The Last American Vagabond - What The Hell Is Happening W/ Charlie Robinson (5/14/26)

Episode Date: May 16, 2026

Twice a month Charlie Robinson and Ryan Cristián join forces to discuss the madness that is partisan politics, and the chaotic nature of the world today. They discuss current events, political machinations, foreign policy blunders, and just good old fashioned two-party illusion naivety. The conversations will be focused on whatever is most current in their minds as they do their best to decipher “what the hell is happening?”Bitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)Thanks for reading The Last American Vagabond Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

control exactly what people think and that is your job what the hell is happening what the hell is happening our homeland making things now the world is our standard what the hell is happening what the hell is happening what the hell is the hell is what the hell is the best on the planet it's already what the hell we could step up the pressure it's happening happening it's already happened the madness of the new cycle spitting the wheel of chaos Thursday, May 26th, welcome to another episode of What the Hell is Happening, hosted by Charlie Robinson and myself, Ryan Christian. Basically going over the crazy madness that we're all experiencing. We were just talking off air just a little bit about that exact kind of idea of just how the kind of evolving opinion and awareness of people. That is a very, very positive thing that I think is being talked about, being seen, being discussed.

And varying ways, I think, like we were kind of hinting at, that people aren't even really sure what they're seeing and they're being dragged different events in this case of Derrick. Broz and becoming aware of a conversation they didn't even know was being had. Like the joke I said a second ago is, oh, there is something other than Biden and Trump. And people are on that path, which is very nice to see. How are you, Charlie? Good to see you. I'm great. I'm great. I had the opportunity to catch Derek Broz's kickoff of his activation tour last night in downtown Denver, hacked house. That's what we were talking about. Derek asked the audience, how many people were dragged to this event tonight by somebody who thought that might be interesting to them. And a few people raised their hands. And I had a chance to talk to one of the guys afterwards

and to kind of gauge like, well, was it what you thought it was? And his response was, I love it. I love all this. I just didn't know this was happening. I didn't know there was a place where people were talking about these things. I didn't know that there were people who were writing books about this. It was, for this guy, it was eye-opening that we had all been conspiring to get together and meet. And I think there was a part of him that felt a little offended that nobody told him. Well, finally somebody did. And he and he thought, oh, this is great. I'm around like-minded people. This was wonderful. And another guy said something similar. He wasn't really dragged there. He went willingly. But again, he just didn't know that that was a thing.

that this, the meetup is called Liberty on the Rocks. It's fantastic. It's a, it's a group. They, they do it, I think, twice a month in downtown Denver. I've been a speaker there a few times. But it's more than that, it's just, it's other human beings who feel similar to you, and they see things that you see, and you feel a little less alone in these moments. And the thing that's, I'm always a bit, I'm not surprised anymore, but I was surprised the first couple of times is the age range. And I'm thinking it's kind of a libertarian thing. It's all going to be 20, 30 year olds, maybe 40 year olds or anything. It's a lot of people in their 60s and 70s that they know the difference. They've seen what it used to be and what it is now and they have the perspective and they're angry and they're motivated and they want to change things. So these live meetups are extremely important. I think we know that because when we went through COVID, we saw how they demonized bars. and places where people might come together and meet and, you know, conspire and talk about the things that they're seeing.

They had to shut those down. So these live events are clearly important. And you can understand that by how enthusiastic the state is to try and shut them down every chance they get. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, it's interesting on that note about the age range. You know, I think what I've seen, and there's many different facets of, you know, endless, it seems, of different groups of perspective. you know, going back a long way of different perspectives, but that I, there's a grouping of,

let's say the kind of like the hippie, you know, 60s kind of movement that we all know to a degree exactly like we're seeing take place today was co-opted or manipulated or, you know, but that doesn't mean there wasn't, you know, there were real people within that. But there was a lot of them that I think sort of went through that, felt like they sort of had some level momentum and then went through this, the same process we all seem to go through and then sort of like went into like, let's see if we can, you know, get further into politics or maybe become politics. And there was this weird arc where you're finding people that were like the hippies then that are like these hardcore status today through the system.

And my point, I would argue that there's a lot of them that have like went through their own process of thinking that might have been the way to make this and have now come full circle to realizing that the system is, you know, that's the way I might read that just as an interesting thought, that they would be more understanding of why the problem exists than most because they've literally fought their way through it trying to fight within the system, you know, And I think that's what honest people will come to realize, sadly, is that it's designed to fail, you know. So it's good to hear that, man. There's so many people out there who are interested.

And it's profound when people finally realize that this conversation exists and there's something other than evil that you can choose. It's interesting, you know. Imagine that. Yeah. And an archipulco is a similar thing, too. There's at least a half a dozen ladies who I know every year I see that are in their 70s who they've seen it. You know, they've been there. They've done that.

They were activists early on. they saw what that did. And they've always stayed sort of on the outside of the state. And I think that's important for, you know, sometimes the young people look and they go, wait, you guys are anarchists too? Like, you're old. You're supposed to be like, you know, watching Price is right and stuff. This is this, you know, you're here. It, I think it's a good reminder for people that freedom crosses all age ranges and demographics. You know, if you, if you are looking for that and the people last night and at the event all age ranges all colors all you know all all all demographics really they the common denominator is we do not want the state

to tell us what to do we are adults we behave properly and we're not going to tolerate the overreach so that this event that i went to is really kind of more local i'd say more local based which is nice because I don't, you know, I deal more on the bigger geopolitical stage and not so much on local Denver politics, but it's nice to sit in on those meetings from time to time and hear how passionate they are and they know, you know, exactly like which politician is doing what. And we heard some really disturbing things last night about the state of where things are headed with regard to the creeping technocracy and the AI data centers, that there were people who, who had sat through meetings in the, you know, the state capital is Denver. And so there's a lady who

was sitting through these meetings and saying that she's overhearing people saying, as soon as Polis is out, we're just going to ram through all the stuff we've wanted to do. Get out of our way, you know, doesn't matter. So she said something bad is coming technologically to Denver, to Colorado in general, in Denver in particular. And I don't doubt it. And I think that these, the data centers. One of the conversations we had last night is, wouldn't it be funny if the common denominator that brought us all together, right, left, anarchists, you know, whatever, blue, green, black, white,

were the data centers. You know, this one thing, everybody universally said, we don't want that. That's not okay with us. And we're willing to put away the temporarily ceasefire just to come after you guys with that. And so maybe that's the direction that things go. So if we're looking for a little bit of optimism here, it might come at the expense of some darkness, right?

They're trying to cram these data centers in. But what if, what if that was the bridge too far? Yeah, it's a good point to make. And I think right now it's happening in a lot of different places. I was just talking about, I think you might have seen it. It went pretty viral. Steve and I wake up showed it to me the day before. Forget her name off top of my head.

I reached out to her for a possible interview. was talking about her local area and domain, literally people being removed from their homes because the government locally allowed that to be something that there was the way she affirmed it, basically allowing that in location. And then because the state's allowing it, they can argue that they can then under whatever guys, national security or whatever the thing they claim, they can remove you from your land. And she's making the point that that larger that, you know, you don't really own anything. And I agree with that, you know.

But at the alarming reality of that on top of, for example, what Jason Bassler's been highlighted, I think, what was it? I think, 45% of all the data centers in the world are in the United States, or at least being owned and operated by the United States. And China, the one they're pointing to it to say is the big issue, is in that other 55% along with everybody else. And I forget the number of China off top of my head, if you remember, let me know, but it's dramatically less. It was like 12 times or whatever, what they have. And how can that make sense? You know, how we can argue that we're in this big battle with AI. And then on top of that, he recently shared a Wired article, but I went over like, last night talking about how this dark money campaign directly tied in a lot of other people as

well, but I find it relevant, Open AI, Palantir, Lansdale, Joe Lonsdale himself, and funding through that to manipulate, and I would argue, manipulate people to think that China is racing to get to AI before the United States, and we have to, otherwise we can't control everything, even though it's not the case. You know, so just painting that is a really dark feeling about what's coming. Go ahead. I spoke to Hakeem Anwar yesterday. Take back our tech. above phone, and he just released his AI Data Center map. You can go to AIDatacenterMap.org, and this is impressive. It's a map that you can, has different layers.

You can, you can sort through aqueducts, high, high frequent, high power tension wires, power generation centers. You can, each data center, you can hover over and get ownership statistics, for it and it's an interactive map it's throughout the entire united states right now it's very detailed we played around with it uh when i recorded with him yesterday and then i i played with it for about an hour afterwards if you're interested in in taking a look at in your local area to see where it is now one of the things that he talked about that was really interesting was that you can predict where they're going to be before they put them there and it had to do with the aqueducts it had to do

with the high powered lines and the power centers. And if you had those three components, you were going to get a data center there. You were going to get a hyperscalor center there, which is even more dangerous. And he was of the, not just opinion, I think he had the facts to prove it. I asked him, is this an international problem?

And he said, no, it's mostly U.S. It is almost exclusively U.S. problem with, and I think what he meant, not necessarily that there aren't data centers in China, because of course there are. But I think it's that there's not, there's no bear. There's no pushback in China. You're getting the data center there because the government says. But this, this overreach where everything is just getting rammed through hasn't really kicked off yet in Canada the way it has here in the States. Not that it won't. Maybe it will. But it was interesting to me. made the assumption that he was going to say, oh, no, this is happening all across the Western

world. In fact, he was saying it was almost exclusively limited to the U.S. It makes sense, though. I mean, I'm sure we could find, like you're saying, examples in other locations. But what he's highlighting there is the, is what the agenda itself, not just the idea of having tech, you know, centers that manage data. Like, that's been there for a long time. But these centralized massive 800 acre data, like this is about the control grid. That's what Catherine was just saying on Tucker, the idea that this is essentially, you know, and this is what we're always been talking about. Like, this is about managing that data and being able to utilize that for digital twin surveillance

predictive systems and everything else they're talking about, not just to be able to, you know, beat the AI race for China. You know, and so that focus on the United States, I think is obvious to the driving force behind it, which is the larger tech companies we're talking about. I was actually just talking last night about Cash Patel openly saying, I've let every major AI company inside the FBI. Paraphrasing, that's what he said yesterday. He said, I'll actually bring up the article after I say this.

And then the point being that I've, you know, basically AI's everywhere throughout this administration. And we can look into that and find out very clearly ICE and others. I mean, that's Palantir. And it's not just about Palantir, but it's about what we can prove Palantir is doing and what they're involved with. And then even worse, what we don't see, you know, and then all the rest of them, open AI and the rest.

You know, and so that is so very concerning, especially. you when somebody is incompetent as Cash Patel, who probably doesn't even care about what might be happening behind his back, but the bigger picture there. And so these companies are, you know, executing their vision. Now, who knows? Maybe they think this is best for us. That's not the point, though. It's the point is that what we see it representing. And Karp himself said essentially the same idea they're all doing, right? That if we do, we, you know, this, rights may be an issue, like, you know, the old lip service, like rights, you know, something we're worried about, but we can't let China win or there won't be any. And it's like, okay, it's the same idea they keep making. Well, it's, it's no rights

at all or nuke from Iran or whatever the game they're playing. There's no middle ground. And so his argument is essentially that we need to be able to enforce our rules on everybody. Because if we lose, China will enforce their rules and everybody. So as always, we're picking between two authoritarian dictatorial governments that tell you what to do. And it's just insane to me. So that aside, go ahead. I'll bring up that article and give me your thoughts on that. Well, I mean, I'm just thinking about how we used to freak out when we had inslaw in that whole situation where there was this company that was secretly stealing everybody's the data of the court systems of the United States and how dare this company, you know, there's an Israeli front group that's stealing

all this information. Now we have AI and the FBI director saying, oh, we've just let all these private companies in with AI, go through all your information. It's fine. This, you should be tried for treason, right? This should be a gigantic problem. Not, not some sort of thing that you're patting yourself on the back for allowing Silicon Valley to come in and go through all of the FBI's data. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that, right? Right. I mean, and that's just the FBI. The whole point is we know that this is, you know, the whole point direct to connect here is that he's in here talking about a school shooting that they stopped. Now, on a side note, we don't have to get into it now unless you want to. I went over that,

and it's actually really clear that it had nothing to do with it. It's the only shooting in the time frame mentioned in the location he pointed to. And it's very clear that the guy posted something on YouTube that they saw and arrested him. And in the records you can find, not posted by the U.S. government, it's clear that the local police arrested him and the FBI was simply present. On top of that, we get into them padding their numbers in that very same way. But my point is there he's going, AI solves everything and really not even actually doing that. You know, so the real question is what we're getting to is what's actually happening. You know, what are these companies actually doing? I would argue that the FBI like database information, like, I

I think these were already accessed with the whole doge element of palatina. You know, right? So what is this? Like, what are we talking about with the FBI side of this? I think it's exactly what it leads to, which is this enforcement arm like this dystopian police force control structure through AI that they're going to apply. And this is pre-crime, is what I'm getting at. Like the tips, like we, we predict this may happen and we have to do something about it. And he's leaning in that direction the whole time.

As you know, Whitney's been talking about that from Trump and Bill Barr for quite a while, you know. So that's so alarming. to see where this goes. The question is on top of that. Does Cash even know what's going on around him? I don't think so. I think he's specifically in that role because he doesn't know what's going on around him. If he were incompetent, he'd be elsewhere. And this is this pre-crime, you know, minority report, the movie came out in 2002. The book was written 50 years before that. So like the idea of us getting to a place where our patterns are pretty, you know, predictable. our cell phones are in our pockets, our eyeballs are scanned and things like that,

that you can predict somebody's behavior in advance and, you know, tie them to crimes. When you watch Minority Report in 2002, you know, oh, yeah, that's crazy, man. Let's go get lunch, right? But you watch it today, it's, damn, they've got half the technology is already here that they predicted in the movie. The movie was set in 2048. It's already here. And it felt like it was a million years away. And now we're starting to understand, you know, the self-driving car. You know, the little thing's like, oh, the self-driving cars or anything. Yeah, yeah, that technology is here too. But when they've got the three precogs sitting in the fluid thinking about things, you know, there's some AI scientists who's inspired by that, I assure you, who's trying to tap into. the resonance of the universe and draw some sort of answers about the future. I, I,

if, if Jordy Rose from D-Wave building quantum computers talks about how they opened up parallel dimensions and we're dragging information back into our dimension. And that was 15 years ago. Then, you know, where are we now? What's going on here? I think the implications are astronomical. I think,

I think, the idea that Cash Patel is in charge of it is just a huge distraction, almost like a bastardization of the program, make it look dumb like him, make it look incompetent like him, make it look sloppy and cross-eyed like him, right? But it's a serious thing. And it's, it's deathly serious. And you've got some, you've got the Alex Carps and Peter Thiel's of the world pulling the strings on things. This is the, this is a dangerous path we're heading down. Yeah. Well, interestingly on the whole minority report point, I mean, I would even argue maybe to some degrees a bit of a stretch, but then I think there's some tech that we don't even realize it out there that they've basically met all of that, save for the precogs, the people that can see in the future, right? The individual. But what I are, what's interesting is that whole thing represents AI. That's what that ultimately is, in my opinion, right? The three precogs are just the algorithmic digital twin predictive system. You know what I mean? That's how you could read that. And so what we are seeing is that we all are already there, or at the very least, that's what they want us to believe. And we should always ask that. I appreciate Whitney's point on that every time, is that we should always consider that this is sort of a play, that they've never really been able to reach it. And they want us to think it is. They're back there, you know, Wizard of Oz style pulling the strings. You know, it's, but I don't think that's what's happening. But it's worth considering that. But so at the AI that we can see, you know, that it's clear that we're building those, they are building those systems. The one of the main projects I keep seeing is based out of it.

Israel, take that for what you will, but they're all over the world. And they're like these digital twin systems where they're mapping out what we will, like literally what we will say tomorrow or what we'll do tomorrow, like based on the system that can map every data point they have on you. And that's just unbelievably terrifying. I don't even see how you can frame that as somehow positive. You know, and this is where it gets into the heart point where they're saying we need that data because if we don't, then we can't be China and we're all screwed. And so that's where we end up, you know? And I think the, a dangerous path that we're heading down as well is who's in charge of this information and do we run the risk of creating the priest class in the AI space where there's

only a certain group of people who you can ask the Oracle, right? You have to, you have to ask them and they'll tell you because you don't have the ability to ask the questions. We have to ask the machine and the questions. And so as long as there's somebody in between you and your God, be that one in the heavens or the AI guy, as long as there's a middleman in between you, there's the opportunity for manipulation of the information and, you know, for people's biases to flood this. So I think we also need to... Just like religion in the sense today is that people will use that historically to gain power, right? Well, that doesn't mean every thing of religion is bad. Go ahead.

No, no. But the people who have an innate sense of a desire to control others, they will migrate to positions of power like that, wherever they are. And whether it's the priest in a church or it's the new priest class sitting in Silicon Valley behind a desktop somewhere, there's power with that. And that power, I would believe, would be intoxicating. And of course, it would be centered in the hands of the worst people around as well, right? The last group, the technocrats who believe in the fourth industrial revolution,

the technocracy, the blending of man with machine into transhumanism. and that just is the wrong group to be in charge of the technology. Unfortunately, they're the ones with the vision to create the technology, but in that they are also the last people you would want to wield this because the psychopathy that comes along. I mean, you just take one look at Alex Karp. That's like Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at that man.

You give him unlimited money and power. and a mentality that you're scientifically better than other people. And you drag that eugenics mentality, that transhumanism mentality, which is the same thing. And then granted the authority by the state of the American Empire to implement your diabolical plans for humanity. My goodness. Alex Carp should be taken away in handcuffs for the things. things that he is thinking. Talk about pre-crime. You want to drag someone down to the police station for pre-crime? How about Alex Karp? We start with him. Yeah. Yeah. Seriously. Well, so on that note,

then, we can go in a few different directions. So basically, yesterday I was talking about a lot that I was going to get to potentially to show today. And I don't think I'm going to have time to get to it. So my plan was sort of, depending on how much time you have, to go through some of the stuff that I might have talked about in that show. And so I'll let you pick the next thing we'll get into here, ultimately. And so one, really, just anything else in your mind right now that you want to want to jump into that's pressing that we haven't got to. No, let's go. Let's get.

If you've got things, items on your checklist, let's let's run through it. Like right there. If there's something you want to, let's jump into that first. Or we can go in the direction of more the cash-for-tail conversation that I was going to touch on, which I do think is important, not just the lying of the statistics, but how they're kind of patting the numbers in the FBI and what that will lead to and the overlap of kind of other, the new Kevin Warsh, for example, and, you know, whatever, Wayne Bolin and these ridiculous people that are now in these positions.

or we can, as you just kind of touched on briefly, we could touch on the larger technocratic sort of network state point that I was discussing yesterday on the Honduras gate sort of investigation that we're highlighting. All it really is is audio files that are breaking down their conversations about what we've already been covering. The illegal coup in 2009, the recent manipulation from Trump, the pardon of Juan Hernandez and where that goes.

They argue it's sort of an overtaking of South America. So there's a lot of different directions we can go in. What do you feel like talking about? Go to the first one. What your, your idea or the cash? Your idea. Okay. Let's go to Casper tell then.

And there's, there's plenty we can get into in regard to these many points we can talk about that are, you know, got of personnel related, I guess. So let's play this clip first. And I thought this was interesting. This is, and to be very clear,

as always, for those that might be new. I know you guys know this. You watch the show. This is not like Van Hollins the best or left is better than right. It's always about how politicians, in my mind, all politicians are in the same boat.

That's important. But nonetheless, even those people, even people who are dishonest can use the truth to benefit themselves or who knows, maybe this person is the most honest person in the room. You guys can decide that for yourself. It's not that point. It's about Cash Patel in regard, in the way he conducts himself.

And then what we were saying, a second, go first, how we could possibly be in control of any of this. But then overall what this kind of leads to in regard to, you know, the bigger agendas around Cash we'll get into in a second. So first play this and then we can talk about it. Have you had a chance to listen to or read about? Brian Driscoll's statements about what you said to him and the reasons for him inspiring. Now, quickly, that's just basically politically motivated is the argument that he asked, and this is on the record, but everything's disputed these days, that Cash Patel, point blank, asked him, like, who you voted for, whether a Democrat or Republican.

And that may mean everything to some people, but that's not, that's not supposed to be the way this works, right? The idea that you can be politically boxed out from a position because you, you know, that you voted for somebody in the past. So that's what he's getting at is the allegation of that. And Cash Patel freaked out, when he asked him earlier. No, I have not, sir. So let me, let me just say this, Mr. Director. In your response to me earlier,

where you had a little bit of a blowup, you made a couple provably false statements. So did you. No, Mr. Director, I was reading about and asking you and asking you to respond to allegations that are made. I was giving you an opportunity to do that. I find that to be so interesting because

I, you know, again, it's not about, that's why I said the start. It's not about like, Van Holl is better than him. But at the end of the day, think about how, how, like, what this speaks to in his, is like, intellect, cash, that what is what is referring to right there is him, like, what about these allegations that are in this thing? What about it? And he basically freaked out calling him a liar. And so what he just said right there is, no, you lied.

It's like, how could you be lying if you're going, are these things true? Which is essentially the question. And I just think it's fascinating to watch people like cash and just like gnome and Bondi, how they were like trying to emulate what they see other politicians do and just like burning down in their effort to do so. You know what I'm saying? Go ahead and say something if you wanted to. Well, it reminds me a lot of what's going on in Europe as well. These, well, really the Wef young global leaders that were sprinkled around during COVID. Each one was less impressive than the one before them, right? And you felt like for better or for worse,

you know, like back when we were kids, the politicians would have these arguments. But you, and you may disagree with them, but you felt like everybody in the room deserved to be in the room. They were worthy of, they were able to defend themselves verbally. They were, they were, they were of equal status.

Now I watch these. And it's the same, it's what you said. It feels like they're pretending, like Cash Fetow is pretending to be the FBI director. Oh, I'll show them what he's going to ask me a question. And I'll come over the top.

right like like I'm all in like I'll just I'll just you know I'll be over the dude you're not J. Edgar Hoover right you're Cash Patel we all know it don't try to be somebody or something that you're not you're not going to go in there and intimidate anybody everybody's laughing at you behind your back and so I some of this is cathartic right are you you want I want to see the director of the largest domestic terrorist organization in the country the FBI I want to see him squirm. I want to see him freak out. I want to see social media pick on him.

I want that. I want these people to be ridiculed and harassed and mocked for what they do. Because the things that they do impact us. If it's just them doing it in their own, I wouldn't have that energy. But it matters because it's impacting us. So somebody like Cash Patel or Christy Noam coming out of the Trump tree, you know, the Trump administration, It's like a clown college, and all they produce are clowns.

And everybody that comes out of that system is more clownish than the one before. So I don't know that it would even work if you brought somebody in who wasn't Cash Patel or Christy Noem or Dan Bongino, a cartoon character and brought them in in the Trump administration. I just don't think that that would be a fit. I think there's a running theme and the theme is incompetence and I think it's intentional. I completely agree. And I mean, I mean, what's crazy is it's hard that it's at a time where things like that would be dismissed or like let's say, you know, Israel is like my point is also on top of the lack of the incompetence seems to suggest that okay, well, who is running the show. And I think that's, you know, the larger thought is where this all comes from. But the point is

these thoughts before are largely dismissed as just absolutely mad, you know, madness, conspiracy theory. But I find it so fascinating today that these things are, it's not like, people will still do that. But you, like, for example, with his incompetence, like this is not something that people can dismiss. It's an objective reality. The guy is outwardly looking stupid in very obvious ways. So you can choose to ignore that. But I find it so interesting that like at normal people are going, you know, maybe there is something actually manipulated. Maybe these people are not actually in control, which, you know, before that would have been like,

that's just the dumbest thing in the room. You get laughed out of the circle for even suggesting that that's not the case. I just think that's an interesting shift. And so my point as usual is, and what we should be thinking is if this guy's not in charge, it could just mean that somebody behind him in the U.S. government is the one actually calling the shots. That'd be like level one consideration, right? He's just a front man. But then I think what the bigger picture builds to is that we, I think we can all see that there is an obvious,

undeniable influence from a foreign power that's dictating U.S. policy. I mean, I was just pointing this out the other day, Douglas McGregor, Colonel Douglas McGrack went on, Judge of Paul Tonnell's show and said that he, the U.S. military is run by Israel. Unequivocally stated that. You have John Kirakow just recently stated it wasn't Russiagate, it was Israel. Like these are statements in the last few days. I mean, from Tucker to everybody, it's incredible that we've gotten to this point.

And so it shouldn't be like a, like we have to go through qualifying why we might think that Israel's dictating policy. I think that should be something that's like a very possible that everyone should be considering. So back to the point, this guy is so out of his depth and that FBI's made the same points. he's bringing in AI and all these different things. Like, think about what that leaves to. So back to this, and this gets even worse. So where we were essentially is that he's going, you know, I asked you about these questions

and you kind of, you know, you made false statements. He goes, you know, you did. It's like, well, I asked you a question. So I'm not sure how that's possible. And this is where it keeps going. And you took that opportunity. But in the process, you made these provably false statements that I know are sort of like urban legend in right wing media about margaritas in El Salvador,

which is provably false. And so coming from the mouth of an FBI director to make provably false statements in a hearing like this is extremely trouble. And it leads me to ask whether or not the other things you've been saying are false statements. And so my, because that was, that's a provably false statement. You made a couple of those that are provably false.

And this is from the mouth of, Just for those that care, what I find is always this move that they do lately where right now he's over there like he's not paying attention, folding books and moving things and talking. That's what you're hearing. I just think that's funny. They started to act like it's irrelevant that he's talking. It's just these are small moves by small people. You know what I mean? Like it's just the FBI director. The only one I made false statements is you. My final question of you, Mr. Director, is do you know that it is a crime to lie to Congress? You know that. That's my last question. Look at the book. I have not lied to Congress. I didn't ask you that. I'm not testifying here, sir, and I don't lie.

Maybe the next. See, think about how embarrassing the statement is. The only one lied to Congress is you. What do you mean? He's not testifying to Congress. Like these are, he's just, this is what Trump does all the time. But Trump, he doesn't have the standing of Trump that Trump does to be able to have a gaggle of idiots carry that like it makes sense. You know, it's so embarrassing.

They keep doing this. But again, same point, you know. I think this is $7,000. Sorry, go ahead. You were saying something. I think this is. radicalizing to normies. And here's why. They can relate to this in a way that maybe they couldn't relate to some politics before. Everybody has had an incompetent boss who thinks he's in charge. And the rest of

the team knows, you don't ever ask the boss. You ask his assistant. That's the person that gets everything done who runs everything. This person is a provable clown. They everybody, they have no respect. Oh, if we have the weekly sales meeting, okay, we'll listen to you, ramble on about this and that. And then as soon as you send the email about what you're going to do, we're going to ignore it because we only listen to the other person. The other person has credibility. You don't. So I guarantee you that there's somebody just a level or two below Cash Patel, who's a deeply serious person, who's actually in charge of this, who's running things, because he can't be the head of the FBI with a brain that empty. He just cannot.

Well, but to your point earlier, which I agree with, it very well could be that he is, and that's because this is supposed to fail. You know what I mean? Like the engineered collapse point. And again, for those in here yesterday, I actually just confirmed with Corbett to discuss that. I'm sure you've talked about it as well, just the general idea of how this might be engineered for a larger reason. And as you know, Corbett's been talking about that for like a decade.

And so I want to get that, get him on to go further into that, kind of the multipolarity and bricks and like where this all goes. Because I don't think we should be dismissing that very real possibility that this is some sort of global, like Herhori Morris feels the same way, that this is a coordinated transition to like the new form of globalism because the current one is failing, you know, and it's just hard to miss that right now. It certainly would explain the rampant stupidity, you know, the coordinated ignorance in the administration.

Like, you have to ask the question, if you were trying to destroy the American Empire, could you do it any better than this? Right. Which doesn't have to mean that that's the case. But like, if you stand back and ask that, it becomes, you know, Occam's Razor kind of a thing. Like it seems kind of easy to consider that this is about bringing this down. Like by the way, we keep pointing out every other thing they're doing, right?

We get to bring this down because we want the new thing. It's like, you know, end the Fed, CBDC. It's kind of that trap everywhere you look. And so this feels the same way, like collapsing this in on itself. And I, I think you and I might have talked about this. But a lot of us discussed this 2016 timeframe that Trump may be the one that was put there in order to bring this all down, right? And blame for it.

Right. But then that kind of got lost because, well, then he, then Biden was in power. And then okay, that maybe that wasn't the case. But it's rarely when we think it's going to happen, right? It's a long-term agenda. And maybe that is what's happening right now. That was a lot of very, the great divider or great destroyer. I forget the terms that were used at that time, right? And so here we are.

It's worth considering. Yeah. It certainly works. Bartab we can talk about. Well, see, there. Final question to you, Mr. Director, is do you know that it is a crime to lie to Congress? You know that. That's my last question.

I have not lied to Congress. I didn't ask you that. I'm not testifying here, sir, and I don't lie. Maybe the next time you run up a $7,000 bar tab, we can talk about it. Well, see, there you go. Lying again, you suggest. The FPC report, I'll post it right now. You suggested it was public.

It wasn't public money, as you know. That was for a 50 member staff part. So it wasn't $7,000 bar tab. Mr. Patel. We'll point you to a second. It's a small point. It's largely relevant, but, you know, corrupt government. But that's the pivot.

it. Like, why does that even have to do with anything? Like, so yes, he lied about a thing. Okay, so my thing doesn't matter. Like, this is a tactic from weak-minded people. This is what Nome and Bondi kept doing. Well, you, with your election and stuff over there, you know, it doesn't make any sense. You know, it's about deflection. And that's, and it's poorly managed. Glad, let me just say in close. Oh, good. No, no, go ahead. Please run this. That's great. Two things. I'm glad that you, the test regarding, you know, whether you have alcohol problems. I'm glad you agreed with me to do that. Crazy.

You still haven't answered my final question. Do you know, Mr. Director, that it is a crime to lie to Congress? Do you know that? I do not lie to Congress. I didn't ask you that. And you're insinuating that I am. I asked you whether you know. You want to correct your time in this session where you got steamrolled by the facts

so you can have a Twitter narrative. Mr. Director. I'll raise more money and spend more money on $7,000. Just let the record show, Mr. Chairman. The director of the FBI apparently does not want to answer the question about whether or not it's a crime to lie to Congress. And I find that extremely troubling. I find this more grandstanding. Again, they all do this.

Well, you know, whether he knows it or not, the point is we do, his statement of not responding is what they do. And that's not like him not responding doesn't therefore make your point either. You know, it's like this game that they all like to do back and forth. But I do find this very revealing, you know. And again, Van Hollen, in my opinion, is just as corrupt and, you know, dishonest as all the other politicians in the room. It's accentuating how out of depth he is, Cash Patel in any, it's just verbally sparring about basic things.

You know, that guy can't even bring an argument to the table. It's wild. No, he's, but he's essentially verbally defenseless there, which is interesting because I'm used to the, the FBI directors being a certain breed that's stone cold killers. You know what I mean?

like the serious type of the the Robert Muller's I mean he's a deep state goon but but you know he looked like a he looked like an FBI director cash Patel does not look like an FBI director he looks like somebody impersonating an FBI director and again it goes to your point maybe that is the entire reason for this you know if you if you're if you're if you're taking it down to the studs you know you bring in the clowns and and that just accelerates the process it makes it easier for people to get on board with massive changes once you've disconnected them from respecting the director of the FBI. People have no respect for him. I mean, I know the left doesn't. I don't expect them to, but the right doesn't either. And that is, so now you've got

the rule of law being openly mocked. And, you know, so I think that that's a, it's a slippery slope. I mean, for better or for worse, people feared the FBI director for the things that he could do. This looks like the Keystone cops. You don't worry about it. You fear that they might arrest the wrong people, of course, you know. Or kill people in the streets, right? Which is what we're seeing, you know. It's just an interesting dynamic here, you know, to watch him to stumble through this.

And like you're saying, just the lack of ability to actually bring any, I mean, you have a binder. full of things to say, you know, it's just, it just showed, what I think it is is an emotional slip where he's just kind of, he's flustered, he's not used to this. And to your point about people in the past, to be, like you said, we're not saying these are good things. Like, I think it's almost better that we can see through cash Patel, right? Like a positive thing. But at the end of the day, you had always people forward that at least were, you know, stoic and professional. And like, like, like, the point is like, like, make like an Obama versus Trump. Obama is far more dangerous because he's doing the same things, I argue, but with more tack, like with more, you know, you can't see it, you know, but, but it's ultimate. Ultimately, in my mind, the same thing. So here's the last part of this. Then we'll go to the... Troubling, you lie to the American... ...law enforcement. You were a disgrace, Mr. Director.

The fact that you can't answer that question. I'm nearly as big as big as... I will... That concludes my question, Mr. Chairman, but obviously very troubled. Okay. So what I find funny on that is ultimately you get this, where these people basically clip out the one part where he says the $7,000 thing and act like he dunked on him.

When in reality, it was very embarrassing for him. That's why I kind of laughed at that. I'm like, people are trying to hide from that. But here's what I found interesting. And this is what I find astounding. Because Cash Patel thinks he's right, apparently. And what's insane about this is it's not defending Van Horn. You can literally read the actual thing.

He posted this to show the $7,000 bar tab. But it literally says right there, purpose of distribution or disbursement catering for event. And that's what the guy argued in point right in front of everybody, that it was about a catering event. He goes, oh, and it's a check. 50 people in an event and they spent 7 grand on alcohol, that's 150 a person. That's nothing. Exactly, right? And so the point is cash post this and goes fact check and then with a picture of a bar apparently.

And it's just, this is just like beyond stupidity. You know what I mean? Like how could you or he just thinks that by lying about it, they'll get some kind of momentum. That may well be what's happening here. But I just. You know, his boss has been pretty good about that too. So maybe maybe this is just a mimicking the orange man. as well because his his erratic behavior you know his his his roy cone always declare victory never never admit defeat you know that sort of mentality that that maybe works when you're a overbearing personality type like donald trump who can just bulldoze people cash but till can't do that he's not billions of dollars a network of influence right right it's it's it's um he's he's he's He's larping. He's larping as the FBI director.

You know, and it always felt like a weird pick, but I suppose it depends on what the goal is. Right. Exactly. And that's what we should be considering as it goes forward. We can guess, right? We don't know for sure. But I think it's obvious there's whether Occam's Razor, which is, you know, all things consider the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. It's just, it's, the point is always is to be thinking about these things and keep an eye out for more evidence that develops. Oh, good, go ahead. If the plan is to destroy the credibility of the FBI, we may, in retrospect, be looking back on this and

say, that was the greatest FBI director pick you could have ever had because he came preloaded with no respect. You know what I mean? Right. Well, and again, same thing. Very much consider that that's the plan, you know, but how it ends up, we'll be able to have at least some more insight and understand a little bit more. But, you know, to the point about the dishonesty, we, again, I think we talked about this whole thing when it was happening. I can't remember. But either way, the whole margarita thing, if people don't remember, this was very clear. It's not defending a politician.

It's about the reality of the facts, which were that those things were placed there and the imagery was very clear in the first place. This wasn't some margarita thing. And who knows? You could argue they were out there getting drunk all day. I don't know. But the things that were placed on that table was later admitted to be something that was done for a photo shoot.

Like it was placed on the table while they were sitting there. And actually, if you look closely, it doesn't even look like it has anything about water in it. but that's irrelevant. And on top of all of that, what does it even matter? Like it's not, it's so they had in Margarita.

It's like, what does it change in regard to the point? You know, but they even have to lie about stuff like that. And I just find that very revealing. And that's just somebody was pointing that out down here, but we talked about that at the time. This goes to the,

the, the point that Hunter S. Thompson used to always make. Just make them deny it. Yeah. Right. Just make them deny it. Like, we accused Cash Ritell of being drunk on the job.

Right. according to what report, I just made it up. You know, but if it gets enough traction, like when he accused the politician of being an Ibegine addict, right, and they had to come out and deny it. And he's like, well, why'd you do that? I just wanted to make him deny it. I just want you to have to say that you didn't do it. That is a victory.

Like when you can make the director of the FBI come out and say that he doesn't have a drinking problem, you've already won. Yeah. Well, I mean, just on your personal opinion, do you sense that there is something there or do you feel like that was just an opt to like make him, like you said, make him come out and do that? I think he probably has a drinking problem.

But I think they all did. I mean, J. Edgar Hoover was showing up and dragged to the Plaza Hotel. I mean, the FBI directors have had some spicy off hour endeavors in the past. So I think it's a low hanging fruit for him. It's one of those things, whether it's true or not true.

It doesn't matter, really, if you just get the conversation going about, maybe he does have a drinking problem. Maybe he doesn't. yes that was my point when I first came up I'm like frankly I don't care like I made my point about being in a kitchen I'm like you know it matters right there's a legality all kinds of things to my mind though is if it's not plainly evident if it's not being they don't come in screaming of alcohol and I don't know any better and they do their job well and they may I don't I honestly

don't care if I find out next week that turns out they were drunk that day I probably wouldn't follow up on it because that's just how I look at it it's about the job to getting the job done but you know if they come in and they are stumbling and knocking things up well then and then it turns out the drunk, well, you're going to get fired, right? But at the end of the day, in this context, it's like the least I care about in this conversation, the thing I care about the least in all of this was the fact that he was drinking a lot. I care about the fact that he lied about it more than the fact that he was drinking a lot. You know what I mean? It matters whether he's able to do the job and he can't whether or not he's

drunk. So it's kind of irrelevant in my mind. Well, it proves one thing. He's unable to defend himself under cross-examination. You know, he doesn't have the ability to be quick on his feet and think about having some defenses. These are things that you walk into this. I mean, we did media training. My company did media training for pro athletes. You have a pretty good idea of what the questions are going to be before you sit down with that person who's asking, right? Especially if you're involved in some sort of scandal. You know that they're going to ask you three different ways to try and get the same. So you prepare in advance to answer those questions when they come up. He's unprepared. That's a huge

problem. That's a bigger problem than just about anything else is that you sat there with all these binders in front of you. He asked you a simple question. You fiddled around and pretended like you were looking through your binders for the answer that was so obvious that you made a big deal out of nothing by refusing to answer the question. You could have, you could have, no sense defusing a bomb after it already went. Of course, I'm the FBI director. I know it's illegal to lie to Congress. What do you think? I'm stupid next. You know, but instead, I didn't. You did. You did. And this is stuff. You go, this should have been worked out in junior college. You know what I mean? You shouldn't, this did not make it to the major leagues with this sort of inability to handle cross-examination. I think that most of these

people, don't they have law backgrounds? Don't they go through some sort of training to handle this? He seems like it just seems very unprofessional in a sense that you know these questions are going to be asked of you. You should have some preloaded answers to them or at least some way of talking around it and yet he didn't and I think that to me is is a gigantic red flag along with everything maybe even as you say big maybe even more so than the drinking is the fact that he didn't think to have answers to the questions before he walked in there yeah and you're right the way he responded to that it's just petty and small it shows you that he's a small per he doesn't want it to look like he got one over on him on Twitter that's what you mentioned about him it's all they

care about remember that story that came out of him and dan benjino this called out members of the FBI that they were basically discussing about how they would map out tomorrow's Twitter conversation instead of dealing with the current investigation. That exactly lines up with the kind of people I think they are. They're larping, you know? And of course, that's what you get when you put a podcast host and a Fox News host in positions of massive influence, you know. And that's the point that people like this, you know, they're only here because I think

other people, and it doesn't mean like good, honorable, honest people. But people, as you pointed out, that might have been better at the job, more intellectual, more savvy, more manipulative, right, that don't want those jobs because of the obvious point to be made, that they don't want to be thrown to the bus by Trump or have to deal with his idiocy or Biden's idiocy. It's becoming a job that nobody wants anymore. And that's the collapsing empire argument, you know, becoming clear to people. Yeah, there's, there's only 32 NFL teams. Everybody wants a head coaching job. Somebody's got to take the Cleveland Brown's job. You know what I mean? That's that's the working in the Trump administration. It's like,

there's only, there's only a certain number of these jobs. You want to want to take one, you're going to be on a losing team. You're going to be on a team that never gets to the playoffs and never does anything, right? Whatever that is in your, in your political world. But if you want it bad enough, you'll be there, you'll be in the big leagues, you'll just have no respect. But that's why you get the Cash Patel's, Bondys, and Gnomes of the world that would never a million years be in those positions who go see an opening, an opportunity, right? And so they're willing to literally make themselves look like fools to end up being in that position because they would never, that's my opinion anyway.

So this point here is about them trying to make it look like they're not incompetent. And I found this to be insane. And I may go through this in another show to like, you know, there's a lot to go through on this, but just for us to discuss, FBI insiders, Cash Patel is padding the stats to boost his record of arrest. Now, this is being discussed by people in the FBI. And so it's really important to think about this in the sense that they're framing it as people that know what he's doing, who have seen other administrators or other FBI heads who basically what they're doing, is manipulating the top 10 list.

I guess there was multiple examples of people that were minutes after they added them to the thing within hours or one one was like minutes, one was like an hour and 70 minutes, added to the list and then they got them to make it look like they got someone on top 10. On top of that, they were sending agents along with local police to, in the past, never had done, they haven't done it before. And then like marking it down as like a double arrest, all these different manipulative things that you can literally prove. And that's, it's just, think about.

doing that, knowing that people can see you. Is that incompetence? Is that design? Are we supposed to see that? And then he brings this little placard of all the things he wrote down that aren't true as if that proves anything. It's just, it's staggering. I don't, I'm not sure which one I would pick here. What do you think? Maybe, maybe we're made to see this at the end of empire. Yeah. The humiliation ritual of us being forced to sit through this and watch that. And, you know, it's the, the frustration of, of when you see a group focusing on the minutia at the expense of the really important points. You just go, guys, why aren't we focusing on this major thing? Why are you, in the padding the statistics, that that's something that unimpressive people do like that.

This is, you know, he's, he's given himself some me-bounds, you know what I mean? He's just getting a couple stats there to lock that up. So see, see what we did. See, we look good. you know, somebody who was honest about the job, someone who really was interested in locking people up, I think would have a different mindset about that. I don't think it would be, but then again, I don't think if you were serious about the job, you would be in the position that Cash Patel was in. I don't think serious people rotate into that job under a Trump administration, not if you want to

remain a serious person. I think you do so at the risk to your own reputation. You sacrifice your reputation. And by the way, when it all goes awry and it will, they'll christianome you and release the pictures of your husband's boobs. You know what I mean? So you can't ever, there's no finish line. You can't work with these people and have some sort of honor system where all do your bidding and then you just please keep the pictures of my husband away. No, they'll put them out anyway. Because you've made a deal with the devil if you go to work in these administrations.

and I have very little sympathy for you because if I know it's like this, they know it's like this. And so if you willingly sign up to participate in this, then you get what you deserve. I happen to agree. So let's bring this into the next part

that is related in a sense of what I think is trying to make an excuse for why this is incompetent or why they're failing or any number of points like that, which, dovetails with something I saw just before I went live. So on that note, it's something that's still developing. But first, the point that I was talking about yesterday, which I found very interesting.

This is, because the show before that, in fact, I was pointing to a lot of these things, the failure of arresting or even charging Obama or, you know, any of the failure, which I argue will fail yet again and designed to, by the way, I argue, the James Comey case, any number of things, or just any number of failures or leaks or ongoing points that they are embarrassed by. And I thought to myself, well, you can't say it's Democrat holdovers at this point because they're this far in. You know, they've gotten rid of all these people. And then like the next day I saw this point. And this is the office, this Colsey Gabbard's office pointing to this post saying, and again, Andrew Colbert seems to be popping up constantly, you know, and making the, like recently in my feet anyway, making these kind of points.

But it says, CIA director, John Brennan just said the quiet part out loud that there's still a legion of bureaucrats within the intel and justice of communities who are actively sabotaging, Trump's authority, which it certainly could be. In fact, it wouldn't even surprise me. But it's a statement made with not like, so the argument would be that there are people in there that they're not doing anything about or that is this abstract. And think about like the argument of saying that. Anyway, I think as a Democrat, wouldn't that be a sort of giving them an out? Yeah, it's hard to say. So I think first on that point, I think it's interesting to see, and this is, I just said it's convenient timing for an administration imploding in front of us to simply go, well, any mistake is because of the people from holdover positions.

So any thoughts on that? And then we can go into something that's happening right now in regard to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I just assume the CIA is plotting against the president, no matter who the president is, really. I mean, I don't find it to be necessarily Trump-specific. They seem to have their own agenda, their own operating tactics. and I don't I'm not never thought I mean John Brennan coming at first of all John Brennan is is again he's one of those guys I'm talking about he's like an old school very serious guy a dangerous human being for sure and but that guy's got an extra grind you know that guy's had a huge problem with Trump for a long long time he's a Wahhabiast who's a converted he's converted to Wahhabism I don't know if people really know that about John Brennan. But I think he thought that the deal of the Saudis was going to go differently and that he'd be in a position of power. That calculation backfired on him

so he can go pray to Mecca five times and think about the mistakes he's made for all I care. And then after that, he should be tried for treason and hanged, I think, for his crimes against the, by the way, I just wrapped up putting a quote from John Brennan in my book that will be out in the fall. And I went through it. I just had to pull it up. It's the, it's the, him testifying about chemtrails. Hmm. Right. Right. I'm going line by line on that. So, 2018, right? Yeah. Yeah. Council on foreign relations. That was the geoengineering. Yeah, and that's one of those points that I think are so interesting. Of course, the argument was

made that he was only talking about a program that had yet to actually happen, but we can all prove that it was very clearly going on before that. So it was an admission of the thing that they still pretend some circles isn't real. I find that insulting. But so the point, though, is that so Brennan basically saying, you know, there's holdovers and, you know, I just find that to be an interesting state, but now of all times. And look, even if it's a genuine thing, it's just very convenient for a group that wants to be able to say anything going wrong is not their fault, the responsibility.

And then the next day, I see this. Now, again, this is my point. This is from, this is today. And so, well, let's play the clip first, actually. And then we can talk about it. And so just be, right now, especially since. it's not something we haven't got the chance to dive through is for all we know this didn't even happen that's how our mind should be with every one of these moments you know that maybe it's a story

they made up maybe didn't happen maybe it was a different office or then the media got it wrong you know it's like it's just a weird time where everything should be questioned maybe this is a deep fake for all we know thinking thinking about all the things going around so here's the clip from fox news then john the CIA just raided Tulsi gabbard's office agents hauled out dozens of boxes files on the JFK assassination and MK Ultra, the CIA mind control operation, which she would Okay, so even that alone right there. Doesn't it feel weird? Like very clearly designed to make people go, oh, the conspiracy topics. Why would they do that? Don't they already have access to this? Any thoughts so far?

It's funny to hear Fox News talking about MK Ultra. Yeah. Yeah. It was in the process of declassifying. Today's whistleblower said it during his deposition, They stopped Trump from revealing the truth. Okay. Congresswoman Annapolea Luna confirmed it moments ago. The reason why this is troubling is, A, there was an executive order that the president had directed the full declassification of JFK, but then also to the MK Ultra Files. The CIA famously has said that, you know, all documents were released and other documents had been destroyed. So these are allegedly those documents that apparently never existed.

Can the CIA overrule the president? So I'm interested in this. I will definitely be going deeper on this, but what's your first thought? And again, this is something we haven't, just a breaking story going around. What do you think?

Feels a little bit like theater in the sense that it's a setup for something else. Like you said, like, oh, we had the files. We were going to release all of it, but then they took them back from us. We were moments away from,

from giving you all the, we were going to give you the JFK, we were going to give you aliens. and then the CIA broken and they stole all of it. So as soon as we get it back from then, we'll definitely release it. It'll probably be what, two years from now,

two and a half year. Oh, I'll be out of office by then. But whatever, you know, that just seems comically stupid to me. Like the idea that first of all, what do you say,

what they scooped up some papers, and that was the only copy? Or did they somehow access and take digital files and we're pretending you don't have things stored anywhere else? Or, you know, I mean,

like it feels almost like, like we were just talking about. Like, this is just a very, poorly, like Trump and his team around the table going, that'll work. Let's just go. Yeah, go, do it. Tell them this is happening. It just feels weird to me. And whether the CIA is against him or not, you know, or this is them together or if there is another element, you know, but it's weird. I'm waiting for the video footage of the CIA agents

carrying the bank banker boxes with all the files that say JFK secret files on the side of them, and all walking out in unison going into a white van. I'm waiting for that. Top secret MK. Ultra, do not share. Do not share. I hate that's even something that I'm not even. It's funny because it's really stupid, but I actually think that I would, I mean, you're making a point, which, what event are you referencing right there?

That happened, right? What event was that? Well, maybe it's sort of like a Mar-a-Lago-ish thing. Where we made fun of that, where it was like, it literally says that on the box. No, what was that? Now I can't remember. Well, I was actually kind of making that part up. But what's funny about it is that it isn't that far from reality.

I think that's the part that makes it even funnier is that there is a world in which that could happen or maybe even already did happen where it says, you know, secret UFO files on the side of the box. Well, somebody in the chat, Ryan, I know somebody knows what I'm talking about. There was a, there was, it wasn't like secret UFO files, but it was some equivalent of that where they had the boxes coming out and the boxes. it might have been an Israel overlap too. But anyway, it seems like I'm not going to remember. But the point was that actually now I do think it was an Israel propaganda stunt

where they were bringing the boxes out of the hospital. And it said like humanitarian aid like on the side of these boxes. And it was like, come on, guys. Like that's not even, that wouldn't even be on the box. Like I think that's what it was actually. Anyway. Money for orphans. Yeah, we're just thinking.

Laughing about it. But it's just so, it's just so ridiculous, guys. And they think we're falling for it. apparently. I think that a calculation has been made that sometimes you have to dumb it down a little bit, the show. I mean, that you have to, you can't make the assumption that everybody's going to be high level and they're going to freeze frame it on it and go, whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on. Zoom in. What does that say? And sometimes it has to be in big black magic markers, you know, just because that message isn't necessarily for us. It's for somebody else to go, oh, look, honey, it's, you know, we're saying it. It's the UFO. And for them, it's perfect messaging. For everybody else, it's so embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you because you think this messaging is working. It's like, it is working.

That's the problem. It's working for a big segment of the population who are following this around and they're going to be misled. But I'm interested to see how the Tulsi Gabbard CIA document thing plays out. I think there's a genuine. I think there's genuine friction between the CIA and the presidency and his administration. I don't think that needs to be manufactured. I think that always exists. And I don't think that the CIA would fantasize about marching into Tulsi Gabbard's pulling all the files out, if that's in fact,

where they were. Wouldn't you think that they had access to this or whether through illicit means or not? Yes, I think this is redundant. I think it is unnecessary to steal the files from Tulsi Gabbard's office when You're the CIA. Right. Right. Exactly. That you'd have to go in there physically and do that. Yeah, this whole thing feel.

And so here's what I would say, whatever, hypothetically, what might come next? That if we get to a point to where, which it might already be, the argument might already be being made that they start to say, well, now we can't. You know, we were ready. Trump had it all lined up. We had all the things. We were going to show you the whole thing. And they stopped us.

And then if that just ends there, like there's just no, then I think that will make it very clear that it was about trying to make it. look like Trump was going to save the day. And so you basically get the Trump is on your side moment. And you also get the debt, the deep state Democrats are still fighting. And it works for, I mean, for who actually, though? You know, like my point is that all these Republicans who might have the conservatives who aren't team sport players who wanted to believe in him, I don't think they buy it right now

because they're not getting what was promised. And so that's, I mean, you're basically making that argument to people who already believe you no matter what you say is what I would read from that. It's just, it's a weird thing to see. which makes me feel like they're just floundering and desperate. And then to the CIA point, you know, there's conversations to be had about the Israel element there. And whether Trump, the Charlie Kirk conversation,

is starting to realize that he is being played, or at the very least, is realizing that he, even if he's been in line with them the whole time, doesn't want to do it anymore. I'm failing. This is embarrassing. I need to pull away and, you know, I don't know. And I'm wondering whether this might be one of those moments to kind of go, you know, JFK moment, fall back in life.

You know, just all these thoughts. These are all just considerations, you know. Well, much in the way we see Trump and Xi walking through the streets of China and with a bunch of people clapping and parading, that's a calculation to appeal to his ego. They know that. They've made that calculation. Maybe a similar calculation can be made to appeal to his ego in getting it through Trump's head that he's being humiliated on the world stage. And an egomaniac can't handle something like that. Maybe what you really need to do, you can't appeal to his decency. You can't, the American people are suffering financially. He already told you he doesn't care. He just came out and said he doesn't care. You can't appeal to him from a humanitarian

standpoint because he's, he's helping a regime bomb babies, you know, so you can't reach him there. You have to appeal to his personality flaws, that he is a unbelievable narcissist. And if you can somehow convince him that he's being humiliated and that he's not in on the joke and that the entire world is laughing at him. Maybe, just maybe, you can get him to do something about it. But I don't know that that might just be the curious of fantasies, right? That something's going to snap and he's going to rise up and he's going to go get those people. You know what I mean? That feels very much like a like you wouldn't place a bet on that one, right? I doubt that it materializes into Trump going around and, you know, holding them accountable.

But the first part of what you said, though, I don't, the way I look at this right now and a lot of the things, and I think this is always a smart way to look at, like, who benefits, kind of a point, right? Is that people act with, they do what's in their interests, whether terrorists or status or, you know, people will do what's in their interest. That's what drives people's choices, right? Yes, there is the irrational maniac out there. But that's an anomaly. That is not Assad.

That is not Iran. These are people that have their interest, whether they're fanatics or not, right? And they act within those interests. And so that's the point about straight of Hermuse and how this ends up. It's very clear to me that they want that seat at the table. And that's a huge win in the face of Israel, the United States. And so why would they burn the table down? You know what I mean?

It doesn't make any sense to me. And so all of this kind of swirls around that point that it feels like this, like Trump, back to the point, is that it seems simple to me, to see a world in which even if he's entirely, on board sold us all out deliberately, that there still comes a point at which this is no longer in his interest. And that's what everybody will, you know, they just go, okay, unless I'm, unless I'm, unless I'm literally not in control and don't have any influence over this, if there's any ability of me, you know, on my side to be able to say, I want this versus that, then he's going

to stand up at some point. There's a breaking point where it's like too much. And I think that's what we're flirting with. Like, that's one of the considerations in all of this. But it could just be that these people are entirely controlled because that is also what would make sense. But these are just considerations of what we don't know. The black hole analogy that you make, which I really think stands out, you know. Yeah. And I hope this doesn't come across as hopium. It might just be a logical calculation of a human being who is put in a situation where

he feels that he's being manipulated and he wants to change that. That's not, that doesn't require eight-dimensional chess or anything. That just requires knowing how a narcissist is going to react in a situation where he's humiliated. And it also doesn't mean Trump's a good. The argument is not he's a good person. It's like he's still committed genocide. He just realizes his interest are no longer aligned with Israel, you know?

And I think that's very clearly happening right now. No, I think the best case is to manipulate him into doing something that benefits us, right? You know, manipulate him into using his narcissism and his insanity to finally do something that benefits. But to try and get him to rationally and logically look at the situation is there's no point in that. He's in his 80s. He's not going to change. He's not going to have an epiphany about. this, but, but you can, you can, you can play on him, as they say, you know, like the, the person,

the last person in his ear is usually the one that he's, he's sort of regurgitating their thought process. So with that mentality, why don't you make sure that the last person in his ear is telling him, hey, Israel's manipulating you. And all the people who are surrounding you are, are, you know, your, your handler is your son-in-law. You have big problems, pal. Yeah. I mean, I think that, you know, it will, I think it has. an effect on anybody to basically nobody wants to look the fool you know and but this is my point again why i grapple with this because i don't i would have never predicted that trump would be capable if that is what's happening of putting him like making himself look the fool in order to sell an agenda i just i would

have bet my life that that's not even within his wheelhouse but you know that's that's that's where i'm kind of juggling that right now and so we'll see where this continues to go you know and that's like this is the point in my mind about the the the very i guess the the splitting of the agenda, right, where you have the technocratic sort of control structure, control grid building, but then you have this very obvious, like religious fanatic, prophetic vein going through all of it. Those things don't really work together at the end of the day, in my opinion. And so I think that may be also a point of friction where suddenly you've got these like very clearly alarmingly fanatic people who are literally in his like right handman positions

and who knows if he was fully aware of that or not. You know, anyway, just for the considerations about what may be driving the kind of spinning out of this administration. So let's get into a couple more points. Let me know if you have limited time. A few more things I thought we'd get into. And I found this interesting. And this is kind of overlapping with the Iran point. The president of the Zionist organization from America says he has discovered new evidence that links Iran directly to 9-11.

So the war must continue. What do you have thoughts on that? Well, he's lying. I don't know what else to say. The fingerprints of Israel are all over 9-11. The fingerprints of Iran are not. But I'm sure that, you know, that these are people who lie easily. And every accusation is a confession.

And for those with the eyes to see it, you see, you know, you can watch interviews like this. And it just makes you kind of laugh because you understand what's going. If you know the true story, these people are set to their narrative managers. Right. So he's going to come up there and he's going to try and it. it doesn't you don't even have to get everybody to believe you just have to get a few people just have to get a segment right just a little here a little there another story a different person will be in charge of a different story at a different time to take a different small section of people and divert them into thinking a different way right so it's not it's not it's not that everybody has to go oh my god iran was behind nine eleven you just have to get a few or it just needs to be for those people yet another thing in their mental database of like iran Once again, they're not just, they're not just beheading babies and they're not just doing this and they're not just killing 40,000 people. They're also doing that. You know, it just becomes one more

item in some people's minds. And it costs them nothing. Their credibility's gone. That guy, that guy's a liar. He's an Israeli narrative manager. So they're all liars. So, but who cares? You can't shame somebody who has no shame. So it costs him nothing to go out there and lie about that. It's the cheapest. It's the cheapest tactic he can use because they can just lie constantly. And even if, I mean, I am of the belief that if you're in our position and you watch enough of these lies, you get to a point where you go, you're the boy who cried wolf. I'm not going to listen to anything you say, anything, even when it's legitimate, simply because you've been lying for so long, you just have to, you just go off and be with your lies. But, you know, so for us, we have the eyes to see all of it. And it's compiled. And we just

this is a pattern of behavior. But for some people who this is new, they're getting five minutes of news here and there, they read a headline that says Iran behind 9-11. They see that there's an interview with a guy who looks reasonable and he's not a jihadi, right? Or he's not somebody. He looks like a reason of somebody who might have inside information about Iran being.

That's all it takes. Two seconds, right? They look at the headline. They see that. They make a calculation. Iran was behind it. They don't care. They're not, they're not geopolitical experts. It's just normal people. It doesn't matter to their lives. But it all, it's incremental and it all builds up. And over 30 years of Iran is five months away from a bomb. They're three weeks away from a bomb. Eventually, people just start to believe that. And they, and because advertising works.

And if you've been repetitive about it over and over and over again, over 30 years, for some people, Iran is three weeks away from getting a bomb. and they were behind 9-11 because they heard it somewhere. And that's quite literally all it takes for some people. I agree. But I think the first point I think is that that's, I don't think that's the majority. There's my opinion. And I feel like I've felt that for a long time and it's even more,

I think less so today. But you know, my point in even including that is, I think it speaks to the larger point of a lot of this is just desperation. Like it's so easy to see. I mean, the New York Times, I forget the year, did a very reasonably good article,

breaking down how Iran was not connected to the 9-11. And this has been very, very clearly broken down by us long before that. And it's objectively proven in case people are confused about that. And so suddenly, you know, May 2026, new in for nude evidence comes out that shows right when you need us to think Iran's the bad guy and the world suddenly starting to see that's not the case or at least that they're not what you claim they are. I mean, it's just, it's just a lazy thing to do right now. But it shows that they need that.

And third, it shows that they need Americans to think that. That's what it aimed at. And that's so interesting to think about the white helmets being written in English on their back of their. There's a reason because it's aimed at you guys. Israel needs Americans to support this. And what does that tell you? You know, that's why I think conservatives are coming to terms with that uncomfortable truth, you know? They do.

It's imperative that the American people internalize this and the show is for them. And as because, you know, but I guess. there's something, I mean, I guess there will come a point in which they won't feel the need to put on the show anymore. As Frank Zappa says, right, they'll pull the curtains back and you will see the brick wall. That actually is the point at which you have to be maybe the most fearful. At least right now, they're still trying to show us the show. It's when the show, when they say, you know what, the show is unnecessary. The show is too expensive.

The show is not required. You guys are going to do what you're going to do because we tell you that's what you're going to do. And we're not even trying to soft pedal it anymore. That I think is when when, you know, people really have the freak out moment. Yeah. I mean, it kind of feels like we're there in some ways, you know, like the constitutional issues or, you know, they're just coming right out and saying, or, you know, Trump's saying, we're going to bomb your energy infrastructure. and not just saying it as a negotiating tactic, but doing it.

Bombing bridges, bombing these locations and, like, threatening. Like, so that's, that's, I've never seen that before, right? I mean, we've seen, that's a change on the world stage from, like, doing it. We all have seen that hopefully in the past,

but lying about it. So just coming out and going, we're going to do that and knowing that you're challenging the world to do nothing. It's a game of chicken. Well, not even that, since it seems they were very aware that the global stage or whatever you want to call it

was not going to do anything about that. And that's changing. people's opinions. You know, it's, it's an alarming shift in all that. The dialogue has changed from the FBI director and the dialogue is changed by the president as well. There used to be a time for better or for worse. And we all know that, you know, Obama's biggest flaw was that he wore a tan suit one time. Right. So he didn't come out and announce these things because that would be ghoulish and despicable. But he double-tapped wedding parties. So, you know. Oh, yeah. To be clear, I mean, I don't think we need,

I think we already said it in fact, but that's the point. Obama, you know, it's an incremental thing. You know, you've watched this get, I would argue no matter who ended up here, whether somehow Obama got reelected or Biden was there or what it would be, I argue, a version of the same thing that's happening right now. I just think Trump adds to that his kind of bombacity, his narcissity, whatever, the way Trump is at, and I think that's to some degree by design, but that's the real difference. They're worse at being able to hide it.

They're worse with their arguments. They have this kind of bombacity in like, you know, we can do whatever we want, article two shut up kind of mentality you know it's just it's not the reality it's not true but it's the difference though at the end of the day is just they're bringing to fruition what i think every administration before was incrementally building to this point i mean that's i mean what do you think about that yeah it's the it's sort of like the great unveiling i mean for for a while they've always been sort of thinking about this or or or working behind the scenes but now with trump there's a there's a cartoonish face to it and you get the the the every man gets the chance to now see what's happening you

it's just that in the old days you know it felt like what was going on behind the scenes was um kept quiet because it was um you know dangerous information now it feels like things are being kept quiet because they would humiliate everybody in positions of power like everybody is in the Trump administration because they have an Achilles heel that they are one scandal being released away from everybody knowing that they're just another member of another clown in the party. And what a weird time to be paying attention. I mean, it's as a writer, you know, it's like a embarrassment of riches to sit here on the hill and look out over the the crumbling empire and write about it. I don't, I don't love it, of course. I wish things were better.

But it's such a unique time for us to be living through this and watching it. Because there's going to be a moment where we're going to tell, you know, our grandkids this. And they're not going to believe it. They're not going to believe the things that we say. You know, it's like, if I were to tell you X, Y, and Z, five years ago, you was like, get out of here. But here it is. It's really happening. And so for us with the eyes to see it, it's such a, you almost have to do a double take. It's like, am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing because it's so nonsensical and embarrassing and cartoonish that I feel like I have to double check and make sure. Yeah, well, it is the Trump administration. So yeah, you are seeing Christy Noem's husband being dragged out in front of the press.

Yes, that is real. That is what happens. Enjoy the show, ladies and gentlemen. Well, I mean, so in regard if you're, you know, the show of doing that, like, do you think that is about just getting us to look a different direction or, you know, how do you read that? Because distraction, I think is something that's easy to say. But I think it's more relevant to consider that today than ever. What do you think? Well, it's, it's extremely relevant in changing or occupying the news cycle for a period of time. Right. When what you're doing overseas is, uh, horrendous. So you've got, I think as a calculation, if you just laid out his presidency as a series of numbers of hours in the day and you overlaid the news cycle on top of it, your job is to control that news cycle as much as you can with distractions and non-events and things that feel important,

but secretly aren't because you need to chew up as much of that time as you can to give them as little time as possible to talk about the real important things that are happening overseas that you don't want them to talk about. But if you can get him talking about Cash Patel's may be drunk or Dan Bongino is doing nothing or Christy Noam's husband is a weirdo, then you've accomplished the goal of just chewing up additional hours in the day of getting you through, churning that new cycle into something else because everybody's got a limited detention span. And I think that that is an active part of this. It's a humiliation campaign that runs parallel to it that that's great for, you know, whenever, as we notice, when something bad happens and then either they drop it on a Friday,

if you can in the business world or if you're in the Trump world, you're going to do something, drop it on a Friday because you've got the Saturday and Sunday news cycle that isn't going to punish you. These are calculations that these people make. And I assure you there's somebody whose job it is in the Trump administration to cue the distractions as soon as they need them. and they've got a bucket of them. And each one is more embarrassing than the last one. But, you know, it's probably a calculation that they've made that will take them focusing on the embarrassing thing as long as they're not focusing on the unconstitutional things.

Yeah, yeah, rather, always rather be seen as incompetent than criminal. You know, and I think a point to be taken there is important point, that it is certainly possible that this is a calculated move to just make us focus on nothing but nonsense as the things roll through. But the only way I would see that working, and you know that I think this, is that there is, if there's no, there's no real divide,

because you couldn't do that if you knew the other side was going to rip you apart. You know what I mean? You have to be a coordinated, you know, let's all jump at every dumb story. There's never any accountability. We'll never actually see it through to fruition. It'll just be a bunch of congressional hype and talk and no action.

I make sense, you know? I mean, it's not working. I think we're, at least for a lot of us, we're seeing through it, but I think that's a valid point to be made. When the Democrats are laying on the mat and they see the Republican go in the corner and crawl up, get up on the turnbuckle and get ready to jump on it, they know that they're going to roll out at the last second. Right. They know they're going to do it. They see it coming.

They're going to let that whole thing develop because it's part of the show. They could have rolled out two seconds earlier and it wouldn't have been quite as impactful. But, you know, if you're putting on a performance for the world, then you got to do it right. I hope people consider that. And, you know, that's never to say that it's every single person at every single moment, but these things do exist. And I think we can prove that. But the question is to what degree?

And if it ever was a point where you can, I think we can very clearly prove, I mean, it's very least just even lobbying itself. The design of that is to influence policy and understand how that as a machine to make it as simple as possible could just grow into something that literally is used to dictate policy. But I think it's much more nefarious and much larger than that. But it shows you how easy to understand it is. that you have people who are using money and influence to dictate policy and that that can get out of control. And then we're watching our government here essentially have no influence, or rather,

let's put it this way, that we have no influence over the government than whoever controls it ultimately does. And so I'll end with a point here that we can talk about about hypocrisy in the same vein, how frustrating it is to see people like China is another point, right, that all of these people, the Benny Johnson's and the rest, there were you, and the answer is yes, they were. weren't you just telling us that China was infiltrating the America, infiltrating voting machines and they're treasonous and they're trying to over. And Trump was posting. And then they're all like, unity.

This is what respect looks like. It's just, it's insane. You know, it's like there's nothing sacred in these people's minds. And that's all that's a team sport partisan on either side, in my opinion. Here is Sebastian Gorka pointing out that, you know, you can't really say what you want. Because, you know, free speech shall not be infringed unless is what we're getting from Republicans now, which is just like we got from Democrats. And he was one that was screaming, rightly so at the time, about how Democrats were trying to suppress your speech.

Our laws that you are not allowed to say, right? The freedom of speech does not extend to inciting violence or threatening the lives of specific individuals. That is not permissible. Beyond that, we will map. Look, we haven't talked much about it, but if you read the counterterrorism strategy, it's a very clear document. We don't shy away from telling the world what we're going to do. we are going to map out these individuals. We are going to identify them.

We're going to find the, I mean, this is God bless Scott Besson, you know, Cash Patel, you know, AG, the acting AG, Todd Blanche, the money trail. The money trail is the most important thing. You look at these from the river to the sea, bring the interfaith to the streets of America. It's so interesting. You're on the campus of Berkeley or you're on the streets of New York, and everybody has exactly the same placard, printed the same font.

That's a little bit strange. Go ahead. I say, you want to say something. Go ahead. It's just funny coming from a British spy. That's what's funny is that's what a former Trump supporter had recently pointed out. A reminder, Gorka is not an American. He's a foreigner. I just, it's, you know, think about what it takes

for somebody who knows we know he was saying, I mean, that he's doing exactly what he was screaming about before. because it's, well, I disagree with those things. Well, they can't make us say pronouns, because that's a human, and I agree, that's also just the same problem. But it matters that we stop them from saying

from the river to the sea because that's insulting. It's not, you know, hate speech. Literally, the same exact thing, you know, and what he's saying right there is that they'll hunt them down, they'll financially go after them. What about the trucker convoy? And it's like these people are the most alarmingly dangerous. They're hypocrites who pretend to care

and then do the exact thing right back to you, you know? And the counterstrategy or counterterrorism strategy document that just came out is alarming. It points to anarchists. It points to a lot of different things that we've already talked about. This is the people saving us from the deep state. Yeah. Well, it reminds me of the 2015 videos where they were talking about Jade Helm running those exercises and the police that they interviewed for that. They asked him, well, in this simulation, your role playing, who are the bad guys?

And he's, well, you know, constitutionalists. And everyone's like, wait, what? Right. They're the bad guys in this fictional role playing. So Sebastian Gorka is a Zionist. He is an agent for Israel. And he does not want people talking about what Israel is doing worldwide. So he is going to try and convince the MAGA people. Hey, remember when I was, you know, I was right about speech with the left stuff when they were doing that. I'm right about speech again with this stuff. You got to trust me on this. It's like, no, you're not. This is the removal of speech. It's the reason why you're selling it to the right. You can never sell it to the left. Sebastian Gorka, that nobody, We'll listen to him on the left, of course, the people on the right, he's going to try to sell them how removing free speech is a good thing. And I was going to say, and on the left, much like, or just in a team sport politics sense, it's more multifaceted, the further down you go. But on the left are much more open to censorship, as we already saw.

They're going to ignore it regardless because they don't care. But that's the point is what he represents on the right is what he pointed out on the left. The same people I'm talking about that don't care. That's what he's doing right now. You know, it's not, you know, this is what we get into the main point of shall not be infringed, an alienable. Like you don't, you can't pretend that that's the case and then make those statements. And this is what I really want people to come fall back to is whether it's fire in a theater

or any number of points. We can have the conversation about whether we should be talking about limited rights. Maybe, maybe that's where we should be. I disagree, but we can have a conversation, but people are not being honest about what they think. Gorka's not saying, I believe in limited rights. He's believed free speech and absolute constitution and then makes those points. So he's a dishonest, manipulating person. or he's too stupid to realize that what he's saying is contradictory.

So what's alarming is that you have people who believe they're doing that. So have the real conversation. If you believe speech should be limited in some specific ways, then state that. Let's have a real conversation. Or fire in a theater. That was a long line a long time ago that was manipulated. And maybe society today truly believes that's where it should be. But if you believe that, that's limited speech.

That is the idea that you can't say certain things in certain contexts because other people may do certain things. my mind is no matter what you're saying, whether we're talking about threatening a leader or anything else, if the action that is the crime. Now, in this current situation, they can say, well, you can't threaten President, national security, and they'll even come and arrest you for it. So I'm not saying you should do those things.

It's your choice. But understand that in the reality of free speech, shall not be infringed, you can say whatever you want. That's where this needs to end up, I think. And I think it's time we lean back in that direction, right? I agree. But they want protected class status for certain people. They want certain groups to not be allowed to be criticized.

That should be a red flashing light for people because it's an all or nothing proposition. You're either limiting speech for everybody or it is free speech. And you get to say you get to be critical. Because if you make one group protected, what's to say that the next group won't come and say, well, no, we need to be protected. Next thing you know, everybody's protected. Now you've got a problem with speech. Now we can't hurt anybody's feelings. I mean, the entire premise of free speech is at stake with stuff like this.

And you can see how those dishonest people like Gorka, how they sell it to the right as we're not, we just need to limit some of it. But it's the right thing to do. You do the right thing, right? You want to do the right thing. Well, the right thing to do is to limit this speech because if we don't, it does X, Y, and Z, all these bad things will happen. Mosulism and socialism and whatever, the thing to just buzzwords is just all the other than we do.

And it shouldn't matter what the argument is. That's the real point. If you don't care, it doesn't matter how crazy the argument that comes after, still shall not be infringed. And that's why I keep trying to make that clear to people's, we can have that conversation about maybe the world's changed. Maybe that's just not the reality of the way it should, or what we think it should be. But we don't ever have that conversation, because it's all rooted in dishonesty. And I'll leave it with this point here that I think is, well, here's an interesting as I saw this and rightly so today.

You know, you go, is it fake? It's a day. I actually hadn't seen this. At least I don't remember seeing it. It might have been a while back. But it's a clip of Donald Trump. We'll play it first. Then we'll, you know, talk about where it's from.

Are we close to seeing Mr. Kim here at the White House? Could happen. I mean, we talked about that yesterday. I would have him. Yeah, I think it's something that could happen. Yeah. Hey, he's the head of a country. And I mean, he's the strong head.

Don't let anyone think. anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same. So he wants you to treat him like the leader of North Korea, right? And so I thought, I'm like, even the way he spoke, I'm like, I feel like that kind of sounds like it's fake. He's seeing from his back, you know, whatever. But ultimately, it appears to be something that was heavily documented. And it was from, what was the date again? 2019. Sorry, I can't have my screen is messing up. There we go. Yeah, 2018. You know, and I'm just thinking, And like, that is such a crazy thing to think about to say, to be caught on off camera publicly

saying that you want, you know, that you, that you praise North Korea's leadership and that you want your people to treat you the same way. You know, it's just my point. All this, even it's just, there's so many red flags. You know, the, you know, the, you know, was a due process for, take the guns first, due process later. Or the burning of the flag and being, you know, charged with the crime, even though that's been ruled Supreme, from Supreme Court to be, you know, constitutional It's over and over and over or the promises of Iran or vaccines. You know, it's just one more example of that he was always the person that we're telling you he is now. Like that's when we were saying in 2024, why we created the IMA.

We saw it. He is that person. And for all those that are now like Donald Trump changed, she's no longer the person. It's like, you know, he was the same person for whatever reason they see it now or they just finally realize they can't deny it anymore. You know, so what are your thoughts on the way out, brother? It reminds me of that adage of the person who should be the president should be dragged kicking and screaming into office. That anybody who wants that job, you have to question their motives, their sanity, a lot of things. And I don't think there's any question that Donald Trump is a narcissist.

His behavior is reprehensible. But it's always been. It's not like he just had a head injury and now he's a jerk. He's been like this for a long time. So I don't know why people think that he's changed. Maybe maybe they've changed. I think what it is is that they've changed, that they now are seeing what they couldn't see before,

which they now have the eyes to see it. And because after years of this, you're going to feel differently. You're going to have more experiences to pull from. And it's not just going to be the campaign trail. You know, it's one thing. He has lied to you on the campaign trail three times in a row, everything he said he was going to do is a lie.

The fact that someone is going, you know, I don't think Donald Trump is being forthright with me this term. You don't say, really. It's been like this for a while. But, you know, I guess people come to this information at their own time, right? Everybody kind of, if you're waking up, you wake up when you wake up. And for those who took a second term of Trump,

who enthusiastically got behind him under the belief that he's going to come back as a man on a mission because they tried to kill him and he's going to get you've been had you made a you you guessed wrong he sold you a bill of goods it's not true so i think for those people that they're in their minds hey trump changed you know but but i don't know that that is the case i think he's always been who he is. It's just that people don't, haven't always had the ability to see him for what he truly is. I mean, he is the proverbial scorpion, right? And you can, you, you, you can ask yourself in the aftermath, why did you sting me? But you know the answer is going to be, it's just in his nature. Or, I mean, you can even point to the speech you gave about the snake and the whole thing.

I mean, it's just, you know, what was it, was the snake and something? What was that? similar now allegor or uh you know whatever metaphor of the of the what is it that's the was the turtle and the scorpion is that the the the frog and the score the frog that helps the scorpion across the river on its back and as he gets to when he gets to the other side he gets stunned you know that is such a powerful sort of metaphor for for the the trump administration for for politicians in general you know i would say but but trump in in this case is you know i don't have much sympathy for the frogs anymore. You knew the guy was a scorpion when you put him on your back. Yeah. I mean, and that's, I actually, I'm going to download this. Maybe I'll,

we can play this on the way out. It is the, the point, it's the example of when it's called the the snake poem. You remember that? And it's the same, right? And so, look, we can play it on the way out. And so it's with a point that everybody made at the time, the supporters was, well, he's talking about the other side or, you know, adversarial, is talking with somebody else. But now, looking back, even his supporters have argued more than once over like years that that was him talking about himself. And so it's the same amount. At the same point, you'll see it on the way out. It's the same kind of story about, well, you always knew that I was the snake. It's kind of the ending point. And at the end of the day, it's kind of what we're at, you know. But to your point

about people, I think it's a really important point to think about because it's very easy to just go, you're all liars, you're all shills, you're all, you know, it's not, it's so much more multifaccent. Even with COVID-19, I think we can all see that these things were very easy to see. But there's many things that stop people from seeing things, easy or not, whether it's algorithmically, which we think about today, maybe they didn't even see it, or just the fact that they have walls up. And your point is that maybe we should always have hope that people are truly evolving and coming to see, you know, whether it's not about us being right or there. The point is that coming to see whatever the truth is, right? And that's something we're all going through. And I think

that's important to consider is that people just are now able to see it. But at the same time, we should question from like a journalistic perspective, especially how they weren't able to see it if their job is to see it. You know what I mean? Like that's an important point. But even though, like Tucker or anybody else, I genuinely want to believe that they are finally starting to call it out. But I'm never going to blindly accept that.

I'm going to question the whole way, hold their feet to the fire, as we all should, politicians or media or anything else. But I think this itself will, I think, speak volume. So any other thoughts on the way out, brother, before we end with this? Oh, no. Keep your eyes open. You know, head on a swivel. This is an important time to be paying attention.

A lot of things are happening. position yourself and your family accordingly. Make moves now. Be prepared for what may be coming. It doesn't hurt to be prepared, right, to have yourself out of the way. I've got a, this weekend on the non-conformist series, there's a, the Anarchapoko crew puts together something called the non-conformist series. I'm one of the speakers there this weekend. In my presentation is about the G20 Bank bail-in legislation that happened in 2014, making people aware that they legalize bank bail-ins in these countries. That is when the banks take the depositors money. And they legalize that because they intend to use it.

Now, I can't tell you when they're going to do it. I don't have a magic crystal ball to peer into the future. But I do know that when politicians take the extraordinary step of legalizing something like that, they will use it. And whether it's the Smith-Mut modernization. act of 2012 that legalized propaganda or what happened just a couple years after it with this G20 bank bail-in, they're going to steal your money. So with that in mind, and knowing what we know about politicians and the banks, you should probably get your money out of the bank to the extent

that you can. And you also should probably document your interactions with the bank manager when you try to do that because that will be another component to your awakening as well. when you get questioned about your money in your bank account by the branch manager because it'll happen. Right. And grow food and, you know, anything else you can do to effectively, you know, give yourself sort of support, you know, because as always the point is not that, you know, I mean, it's clear that there are very obvious reasons to be concerned about where this goes. But the point is never to be about that we're all going to die tomorrow.

It's about just being prepared in case. And it's always smart, right? Whether you think it's toilet paper or water or whatever else is most important, you know, to prepare. And I think that, you know, historically, any society has always come to a point of collapse or destabilization. Every fiat currency has failed in the history. You know, these things will inevitably come to pass. And we, it's on you to be prepared for that. That's important. So while I'm with this clip that, you know, arguably is the point, him telling you that this was eventually going to be the case anyway. So you could argue this was the whole like revelation of the method, right, warning you about where this was going to go

because, you know, hey, I told you so. You know, or hey, I told you. We warned you. So thanks, Charlie as always brother look forward to our next episode later in the month and as always everybody out there question everything come to your own conclusions stay vigilant who has heard the poem called the snake so i have it does anybody want to hear it again you sure are you sure okay so let's dedicate this to general kelly the border patrol and the ice agents for doing such an incredible job. This was written by Al Wilson a long time ago and I thought of it having to do with our borders and people coming in and we know what we're going to have we're going to have problems. We have to very very carefully vet we have to

be smart we have to be vigilant. So here it is the snake. It's called the snake. On her way to work one morning down the path along the lake, A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake. His pretty-colored skin had been all frosted with the dew. Poor thing, she cried, I'll take you in and I'll take care of you. The border. Take me in, oh, tender woman. Take me in for heaven's sake.

Take me in, oh tender woman, sighed the viciousness. snake. She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk and laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk. She hurried home from work that night and as soon as she arrived, she found that pretty snake. She'd taken in, had been revived. Take me in, oh, tender woman, take me in for heaven's sake. Take me in, oh tender woman, sighed that vicious snake. She clutched him to her bosom. You're so beautiful, she cried. But if I hadn't brought you in by now, oh heavens, you would have died. She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed him and held him tight.

Instead of saying, thank you, that snake gave her a vicious bite. Take me in, oh, tender woman, take me in for heaven's sake. Take me in, oh tender woman, sighed the vicious sake. I have saved you, cried the woman. And you've bitten me, heavens, why? You know your bite is poisonous, and now I'm going to die. Oh, shut up, silly woman, said the reptile with a grin. You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.