance side of it right i forgot if i pulled this off i've got a whole bunch and i want to go over about ice that we will get into just i mean guys just like absolutely insane level stuff where you have ice members standing on people's heads like literally putting their entire weight on somebody's head on the concrete who's like almost unconscious because they're clearly just deranged people

Starting point is 01:38:05 not every single one, but the ones that we're seeing, vindictively spray people or whatever. They're just, I mean, it's insane watching. And that's honestly, as much as that's in just criminal, unbelievable, it's the smallest part of the story. Because what we're talking about is this national force that's marching around with no accountability, no warrants, no faith, they're faceless enforcers who are being given Israeli spyware, who are spying on Americans, who are, I mean, violating rights of everybody. this is from 2025 Trump gives green light for that deal for his same story I just want to point out that of course

Starting point is 01:38:42 part of it was to ICE so ICE is using Israeli spyware on top of everything else we're talking about which you already know oh see I did this is all I had this mixed up on accident we'll come back to that just make a joke about it

Starting point is 01:38:53 but in case you didn't see this this is real by the way and this is 404 media put this out or excuse me trying to rush there is an article I believe they put out about it but I didn't

Starting point is 01:39:02 this was I meant to do kind of breeze by this and I'm just ruining it. But the point was I want to get into all this in the next show. But in case you didn't see it, ICE has these, or they want to be buying and investing in what they call these shock gloves, which are real. And it says up to $20 million,

Starting point is 01:39:17 which I don't believe has happened yet, but I think it's up in the air, devices that deliver painful electric shocks as soon as you put contact on skin. And this is not a joke. Like, these are real. And it's a police officer. Look at that.

Starting point is 01:39:31 So, I mean, there's going to be some that, go good, bad guys, because they're complete boot-looking followers who don't realize that's not just bad guys who are being enforced on. In fact, it seems that most of them are not. That's not because there's not bad guys they could be getting. It's because that says something else, guys. But I just think it's important to realize.

Starting point is 01:39:48 Now, this was just simply flock pitched a plan to turn Uber and lifted drivers into roaming surveillance vehicles with overlapping what we just talked about with the flock connected to Israel. I mean, this is weird, this surveillance apparatus is everywhere. And it's clearly. inconsistent is a light word to use with our constitutional rights and is obviously being abused everywhere. The idea we know that Israeli soldiers serving with ICE is not a secret. We know that this is a clear overlap. It's been highlighted the training and everything else. Ice and the IDF, the transnational

Starting point is 01:40:20 nexus of state control. Seven Seas points out as well, ICE is infiltrated, trained and equipped by the IDF. Their national counterterrorism seminars take place in Israel. He's not wrong. Here's Bevino, like we already showed you, outlining, that's exactly the truth. Israel, like, you know, the nation over there has a lot, a lot of influence on the Israeli government has a lot of influence on our politicians over here, I think, is what he was kind of getting at. I see, yeah. And, you know, I'm not a politician, so I don't know. And, you know, it's the only things I ever had with the Israelis is when I was a young agent with Borchak, Border Patrol Tactical Unit, They sent me to a VIP security school, and it was ran by the Israelis.

Starting point is 01:41:09 And let me tell you. So, I mean, think about that statement. He doesn't even realize, I guess, what he was saying. When you were a young recruit, so yeah, so this has been going on a long time, guys. The ice element has been going on, all of this. But like what we're seeing today is a wild increase. So it's just important to realize. And they've been denying that forever.

Starting point is 01:41:28 That's why this kid goes, oh, that is true. Because every time it comes up, it's denied. It's not a secret. I mean, what's his name? Aglera, the guy came back from Gaza. It was the veteran. He told you himself. He was there.

Starting point is 01:41:41 He watched it. But we know this. We have IDF coming to train police forces, not ubiquitously, but it happens all over this country, largely at the leadership level, but this is real. And why do you think we're seeing these tactics played out on our streets today, guys? It's not even a question. It's a statement of obvious nature. We are, these people are being trained in the same tactics.

Starting point is 01:42:02 and we're watching those tactics play out in American streets. Your rights be damned. The F actually does work with Border Patrol and ICE, because I've always heard that. Well, it was, that school is for all law enforcement. So not just nice. Thanks for making that clear. They put it on. It was Israeli.

Starting point is 01:42:18 They contracted with Israeli instructors. They had a lot of experience. And they were really good. Good from what Vivino knows. Okay, look at what Bovino does, how he acts and what he operates. That's what he thinks is good. See how clear that is? hands off some of the best training I've ever had.

Starting point is 01:42:36 They did not F around. Yeah. So that was back. And they treat you like your foreign terrorists because you disagree with their statements. You know, 2000, 2001. But I understand that. 2000, 2001. My God, guy.

Starting point is 01:42:51 I mean, if that was before 9-11, that says a lot. And what people are saying, perhaps there is an outsized influence by Israel. But I don't know. I'm just a guy. Whatever. Maybe not. I mean, not just maybe doesn't have any idea what's going on. But at the end of the day, guys, that's very, very revealing.

Starting point is 01:43:08 Now, to wrap up, just kind of give you a quick update again. You probably already know what's going on. Iran, this is as of the 10th. Today is the 14th. Iran rules out talks with Trump, says he will wait until his term ends in 2029. Now, that's already changed. I mean, but I argue this was more of a political statement, kind of saying, you know what, we don't need you.

Starting point is 01:43:27 Well, just wait, you know, you're not relevant anymore. It's a game of propaganda, clearly. Now, I want to point this out, Z Media says, if the straight remains closed until 2029, it will be levels of catastrophic the world can't even begin to imagine, which, well, yeah, obviously, if it is. I doubt that's what we're talking about. I think that's important to think about.

Starting point is 01:43:45 I mean, again, guys, is it possible? Yes. But I argued the entire world would step up to stop that if this kid, that's what Trump had planned on. That's what Israel convinced him, in my opinion, was the original point that Iran would shut it down. They did not do that. And I keep making this point, guys,

Starting point is 01:44:00 because it's becoming even more relevant again, that they didn't shut it down. They were allowing people to go through that were not at war with them, and the media lied about that. Very provably, guys, it's like the minds and everything else we talked about. But then, of course, what happened is Trump and Netanyahu,

Starting point is 01:44:14 they murdered their religious leaders, they bombed their negotiating team, they tried to assassinate them a different time. Clearly, they drove them to take action that we can see today. But my point is that only when that happened did you see the larger restriction and a few different points,

Starting point is 01:44:28 including to a large degree right now, they went full shutdown. Now, that is important to see, but that's not what it seems Iran was even close to. I mean, it's clear that's not what they wanted. It's clear that they did. I mean, they want to shut it down instantly if that's what they wanted. They did not. So what I think is important to highlight here is that the idea that they would shut it down until

Starting point is 01:44:47 then is unrealistic, if not ridiculous. Because Iran's not stupid and they know what that will do. It'll turn the world against them when they don't, when by the, right now, it seems they've got more support than anybody in regard to the, you know, in the dynamic of Israel, U.S. and Iran. And so I think that's worth noting is that this is kind of what they want you to think, right? Or really that we would assume that Iran is some, you know,

Starting point is 01:45:08 maniacal element, not to say that's what she thinks, but just to use the point to make this point. That ultimately we have some, you know, maniacal Iranian thing that just wants to destroy the world for its agenda. I mean, guys, if you've been paying attention even momentarily, it's very, it's one of the most clear things of this entire situation, that Iran has been acting with restraint. And that's not, you can, that's not to say that that's who they are,

Starting point is 01:45:30 that they're good guy doing the right thing. I don't think that. I think there are governments who are doing what's in their best interest, like all of them. But what's in their best interest, clearly, is to play the counterbalance to the belligerence of the U.S. government.

Starting point is 01:45:41 But at the same time, I don't think that you can historically look back. They don't operate the same way. They've been misrepresented my entire life by this government, who is committing genocide and murdering and overtaking countries. And it doesn't mean that they're good guy, though.

Starting point is 01:45:52 It's another government that's done plenty of bad things to their people. At the end of the day, with what's going on, it's obvious the intent is not what they're claiming it is. and they don't want to shut this down. And if it's shut down for in continuing periods of time going forward, it's because Trump and his team make that happen.

Starting point is 01:46:07 Because they don't want to be seen to lose. And rather, Israel does through all of them because it's clear they're not even able to make these decisions. I just thought that was important. Will it stay closed if Trump doesn't comply? I doubt it. I think it'll become a situation where, like we already saw, Iran tries to make deals with everybody else

Starting point is 01:46:23 and tries to continue to isolate Israel in the United States, which is happening right now. So we're thinking about. But who knows? You don't know what's getting, that's the point. It's all our opinion. Now, on the 10th, President Trump says Iran's begging for a deal. Yes, we can all laugh because that's got to be the dumbest thing he could have possibly said

Starting point is 01:46:43 when you know that's not true, guys. Literally, you know that's not true. Thank you, Mama, Medal of Sue. Anthony Aguilar was the guy, the veteran who came back from Gaza. Just posted out of the chat. Holds all the cards with his Uno picture, right? How embarrassing. Well, I just want to, you know, reiterate, he's already said that before.

Starting point is 01:47:02 Here's March 26th, or I could literally do like every two days following that. Trump says Iran's begging for a deal. Okay, like I keep showing you over the time doing this, if that was true on March 26th, how in the world would we be here right now? The only world that makes sense is that Trump has allowed that because he doesn't want to do the thing. He keeps telling you, that's not true. I don't even finish the sentence.

Starting point is 01:47:24 That's ridiculous to think that he, because they've done those. They've gone to bomb anyway. So are we to believe they bombed a little bit just to make sure, come on, guys, like it takes a special kind of willful ignorance to think that this is the truth. And honestly, I think half the people saying this don't even believe it. They're either the guys that go along with whatever they say and don't even care what the truth is or they know it's wrong and they're too afraid to point it out because that's their entire thing. August 2nd. Trump says a wrong deal eminent. Remember that?

Starting point is 01:47:54 Isn't it? Wait a minute. It's August 14th. Didn't you just say yes, because it wasn't happening? I know you know this. I'm just accentuating the point. It's really sad that people keep going along. Now, as of yesterday, Iran reports no progress in restoring the interim deal.

Starting point is 01:48:09 A senior Iranian source reports that there has been absolutely no progress in discussions with the U.S., which is really what I'll show you is the same back channel mediator that's always there. They're not even talking to them right now, as far as I can tell. And this is from the Reuters, and this is Iran was saying a couple days before, that the U.S. must return to the intern deal. No ceasefire extension talks, basically what Trump was hoping for to stretch this out. They're saying, you go back to the memorandum like they were doing the JCPOA or no deal. And they held to the other one too, guys. It's kind of crazy how people can't see the historical continuation here. So clearly, I think it's obvious that they, at the very

Starting point is 01:48:47 least, believe they can last this out. I think if you're paying attention, you know that they can. Or, you know, the likelihood is obvious. I'm not going to say, no, what's going on behind there. What we've already seen shows you that it's pretty clear that they've planned for this, as they told us before, as Robert was writing about, as they clearly, you know, it's pretty clear if you're paying attention, this was always what was going to happen, save for some kind of extreme action, which is certainly still possible, hopefully not. Al Jazeera points out, as of today, Iran has not decided whether to resume talks with the U.S., which is quite a bit different than saying we're not going to, right? our gotchi foreign minister says that according to iranian media adding that cutter and Pakistan are exchanging messages with iran as mediators but this does not amount to negotiation so basically simply saying we're going to as i've been telling you since april we're not talking to you we will take your messages and if it's in our interest will respond but we're

Starting point is 01:49:41 not talking to you so that that's that's still the same framing so what happens is trump pretends that he's dealing because he's i guess whitkoff is telling him they're sending notes or whatever's ultimately happening and then lying to you about it. I don't see how this could be going any other way or he's being lied to and is too afraid to admit that. I don't know. Maybe a mix of both. But at the end of the day, I bet you this continues. They continue to make a deal with Oman. And then Trump and Israel continue to be framed as the ones holding up what everybody wants. And outside of weird, like, you know, bombing kinetic action that shifts the conversation, I don't know what will change. And I mean like extreme levels, which I'm hoping doesn't happen.

Starting point is 01:50:21 because we know where this could go. And I think honestly, that seems to be the only different thing that could change the direction of this. Unless, you know, or let's be, you know, think outside the box, but just different is, you know, maybe we see some kind of radical operation for assassinations

Starting point is 01:50:37 that wipes everybody out. I mean, that's what they've already tried to do. So what I think is likely is something like that where they hope, they give themselves a moment to execute something that could change the direction. Because right now, they've lost. Going through the same motions

Starting point is 01:50:50 doesn't seem to change anything. So it seems like a wait and see kind of thing. And that's what Trump is, Iran rather, is hoping for. Because it seems they think at the very least, I think they're right that Trump doesn't have all the time in the world. And Iran can last this out. On top of that, you have this weird thing where today Bloomberg reporting, U.S. is pressing its allies on ideological loyalty, NATO, really,

Starting point is 01:51:15 ahead of what, you know, their operations in general. But the simple point is, skip over. quickly is that they're saying, you know, has the country shown alignment with the U.S. approach? Strong, clear, quiet? Very weird. Like basically saying, do you even supportive of U.S. policy? And if not, then we're, I mean, basically the bottom line is NATO was originally built on the idea that it was about not, you know, do you agree with everything, you know, or ostensibly anyway, but more so about the, you know, post-world order kind of thing that we're now going to fight for freedom and not, you know, control or never was really the truth,

Starting point is 01:51:49 I argue, it was, you know, largely framing, but it didn't carry some different changes. But the point is that now it's about, you know, you tell us that you're on our side or we're going to no longer use this to help you or we're going to push back on your agendas or Trump will sue you for other random andane things. Like that's what it feels like. At the end of the day, demanding loyalty pledges from your other, I mean, it's a strange thing. It shows you weakness and it shows you an effort to drive people and coerce people into your side.

Starting point is 01:52:15 How do you not see that as them being aware that they're not in control and that they're losing? Trump to Iran. And here's how it gets just ridiculous to wrap this up. Trump says, you must pay for the deaths and destruction that took place in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza. Right, because so obviously it's Iran destroying these places, right? I mean, you see, this is why you just get, they're off the rails, guys. Nobody in the world outside of the people that agree with whatever you say next, no matter what it is,

Starting point is 01:52:44 are going to agree that Iran is destroying Lebanon. Look, even if you want to pretend that Hezbo is Iran, which is not? Where is Hezbo destroying Lebanon? Where is Iran, even in any case, destroying Syria? Where is Iran anywhere destroying Yemen? The Yansarala movement, what they call the Houthis, is not in any way destroying Yemen. Gaza? I mean, what are we even talking about at this point?

Starting point is 01:53:07 And so clearly, Trump is just desperately grasping at something to keep this going. They have to pay, like, I think this is about trying to extend the conversation to get them to respond and then debate about whether they're not. not taking the bait, I think. That's, that's embarrassing to me. And it's clear that what they're doing is destroying all of these places for their benefit and then asking them to be responsible for it. It's, it's revolting to me, truly. So Trump wants you to believe, I'm sure to just close two things on accident. Yeah, good. Trump now wants you to believe, of course, this is on the 10th, mind the way, but realize where we are right now that they control the straight 100%. I mean, I've at least seen him say

Starting point is 01:53:44 this like 15 times. And not a once have they actually controlled the straight. Talk about desperate. Well, it's open now. We're taking a lot of shit. It's open now. Look, the only one that has control of the Strait of Hamos right now is the United States Navy. Now, maybe someone's telling him that, that's not the truth. I don't care what you're looking at. You know that's not the truth, guys. You can argue that you're controlling some level of access to Iran's ports, but you're not controlling the great. You're just not because it's clear that if that was the case, this would be over. Didn't you just say that's what you wanted to end the war? So it's just lazy, guys, it's just embarrassing. And I don't get why he keeps going through the cycle. I've said it every time.

Starting point is 01:54:26 We have a blockade that's been infallible. Nope, other than the fact that it's been fouled or foulable or you've failed or they've not stopped every ship. That's ridiculous. I mean, guys, you could literally prove that ships have gotten past. China made a whole point about how many of them. Now, at the end of the day, on top of that, it's not even a complete block. We've gone through all of this. This is just him being desperate. It's a steel wall. And we let people in that we want to let in.

Starting point is 01:54:51 And those people come in and they've been coming in and they're going out. And we've already gotten words. Some of them have been paying in some way or another, which makes sense because they've been trying to initiate the same thing. But see, when you look at it from their angle, it's just extortion. There's no way around it, guys. Iran is trying to manage the passageway as some sort of like, like the rest of them.

Starting point is 01:55:12 Now, you can argue they're doing it for their benefit. That's clear. But it is a passageway. And like all of the rest of them that's not in national waters, they have the right to do that. And so does every other one of them. What they're doing is simply setting up a block before that and going, pay us first.

Starting point is 01:55:25 It's just insane. Like, there's just no way an honest person cannot see this as a, almost like a tantrum of a child. So it's actually open now. We do not let them go into Iran to not admit it into the straight to go to Iran. But it's open for others. now. Okay, but so then you go past them

Starting point is 01:55:46 and then Iran won't let you go because that's what keeps out. So it's not open. I don't, he must know that. So, I mean, as an individual, you think this guy's on your side, understand that. This guy's talking right to you

Starting point is 01:55:59 and he knows as a matter of fact that he's lying to you. And that's, I mean, unless he's just so incredibly controlled and corralled that he has no idea what's going on outside of what Whitkoff shows him, which I just would, I guess I would,

Starting point is 01:56:12 honestly nothing is that crazy, but I just don't believe that's the case. He knows he's lying to you, and I just think that's worth noting how insulting that would be. A little bit complex because they will, on occasion, drop a mine and we find the mines. Oh, yeah, show me one. Don't you love how he just evolves the story? I thought you were stopping them. I thought you were out of the mines. But wait a minute, there's been ships.

Starting point is 01:56:33 There's times where it's open. They're lying to you, guys. There's really no way around that. Minds exist. Yes. Is Ron used it before? As I understand? Yes.

Starting point is 01:56:41 Did they happen this time? We must understand that didn't happen. The same way Iran didn't shut the straight down because that wasn't their objective. He needed that because Israel promised him it would happen, in my opinion, didn't happen. And they're still failing. Mine swept the entire straight, as you probably maybe heard, maybe it didn't hear. But we control the entire straight that you can't get through because Iran's blocking it. Yeah, sure lines up.

Starting point is 01:57:06 Control the straight 100%. Now, there's like ISIS 100%. about 17 times, you know? Or like he's won the war about 57 times because it's 100% guys, no problem. Well, that's just stupid. Oh, in case you didn't know, straight's closed. Like literally the day he said this was the same thing. But it doesn't matter, right? Now, here's Trump who, I mean, again, speaking to the people that still somehow find a way to support him, here he is speaking to military personnel. And I just think this is so patronizing. And I know he knows he's lying, guys. Like, just understand, the gas prices have gone more than double since when this started.

Starting point is 01:57:46 That's anybody can look for themselves. And here's what he says about a thing that didn't actually happen, about a thing that Iran wasn't actually doing. And again, even Tulsi Gabbard told you that. So I just say this. So. One more point, actually. Doesn't it sad how he needs to make this point in every single public appearance?

Starting point is 01:58:09 It just shows you how desperate he is to control the narrative that he has already lost. Does anybody actually think it's about nuclear war anymore? more about nuclear weapons and Iran's control. I mean, he himself told you that that was destroyed. So it's just this game of stupidity. But he needs to say it because that's the only thing he has to hold on to. For you to pay a tiny little bit more, tiny bit for your gasoline. More than double, you know. Just remember you're doing it so that a very evil country cannot have a country really, it's the number one state sponsor of terror. Except not, though, because ISIS attacks them. And that's the number one you tell us all the time. And the fact that you literally just called

Starting point is 01:58:46 good people that they're good, they're not bad. You know, it's a new regime now because we changed it. They're good guys. They want to work with us. They're begging for a deal. We're going to make a deal. They're great people. But now they're terrorists again because it works for this moment, right?

Starting point is 01:58:56 This guy doesn't think we know what he said two seconds ago. Or he's just that desperate. I mean, there's only, I make the same framing every time. I don't know how people don't see that. In the world. In the world. We don't not have a country, really, it's the number one state sponsor of terror in the world. We don't want to have them have a nuclear.

Starting point is 01:59:16 weapon. So remember that when you have to pay a little bit more, you're $4. You realize everybody in the room knows that's not true, right? They all have gas, they're cars, they get gas. They're not stupid. They all know that's not true. And yet he has the nerve to stand there and tell them to their faces that it's okay to pay a little bit more when nobody agrees with that to stop this from happening that we don't, I mean, arguably, I think most people paying attention. No, that's not the reality. But even if you did realize that, one, I'd rather think that, just like every other country, Iran has a right to those programs. And the idea of what he's saying is that we have to pay more gas to stop the thing that they have

Starting point is 01:59:54 a legal right to do that you don't want them to do, but they're not doing anyway. I mean, how do you even rationalize that in the first place? Didn't you tell us this wasn't going to happen? Then you promised the war wasn't going to go him to pass. I mean, you go through this cycle and it's just infuriating. Or you can lie to yourself and pretend like he's telling the truth. That's what I think most people end up doing. like choosing between those two things.

Starting point is 02:00:13 But I think you know where people are leaning. It's okay. I mean, I'm not, I'll never apologize. I did the right thing. Oh, yeah. You'll never apologize. You've heard that before, haven't you? I'll never apologize for the United States.

Starting point is 02:00:25 You know, after that terrorist attack on the plane, Iran's. Funny how that comes back around. This is who we are. Or excuse me, who they are. And I realize, funny, I would even make that mistake. I meant I don't even see them as the same thing. The government is not America. Let's never forget that.

Starting point is 02:00:39 You are America. the government works for you or it's supposed to long since it's not has changed the reality has shifted if it was ever the case but realize guys that they that's you know i mean they are so clearly like as i've always said a lot recently even you have more in common right now with the people in iran than you've ever had people in washington dc even concluding all the different you know the difference of a ideology difference of i mean it's obvious look at people in syria look at the people in the UK, the average people. You have so much more in common with them and the way they live their lives than you do with anybody in the leadership. And if you really take the time to look,

Starting point is 02:01:16 you'll find that up. Now, as a kind of a humorous point in this, as you might have seen, and I honestly not are you going to get into this in the real depth of the way people try to frame it. I just don't include that picture to be funny. What it appears to happen is that Trump hid in a catering with a right as catering cart in secret Air Force One swap to fend off Iran assassination threat. what it appears to have been is some sort of secret swap where he was moved into a different catering type plane or carrier in order to hide. And so they thought he was on something else.

Starting point is 02:01:47 But to me, that's enough. It's not like this is the joke, which I think is funny, because it makes fun of a person who thinks very highly of himself that deserves to be called out for what he's doing. Trump in the podcast is hiding a little airplane cart hiding from Iran's bombs. But the truth is more so that, I mean, look, I think this probably happens more often than we realize.

Starting point is 02:02:06 because they are trying to avoid what they think are. They're literally murdering families all over the world. And so maybe they think people hate them, you know, crazy, right? And so they try to make sure they're not going to be attacked. But what I think is more important than any bit. It does, I mean, it does show it's a little embarrassing for it. I agree. But what I think is important.

Starting point is 02:02:22 And oh, one other thing is that they also left the media on the plane that they thought might be bombed. I think that's wildly relevant. But the bigger part, I think, is that it simply shows you that Trump, as a president, the U.S. government as an entity very clearly thinks that Iran has the capabilities that they keep stressing they no longer have. That's the main point for me here. He was worried he was going to get attacked, which means they know Iran is not, it's not just petered out of all of its munitions. So they lie to you. And that means you have to consider, I mean, I would argue you should consider all the other things

Starting point is 02:02:56 they're probably lying about. And as Wyatt Reed wrote, the CIA is blaming Israel for their made-up threat. that left Trump hiding inside of a catering truck. The claim that Iran planned to blow up Trump's plane was Israel derived, not U.S. generated, and viewed as low confidence, the said the CIA, as telling their colleagues at the Washington Post. So Glenn Greenwald commented, it said, so if I have this right,

Starting point is 02:03:22 the CIA itself understands and is saying that Israel manufactures false intelligence, see how it's relevant, to make Trump fear non-existent threats from Iran so that he will continue to use American resources and sacrifice service members to fight their wars for them? Correct. What I also argue is that so they're so reliant

Starting point is 02:03:43 on these Israeli spyware tools and surveillance which are a whole thing we've talked about, including the companies that we just went through today, including Oracle and Palantir, which are clearly intertwined with Israel. The point is that I think they rely so heavily on them that they, you know, and we already saw this with the war. Israel tells him something in his own,

Starting point is 02:04:02 people say that's not true and he goes with what Israel says. Or he's not able to say no. Either way, doesn't that seem relevant to what we just talked about? That's why this is just funny to think about. Because, you know, they think so highly of themselves. Now, last few clips to end with, you might have heard the kind of ongoing story about the USS Abraham, right? Oh, the Lincoln, excuse me.

Starting point is 02:04:29 The point is that one of their carriers, I mean, they're lying about it. But there's people speaking out from these ships. There's been all kinds of crazy stories that I couldn't confirm, but I'm starting to think some of them are probably real. But I'm going to leave it off today only because I can't confirm, you know, like deaths or weather jumping. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff. But the end of the day, it's been pretty clearly showing that they are out way longer

Starting point is 02:04:50 than they're supposed to be. People aren't getting the food they need and people are getting real. I mean, these are people that were deployed in many cases under false pretenses. We started with this saying they weren't going for this purpose. And you have a lot of military who do not want to be a part of this, guys. So here's what he says when asked about that very conversation. Okay. What else do I have to say? Well, no, that ship is moving. No, they're not.

Starting point is 02:05:19 Okay, so yes, they are. And they've spoken out. And there's families and service people that have been saying we're concerned about this. And so his answer when said there are families that concern are what's going on. No, they're not. Okay. They are. But that's fine. That ship is moving. No, they're not. That ship is moving right now or very shortly. It's being replaced with another very similar ship. Has the deployment gone on too long? No, no, no.

Starting point is 02:05:45 As the deployment got on too long? Nearly long enough. Yeah, he loves to do that. Not long enough because I'm that. I'm tough and I'll push back even when it makes me look stupid. You know, he does. Like, you don't yell the thing that you're not supposed to say just to make a point when that thing will make you lose. But, you know, lose.

Starting point is 02:06:03 Make you look stupid. Counters your agenda. Like, that just makes you a child. you know what I mean like you know there are times when you do to make a point about well you know what I agree with this and I'm going to make the point even though you tell me it's wrong we've talked about things like that but in this case what do I mean not long enough nobody wants that not people you support the only people that want this to go longer than it already has are Israel the intelligence apparatus I mean not anybody who supports this person who has put him or you know I should even

Starting point is 02:06:31 you know I don't think that but the argument of how he got put in the president in the first place that people support him. Not long enough. So you win a minor point over this reporter who stuck a to you with a question, and that's how short-sighted you are to yell that this hasn't gone on long enough when you have military watching this

Starting point is 02:06:50 who are struggling on that ship? I mean, you have to realize, guys, this guy doesn't care about anything other than his petty moments. I mean, or he's just that short-sided or is that senile or whatever else you want to talk about? You have to acknowledge that. Is this man fighting for America first

Starting point is 02:07:05 or the people on that aircraft carry? I think we know that's not the case. Or at least I would argue that's clear. It is my opinion. Maybe he's got some grand plan that we don't see, like I always say, it's always possible. Personally, I just think it's obvious. Last clip here. Or is it, yeah, one last clip.

Starting point is 02:07:23 This is just a similar time. This is him talking about how good we're doing financially. And I made this point a lot that this is what he actually frames, like when he's saying, we're doing great. Everything's up. and the, you know, the 401ks, you know, and really what he's pointing to is the inner circle of the oligarchy or just, you know, the upper, the elitist, the upper echelon, the people that see themselves as elitists, not elite, but elitist. They believe they're better than you, but they're not.

Starting point is 02:07:52 The point is that he has always framed it like this and just not said it this way. And I think that's been clear because the average person is suffering. The average person is paying more for everything in their life. But you know who isn't suffering? Wall Street. Go ahead. Go ahead. Anybody? I have a lot of things that are happening. A lot of good things. The economy is doing unbelievably from the standpoint of Wall Street. We just set another record, as you know. Okay, great. Okay, well, is that what you think is important, guys?

Starting point is 02:08:26 Is it important to you that Wall Street is making tons of money? Does that translate in any meaningful way into your average life? I don't mean average in that sense, but the normal life of average people? No, it does not. And in fact, that's the point I make all the time about 401K. and all different. There's plenty of people who have them, but if you look at the statistics, the average people, the vast majority of Americans don't have, don't even have, you know, they're living paycheck to paycheck. The idea that they have 401Ks or savings plans or

Starting point is 02:08:54 retirements or care about the NASDA, you know, any of these things, the Dow is insane. It's disconnected from reality. Now, those things clearly matter when it comes to certain measures or metrics, but whether that amounts to people of the country being financially successful, or happy is an illusion. It matters for them, for Congress, for people in power. And so that's what's so frustrating is whether he even knows it or not. And I think he does. He's going, you know, we care about them. Or maybe they have this, you know, trickle down economics, broken idea that somehow you benefit the upper class, it'll trickle down to you. It never does, never has. History has shown that. Maybe in some cases, but not in a regular sense, not the way that they frame

Starting point is 02:09:35 that, that it just all works out and it all just, nope, it goes the other direction. And so what he's doing is saying Wall Street is benefiting, while all of you are suffering. One more transfer of wealth, just like with COVID-19 and all the different ways, we're being reorganized. I believe that's damn obvious. Everything in front of us is being reorganized and re-chained. I mean, that's what they tell us. They're reimagining our world.

Starting point is 02:09:58 Just not being as put on the front and surface, you know, on the front, you know, in the surface of the conversation like it was during COVID-19, like it was during the Great Reset. And there's obvious partisan reasons for that. But if you're paying attention, it's the same thing. Literally, same endpoints, same goals, same dates. I just hope people can actually start to see that. So lastly, to finish after this point about how great Wall Street is doing, well, guess what? The U.S. government officially posts its largest July budget deficit in history.

Starting point is 02:10:32 Negative $432 billion. Yeah, but the guys of Wall Street are making tons of money. See how much that matters? Due to the acceleration in federal spending, almost a half a trillion dollars in deficit, interest on U.S. debt rose $26 billion from last July's levels to an alarming $118 billion for the month. That's just interest. This puts total interest expenses for the fiscal year of 2026 up to $1.17 trillion. As a result, interest expense has officially surpassed.

Starting point is 02:11:09 both national defense and Medicare spending. In other words, the U.S. government now spends more money just on interest, which we've talked about getting here, than it does to fund the entire U.S. military to provide health care for seniors. We cannot afford higher interest rates. I just mean, simple point again, they're profiting while the country and Americans suffer,

Starting point is 02:11:34 just like every other war we've been involved in, in my opinion anyway. So I find that to be very important. Now, I was, I just had it, I feel like I might, I want to end with, what was that? There's a clip that I had. I'm probably not going to be able to find it about the, about the money. Remember that showing you the different, not that it's actually the best to end with, but I just thought it was relevant.

Starting point is 02:11:59 The idea that we can even like fathom what a trillion dollars is, anybody. It's like, it's not, it's, you know, the idea, it comes after a certain line, it just kind of blends into the background. And that's what they've come to understand. What's $1 trillion, $10 trillion, $50 trillion? You know, it's just debt. Don't worry about it. It matters.

Starting point is 02:12:18 But I can't find it. There it is. Nice. Cool. All right. So we'll end with this today. And it really does. I mean, it accentuates the point about how much this is and what it means and how, you know,

Starting point is 02:12:33 the point is that they're, you know, the joke you'll make it today, the fiscal conservative. It's not just about conservatives, though, but today, you know, the fiscal conservatives or, you know, saving us again from the, the bottom line is that we have a situation where our government left and right passed the baton back and forth and it just continues to get worse and worse. If a company continued to make less money or rather just continue to go into more debt consistently, it wouldn't exist anymore, guys. You wouldn't, you'd be, you know, anything like this wouldn't exist if it wasn't the government. And all they're doing is

Starting point is 02:13:03 siphoning wealth from you. And, you know, on top of all that, committing genocide and, you know, spying on Americans and ignoring your rights and putting, you know, all the stuff we talk about. So it really comes down to yet again to whether you want this to change. What do you care about? What do you believe in? Ask yourself these things. Now is the time to care. Because I argue there's a time in the near future where your life will look very different.

Starting point is 02:13:27 And you'll be wondering why you didn't do something now. And I've never wanted to be hyperbolic. But I want to be very clear about this. What we're highlighting I've said a million times is not my opinion. My opinion is how it comes together, how it comes together, who they utilize and what the meaning and intent is. What they're doing is happening in real time, right in front of you. They're literally showing you what they're doing and they're rationalizing it with fighting China and rationalizing it with evil bad guy terrorists and evil, you know,

Starting point is 02:13:57 and it's so clear. So it just matters about what you care about and what you want to do about it now. Thank you for tuning in. I love you all. As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. Thank you.

The Last American Vagabond - Trump Creates State-Backed Private Cyberattack Force

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