TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @HappyCamper2626
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Tucker Carlson: Ep. 93 Gina Carano lost her career when she refused to lie for Disney. She seems content with it. https://t.co/tyVyVNDr7C
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gina Carano's life has been remarkable, transitioning from a mixed martial arts fighter to a Hollywood actress, notably in "The Mandalorian." In 2021, she was fired by Disney for expressing her views on social issues and COVID-19 mandates. Following her dismissal, she joined the Daily Wire to create a film, "Terror on the Prairie," while standing against vaccine mandates. After a period of reflection and personal challenges, she received support from lawyers to pursue a case against Disney for defamation and wrongful termination. Carano emphasizes the importance of free speech and plans to produce and direct her own film, focusing on sharing her stories and experiences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Life is long and weird, and the longer it is the weirder it gets. You may have noticed that, but even by that unchanging standard, Gina Carano has had a pretty remarkable life packed into a relatively short amount of time. So in 2006, she began as a professional mixed martial arts fighter. In a few years, she was starring in big Hollywood films like Fast and Furious. Then in 2019, not that long ago, she got one of the biggest roles for career.
She was on a Disney show called The Mandalorian. In case you didn't see it, here she is. Stay back, dropper. Easy.
Speaker 1: Drop your weapon. You're gonna wish you never left Alderaan. I saw your planet destroyed. I was on the death star. Which one?
You think you're funny? Do you know how many millions were killed on those bases? Drop your bastard. As the galaxy chewed it Last chance. Destroying your planet was a small price to pay to rid the galaxy of terrorism.
Speaker 0: So back in 2019, when you worked at Disney, the Disney Corporation, you could expect a long and pretty stable career. It's a huge company. Lots of things you could keep doing there at a pretty good salary, And the only cost would be you have to follow the rules. Disney at the time was getting increasingly political, and the people who work there were expected to go along with this. So don't say anything, and you'll be absolutely fine.
But for some reason, she could not follow that rule. And so she went on Twitter and pushed back on some of the things that Disney was pushing. She questioned the motives of Black Lives Matter. If it's so great, why is it helping black people? She asked about the 2020 election.
Was it really fair? And then she suggested that maybe vax mandates were not a good idea. So what do you think happened? Well, Disney fired her. What happened next to Gina Carano?
It's an even more interesting story than the first part of her life, and so we're honored to have her join us on set now. Gina, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker. It's so good to see you.
Speaker 0: It's great to see you. So last we spoke, and I don't know because both of our lives have taken lots of turns
Speaker 1: since then.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I can't remember how long it's been. But you were just kind of emerging from the chaos of getting fired for things that in a normal country would not cause you to be fired, Like, refusing to put in a pretty funny way your your pronouns in your email, and they fired you. So what happened like, what are the twists that your life has taken since? Because I think it tells us a lot.
Speaker 1: Well, we, went to the Daily Wire, after the cancellation.
Speaker 0: Daily Wire in Nashville? Yes. And Why'd you go there? What was your expectation?
Speaker 1: Because Ben Shapiro had given me the opportunity to, you know, kind of try to uncancel me.
Speaker 0: Yes. And
Speaker 1: say, hey, we'll do a movie with you. Come on out, and, let's just do a movie and try to get, you know, be uncanceled. Yes. And so I went out to Nashville thinking that we were gonna shoot a movie there. We didn't shoot it there.
We ended up shooting up in Montana, Pre Montana.
Speaker 0: What a great town that is.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, yeah. I love Montana. Yeah. And so we we shot this $2,000,000 western movie during, like, you know, the time where SAG AFTRA was starting to, mandate the vaccines and COVID tests and masks.
And, you know, I just said so the the Daily Wire gave me the, you know, the option. You know, we can either do a union movie or we can do a nonunion movie.
Speaker 0: What would be the difference?
Speaker 1: The difference would be well, the difference would be we would have to basically, hire more vaccinated people on the union movie just in case they did mandate it, which they ended up mandating it, which is obviously everything I was standing against. And so that wasn't an option for me.
Speaker 0: But it was an option for The Daily
Speaker 1: Wire? It it it was one of their options.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so then their second option was, well, for half the money, so it went from $4,000,000, you know, exciting serial killer movie to a $2,000,000, nonunion movie where that would have given, you know, so many more people that were struggling at the time for not taking the vax, for not wanting to apply by the COVID restrictions. And so The Daily Wire did put that on my, you know, my shoulders and said, you know, this is your decision. This is your movie. And I chose to go up and shoot the $2,000,000 western, which was called Terror on the Prairie.
Speaker 0: So half the budget, but you felt that it was important as a matter of principle not to participate in a vax mandate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I wasn't gonna do that. I mean, you know, Disney, didn't, I mean, I wasn't I didn't cave to Disney. You know what I mean? Yeah.
I'm not gonna, like, go to Nashville and be like, okay. I was so grateful, by the way, for the opportunity, you know, that, they offered me. But it just when I got there, it was just 2 different options that I would I thought I I didn't think that that was what I was showing up to. But they they did. You know?
They were like, okay. Then let's let's go up and let's make this western for $2,000,000. It made it definitely a lot more difficult. It's kind of funny online and on IMDb, they say it's, we shot it for $75,000,000, and they're trying they're trying to, like, write up all these reports that it went into theater, and it only made $800. And I'm like, no.
It actually was just streamed on the Daily Wire. We made it for about 2 $1,000,000 that I know of, you know, and it could have been less than that. And we, it was never in theater, and you've got, like, all of the Hollywood, you know, press, like, look at you know? And it's even on not I believe it's still on IMDB listed as a $75,000,000 just to kind of, like, do these awful things to people like Of course. Me and the Daily Wire and, like, people like you.
It's like, let's just put as much false information that leads people astrayed. But I ended up being a really good film, Terror on the Prairie. I I think there could have been, you know, adjustments made that made it better, but I'm I love the performances in it. I love the people that made it. Dallas Sonnier is a wonderful producer.
I loved working with him. And so I had a, you know, a really good time.
Speaker 0: So what'd you do after that?
Speaker 1: I disappeared. I think, you know, I knew that, after getting canceled and fired, I knew that, like, even during the daily even during that Daily Wire kind of, terror on the prairie stent, I was wounded like a broken animal. And I Yeah. I'm not sure if you experienced the same thing after, what happened with you and Fox, but I, I think everybody handles it maybe differently. Like Yes.
To me, it looks like you jumped straight back in and you were, like, you know, hustling. I, have maybe a different energy where it's like, you know, I got wounded. I got stabbed.
Speaker 0: Yes. You know? I'm very shallow, so it's easy to recover.
Speaker 1: No. I I think you're just, you know, like, a certain type of brain that, you know, you go forward. Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Have to.
Speaker 1: And mine was I I've not been like that. Like, when I've been wounded in relationships or in life, like, you know, I get I get hurt. I'm sensitive. So for 2 years, I've been, you know, in this, you know, kind of desert, you know, kind of, you know, like, wondering, like, oh god. You know, I see justice happening, and I see people moving forward, and I am not moving forward, like I thought I was going to and, like, I had, you know, said I was going to try to.
And I felt very, just forgotten. And then, So
Speaker 0: when you when you were fired from Disney for reasons that no person should ever be fired, resisting a vax mandate or not putting your totally insane pronouns in a in an email. Did did you consider suing them then?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. I actually, confronted my family lawyer, and we talked about it. And I was like, you know, if this isn't defamation or if this isn't discrimination, then I don't know what is. If this isn't wrongful doing of, an employee Yes.
Then I don't know what is.
Speaker 0: So I no. It's my fault for not telling your story more completely for those who don't know it. It's not simply that they fired you. Right. It's that they defamed you.
Speaker 1: They I mean, and harassed and discriminated and just, put me through the struggle session, which I didn't know. When you're going through it, you don't know that, you know, you're like, I was so naive at 2020. I haven't I haven't been living in the political realm at all. Yes. I just pay my taxes and, you know, hustle for that next job, you know, that next action job or the next drama job.
And, you know, that's just what I've been trying to do for my entire life, besides my fighting career. Yeah. And so then it was just like when 2020 hits, like, the the shades got opened, and I started actually, like, looking around thinking, wait a second. Wait a second. What's happening here?
Like Yeah. Why are people allowed to riot on the streets and they're not allowed to go to church? And why are big businesses staying open and small businesses are getting shut down. And, you know, it was just, it bothered me. It's like people forcing masks on each other, and I'd I in in, you know, interest intrinsically knew lockdowns are gonna be devastating to people.
This is, you know, coming from an a person who has, you know, been on and off work. I know what it's like to not work for a year and
Speaker 0: not to
Speaker 1: work for 3 years and not to work. And when you take away that consistency, it does such an emotional, mental, spiritual thing on you that, you know, some people don't know how to handle. You know, they start drugs, alcohol, addiction, and that's exactly what we've seen. You know, we've seen all of this addiction and all this problem, you know, deaths, and I've lost 2 friends to overdoses. You know, 1, the turbo cancer.
1 to, I believe, a vaccine,
Speaker 0: what's it called? Injury?
Speaker 1: Injury. Yeah. And then, I've lost so I've lost so many people in the last 6 year or the last 4 years that it's just like mind blowing, which is just a whole another subject. But, it it does make me feel like, I was I stood up for the right thing. I'm not sorry I did.
It hasn't made things easy. But, yeah, I was, so I did try to go and talk to a lawyer.
Speaker 0: And what was the lawyer's response, and what was your thinking about it at the time?
Speaker 1: You know, like, I had to get out of LA because my life was not safe there, at least where I was at. And, you know, it's pretty expensive to live in LA. And and so it's either, like, moving to keep keep in LA or, you know, try to move to maybe Nashville and see if that Yeah. The Daily Wire thing works out. Well, that didn't really, you know, pan out, which no.
It's not like there's no bad blood there. It's just it's not where I, you know, it's not where God wanted me, I don't think. Yes. And so then I just kept on going, and I ended up in Montana.
Speaker 0: How did you wind up in Montana?
Speaker 1: We ended up shooting terror on the prairie there.
Speaker 0: And you liked it so much you stayed?
Speaker 1: I just being outside and looking at the sky and being able to breathe and not feeling that anxiety of a city or, the possible riots coming down the streets and just, you know there's an interesting thing I feel like in Montana. You know, people mind their business, basically
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And keep to themselves. And, I feel like in Montana, you have to work in your land. You have to be have a certain toughness during the winter, and I think that's really cool. So, you know, Montana is not a place where weak people go to live, and I like to be surrounded by by that energy.
Speaker 0: By strong people.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so when I me and my lawyer were talking about it, my family lawyer, he's such a wonderful man. He was like, Gina, you know, I think it's important that you get somewhere safe and take care of that first. And so I did, and and and relocating your life as I'm sure you've been through plenty of times in your life is, you know, it's not like an easy thing. Changing a job, changing of a life perspective, you know, and then having to completely uproot and move your life and figure out where you belong.
Yeah. All of that has been going on in the last 2 years and a lot of positive things too. I look at, you know, relationships and friendships and future different. You know, I could have ended up in New York and single at some point, and now I really value a partnership, and I really value a future with someone. And it's just like my whole maybe that's just called maturity, but I was a really late in maturity part.
You were my little sister is a lot. My little sister is a lot more mature than me, and she's got 3 kids. And she's like, any day, Gina. Any day. I'm like, well, you know, I don't know about the kids part, but
Speaker 0: Did your spiritual perspective change?
Speaker 1: Oh, it I've always been a Christian, but I never felt so much like a Christian as I do these last few years, and it just keeps growing. And, you know, I I think that's something that makes people cringe, and, I've seen that happen. But,
Speaker 0: Why does it make people cringe when you say that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think, you know, religion and any type of, you know, it's been used so wrongly. You know, some it's been used so aggressively and wrongly to persuade people in evil, you know, ways that, are fake. And, it's it's it's really turned people off because usually when people go to God or go to a place of God, they're searching because they're hurt and they're wounded. And when you are hurt and wounded and then you get hurt and wounded by the person, the people or a place that you feel is supposed to protect
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And be the safe place, I think then then people just get really, angry at God. And I don't think that it's God that maybe they're angry at. It's at the experience, you know. Yeah. So
Speaker 0: The people claiming to represent him.
Speaker 1: Yes. I really haven't been to church, an actual church, probably in 20 years. Yeah. But I, in the last 3 years, have just grown so much closer and understanding. And so it was actually at that point where I said, you know, I was like, god, You know, all these people are getting justice.
You know? And I I was so I know I was done so wrong. It was so wrong what happened to me. And I know that there's so much more wrong that happened to so many other people, and so I even felt like, you know, like, don't be a brat about this, Gina. Like, there's, you know, doctors and lawyers and police officers and nurses.
And, you know, this is like awful things are happening all around to everybody. And so I just I started looking at my justice as, you know, starting over in Montana and being able to see the big sky and just being so grateful for my surroundings. And then finally, it was really interesting when I finally got that out of my heart and truly gave it over to god and was just like, it's yours. If I stay in the desert of work and I never work again in this business, then, okay, then I need to learn a different skill. You know, I need to figure out what I'm gonna do.
And so I had to really let it go. Genuinely, you know, genuinely let it go. And
Speaker 0: Which isn't easy.
Speaker 1: And a week later well, yeah, that took years. I tried to I tried to pretend like I was there so many times, but to genuinely let that last inch of, like, it's gonna be okay, and I'm gonna give it to you. And a week later, I got an email a week later, I got an email from x, and they said that they, were some lawyers that, were taking up cases that people had possibly been fired, for speaking their opinion on on x, and they'd like to hear my case.
Speaker 0: So they approached you?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Over email.
Speaker 0: Elon Musk's lawyers just found you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't even know You
Speaker 0: said, by the way, we'd like to pay for your your case?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, no. No. It wouldn't it didn't go like that. It was I was first of all, I was like, is this a scam?
Yeah.
Speaker 0: It sounds like a scam.
Speaker 1: Right. And I was like, is this some sort of scam? So I, like, you know, had my lawyers look into them to make sure, my family lawyer no. I've never paid a dime to, and he has just you know, he's actually my brother's or my my sister's husband's, cousin. And here he is just, like, taking on, like, my problems just with a smile.
And and I was like, do you think he can you know, Will Will Lemko, by the way. I I love you, Will. He's been such a wonderful person to me. He he was just like, these people are legit. These are actually legit lawyers.
Get back to them. And so I said because Will Will believes in my case. He just knew my my personal circumstance was very difficult at the time and, you know, didn't have the money to pay for that.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I needed to put that money into restarting life.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And so, he said, call them back. And so or or email them back. And I emailed them back immediately. And I was, like, ready. And and Ed Edward Trent, who is, at the law firm, just an incredible man.
He was like, wow. He was like, we've emailed a lot of people, and you got it back to us, like, as like, pretty fast. You know? And, and then from there on, in the last, you know, I guess, it's been that was before Christmas and it was, you know, probably in November, I think. They've we've just been like I'm sending them everything, and I'm telling them my story, and we're having long conversations, and they're listening to everything that happened.
And then, you know, I'm sending them emails that transpired between me and Disney and Publicis and all the other people, and I'm saying everything I've got. And, they've they took that to X and Elon and said, we believe in this case very much so. Very much so. And they presented it to x, and then x is like, you know, you have to they had to get the permission from them. So I'm sure x has their lawyers looking through it, because it's a completely different law firm.
Speaker 0: Yes. Retained by X.
Speaker 1: Yes. So I'm sure X has their own people that are looking at it as well. So there's multiple eyes on this. And then, then they had to take it to Elon and, you know, brief him on it. And then, you know, they came back and they said, we're taking it on.
Let's do this. We're gonna write a complaint and we're gonna file. Well, I
Speaker 0: mean, that's just an amazing story.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. Thanks a lot for watching that conversation with Gina Carano, who is a very cool person. You may have noticed that a lot of the ecommerce sites online are run by people who don't share your values and may actually despise you. Creepy tech oligarchs, 1st and foremost, selling your data to the highest bidder, also selling you garbage from 3rd world countries, not helping anyone but them.
But there is an alternative. There's a marketplace trying to change the way this works. It's called public square, and it's got a new way of conducting e commerce by connecting you with 80,000 small businesses who make things you can feel happy to buy. Not guilty at all. You're working for good, not evil.
It's worth checking out. You can go to publicsquare.com/tucker. I heard Elon say something or read, some statement where he said, well, you know, anyone who's free speech on acts has been used against them
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Can have our lawyers looking about. What do you I mean
Speaker 1: And I responded to that, which I, you know, I didn't think that anything would ever come of it, but he he tweeted that out. And I said, you know, in a quote to you, I said, well, I think I I think I qualify or something like that, smiley face. And, nothing happened for months, and I was like, okay. Well, you know, I didn't expect anything. So and then when that happened and I got that email, it's like, it's one of those there's been a couple of those calls in my life or a couple of those moments in my life that I've just been like, oh my gosh.
Like, I get a chance right now. I get a fighting chance to clear my name, to let the world know what happened here, to, you know, the the world's a lot gone come a lot, you know, a long ways in 3 years. A lot of information's come out.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, you shouldn't get fired for being ahead of the curve. You know what I mean? I shouldn't have gotten fired for, you know, talking about lockdowns and mass and encouraging that I was encouraging conversation. You know? I shouldn't have gotten fired for my so supposedly controversial tweets.
They were not controversial. They were just they were just they were just having trouble with where I was coming from, I think. I it's it's it's bewildering. Like, it it's mind blowing what happened, to Do
Speaker 0: you have any idea why I mean, even very rich people rarely pay for lawyers for strangers on principle.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: I mean, have you do you know why Elon Musk is doing this?
Speaker 1: You know you know, I've never even met him. I've never even spoken to him. I think he's retreated me once, and he's doing this not only for me in this big case, he's doing this for many other people. And, I think there's just I think we're living in a time of such, such an incredible person that would be fighting for free speech on the biggest level. I mean, if we did not have what Elon Musk is doing right now, so many of us would be in such deep trouble.
Nations would be in trouble. And, I respect what he's doing, and I I don't know why he's doing it. You know, I think that, you know, a lot of billionaires put their money into more selfish things, and he's choosing to put his money into the defense of free speech and the defense of injustice. And, I have to imagine, you know, I have to imagine that I had to do something with Maye Musk, his mother, because I follow her too, and I think, you know, how heartbreaking it it it's been for my family to watch me go through this hardship. And I really wonder about the Musk family, and that what tough skin they must have had, but what an incredibly classy woman that that woman is.
And I I love following her because I see this came from somewhere. You know? And and, yeah, I just think what an incredible family that has burdened such a, such a tough moment in time that I think that he will go down in history as one of the greats, as will you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm not I'm I'm not doing anything like that. I'm just talking on camera.
Speaker 1: That's No. The world
Speaker 0: that's a pretty generous thing to be doing for people you don't know. I mean
Speaker 1: Never even spoken to him.
Speaker 0: So tell me I
Speaker 1: hope I get to thank him one day, like, and shake his hand and, you know, I don't know, like, how you you you thank someone like this. You know, like, just thank you, Elon, for fighting this fight for so many of us. It it is it's just I don't know anybody like this person, and I don't even know this person.
Speaker 0: Amazing. So what what's the suit like? And it goes without saying that we're fervently rooting for you and for justice in this case, but tell us about the suit.
Speaker 1: Well, my lawyers. Yeah. They said, you know, keep the lawyer talk to the lawyer talk. Right? So I don't stick myself in any bad situation.
So I kinda leave that up to them. It's all on the complaint. They filed the complaint. It's February 6th, and Disney now has a certain amount of time to respond to that complaint. Yes.
And so, yeah, that's
Speaker 0: But basically, the substance as I understand it
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Fired unfairly in violation of the law and then defamed. Tell us about the defamation. Tell us what they did to you in more specific terms.
Speaker 1: Well, there is defamation. I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: If that's a legal claim. I mean, I I should I should as well as a non lawyer. Keep keep the but they they trashed you.
Speaker 1: They did. They did. They what, what they really did was they put out this, awful so I put up a tweet that I this become infamous tweet of saying that, and I don't even know because I just put it up in, like, a story section. I didn't post it. I put it in, like, the, you know, quick, everybody look through, like, the stories of the tweet because tweets used to have the fleet section.
And it was basically saying that it didn't start, like, you know, Nazi Germany didn't start just with people just waking up being Nazis and, like, you know, demonizing, you know, like, throwing people Jews into the concentration camps. It didn't start there. It started before that, it started with propaganda. It started with, you know, you know, you had to kind of start urging people to make it okay to, demonize your neighbor and Yeah. Hate people for whatever differences it was at that time that was Jewish people.
And, you know, that's where it started. And that's that's what made it so much easier for, you know, you're living in a house and then, you know, the Nazis come and their next your next door neighbor is getting hauled off that, you know, maybe years before, you guys were all having dinner and having this wonderful Yes. Relationship, and then, it gradually happened. It just wasn't something that happened just like that. And that was what the meme meant to me was that I was trying to tell people now, like, don't demonize each other.
Understand, you know, we're we're all human beings still. And and, you know, basically, just bad things have happened in the past and to learn from the past. Yes. And I thought that was something that everyone, Democrats, Republicans, independents, everybody could, understand and get. I thought that was a tweet for everybody.
And the, the Hollywood press and every, you know, major news and media that they came against me, and they said she just she compared Republicans to the Jewish commut the Jewish holocaust and, she's denigrating, you know, the Jewish community and, like
Speaker 0: Wait. So so you you came out against the Nazis, but they claimed you were pro Nazis.
Speaker 1: They called me. They smeared me as an anti Semite. Smeared me. And I was like, wait. I don't and I still don't get how how did you do that?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And why did people believe in it? But, you know, like, and then what Disney did was they put out a statement that said, we are no longer working with, there's there is a statement. We're no we're no longer working with Gina Carano, and we basically think that she's denigrating people off of their cultural and religious beliefs since she they they said something about about me being abhorrent and
Speaker 0: For your anti Nazi tweet? Yeah. Yeah. So you obviously know this since you worked in the business, but, I mean, people who write about television and movies are directed to the word by the PR departments of the television and movie companies.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: So there's no independent press that writes about the movies or about television. Right. Even cable news.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. You
Speaker 0: know what I mean? Yeah. Like, the big cable news websites are all controlled by the PR departments. Right. It's true in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: And that's really been, you know, so I had my own, had hired my own publicist during, you know, season 2 of The Mandalorian. And they were working with the publicist from the Disney people, and then they were working with the UTA who dropped me immediately as well.
Speaker 0: Of course they do.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh. And then,
Speaker 0: Your agent who's there fighting for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. All of them. I mean, and then the entertainment lawyer Yeah. Dropped me. Of course.
And that the the the funny thing is, like, the entertainment lawyer, I think, was, he they would constantly be sending out, hey. We're having this Democrat, you know, at my house. Come on over for, you know, raise some funds for the Democrat, you know, party, da da da, or whoever the candidate was that they were, you know. And so all of these people just dropped me immediately. And I was like
Speaker 0: People you've been paying to stand by your side in case there was a big problem. Yeah. The second there was a big problem, they fled and denounced you.
Speaker 1: Yes. Immediately.
Speaker 0: May they all rot.
Speaker 1: And and I was just like, okay. That's so much, you know. I mean, I knew that, like, maybe something could happen where Disney would might be like, hey, you know, as professionals, I thought maybe they'd just be like, okay. Well, maybe we're gonna not work with you or maybe something like that could happen by speaking out, about the things that I spoke out about. But I found the things that I spoke out about were so much more important than the the career part because I felt like, you know, we needed to be talking about we're headed in a really bad direction.
Oh, yes. You know, the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the vaccines, you know, I felt like we needed to I never even said who I was really voting for. It was just I was getting really pushed into this, like, you're an extremist. You're an alright extremist. You know?
And so I thought maybe that that could be an option, but never in my wildest dreams that I thought that they would have, through Twitter or through, a publication without even calling me, this is how I found out I was fired online on Twitter. Like, they didn't call me. They didn't say we're letting you go. We're not we're no longer gonna work together. This is why.
You know, it was just, she's denigrating people off of cultural and religious beliefs and she's abhorrent. And I was like
Speaker 0: For coming out against the Nazis.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So backwards.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And but again, you know that when you get attacked in the Hollywood trade press, that's because the company you work for directed those reporters to.
Speaker 1: Right. And I'm learning that more and more. So now
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, when there's, like, a a piece, that somebody writes about me, I go and I look up the journalists.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I go and look up what other, you know, what what other, you know, articles has this journalist written. Of course. And you can almost just trace it back. And a couple, I tray I traced right back to Lucasfilm. And I was like, you know, right there.
You guys, you know, you call up your people and, you know, it's ugly. It's Well, it's
Speaker 0: the most dishonest thing ever. Yeah. And A reporter at The Hollywood Reporter or wherever.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it and it's all involved. Right? It's the agencies. It's the managers.
It's the, publicist. It's the studios, and it's just this big mafioso that, does not give the independent artist unless they're willing to comply and fit in a 100% into that, ideologies and their narratives and be basically these manufactured robots. You know? I mean, I feel like there's the 1% of Hollywood that can do what they want and say and think what they want, and those are very, very talented people. But at the peak of my career, it was like, you know, I think they thought, let's make an example out of this one.
For sure. She's an action actress. You know, she hasn't done, you know, drama yet. She hasn't gotten there. We'll make an example out of her.
And, it had the complete opposite effect, which was, just overwhelming support. It was pretty funny. Like, as soon as they they were at the peak of their, stock market ever, in February 2021 or no. Yeah. In February 2021.
And right when they fired me is when it started plummeting to what it is now. And, you know, they're, you know, obviously, very smart people, and they're trying to salvage it, but, people saw. They saw what was going on. In my case, it was very obvious.
Speaker 0: Do you have friends who are still there?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I you know, everybody I worked physically with, I never had a problem with. And, you know, like, you know, me and Paige are reconnected after, you know, Carl Weathers passed away.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And, you know, there's all these lies and all these weird stories and that people make up in their heads. And, you know, one thing I can say is, you know, I adore Pedro. And he said one thing to me. He said, you and Carl were protectors. And and that means so much to me that he remembers me and our time together as me being a protector.
And, it's important, like like, people don't know what the real story is. Like, why do you think Pedro is calling me a protector? To his fans, I want I I would you know, there's a reason, and there's stories that you don't know that happened. And I was there, and I and I protect people. You know?
Like, there was a person multiple times. That's just my nature is when you know, there was a person who was wearing a mask on set, and they were at their end. They're overtime, and they're, crying, and they're upset, and they couldn't do it anymore. They just couldn't. They were broken.
There was a broken person in that mask, and I nobody was saying anything. And I just simply went up to the director at the time, and I said, this person is done. They're done. They need that their they need their, they need the contacts out. They need the the the thing off their head.
They need to breathe. They're broken. And, the director, and I was like, look. I, you know and I worked long longer hours than maybe probably any actor because my face was showing, and I did all my own stunts. So if you go back and you look at, like, the work records, you're gonna find who was on set the most as, like, the actors, and you're gonna find me at the top of that list.
And I said, I'll, you know, get my coverage tonight. I know you guys wanted to do it, you know, the next day. You can get my coverage tonight. You give this man a break, and I will, you know, I'll stay later and, you know, push my time. And, I'll show up early and, you know, don't worry about it.
But I've done that on numerous sets, and that's, you know, because I do understand that, like, well, I come from a fighter's background, and, and I want it. And I wanted it so bad that I feel like I can if I can have the energy to push it, I can do it. And it crushes me when people are broken or hurting or being bullied.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And which was my whole purpose of speaking out, you know, in 2020 was just
Speaker 0: The weakest, I believe, the most as always.
Speaker 1: They a lot of people that you know, I was usually very introverted. I, you know, get really nervous for interviews, although that's getting better. I get nervous for public speaking. I get nervous for performing. But when I'm passionate and when I mean something, that's when I can speak, and that's the only reason why I'm probably able to speak with you right now is because I have a clear heart about what happened.
I want the lawyers to look into it. I want the professionals to see what happened and how ludicrous and absurd it was. And and I want things to change so that it doesn't happen to other people.
Speaker 0: What's your next chapter?
Speaker 1: Well, my next chapter is gonna be, I'm gonna make a movie. I'm gonna produce and possibly direct it. I am gonna do it. I'm gonna get it financed. I don't know how yet, but I'm gonna make some art, and it's gonna be truly inclusive.
And, I think that's gonna be a gift that that's that's where my heart has been. I thought I was gonna get that a couple years ago with the daily wire. I thought that was the path that was gonna happen. But I'm you know, I think God's teaching me a lesson right now of how to, how to do this, how to learn, how to put this together, and how to attract the people that you wanna work with. And, you know, I I I lost my team when I got canceled, you know, so I didn't have anybody.
And so the rebuilding of a life and everything has been my focus in the last years. Well, I've I've rebuilt that now, and, you know, there's still things that I need to, you know, do. I need to rebuild my body, you know, a lot of stress and not working and, you know, depression and all of that. I need to focus on my health. That's very that's at the top of my list, and I've been saying that.
But, also to get creative, and, I think that's what's gonna happen. I think that's what I wanna do is I wanna direct and produce a movie, and, start being more in control of giving getting my stories out there that I that I like.
Speaker 0: I think being in control is a good thing at this point. Yeah. I hope you'll come back when you do that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Tucker.
Speaker 0: It's such a great story, and I'm glad to see you thriving. Gina Crona, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organist societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Tucker Carlson: Ep. 94 The social media app Telegram has over 900 million users around the world. Its founder Pavel Durov sat down with us at his offices in Dubai for his first on-camera interview in almost a decade. @TuckerCarlson https://t.co/M7nYq80TJA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Telegram is a rapidly growing messaging app founded by Pavel Durov, who left Russia due to government pressure to censor political opposition. Durov, who values freedom of speech, created Telegram to provide secure communication after experiencing threats in Russia. He emphasizes that Telegram's growth is organic, with no marketing spend, and highlights the app's commitment to user privacy. After relocating to Dubai, Durov found a supportive environment for his platform, contrasting with the pressures faced in other countries. He maintains that Telegram remains neutral, allowing diverse voices while resisting government demands for censorship. Durov's focus is on innovation and independence, steering clear of venture capital to preserve the app's mission.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Telegram is one of the fastest growing and biggest social messaging apps, text apps in the world, popular all around the world, including in the United States, but almost nothing or very little seems to be known about the company. It's headquartered in Dubai where we are now. It is run and owned, and the software is designed, written by Pavel Jarev, who began it some years ago, who almost never does interviews. It turns out he's in a very interesting person, extremely interesting person. We learned that the other day while talking to him, and he has agreed to sit down and tell us about himself and his company, and we thought it'd be definitely worth hearing.
And with that, Pawel, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you for having me.
Speaker 0: So, I confess I've used Telegram. I didn't know anything about you or the company, and I was just kind of amazed by your story. And if you wouldn't mind just recreating it a little bit, for our audience. Where are you from? How did you start this and why?
Speaker 1: That will be a long story.
Speaker 0: That's okay.
Speaker 1: I was born in 1984 in the Soviet Union. So it was a fun year to be born. Yeah. And, back then, I could witness, you know, the deficiencies of the centralized system we had in the Soviet Union. When I was 4 years old, my family moved to Italy where I could compare what I saw in touring Italy with what I experienced in the Soviet Union.
And I thought the capitalist system, the free market system is definitely better, at least for me. And I went to school in Italy. I became sort of a part of the European as a result. But then when the Soviet Union collapsed, we decided to move back to Russia. In Italy though, we me and my brother, we had a lot of fun time.
He was shown live on Italian TV as a young prodigy kid who could solve cubic equations in real time being just, you know, 10 years old. And that was considered to be impossible back then in Italy. I don't know
Speaker 0: what a cubic equation is. So, yeah, it's difficult to
Speaker 1: Definitely. And, you know, when I first went to school, I didn't know how to speak Italian. I didn't know a single Italian word. And a lot of teachers said, this kid will not going to be successful in our school. By the end of the 1st year, I was 2nd best.
By the end of this, next year, I was the best student in our class. So it also showed me that well, you could excel, you could compete. I like that competitive environment. And then when we got back to Russia, it was a little bit chaotic. The only reason we got back is my father got an offer to run one of the departments in the Saint Petersburg State University.
He's one of the famous scholars and writers dealing with ancient Roman literature. And that experience was very different and I still enjoyed it because in Russia in the nineties, you had this experimental schools where you were taught everything. Like, we had 6 foreign languages. We had math, like, very specialized Six foreign languages at once? Six foreign languages in parallel.
You would have math similar that you would have in specialized math schools and like chemistry at the same level you would have at schools specialized in chemistry and biology. So that was really intense. My brother, he became world champion in maths, in the international Olympiads in maths and programming. Many times in the world, absolute best myself. I was just the best student at my school.
Also did, some victories in local competitions in several areas, but we both were very passionate about coding and designing stuff. And, because we brought this IBM, PCXT computer from Italy back in the early nineties, we were one of the few families in Russia who could actually, teach ourselves how to program. And, we started to do that. I was, in the university. I was building websites for my fellow students.
And, as a result, you know, I started a company that became what they call the Facebook of Russia. We don't like to name it that way because we actually managed to do a lot of things before Facebook and that defined how the social media industry developed in the years to come. The company's name was DK. I started it when I was 21 years old. I just graduated university and, it eventually became the largest social network, the most popular social network in Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan and a bunch of other post Soviet countries.
That was a significant effort on my side because I at a certain point was the sole employee of the company. I would write the code myself. I would do the design myself. I would manage the servers myself. It was quite intense.
I even responded to customer support requests. Barely slept, but that was a fun time when I was 21, 22 years old. And then the company grew, like I said, to somewhere about 100,000,000 active users, which was a lot back then. It's, was I think 2012 or 2011 when we faced this our first issues in Russia. Because you see, I was still a big believer in these values of free market, freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly.
So when the Russian opposition started to use BK to organize large protests in Russia, where like almost half a 1000000 people will would go and protest on the main square or some of the main squares of the city, we were requested to ban these communities on BK by the government, and, I refused. The so the government asked you to shut down communications between their opponents? Well, BK is a social networking platform. So they have this large public communities that anybody can join, anybody can read what people are discussing or what the administrators are posting. They can comment.
They can share. So it was a tool for these protesters to organize themselves. Back then, it wasn't about us, you know, siding with with one side with one part of the, political, fight or the other. It was us defending the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly, which we believed was the right thing. But that didn't go too well with with the government and they were not too happy about that I would say.
And in a few years from then in 2013, we had a similar situation where you know, you had this protest in Ukraine where people again would use VK to organize themselves and go to the main square of the city and show their disagreement with the government. Yes. And we received a request slash demand from the Russian side saying you have to give us the private data of the organizers of this protest. And our response was, wait wait a minute. This is a different country.
We won't betray our Ukrainian users because you asked us to do that. We decided to refuse and, that didn't go too well with the Russian government as well. So at the end of that year, I had to make a difficult decision because I was offered basically a choice between 2 suboptimal options. One of which was, I would start complying to whatever, you know, the leaders of the country told me to do. The other one was I could, sell my stake in the company, retire, resign as the CEO, and leave the country.
I chose the latter.
Speaker 0: That's a it's a if I can just ask you a few questions, it's a little strange because I have heard people say that Telegram is a part of the Russian government, and you're describing the opposite. You're saying you had to leave the country because you wouldn't bow to their demands.
Speaker 1: Well, that exactly like you're saying. People who have very limited knowledge of where Telegram came from, they would make these claims. They could be encouraged by our competitors who see it as an easy way to discredit us because, you know, Telegram is spreading like forest fire. 2 and a half 1000000 users sign up every day and we're sort of a threat. So I'm not surprised there's this perception because our competitors, they spend tens of 1,000,000,000 on marketing and they're known for using PR firms to also engage in campaigns like that.
So
Speaker 0: How would you how much do you spend on marketing?
Speaker 1: 0. $0? In dollars? $0. We've never spent anything on acquiring users for marketing purposes.
We never promoted Telegram, you know, on other social platforms in any way. This is very different from other apps. You could see them being promoted here or there. Telegram is different. All of our growth is purely organic and we got to almost 900,000,000 users without, having to spend anything on ads to promote Telegram.
Amazing.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm sorry to interrupt your No. No. No. No. It's just it's just interesting because I have heard people say that, but it sounds like the opposite of the truth.
So you decided to sell the company, resign as CEO, and leave your country?
Speaker 1: Yes. That's what I did. It was a bit painful because, obviously, my first company was my baby. I created my stuff. There was a lot of creativity, time, and effort invested in that platform.
But at the same time, you know, I understood that I would rather be free. I would want to take orders from anyone. And I left behind probably a comfortable life. But for me, it was never about, you know, becoming rich. For me, everything in my life was about becoming free.
Yes. And to the extent it is possible, my mission in life was to allow other people to also become free in a sense. And using the platforms that we create or I created, my hope was that they could express their freedoms. This is the mission of Telegram, and it was also in part the mission of my previous company, VK.
Speaker 0: We wanted to pause this interview just for a minute to point something out. When the Russian government asked Pavel Durov to use his social media company to censor its political opponents, he refused. He said he would rather resign and leave the country where he was born than participate in something like that. Such was his commitment to free speech. Now you gotta compare that what he did, what Pavel Durov did to what Mark Zuckerberg did, or Parag Agarwal, the guy who ran Twitter before Elon Musk bought it.
Both of them have collaborated with governments to censor people, and that's shameful. So we believe Pavel when he says that is his app Telegram will be a bastion of free speech because it has been, and we believe him because he shown how committed to that he is. So we've decided that we're gonna launch with pride our own Telegram channel to give one more avenue to reach people with our content free from censorship. So if you're on Telegram we ask that you subscribe to our new channel for by searching for a username listed below. We're honored, to be doing this.
We're gonna get back to our conversation with Pavel Durov. So you start Telegram after you leave Russia. Correct? Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the idea for Telegram came when we were still based in Russia because at some point, we had this very stressful situation where armed policemen would come to my house, try to break in because I refused to take down this, position groups that I mentioned earlier. And I realized there is no secure means of communication. I realized here I want to tell my brother what's going on to coordinate whatever we want to do. And, every tool to communicate I could use was not really secure, not encrypted. It was not safe to use them.
So I thought, it could be a good idea to actually come up with a decently encrypted messaging app. And my brother being the genius that he is, he was able to create this encryption standard that we're using up until this day with minor changes.
Speaker 0: But then your brother wrote the encryption?
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, my brother is, like, 2 PhDs in math, super smart. He could, you know, he's he's an expert in cryptography. He designed, the basic principles of the Telugu encryption. I was more on the user interface side, the way how the app works, the features, etcetera.
He's was responsible for it for the encryption side.
Speaker 0: So where did you go when you left Russia?
Speaker 1: We tried several places. We first went to Berlin. We tried to set up a company in Berlin. We then tried London, Singapore, San Francisco. You name it.
We've we've been everywhere. And,
Speaker 0: Why didn't you stay in any of those places?
Speaker 1: Oh, because the bureaucratic hurdles were just too difficult to overcome. You know, I was bringing the best in class programmers in the world to these places, and I was trying to hire them, from a local company. And the response I got in places like Germany, for example, is that, no, no, no, you can't hire people from outside of the European Union because you should first run some newspaper ad in a local, magazine or whatever, and then for if for 6 months nobody responds from the engineers that are available inside the European Union and Germany, then you're allowed kind of to hire outsiders. And I thought it was a crazy idea because
Speaker 0: Why didn't you just say they were illiterate refugees?
Speaker 1: Well, because we didn't consider ourselves refugees. We were, you know, very successful people. We could have gone anywhere. No.
Speaker 0: But if you told them you were illiterate refugees, they would let you stay. Yep. So you so you go from Germany to Singapore to London to San Francisco. What happened in San Francisco?
Speaker 1: On San Francisco, we really thought that would be the place for us to be in because all the tech companies are there or around San Francisco. And, there are 2 things that happened that, made us think twice. Well, one thing is pretty obvious. I was in San Francisco. I got attacked on the street after visiting, I think it was Jack Dorsey, and Twitter in the Twitter's office.
And, I was walking back at 8 PM, to my hotel, and I got attacked in the street. This is the only country where I got attacked in the street. What what happened? I did just 3 big guys tried to grab my phone from my hands. I was tweeting, about the fact that I just met, the founder of Twitter.
That seemed right like a right idea for me back then, to do. And, I got attacked. I didn't want to let them have my phone. They probably didn't expect, resistance. So I snatched my phone back.
There was a short fight with the guys. There was a little bit blood involved. But I managed to run away, and decided I should probably see
Speaker 0: They probably don't mind a lot of Russians. They might have been surprised. Well, they
Speaker 1: were much taller than me, I must admit. And there were 3 of them, but I think I
Speaker 0: could have a good fight. Were you surprised that this happened in San Francisco? Completely.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was a shock to me because I traveled a lot. That was the first place I got attacked. And, I thought, alright. Maybe we shouldn't, look at San Francisco.
Maybe there are other places in America where Where you don't get attacked? Yeah. Exactly. But, you know, there there's this second part which was probably more alarming there in the US. We get too much attention from the the FBI, the security agencies wherever we came to the US.
So to give you an example, last time I was in the US, I brought, an engineer that is working for Telegram, and there was an attempt to secretly hire my engineer behind my back by cybersecurity office officers or agents, wherever they are called. The US government should hire your engineer? That's my understanding. That's what he told me. To write code for them or to break into Telegram?
They were curious to learn which open source libraries are integrated to the Telegram's app, you know, on the client side. And they were trying to persuade him to use certain open source tools that he would then integrate into the Telegram's code. That, in my understanding, would serve as backdoors.
Speaker 0: Would allow the US government to spy on people who use Telegram?
Speaker 1: The US government or maybe any other government because a backdoor is a backdoor regardless of who is using it. That's right.
Speaker 0: And And and you're that's a little surprising to hear.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's not surprising. It's it's offensive. You're confident that happened? Yes. There is no reason for my engineer to make up the stories.
Also, because I personally experienced similar pressure in the US. Whenever I would go to the US, I would have, 2 FBI agents greeting me at the airport asking questions. One time I was, having my breakfast at 9 AM and, the FBI showed up at my house that I was renting. And, that was quite surprising. And I thought, you know, we're getting too much attention here.
It's probably not the best environment to run on. Why would the had you committed a crime? No. They were interested to learn more about Telegram. They knew I, you know, left Russia.
They they knew what we're doing, but they wanted details. And my understanding is that they wanted to establish a relationship to could, in a way, control Telegram better. I'm I I understand that they were doing their job. It's just that for us running a privacy focused social media platform, that probably wasn't the best environment to be. And we wanna be focused on what we do, not on government relations of that sort.
The government relations.
Speaker 0: So then you came to UAE, to Dubai.
Speaker 1: Yes. 7 years ago, we moved here. We first wanted just to try it for half a year, see if it works out. And it turned out to be a great place. We never looked back and we never wanted to change the UAE for any other place after that.
Why? Well, for a number of reasons. 1st, the ease of doing business here is, so high. For example, you can hire people from anywhere in the world as long as you're paying them a good salary, the residence permits are granted automatically. It's very different.
If you try to do that in Europe and some other countries, it's very different from them. 2nd, it's very tax efficient. 3rd, the infrastructure is great. You get a lot for, the minimum amount of taxes you are paying. The the the the the roads, the airports, the hotels, the everything.
I think you witnessed it yourself. Yes. But I think more importantly is that it's a neutral place. It's a neutral country. It's a small country that wants to be friends with friends with everybody.
It's not aligned geopolitically with any of the big, superpowers. And I think it's, the best place for a neutral platform like ours to be in if we want to make sure we can defend our users' privacy and freedom of speech.
Speaker 0: So in the time that you've been here, there have been a number of wars and threats of war, precursors to war. Have you had any pressure from the government here, honestly, any pressure from the government here, to reveal a backdoor into Telegram or to ban anyone or to make any changes to your business?
Speaker 1: 0. That's the best part. For all the 7 years we've been here, there's there's been zero pressure coming from the UAE towards Telibir. They've been very supportive, very helpful, and it's a big contrast from, you know, whatever we've experienced before.
Speaker 0: What about what you've experienced since since you moved here in those 7 years? Have you come under pressure from other governments under whose jurisdiction you don't fall, but to to accommodate their demands? Well, of course. Well, Telegram is a is a large platform. We are popular in many, many countries.
And, we've
Speaker 1: we've, been receiving a lot of requests, demands. Some of them were legit legitimate. Like, if, there was a group of people who was promoting violence. There was terrorist activity that was, you know, spreading violence in some parts of the world publicly, posting things that, any decent human being would disallow or wouldn't want to be posted. We would help them.
But in some other cases, where we thought it would be crossing the line, it wouldn't be in line with our values of freedom of speech and and protecting people's private correspondence. We would ignore those. Can can you
Speaker 0: give us an example of a request that you thought crossed into censorship and and spying, violating people's privacy? Well,
Speaker 1: there's a I would say a very funny story related to your home country. After the events of January 6th, we received a letter from, I believe, congressmen of the democratic side. And they requested that we would share all the data we had in relation to what they call this uprising. And we checked it with our lawyers and they said you you better ignore it. But the letter seemed very serious.
And, the letter said, you know, if you fail to comply with this request, you will be in violation with the US Constitution or something. They wanted data on people who voted for the other guy in the election. Well, they wanted the data of people, yeah, who were demonstrating in Washington or wherever they were doing. They you're probably right. They were I'm not an expert in the US politics.
Yeah. What, what's funny about that is 2 years exactly sorry. 2 weeks after that letter, we got another letter, a new letter from the Republican side of, the Congress. And there, we read that if we give out any data according to the previous request, we would be in violation of the U. S.
Constitution. So we got 2 letters that said, whatever we do, we'd be violating the US Constitution in a way. That was my understanding of these letters.
Speaker 0: From the same legislative body, both from the US Congress. Yes. So how do you respond to that? Well,
Speaker 1: the same way we respond to most such requests. We decided to ignore them because it's such a complicated matter related to internal politics in the US. We don't want to take any
Speaker 0: If you would I I believe this strongly. If you ignore your problems, most of them do go away. That's very true.
Speaker 1: It's very no one says it, but it's true.
Speaker 0: That's amazing. Have you ever had demands that you can't ignore?
Speaker 1: Well, it it depends. Right? Unreasonable demands. So I would say the largest pressure towards Telegram is not coming from governments. It's coming from Apple and Google.
So when it comes to freedom of speech, those two platforms, they could basically censor whatever is you can read, access on your smartphone.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, do you run the risk of being thrown out
Speaker 1: of their stores? Exactly. That's what they make very clear that if we fail to comply with their guidelines, so they call it, children could be removed from the stores.
Speaker 0: Well, that would be not a small thing for you. Right? Well, it's
Speaker 1: not won't be a small thing for us because obviously a big chunk of the world population will lose access to a available tool that they're using every day. But, you know, it will not also be a small thing for them. I mean, there should I I believe there there must be find some compromise in such cases. But Apple and Google are not very compromising when it comes to the guidelines. If they believe some content is against their rules, they will see to it that all the apps that are distributed to their, stores comply with these rules.
Are any of those rules or do you interpret any of those rules? Do you believe any of them to be political
Speaker 0: in nature?
Speaker 1: Some of them, but it's not the rules. It's the application of the rules. The rules themselves, they're pretty general. Right? So there must be no violence, discrimination, public, publicly available, I don't know, child abuse materials.
It's hard to disagree with that.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: But then when they start to apply those rules, sometimes we are not agreeing with with their interpretation, and we try to, you know, get back to Apple or Google, wherever it is, and say, look. We think you got it wrong. We think, actually, this is legitimate way of people expressing their opinions. And sometimes they do agree to their credit. Sometimes they disagree.
And we still have to take some content down, at least in the version of Telegram that are distributed through their platforms.
Speaker 0: So there are a bunch of a number of conflicts going on around the world right now, and that may accelerate.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So would you expect that the number of demands and the intensity of those demands, the persistence of those demands would increase as the wars become more intense?
Speaker 1: Let's see. I'm really hopeful that the past is is behind us. I want to be optimistic. I think now we reached a point where politicians and societies know what to expect from social media platforms and where the, you know, the red lines are. Yes.
We also learned much more about,
Speaker 0: the requirements coming from both them and Google slash Apple. So and our users get better educated as well at what what is allowed and what's not allowed. So I don't necessarily believe that things are going to get worse. It does seem like the red line for for governments is allowing organized opposition to their rule. That's what you saw in Russia with Navalny and and Ukraine crisis in 2014.
That's what you saw from that democratic member of congress after January 6,
Speaker 1: 2020. There's a pattern here. Telegram has been used by protesters in places like Hong Kong Yes. Belarus, Kazakhstan, even in Barcelona back in the day. Yes.
So it's it's it's been a tool for deposition to a large extent. But it doesn't really matter whether it's a position or the ruling party that is using total. For us, we apply the rules equally to all sides. We don't become prejudiced in this way. It's not that we are rooting for their position or we're rooting for the ruling party.
It's not that we don't care, but we think it's important
Speaker 0: to have this platform that is neutral to all voices Because we believe that, the competition of different ideas can result in progress and a better world for everyone. That's, in stark contrast to, say, Facebook, which has said in public, you know, we tip the scale in favor of this or that movement in this or that country, all far from the west and far from western media attention. But they've said that. What do you think of that? Tech companies choosing governments.
Well, I think that's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why we ended up here in the UAE out of all places. Right? So you you don't want to be geopolitically aligned. You don't want to select the winners in any of this, political fights. And that's why you have to be in a neutral place.
But I think Facebook in particular has a lot of reasons apart from being based in the US for doing what they're doing. I I think every app and platform plays its own role, and we believe that humanity does need a neutral platform like Telegram, that will be respectful to people's privacy and freedoms.
Speaker 0: Maybe the from a political perspective, it seems like the most provocative thing Telegram does is offer something called channels, which seem sort of ready made for organizing groups of people. Can you explain to viewers who aren't familiar with them what a Telegram channel is?
Speaker 1: Yes. So Telegram channel is a one to many broadcast tool that allows people to, quickly disseminate any message to millions of people. So there's a channel. People subscribe to it. It's a one way communication, meaning a channel can be used by, say, a president or a head of state.
And, everybody else will not be able to send a message to the president, but the president will be able to send a message to all of the people who will subscribe to his channel
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Or her channel. So the point here is, channels are so easy to use, and they're so deeply integrated in the messaging user interface that they became extremely popular.
Speaker 0: So you receive it like a text?
Speaker 1: Exactly. So it's it's a very familiar form for a lot
Speaker 0: of people.
Speaker 1: And since we launched, launched channels 8 years ago, I believe, a few other apps, popular apps, followed in our footsteps and copied that feature as well. Not nearly as advanced that it was we have, but it shows that it's a really, high quality and demanded feature that the world needs.
Speaker 0: I think it's inter and you don't have to answer any of these questions if you don't want, if it's too personal. But, you're the owner. You you own it. And it's very unusual. In fact, I've never seen it, to have a large business like this owned by one person.
Why didn't you take and you could have cashed in on private equity money along the way, but you didn't. Why didn't you?
Speaker 1: Well, that's true. As of now, Pilgrim was 100% owned by myself, which is, like I said, quite unusual. Well, I've never heard of that before. The reason I tried to, you know, stay away from venture capital money, at least the early stages of our development, is because we wanted to be independent. We knew that our mission and our goals are not necessarily consistent with the goals of, funds that could be investing into us.
And also for me, it was never about money. Right? So I have a few $100,000,000 in my bank account or in Bitcoin since 10 years ago and, I don't do anything with it. I don't own any, like, real estate, jets, or yachts. I don't think those, this lifestyle is for me.
I like to focus on what we
Speaker 0: are doing, with Teligent. You don't own anything? Like, big assets. You don't own No big assets. An island in Hawaii or No.
Speaker 1: No. No no land, no real estate, nothing. Why? Because for me, my number one priority in life is my freedom. And once you start buying things, first, it will tie you down to a physical location.
In my view, it's my personal view. I don't have nothing against people who are buying real estate. But in my personal view, it would be like this for me. And the second reason is I like to stay focused on what we do at Pilgrim. So I know that if I buy a house, I buy a jet, something like that, I would be spending time on trying to make it nice.
And Yeah. This will require a lot of time and effort.
Speaker 0: Would you go with leather seats or velvet seats? Exactly. And You're not even gonna choose.
Speaker 1: Yes. For me, I would rather make decisions that would influence how a billion people communicate rather than choosing the color of seats in the house that only I and my relatives from probably a bunch of my friends will see.
Speaker 0: Interesting. And you didn't take because I I just want I just have to say the 3rd time. Haven't seen this before. You obviously were famous as a young man, as a company builder and entrepreneur. And so you could have really taken a lot of money, and you didn't because you didn't wanna be controlled?
Speaker 1: I just didn't see any reason to do that. You know? I had enough money to get by. Well, to be completely fair, Telegram did takes outside money. We issued bonds, 3 years ago.
So we raised debt, and that was and and before that, we had a cryptocurrency project that also raised some funds. So there were instances where we raised outside funding. But, when it comes to company equity Yeah.
Speaker 0: You didn't give up ownership.
Speaker 1: We didn't give anyone ownership or voting control or anything like that. Because we also believe in efficiency. I think that having myself as the sole owner, director, and product manager for this extensive period of time in the company's development allowed us to move faster and How
Speaker 0: could you be the only product manager? Are you still the only product manager in
Speaker 1: the company? Exactly. I still come up with all, most of the features. I still work directly with every engineer, every designer who is implementing these features. I'm running this company because I enjoy it.
I'm the only product manager because I think this is the way I can contribute. How big
Speaker 0: is your HR department? 0. Well, you
Speaker 1: could say it's me and because the way we hire engineers No. No. No. You need
Speaker 0: a big HR department. Do you don't think? You don't suffer without one?
Speaker 1: We, in a way, decentralized that. We started a platform where we host contests for engineers. It's actually contest.com. We have the separate, platform for that. And we select the best of the best engineers as a result of the competitions that we organize.
We hold them every, like, month or 2 months. So after a series of these competitions, we select the best of the best of the best, and they then maybe could join our team, which is just about 30 engineers. So it's it's really compact, the team. Super efficient. It's like a a Navy SEAL team.
And, this is how we operate. We don't need HR department to find, super talented engineers.
Speaker 0: Why doesn't everyone do this? I mean, I I look at some of these tech companies or Elon Musk famously when he showed up at Twitter. I mean, there are people doing things that he didn't even know they were doing, and they didn't know what they were doing. They were like there was a world peace department and a foosball department. And why doesn't
Speaker 1: everybody run their business like you? Well, it's an interesting interesting question. I think it all boils down to the question of, independence in a way. I asked this question to the predecessors of Elon. Jack Dorsey.
Jack and his predecessor as well. And What'd you say? Dick Costell, I think that's his name. And with Jack, he told me that if I told him, look. We can run this company with plenty people.
You don't need so many people. And the the response was, I agree with you, but if we start firing so many people, it will make the Wall Street scared. They will think something's very wrong with the company, and we don't want to do that. And that's why we keep all these, employees around.
Speaker 0: So to keep the stock price high, he had to run it inefficiently. I mean, that's what you're saying.
Speaker 1: If I understood him correctly, that's what what but to to his to his credit, Elon has to take Twitter private before he could do all the Well, I mean authorizations he did.
Speaker 0: There's, I mean, there's something sort of profound in what you're saying. I mean, the whole point of a publicly traded company or one of the points so the public can participate in the ownership of the company, but also so outsiders can assess the operations of the company. And so there's transparency as we know how the company is run because it's owned by the public. And so it would be, by definition, more efficient. You would think, but you're saying that it's wildly less efficient that you wind up with the foosball department when it's publicly traded, but when it's privately held, you don't.
I mean, that's kind of the opposite of what you would think. Right? Well, I guess most tech founders would actually agree that running a public company is, less efficient than running a private company because you have to be accountable to much more people. There's a lot of redundancy bureaucracy involved. So from a
Speaker 1: purely, like, efficiency standpoint, I would argue, and I think a lot of people will agree with me, that when a public company is suboptimal. However, there are other advantages of of, getting listed. And of course, that is relevant when you want to acquire other companies. More cash. Yes.
You can have access to cheap capital or, you know, there's a lot of things you can do. But you don't wanna do any of those things? Well, not that not presently. Definitely. I am enjoying running my company in the way it is.
Well, who knows what the future holds. But, as of now, I think we are doing a great job with, with Telegram. 900,000,000 users will probably cross a 1000000000, monthly active users within a year from now. I think we're doing great. Why why would we lose this momentum right now?
Speaker 0: Can I just go back to something you said the at the outset? You don't have an HR department, you only have 30 engineers working for you. You you run the products, you own the company. Such a tight organization, but how do you get new users if you spend 0 money for acquisitions? If you're not advertising, if you're not paying to bring people in, how do you how do you do that?
How do you
Speaker 1: get to a billion for free? Well, because people love our product. What we realized pretty early on is that people are smart. People like to use good things, and they don't like to use inferior things. That's why whenever you have a person who is who started to use Telegram and they're there for a while and they start to discover all the features, all their, you know, the speed, the security, the problems, everything that we have.
They don't want to go back. And they start inviting their friends, recommending them, you should really check this app out because it's so much better than everything else. And also because people realize that whatever, messaging apps they're using right now, they're like 5, 6 years behind. They are copying what we did 6 years ago, and that's not a, you know, very high quality copy that they make about features. So people love quality.
That's why they move. They also love the independence. They also love the privacy. They love the freedom. There are a lot of reasons why somebody would switch to Telegram from other apps.
Speaker 0: So one of the things we learned when Elon Musk bought Twitter is that the intel agencies, not just US, but a bunch of other countries, the usual suspects, were all over the company. I mean, they were some of them were present working at the company. They had access to the direct messages. You can just imagine, well, you know because you run one. But the wealth of data flowing through would be of great interest to to governments.
Does that make you paranoid that you'll be penetrated? I mean, I I assume governments would like to know what's going on sort of privately on Telegram. Well, there's definitely a
Speaker 1: lot of responsibility that we have on our shoulders. And we I would say we are paranoid, but I think it makes sense to stay prudent and, not being too accessible, not traveling to weird places. You don't travel to weird places? I hope not. Like, I've traveled to places where I have confidence that, you know, those places are consistent with what we do and our values.
I don't go to any of the big geopolitical powers of the
Speaker 0: countries like China or Russia or even the US. So, you don't go to the US?
Speaker 1: I try not to. I can go, but, you know, it's, too much attention like I've described before.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because at some point, if you run something like this, you're a player in world politics. I mean, by deaf whether you want to be
Speaker 1: or not, don't you think? We definitely don't wanna be a player. We want to be a neutral platform that is impartial and, you
Speaker 0: know, doesn't take any side. But you're probably right. There is some role we have to play. Well, not taking a side is the one thing you're not allowed to do. Right?
I mean, aren't you required to take a side in the modern world?
Speaker 1: I think that's a big problem because I think that kind of attitude can result in our world becoming a more dangerous place. Because at the end of the day, we all have to try to understand each other and try to get closer to each other in in terms of getting to know the positions of the other people even though they're drastically different from our own positions. And that's how we get to some compromise and and move forward. If we're strictly divided and everybody is required to take a side, I mean, we can't take a side because we are this platform that people should use to collaborate and to find common ground and hopefully to move forward. If we lose that, we can end up in a much more dangerous place.
How often do you intersect with the National Security Agency, NSA? And I
Speaker 0: ask that as someone whose texts were read by them. So I know that they're very active in this world. What's your experience been?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the NSA is not, an agency that works with you directly. Right? Yeah. Coming here You're so diplomatic.
Speaker 0: I love it. The NSA is not an agency that works with you directly. No. That is true.
Speaker 1: It's true. So my knowledge of my interactions with the NSA is very limited. Yes. I could read something in the newspapers about, you know, my phone being penetrated with Pegasus or something like that. I've no idea whether it's true or not, but this is the only source of information I can have about me personally being of interest to any of, you know, the secret agencies.
But you've gotta think, even though you haven't done an interview in 7 years ish, you
Speaker 0: know, you're it's it's widely known by people who are interested in who you are and your role in this. I mean, you've gotta think you're under crazy amounts of surveillance, wouldn't you think?
Speaker 1: That's probably true. You know, it would sound funny, but I assume by default that the devices I use, like, are compromised. Yeah. Because you you you will still use an iPhone or an Android phone. And after experiencing what I experienced in the US, I have very limited faith in platforms developed in the US from a security standpoint.
Yes. Privacy standpoint.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Yeah. Because in a lot of countries, our our ours, America included, spying is described as, quote, security. You're looking at it from the other perspective. You're assuming that security is privacy and my right not to be spied upon, but big big governments describe spying upon you as security.
Speaker 1: Thank you for this correction.
Speaker 0: So last question. Do you since you've done this since you were in college and you've been at the center of it, where do you see it going? And by this, I mean, the free exchange, the private exchange of information between sovereign individuals, human beings, nonslaves. When I was a child, that was possible. It's increasingly difficult.
Are we moving toward a world where there just is no private communication? Or do you think that privacy will remain despite, say, AI or just massive increases in computing power?
Speaker 1: Well, this depends on the extent of privacy. When you say privacy will remain, do you mean that we have absolute privacy now?
Speaker 0: I don't think that we do. And I think the world is becoming less amenable. Government's becoming less tolerant of privacy, and that's clearly the trend because they have more technological power. But will they win? I guess, will there ever be a way to preserve privacy?
You know? Can is there a place for it?
Speaker 1: I believe in that. I'm an optimist. I think some new secure hardware, you know, communication devices will be created, in a similar way that now we have, hardware wallets to store your cryptocurrency. Yes. Maybe we'll have secure communication devices, you know, to send messages or do voice calls.
It's possible. I do believe that, you know, the world develops in cycles. And if things seem to go in one direction today, doesn't seem doesn't mean that tomorrow they will go the same direction. I also feel that at some point, people will get tired of, what they experience today, and they would decide to, you know, move to some other direction. So it's I I would I've seen it after COVID, for example.
So during COVID, you had a lot of restrictions. Also on social media platforms, you on most social media platforms, you were not really allowed to express doubt in relation to lockdowns, vaccines, or masks. And, at some point, I could feel that the sentiment changed. People started to feel very, very tired and sometimes angry with the fact that they were not allowed to express their opinions. Particularly after the end of, the pandemic, a lot of people started to be even more skeptical about the restrictions in their freedoms that they experienced during the pandemic.
Speaker 0: What was your position as a business owner, during COVID? Did you must have come under pressure to censor opinions on lockdowns, vaccines, masking.
Speaker 1: What how did you respond? So our position is pretty straightforward. We're a neutral platform. We were helping governments to spread their message about the lockdowns and masks and accidents. We had dozens of governments who we really helped, you know, similar their information, but we also didn't want to restrict the voices that were critical of all these measures.
We thought it made sense for these opposing views to collide and hopefully, you know, see some truth come out of those debates. And, of course, we got criticized for that. But, looking back, I think it was the right strategy. So you allowed people to voice doubts about the so called science throughout the throughout the experience? Exactly.
During the pandemic, we, I think, were one of the few or maybe the only major social media platform that didn't, take down accounts or that were skeptical in relation to some of these measures.
Speaker 0: So why are you not famous and treated as a hero in the United States? Shouldn't there be a parade in your honor? If you're the only social media platform not to take down what turned out to be true or in some to some extent true, more certainly more true than the CDC guidance. I mean, why why why weren't you Times man of the year? Why isn't your face on the nickel?
Speaker 1: I am not an expert in the US politics. But to to be fair, you have, now, Twitter or x Yeah. And that, seemingly becoming more pro freedom of speech. And I think it is. It's it's it's it's a great development.
And back to our earlier discussion about how all of this is developing in cycles. Things are starting to change, it seems.
Speaker 0: So do you I mean but in in some ways, Elon buying Twitter sort of ends your monopoly, but you still greet it cheerfully. You're still in favor of it.
Speaker 1: Definitely. We will love the fact that, Elon bought Twitter. We thought it was a great development for a number of reasons. First reason is just innovation. You could see x doing trying a lot of things.
Some of them will turn out to be mistakes. Some of them will work, but at least they're trying to innovate. That's something we didn't have outside of Telegram and a few other companies in this industry for the last 10 years. What you saw from the big players, they would rather copy the proven models, the features that apps like Telegram launched, and just scale them on a larger audience. These features would be pale will be pale pale reflections of what we built.
But this was the way those companies operate and still operate. What X is trying to do is, in line with weird building, you know, innovation, trying different things, trying to give power to the creators, trying to get the ecosystem economy going. Those are all exciting things. And, I think we need more companies like that. I was I don't know if it's good for humanity that, like, Elon is spending so much time on Twitter making it better, but it's definitely good for the social media industry.
Speaker 0: When you see the other the guys who run these other companies, like, what do you you do you know them? And do you ever talk about Freedom of Speech? I mean, if you're running you run into Mark not you don't have to answer, of course, if you don't want, but, like, if you're into Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I we've met with Mark, more than 10 years ago. I was still running DK, and I told them I told Mark and his colleagues about our, app platform. We launched an app platform. I think it was 2 2009 at DK.
They were very interested. It was an interesting meeting. They ended up trying to copy not what we did, but what I told them we did. It was funny. I remember him asking me whether we were planning to, start something on a global, basis on the global label level, like, go, for international expansion.
I said no. And I asked him whether he was going to try to capture more of my domestic market where I was working on. And he said no. And we both ended up doing exactly that in, like, 2 or 3 weeks. So whatever's I'm thinking I shouldn't go into business with Mark Zuckerberg.
No comment.
Speaker 0: Pavel Drup, thank you very much. It's a great conversation. I appreciate it,
Speaker 1: and we're rooting for you. Thank you for having me. Of course.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Just in case you missed it. Tucker Carlson: Ep. 99 Aleksandr Dugin is the most famous political philosopher in Russia. His ideas are considered so dangerous, the Ukrainian government murdered his daughter and Amazon won’t sell his books. We talked to him in Moscow. https://t.co/wlp4ns8eAm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alexander Dugan, a Russian philosopher often labeled as "Putin's brain," discusses the decline of traditional values in the West, attributing it to the rise of individualism rooted in Protestant reform and nominalism. He argues that liberalism has evolved from classical to new liberalism, which now prioritizes minority rule over majority consensus and prescribes progressive ideologies. Dugan warns that this trajectory leads to a potential abandonment of human identity, paving the way for transhumanism and artificial intelligence. He contrasts this with Putin's traditional leadership, which defends sovereignty and traditional values, provoking a deep-seated animosity from Western progressives. Dugan emphasizes that this conflict is not coincidental but a fundamental clash of worldviews. He advocates for the open exchange of ideas, highlighting the importance of free speech in society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alexander Dugan is a 62 year old Russian academic philosopher. He spent his life in Moscow. He was an anti Soviet dissident as a young man, and now he is famous the world over in the English language press anyway as, quote, Putin's brain. But he is not a political figure here in Russia. He is once again a philosopher, and his ideas are deeply offensive to some people.
In August of 2022, his only daughter was murdered in Moscow when a car bomb killed her. US intelligence says she was murdered by the Ukrainian government, and we take that at face value. But what's interesting is that once again, Alexander Dugan is not a military leader. He's not a close daily adviser to Vladimir Putin. He is a writer who writes about big ideas.
And for this, his books have been banned by the Biden administration in the United States. You cannot buy them on Amazon. Banning books in the United States because the ideas inside are too dangerous. He's often described again in the English language press as far right. We'll let you assess.
But we wanted to talk to him about some of his ideas, these ideas that are so dangerous that his only daughter was murdered over them, and his book's been banned in the United States. And so we're happy to have him join us now. Mister Dugan, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for, inviting me, and and welcome to Moscow.
Speaker 0: Of course. Thank you. So we were talking off camera. Actually, we're having a conversation that we were not going to film. Just interested to meet you.
But what you said was so interesting, that we got a couple of cameras and put this together. And my question to you was, what do you think is happening in the English language countries? And I said, all of them. United States, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, all at once decided to turn seemed to turn against themselves. You know, it's great turmoil, and some of the behavior seem very self destructive.
And where do you think, as an observer, that comes from?
Speaker 1: So in my I could just suggest, express my reading of of of that. It demands a little patience. So I think that's when everything started with individualism, so individualism, that was wrong understanding of the human nature, of the nature of man. When you identify individualism with the man, with the human nature, you cut all the relations to everything else. So you have very special idea of the subject, philosophical subject as individual.
And everything started in the Anglo Saxon world with protestant reform and with nominalism. Before that nominalist attitude that there are no ideas, only things, only individual things. So individual, it was the key and is still key concept that was put in the center of liberal ideology. And liberalism, as in my reading, it is a kind of historical, and cultural, and political, and philosophical process of liberation of individual of any kind of collective identity. Collective or that transcend, transcends, individual.
And that started with, refuse of Catholic Church as collective identity, of empire, Western Empire as collective identity. After that, it was revolt against a national state as collective identity in favor of purely civil society. After that, there was a big fight of the 20th century between liberalism, communism, and fascism, and liberalism has won once more. Yes. So, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was only liberalism, and Francis Fukuyama has pointed out correctly that there are no more any ideologies except of liberalism.
And liberalism, that was liberation of this individual, from any kind of collective identity. There were only 2, collective identities to liberate from. Gender identity because it it is collective identity. You are men or women collectively, so you could be alone. So, liberation from gender and that has led to transgenders to LGBT and new form of sexual individualism.
So, sex is something optional, and that was not just deviation of liberalism, that was necessary elements of implementation and the victor of this liberal ideology. And the last step that is not yet totally totally made is liberation from human identity. Humanity optional. And when now we are choosing of you in the west, you are you are choosing the sex you want as you want. And, the last step in this process of, liberalism, implementation of liberalism will mean precisely the human human and optional.
So you can choose your individual identity to be human, not to be human, and that has a name, transhumanism, posthumanism, singularity, artificial intelligence, Klaus Schwab, Kurzweil, or Harari. They openly declare that is inevitable future of humanity. So we arrive to the historical terminal station that we finally 5 centuries ago, we have embarked in this train and now we're arriving at the last station. So that is my reading and when all the elements, all the phases of that, you cut the tradition with the past. So you are no more protestant, you are secular atheist, materialist, You are no more national state that served the liberal to liberate from empire, and now, national state becomes at its turn obstacle.
You are liberating from national state. Finally, family, is destroyed in favor of this individualism. And the last thing, the sex that is already almost overcome, sex optional and in gender politics, there is only one step to arrive to the end of this process of liberation, of liberalism. That is the abandoned human identity as something prescribed. So to be free from to be human, to have the possibility to choose, to be or not to be human.
And that is the agenda, political ideological agenda of tomorrow. That is why to how I see Anglo Saxon world that you have asked of. I think that it's just avant garde, one word, of this process because that started with Anglo Saxons' imperial, imperialism, nominalism, protestantism, and now you are ahead as an Anglo Saxon more devoted to liberalism than any other European So
Speaker 0: so you I mean, what you're describing is is clearly happening, and it's horrifying. But it's not the definition of liberalism I have in mind when I describe myself as what we say in the United States is a classical liberal. Right? So you think of liberalism as individual freedom and choice from slavery, right? So the options as we conceived them as I was growing up were the individual who can follow his conscience, say what he thinks, defend himself against the state versus the statism, the totalitarianism embodied in the government that you fought against, the Soviet government.
And I think most Americans think of it that way.
Speaker 1: What's the difference? Very interesting question. I think that is, the the problem is in two definitions of liberalism. There is old liberalism, classical liberalism, and new liberalism. So classical liberalism was in favor of democracy.
Democracy understood as the power of majority, of consensus, of individual freedom that should be combined somehow with the freedom of other. And now we have totally, the next station already. Next phase, new liberalism. Now it is not about the rule of majority but it is about the rule of minorities. It is not about individual freedom but it is about wokies.
So you should be so individualistic that you that you should criticize not only the state but individual, the old understanding of individuals. So you need now you you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality, to go further in that direction. So, I have spoken with once with Fukuyama, Francis Fukuyama on TV, and he has said before democracy has meant the rule of majority, and now it is about the rule of minorities against majority. Because majority could choose Hitler or Putin, so we need to be very careful with majority and majority should be taken under control, and minorities should rule over majority. Majority, it is not democracy, it's already totalitarianism, and now we are not about defense of the individual freedom but about prescription to be woke, to be, to be modern, to be progressive.
It is not your it is not your right to be or not to be progressive. It is your duty to be progressive, to follow this agenda. So you are free to be a left liberal. You are no more is free enough to be a right liberal. You should be a left liberal, and that is a kind of duty, it is prescription.
So liberalism fought during its history against any kind of prescription, and now it at its turn became totalitarian, prescriptive, not free as it was in some in some And
Speaker 0: do you believe that was inevitable that process? That was always going to happen?
Speaker 1: I think that is I perceive here a kind of logic. So a kind of logic that is not just perversion or deviation. You start with one thing, you want to liberate individual, when you arrive at the point when it is possible, it is realized. So you need to go further. So and you start to liberate yourselves from this time from old understanding of individual in favor of more progressive concepts.
So you could not stop here. That is that is my vision. So if you say, oh I prefer old liberalism, they would say, the progressives, they would say: It is not about all liberalism, it is about fascism. You are a defender of traditionalism, conservatism, fascism, so stop here. Either be progressive liberal or you are done or we will cancel you.
That is what we we, observe, I would Well,
Speaker 0: it's certainly what we're living. And to see self described liberals ban your book, which is not a manual for bomb making or invading Ukraine, it's a, you know, these are philosophical works. Tells
Speaker 1: you that
Speaker 0: this not of course, it's not liberal, in any sense. I I wonder, though, when you reach the point when the individual can no longer liberate himself from anything when he's just not even human, what's the next step after that?
Speaker 1: That is described in, in the pictures, American pictures films in many ways. So I think that, you know that all the all the science fictions, almost all of the 19th century were realized upon the reality in the twenties. So there there is nothing more realistic than science fiction. And if you consider, Matrix or Terminator, you have so many so many, more or less coinciding version of the future. The future with the post human or human optional situation or artificial intelligence.
Hollywood has made many, many, many films. I think they portray correctly reality of their close future. So, for example, if we consider the man, the human nature as a kind of rational animals, So you could now with our technology you could produce them. So you could create rational animals or combine them or construct them. And artificial intelligence, strong artificial intelligence, neural network, plus huge database, it is a kind of kink of the world, I would say, that could not only only manipulate but create realities because the realities are just images, just, just sensations, just feelings.
So, I think that posthumanist futurism is a kind of not only a realistic description of a very possible and probable future, but as well a kind of political manifest. So it is not that is kind of visual thinking and that the fact that you have no bright traditional future described in the films. I don't know any any any movie any movie of the future in the West made about return to traditional life, the prosperity, the families with many children. Everything is quite quite, in shadow, quite quite black. So, if you if you if you if you're used to to paint everything black and the future, especially, so this black future once arrives.
And I think that is the fact, the same fact that we have no other option, either matrix or artificial intelligence or something, or a Terminator. So, the choice is already outside of the of the limits of humanity. And that is not not just fantasy, I think. That is a kind of political project and it is easy to imagine because we we have seen the fields, they they follow more or less close this, this progressive, I would say, agenda.
Speaker 0: So I I've asked you no questions about Russia or Russian politics that I'm not going to because I think it's so interesting to see your perspective on countries that you don't live in because, you know, we do gain insight, I think, from the view of outsiders. My last question to you is, how do you explain this phenomenon I have noticed where, for over 70 years, a group of people in the West and the United States, liberals, effectively defended the Soviet system and Stalinism, and many participated personally participated in Stalinism, spied for Stalin, supported him in our media. At in the year 2000 and they loved Boris Yeltsin because he was drunk. But in the year 2000, leadership of this country changed, and Russia became their main enemy. So after 80 odd years of defending Russia, they hated Russia.
What how what was that? Why the change?
Speaker 1: I think, I think that, first of all, Putin is traditional leader. So, Putin, when he came to power, from the very beginning, he started to extract our country, Russia, from the global influence. So he started to contradict to global progressist agenda. And these people who supported your Soviet Union, there were progressists and there are now progressists. So they have failed that now they are dealing they were dealing with someone who doesn't share this progressive agenda, and who tried and with success to restore traditional values, sovereignty of the state, Christianity, traditional family, that wasn't evident from the beginning, from outside.
But when Putin insisted more and more on this traditional agenda, I would say, on the particularity and speciality of the Russian civilization as some special type of world vision that had and has now very little similarities with the progressives progressives' ideals. So I think that they have discovered, they have identified in Putin precisely what Putin is. So he is a kind of leader, political leader defending traditional values. So only recently, 1 years ago, Putin has made decree of the political defense, of traditional values. That was a turning point, I would say.
But observers from the progressive camp in the west, I think they have, they have understood that from the beginning of his rule correctly. Correctly. So, this hatred is not just casual. Something casual or some mood, it is not. It's not casual.
Speaker 0: It's very serious.
Speaker 1: Yes. So it's metaphysical. So if you if your main task and main goal is to destroy traditional value, traditional family, traditional states, traditional relations, traditional, beliefs, and someone on that with the nuclear weapon, that is not smallest, the least but the last but not least, arguments. Someone with nuclear weapon to stand strong defending traditional value, you you are going to abolish. I think they have some some basis for this, also for the and the hatred for Putin.
So, it is not just by the chance. It's not some irrational irrational, change from Soviet affiliate to, to Russia for that. It's something deeper, I would say. It's my guess.
Speaker 0: It's clearly something. It's clearly something deeper. We felt it was important for your ideas to get an airing in English in the United States simply because we believe in the open airing of ideas. I guess we're liberals that way. So we're grateful that you took the time.
Mister Dugan, thanks. Thank you very much. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. Blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Tucker Carlson: Ep. 95 Why do the reddest states produce the dumbest, most liberal Republicans? Why aren’t John Cornyn and Dan Crenshaw bagging groceries at Walmart? Jesse Kelly has thought about this. https://t.co/y6HIB2pBG2
Video Transcript AI Summary
The ongoing crisis at the U.S. border is described as an invasion, with migrants disregarding laws and borders. Texas faces legal challenges in enforcing immigration laws, while other states have been allowed to violate federal laws without consequence. A suggestion is made to form a coalition of states to arrest and deport illegal immigrants, challenging federal authority. The discussion emphasizes the urgency for red states to reassess their relationship with the federal government, as the current situation is unsustainable. The failure of Republican leadership in Texas is criticized, and the need for grassroots action to replace ineffective politicians is highlighted. The impact of illegal immigration on communities is evident, with rising crime and deteriorating conditions. The conversation concludes with a call for awareness and action among citizens to address these pressing issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Of all the crises unfolding simultaneously in the United States right now, only one has the certain capacity to change our way of life forever. Only one of them can't be undone, and that's the invasion taking place. An invasion is not too strong a word. It's not hyperbole. It's real.
Take a look at the video on your screen. This was shot just outside El Paso, Texas. You can see the migrants cutting razor wires. They force their way into our country as they invade it. Again, this is not happening on the other side of the world.
This is your country. This is Texas. Under siege by people of zero respect for our borders and laws. People whose first act as an American is to break federal law. But what's so interesting and maybe the most revealing of all is that no one is stopping this, and the extent they're trying courts are stopping them from enforcing the law.
Courts have gone back and forth about whether Texas has the right to protect its own borders. What's so interesting really is that a bunch of other states and cities around the country for decades have been violating federal law, federal immigration law by declaring themselves sanctuary cities, and no one's done anything about that at all but here one state trying to enforce the US border with the rest of the world and is prevented from doing so by judges it's hard to believe it So how should Texas and the rest of the country proceed with that in mind? The country's being invaded. No one is stopping it. Well, Jesse Kelly, who is a talk show host and friend of ours from the state of Texas recently tweeted an idea.
Here's what he said. Ignore them. Meaning the courts. Create a 10 state coalition to stand with you, meaning with Texas. Arrest and deport every illegal in your state.
Arrest and try anyone from the federal government who tries to stop you. It's time. So we haven't thought you what exactly that would mean in practical terms or what the long term effects of that would be, but it's impossible not to deeply sympathize with the spirit that animates it. And so we thought we would talk to Jesse Kelly directly. He's the host of the Jesse Kelly show.
We're honored to have him now. Jesse, thanks a lot for coming on. So
Speaker 1: No. I I I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: So so so rather than try to characterize, as I just did I guess, what you meant when you wrote that, why don't you tell us?
Speaker 1: Well, we're in a really bad spot, Tucker, and I don't I don't celebrate what I'm about to say, but it is time now, not 10 years from now, not next year. It is time right now for the states, especially red states, to reexamine the nature of their relationship with the federal government, if if I'm gonna put it that way. And I and I Yes. Wanna be crystal clear about what I'm about to say. I do not want this country to break up, although I believe we are breaking up.
I don't want anything like a war or violence. I don't want that. I don't want any individual American to do anything illegal. But red states must now, right now, begin reexamining the nature of their relationship with the federal government because the country is being undone. The country is being destroyed now, and there's nothing that can stop or reverse this unless red states take this step.
Let let me let me explain. Sorry to filibuster on your show. We'll talk
Speaker 0: about it. Filibustering it out.
Speaker 1: I wanna know. Right now, it's not an accident as you well know. You talk about this all the time. It's not an accident what's happening on the border. The people who lead the nation from the federal level, that's Democrat politicians, half the Republican politicians, every bureaucrat, they are encouraging flooding the border with illegals.
They're encouraging it. That's just what they want. They want America full of illegals, no loyalty to America, criminals, rapists, murderers. That is what they want. Because when you cause violence and chaos in a society, that's the fertile soil where communism grows.
People will always turn to the government and beg them for help when that kind of societal collapse comes. So they know this. So they're inviting it. Well, other countries around the world are obliging as countries always have in this situation. Hey.
There's a country I don't particularly like. They have an open border. We do have this prison full of rapists. Hey, guys. Why don't you just move on to America?
We know this is happening in countries like Venezuela, where they're emptying prisons onto the border. We don't have criminals coming here individually. We have entire criminal networks coming here. The the country is being undone now, and it cannot be reversed what's happening right now. I wanna be I want everyone to understand this.
Let's say everyone gets, their wish and Donald Trump beats Joe Biden in November. And woo hoo. You cannot possibly, it's not humanly possible to deport this many people. If Joe Biden's going to bring in 10, 12,000,000 people, almost all of them will be here permanently, and all of their children will be American citizens. And there's not gonna be some mass deportation no matter what people say on the campaign trail.
The American people have no stomach for that whatsoever. Even if they think they do right now, it would be one video of of a little of a little boy crying as mommy gets thrown in the back of a paddy wagon to be deported. And all deportations would stop. Republicans would grab their ankles for the media like they always do, and everything. Oh, we need to do this more humanely.
So that's the situation we're in. Well, where does that leave us? Where it leaves us is you can decide to challenge the federal government at a state level or you can lose your country. There is no third direction. Illegal immigration on this level will sink America in the same way.
It doesn't matter how big or powerful a boat is. If it takes on enough water, it will go down to the bottom of the ocean. We cannot exist like this. So we are going to have to do things outside of the constitution. I don't celebrate that either.
That's where we are. If, if if if I'm in a house, right, and and in my house, let's say there's some weird ordinance in this city, some weird law in the city where I live where I'm not allowed to do anything to the house. If there's any problems at all, it's it's a light bulb out or a fire. It is against the law for me to touch it. I and I don't.
And I abide by the law. But eventually, I come home and the house is on fire and my sons are upstairs saying, dad, come help. Well, I'm sorry. Law or no law, I'm going to get my sons. We cannot stand by and watch the United States of America be destroyed.
And people have to understand how dire the situation is. This is the the stated policy now of the Democrat party. So even if Joe Biden gets bounced in 2024, woo hoo, we get some deportations in. The next time there's any Democrat president, it'll again be open season in the entire world. We'll know.
Criminals, drugs, rapists, everything flooding into the country to destroy it. The time is now to create a coalition in a totally separate immigration force. That's what we have to do.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And let's just be honest. I mean, obviously, I'm fervently rooting for Trump over Biden for many, many reasons. But Trump was president for 4 years, and he didn't he didn't even build a defensive border wall. He didn't.
And I don't care. We can lie about that, but that's just a fact. So the idea is to support 10,000,000 people. It's just don't don't don't lie to me. I'm sick of it.
So I agree
Speaker 1: with you. Look. I mean, not not to interrupt, but along those along those same lines, Tucker. Sorry. But people have to do also remember remember child separation policy?
Speaker 0: Very well.
Speaker 1: That's a basic border policy because people grab kids who aren't theirs and act like, hey, I'm dad Pedro. And when really he's not, he's some kind of cartel member. And so you always separate the kid and figure out, is he there with mom or dad? That was that's a basic border policy. Look, Again, insult or don't assault.
I don't give a crap if people are offended by it. The Trump administration ended that policy because of media and Democrat pressure. Democrats did a bunch of photo ops down on the border. AOC is crying at the fence. Eventually, child separation was ended.
That's because of media pressure. And people in this country honestly believe there's gonna be some mass deportation of 8,000,000 people where you're rounding up entire families and shipping them back to Zimbabwe. You're outside of your mind. It'll never happen. The people have no stomach for it, and neither does the Republican Party.
Speaker 0: So why doesn't so you're in Texas, I think. You have a governor. He's a long time governor. He's a Republican. His name is Greg Abbott.
His state is being destroyed, and it's very obvious when you go to Texas. I've been there a lot recently that it's already being destroyed. It just looks dirtier than it did 2 years ago because it is. So why has he done nothing? Like, what's his excuse?
Speaker 1: He's a Republican. That's what Republicans do. Republicans do nothing. Republicans have been in charge for, I don't know how long, of managing the decline. I mean, look look, it's it's not exactly a new insult to call the Republican party controlled opposition.
But let's be frank. That's exactly what they are. Even Joseph Stalin allowed an opposition party. A lot of people don't realize this. He allowed, encouraged, and in fact, funded an opposition party to give the people of the Soviet Union an illusion of choice.
Oh, no. No. These guys are against me. Wow. It's pretty scary, but somehow they never end up accomplishing any of their anti Stalin goals.
We're constantly told the Republican Party is going to fight for us and protect the border, and and we'll cut your taxes. And then we're gonna we'll be pro life, and and we'll protect the family. Yet none of these things ever seem to materialize. They all talk about it during election season. I'll build the wall, and then you get there and you get 25 feet of wall and a bunch of excuses.
Greg Abbott, if look, that's his excuse. He's a Republican. That's what they all are. It's why I'm an anti communist.
Speaker 0: So I think it's a really smart and true description of what we're seeing. Let's say the red states won't do this because they're run by Republicans. At what point do people who live in the state and have children in the state, grandchildren in the state, who were born in this country and don't wanna see it destroyed, say, I'm just I'm getting 10 of my friends. We're gonna protect our stretch south of Carrizo Springs. Like, how long till that happens?
Speaker 1: I under I understand the inclination for that. But what we're gonna like like, the revolution, the American revolution. Sorry. I'm not gonna get sidetracked too sidetracked, Tucker, but the American revolution. We like to imagine the American revolution was just a bunch of American citizens picking up a musket, fighting against the British, and and creating the United States of America.
We love we love that image in our head. And, obviously, a lot of that is true. But the American Revolution is not successful without state power like France stepping in and giving us critical aid. We cannot protect this nation as 10 dudes going down in the border with some, plates in your flak jacket that you bought on Amazon in an AR 15. That's not that's not going to work.
It's not gonna be effective because the state itself is simply gonna throw you in the clink because the state is the one facilitating the invasion. When the state is the one facilitating the invasion, anyone who tries to stop it goes to prison. Look at that United States Marine, Daniel Penney in, Penny? Daniel Penney in New York kills a guy on a subway protecting women. He's going to he's going to the clink.
Everyone knows he's gonna get convicted. We now live in a country where the elites on the top and the streets on the bottom are sandwiching the American people in the middle, and they're attacking them from both ways. We must have some level of state power on our side. So when it comes to states like Texas and other states, what needs to happen instead of grabbing a rifle and going to the border is the American people need to start running these loser Republicans out of their state legislatures and out of their governors' mansions and out of the sheriff's office. The sheriffs are gonna be critically important going forward.
And I need to be clear. This is starting to happen, Tucker, slowly but surely. Texas state legislature just got put on notice. A bunch of these dorks at our state legislature got run out of, of the party of of government in primaries because normal people are getting sick and tired of no action, and they're running these people out. It's happening.
It's happening slowly, maybe too slowly, too slowly when you consider the fact that the federal government is gleefully destroying this country. I haven't seen these people this happy since Pete Buttigieg and his husband took their baby home.
Speaker 0: Or went on paternity leave. Do I mean, why is it that Republican states tend to have the least sincere Republican? Like, Dan Crenshaw, apparently still a member of congress from the state of Texas who is zero interest in the US border. All his interest is in the Ukrainian border, the Gaza border. You know, how does a guy like that get elected in a supposedly Republican state?
Speaker 1: Well, complacency and Yeah. Life being good makes us soft. Right? It's just the fact of life. It's one of those things humanity struggled with.
As soon as you get rich or well off or comfortable, how do you keep improving? How do you keep your edge? You rarely do. This is what's happened to red state Republicans. There's nobody more at fault for the condition of this country than red state GOP voters, and people get mad when I say that.
But let me let me just go down the list here. Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John Thune, Tillis. I mean, look. You can go down the list. Every dork from Louisiana.
The reddest states in this country give us the most putrid Republicans at the federal level. Why does that happen? Because the GOP primary voter in red states lives in a relatively normal place. He lives in comfort. He thinks he's got a red legislature.
So he'd either doesn't vote in primaries. That's mostly the case. He's just gonna sit at home. Or even worse, He goes to vote for senator dork who he sees on Fox News every time. Well, Lindsey Graham was on on Fox tonight.
I guess he's he's on my side. You should have nothing but disdain for virtually every single senator you see on Fox News. And yet people vote for who they see on television. Well, I met John Thune once, and he was so handsome. He's very clearly on our side.
John Thune supported gun control legislation, and John Thune on camera was asked to to ask to to back up American people owning AR fifteens and the best argument he could make for your Liberty for the second amendment was that I kid you not. This is on camera. He told people, well, I mean, a lot of people use them to shoot Prairie dogs. These are the weapons grade losers who control the GOP and they're from the reddest states. It's under Susan Collins is understandable.
Tucker, sorry to get all fired up. It's understandable. She's from Maine. It's from a blue state. Of course, we're going to get some wishy washy mealy mouth dork from that kind of state.
The Dakotas, The Dakotas are so red. It's crazy. They could have somebody to the right of me if they wanted to, but they don't. Well, I saw him on Fox last night. I'll just gag me with a fork.
Speaker 0: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. I mean, you should go down the list. They're they're absolute they're absolutely the worst. So do you have any hope that this will happen?
Speaker 1: Yes. Eventually. See, this is the problem. Everyone watching your show is gonna be that hyperinformed person. Everyone watching us right now is gonna be hyperinformed.
And the burden of being hyperinformed I'm glad everyone is hyperinformed, by the way. But the burden of that is you're always going to be 10 years at least ahead of the people who are in elected office. So we're we know what needs to be done now. This needs to be done now. It has to be done right now.
We have to save this right now. But change doesn't happen that way. Changing the party into something that's actually anti communist and pro America is going to take time. It's gonna take election cycle after election cycle. You're it takes years to get these losers out of DC, to get them out of your state legislature.
It just takes time and effort, but we have to start taking ownership of that and getting more involved. Democrats participate in primaries. 50% of them go vote in primaries, Tucker. 25% of Republicans go vote in primaries. You wanna know why the Democrat party is the party of now now and the Republican party hasn't advanced at all?
That's exactly why. People sit on their butts. They don't get involved, and now look where we are.
Speaker 0: So DeSantis is now talking once again about sending illegals to Martha's Vineyard. He did that and then he kind of washed out and kind of apologized for order, didn't press the point. But I noticed from traveling that rural areas, pretty rural areas where you might go hunt and fish, for example, are now filled with white liberals living in the whitest possible ZIP codes they can find. The ones who lecture you about white privilege are now living in much wider areas than they did 5 years ago. Why not make this, you know, send the illegals to Martha's Vineyard, but also to Aspen, also to Bethesda, Maryland, to to the to the stronghold, these all white strongholds of progressive lunacy?
Like, why not make that the policy? Like, why be ashamed of doing it?
Speaker 1: It should be. And it shouldn't be. You shouldn't be ashamed of it. It should be there should be caravans, busloads of these people shipped into these neighborhoods. But I'll tell you something, Tucker.
Even that might not affect I mean, it would it would be good. We should do it. Even that might not change these people's minds. I had the wildest conversation, I forgot to tell you about this, with this lady. I won't go into details.
We were in this big group setting, and there were Republicans there, Democrats there. It was it was a vacation. We ended up at this big table, like, 10 people at this table, having a cup of cocktails after dinner, just talking about life. And there were these 2 liberal white women from Chicago. And they loved their mayor, Brandon Johnson.
Love them. They actually referenced them as BJ, was his name. Right? BJ. I'm not kidding you not.
They kept calling him BJ. I'm like, he's Kamala Harris or something like that. He's gonna be j this and be j that. But I kept my mouth shut, Tucker. Believe it or not.
I know no one's gonna believe that. I sat there and listened and just watched and just listened as these people were talking. Whether it was this oilfield guy from Texas, you love this guy, this total cowboy, red America the great, all this, and he wasn't holding back. And he finally challenges this woman about the crime in Chicago. And he says to her, you you talk about BJ this and Chicago's great that.
Look at these murder numbers, and it's a disaster. And you got people taking over Union Square. It's it's crazy. How can you defend it? And Tucker, on my life, cross my heart, and hope to die.
This lady looked him right in the eye, and she said, well, yeah. If you come to Chicago, you might get robbed. But you're not gonna be targeted. That that was her explanation. Well, yeah.
You might get robbed here, but they're not gonna target you for assassination. Why are you complaining? Chicago is wonderful. In her mind, that was a good explanation. People do not understand how sick the mind of the liberal white woman is, and they don't understand that that is the true beating heart of the Democrat party today.
I'm not even actually trying to be mean about this. It's why they talk to them. Do do people know that married women vote Republican? Married women vote Republican. Married men vote Republican.
Single men vote Republican. But it's something like, 77% of single women vote democrat. And the majority, over 58% of those women, have been diagnosed with mental illness. Single, miserable women who are clinically insane are the beating heart of the democrat party. And that's why these people do the things they do.
And that's why they do what they do when it comes to illegal immigration, because single white women view illegal immigration like like like rescuing, dogs who've been abused. Oh, sure. Everybody just come into my country. Please rape anyone you want. Of of course, that's the right thing to do.
No love of country. Just sitting there popping her antianxiety medication as she destroys western civilization. That's the truth.
Speaker 0: I don't think you get the credit for being as deep and insightful as you are. Last question since you live in Texas. Do you notice it? Do you notice the effects of this invasion on your state?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's I'll tell you, Tucker. I I don't live in Houston proper. I would never live in it. It's too blue.
I don't live in blue areas. But occasionally, we have to go in there if it's, if it's an event or if it's an airport or something like that, Especially over the last year, maybe last 2 years, it is noticeably dirtier, more dangerous. It's a place my wife will not venture now unless I am with her. It is it is very, very noticeable, especially in the urban areas and around the urban areas where these illegals know they can just disappear into the ether. They are protected in these places.
They're provided for. I mean, my goodness. And the Venezuelans were shipping in New York City have special Venezuelan cuisine, courtesy of the US taxpayer. So, yes, anytime you're in one of these blue areas in, especially Houston, Austin's really bad. Now you notice it.
It it it's bad. You can't drive a Ford f 150 pickup truck into the city of San Antonio right now. And if you do, you better have all your valuables out of it because it'll be gone about 15 minutes after you walk into Starbucks. It's bad now. Bad.
Speaker 0: But but you mentioned the cost of it. I mean, it feels like impossible to predict, of course, but it feels like the US economy is hollow and maybe on the verge of, like, an actual reset where we have to face the fact that we're not as rich as we thought we were. If that happens, are people gonna start to do you think notice that all the services they pay for are no longer available? Health care, education, the roads. Like, are they gonna wanna continue to pay for criminals from Venezuela to live for free in our country?
Won't that change attitudes?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. They're gonna wanna continue to do it for a time, Tucker, because there is so much there's so many lies out there that are created for people now, even normal people where they can't they don't know how to access real true information. Especially if you're, not and this is not insulting older people, but if you're an older, more traditional American. Not even some America hating piece of trash Democrat, but just a normal American.
You go to work, you have a family, everything else. And then at home, when you when you're having dinner, maybe you finished dinner, you have a beer, and you turn on what? NBC, ABC, CBS, you get caught up on the news of the day. Unless you are seeking out shows like this on x, podcast, things like that. Unless you're seeking out information if you're just existing in the ether you live in a world entirely of make believe even the normal American doesn't understand what's going on and they don't understand why they're seeing the things they're seeing people don't people who live in Southern California don't understand why the hospitals are closing they don't they don't totally get it people in New York City don't understand why there's a new Spanish speaking wing in aid and jaden and Braden's new elementary school they don't quite understand what's happening.
If you're in Chicago, you don't understand why now measles is making a comeback. People don't make the connection because they don't access true information. We're so demoralized as a people, and we've been so battered down by lies through our education system and media for years that we are a people very lost and listless right now. And we don't we need we need to find our anchor, for sure.
Speaker 0: People like that can be destroyed, I think.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, that's why they did it.
Speaker 0: Yo. You're right. Jesse Kelly, I sure appreciate that. Interesting, and as I said, just really insightful. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Be good, my brother. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. Global blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
@Keir_Starmer Meanwhile, you have to wonder how many of the government cabinet positions have been infiltrated by Klaus Schwab and the WEF ? Who’s actually running the UK today? Things that make you go hmmm 🧐 https://youtu.be/A1m4zZvyCxg?si=R2V50xN4olSHuwCP https://t.co/zLmif8G03R
Video Transcript AI Summary
Our upcoming elections in the UK are being influenced by a transition to stakeholder capitalism, led by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. This new political system gives stakeholders control over companies and lives. UK leaders like Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer are promoting this transition. The stakeholders are canceling and censoring those who oppose them, while pushing propaganda to manipulate the public. To learn more, watch the documentary series "Stakeholder Communism" for free.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's something we're not being told about our upcoming elections in the UK. Our 2 major parties have been compromised and are undemocratically transitioning us away from shareholder capitalism to another political system. This short story begins with Klaus Schwab, the executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: We are working closely together with governments from around the world, including all g 20 countries.
Speaker 0: These exclusive elite members, called stakeholders include the heads of all g 20 countries from the US and UK to communist countries like China.
Speaker 1: What we are very proud of now is the young generation like, prime minister Trudeau, so if we penetrate the cabinets.
Speaker 0: After penetrating our cabinets, Schwab and his stakeholders have enacted a 10 year transition to another political system, which Schwab designed
Speaker 1: I pioneered the stakeholder concept.
Speaker 0: Called stakeholder capitalism.
Speaker 1: Stakeholder capitalism is finally becoming mainstream.
Speaker 0: This single global authoritarian system provides the stakeholders unprecedented control over our companies and lives.
Speaker 1: The Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries.
Speaker 0: Promoted on the cover of Klaus Schwab's book, stakeholder capitalism's slogan is propagated by the heads of all g 20 countries and other powerful stakeholders.
Speaker 1: People and planet. People and planet.
Speaker 0: In the UK, prime minister and stakeholder, Rishi Sunak, has already made stakeholder capitalism's credit score mandatory for large companies. We're announcing the UK's intention to mandate climate disclosures. Sunak's opposition, Keir Starmer, is also a World Economic Forum stakeholder. Transition.
Speaker 1: To stakeholder capitalism by enacting its transition.
Speaker 0: To stakeholder capitalism by enacting its Marxist and tyrannical policies.
Speaker 1: This is the best time for leaders to work jointly for the world to become more inclusive, more sustainable.
Speaker 0: If If you've wondered what's causing these strange events, it's because we're witnessing a cultural revolution, a social movement manufactured by tyrants Create a stronger inclusiveness. To drive a shift from the bottom up to a more inclusive political system.
Speaker 1: You have been promoting the stakeholder consent.
Speaker 0: The era will be inclusive for them. Other powerful UK stakeholders include Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, and Sadiq Khan, as well the head of the BBC, and our media regulator, Ofcom. They've been indoctrinating us to believe narratives about them acquiring totalitarian authority are dangerous right wing conspiracy theories. What can you do if someone you know has fallen down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole? As well as manipulating us with propaganda, the stakeholders have been canceling and censoring anyone who shares the truth.
Under new online safety laws, laws, conversation and discourse is being shut down. To discover how stakeholder capitalism works, Schwab's full plan for transitioning us, and what we can do about it, watch my feature documentary series, stakeholder communism, for free at yellow.forum.
reSee.it AI Summary
Many people are missing the bigger picture, as this is a global issue. The mainstream media distracts us with lies, making it hard for Americans to keep up. The UN and the WEF are trying to deceive us with fancy words. Trump is in their way, and this is not over. There are compromised governments, including our own. Watch the trailer and the full documentary to understand the magnitude of the situation. God bless America and President Trump.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
It is a lot bigger and many people are missing the bigger picture. This is global. Everyone’s so busy just trying to survive , not to mention MSM keeps us distracted spewing lies. It’s hard for many America to keep up. This is global , just like Covid was global. The UN , the WEF , they are trying desperately to regain the narrative with lots of fancy words, all design to deceive you as they keep spreading more lies as well. Bottom line. Trump is in their way. This is not over. They will not stop. We have compromise governments around the 🌎 and Klaus Schuab is on record bragging about it, including our own !! This trailer puts a big spot light on it. If you REALLY want to understand what is actually at play here watch this trailer. If that peeks your interest then follow the link and watch the full documentary. Then you will realize what we’re up against and how big it really is. God bless America 🇺🇸 and god bless president #Trump2024 ✌🏼🇺🇸 https://youtu.be/A1m4zZvyCxg?si=ijUAYeNBsjsHUmmP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Our upcoming UK elections are overshadowed by a transition to stakeholder capitalism led by Klaus Schwab and elite stakeholders. This shift to a global authoritarian system grants them control over companies and lives. Leaders like Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer are pushing for this transition, while dissenting voices are silenced. To learn more, watch the documentary series "Stakeholder Communism" for free.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's something we're not being told about our upcoming elections in the UK. Our 2 major parties have been compromised and are undemocratically transitioning us away from shareholder capitalism to another political system. This short story begins with Klaus Schwab, the executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: We are working closely together with governments from around the world, including all g 20 countries.
Speaker 0: These exclusive elite members, called stakeholders include the heads of all g 20 countries from the US and UK to communist countries like China.
Speaker 1: What we are very proud of now is the young generation like, prime minister Trudeau, so if we penetrate the cabinets.
Speaker 0: After penetrating our cabinets, Schwab and his stakeholders have enacted a 10 year transition to another political system, which Schwab designed
Speaker 1: I pioneered the stakeholder concept.
Speaker 0: Called stakeholder capitalism.
Speaker 1: Stakeholder capitalism is finally becoming mainstream.
Speaker 0: This single global authoritarian system provides the stakeholders unprecedented control over our companies and lives.
Speaker 1: The Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries.
Speaker 0: Promoted on the cover of Klaus Schwab's book, stakeholder capitalism's slogan is propagated by the heads of all g 20 countries and other powerful stakeholders.
Speaker 1: People and planet. People and planet.
Speaker 0: In the UK, prime minister and stakeholder, Rishi Sunak, has already made stakeholder capitalism's credit score mandatory for large companies. We're announcing the UK's intention to mandate climate disclosures. Sunak's opposition, Keir Starmer, is also a World Economic Forum stakeholder. Transition.
Speaker 1: To stakeholder capitalism by enacting its transition.
Speaker 0: To stakeholder capitalism by enacting its Marxist and tyrannical policies.
Speaker 1: This is the best time for leaders to work jointly for the world to become more inclusive, more sustainable.
Speaker 0: If If you've wondered what's causing these strange events, it's because we're witnessing a cultural revolution, a social movement manufactured by tyrants Create a stronger inclusiveness. To drive a shift from the bottom up to a more inclusive political system.
Speaker 1: You have been promoting the stakeholder consent.
Speaker 0: The era will be inclusive for them. Other powerful UK stakeholders include Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, and Sadiq Khan, as well the head of the BBC, and our media regulator, Ofcom. They've been indoctrinating us to believe narratives about them acquiring totalitarian authority are dangerous right wing conspiracy theories. What can you do if someone you know has fallen down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole? As well as manipulating us with propaganda, the stakeholders have been canceling and censoring anyone who shares the truth.
Under new online safety laws, laws, conversation and discourse is being shut down. To discover how stakeholder capitalism works, Schwab's full plan for transitioning us, and what we can do about it, watch my feature documentary series, stakeholder communism, for free at yellow.forum.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
BOMBSHELL: New FOIA Documents Reveal the COVID Pandemic Was a DoD Operation Dating Back to Obama "The Pentagon controlled the COVID-19 program from the very beginning and everything we were told was political theater to cover it up right down to the FDA vaccine approval" https://t.co/454A1M4OOF
Video Transcript AI Summary
A bombshell report reveals the Pentagon controlled the COVID-19 program, using shady approval authorizations to shield big pharma from liability. Documents show lack of compliance with good manufacturing practices and deception in clinical trials. The National Security Council treated COVID as an act of war, coordinating with various agencies to keep information secret. The Pentagon ordered countermeasure prototypes, not vaccines, without informed consent. The Biden administration censored lab leak theories. A secret Pandemic Enterprise was formed in 2013 to plan responses. The public was misled about the safety and testing of the injections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, to our top story now, a bombshell new report shows that the Department of Defense yes, the Pentagon controlled the COVID-nineteen program from the very beginning. And everything we were told was political theater, basically to cover it up, right down to the FDA vaccine approval process. It was all theater. That means that human beings were used as props, essentially. According to newly obtained documents, the Pentagon used a combination of shady approval authorizations that are still in use, including the PREP Act, the Emergency Use Authorization, and Other Transaction Authority, the OTA, all of which shielded big pharma agencies, medical participants that delivered unregulated vaccines from any liability and protected them, basically.
We've gone through a lot of these documents and just showed how they are not on the hook for any of this liability. These documents, these new documents, were obtained by a former executive of a pharmaceutical contract resource organization. That person is Sasha Lydipova. And Sasha joins us now to tell us what she's uncovered. Thank you so much for coming on this on the show, Sasha.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. This is intense. I mean, when you first uncovered these documents, did your jaw just hit the floor, or did you know that this is what you were going to find based on the breadcrumbs you were already uncovering?
Speaker 1: Well, I, yeah, I I I was really shocked. I was working on this for quite some time. So I first, my first finding was that these products were not, good manufacturing practice compliant, and that I found right away when they started being rolled out due to extreme variability of adverse events and deaths that were reported per each lot of the of the so called vaccine. So that was very shocking to me as a pharmaceutical, professional because we know how high quality, pharmaceuticals typically must be manufactured. You know, they have to be very, very consistent.
There should be practically no variation lot to lot in terms of, toxicities or or any other performance characteristics. And these products were varying about 1,000 times lot to lot. So that was extremely concerning, and, I didn't realize why that was happening, but I just knew that they were not good manufacturing practice compliant. I later confirmed that through regulatory documents. And then the final piece of the puzzle was when I, was able to see all these contracts from the DOD.
They were released, based on freedom of information request and also securities and exchange commission disclosures. And, when I saw those contracts, there were around 400 that are now available for all COVID so called COVID countermeasures including vaccines. I realized that was really what was going on. The Department of Defense used a very, shady contracting practices and also used several, laws that were put in place previously, previous to COVID, to, to do this, to shield pharmaceutical companies, to not conduct, you know, proper clinical trials, to do a lot of, fraudulent, I would say, manipulations of public perception, and all in collusion, obviously, with mainstream media and these pharma companies. And so as a result, we have this theatrical performance called, clinical trials, but they were actually not real.
They were they did not, you know, based on the laws that are used here and invoked in this process, the clinical trials are not required at all. And and in fact, they cannot be conducted.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's one of there's many there's many really troubling parts of the story. We'll we'll unpack a few of them. But that one stands out to me, perhaps, at the top of the list is the theatrics that were put in place for these trials. So there were human beings, in many ways, being used as props to paint the veneer that they were somehow going through deep trials to make sure that we were all safe with these vaccines. And you have I know there was, for instance, a 13 year old girl.
They, in fact, had an ad. The vaccine safety council had put out an ad that was gonna run during the Super Bowl, then it was yanked by Comcast. They wouldn't allow it to air, which shows a perfectly healthy 13 year old girl who went through this particular trial, and then ended up having all sorts of adverse events. So these people were used as props, essentially, right?
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. And so the the clinical trial subjects were deceived. And but importantly, most of the clinical trial sites and investigators were also deceived, and most of the FDA employees were deceived because this particular scam is driven from the top. Only few people, as far as I understand, at the top of these organizations, the Department of Defense, HHS, FDA, BARDA, their legal, counsels, they know.
But then the rest of the regular employees and rank and file and especially clinical trial subjects, of course, were kept in the dark. And in fact, under Obama Administration Cures Act, amended, I believe, the, emergency user authorization or the not emergency. The the, informed consent requirements such that subjects don't have to be necessarily informed of what's going on if it's deemed not in their best interest. And so, again, through, you know, it's too long to go into the legal history. There is very extensive research, hundreds of pages of documents on legal history of this.
But the the laws that they're invoking to run this program do not require informed consent, and also do not require the clinical trials. So the people involved
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. This is unbelievable. So the people involved in these trials, they don't need to be informed about what is happening?
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. So the the informed consent rules have been amended under Obama to say that if it's not in the best interest of the subject, who decides if it if it is or it isn't? But that's what it says. So, you know, these these types of things can be concealed from people that this this actually under, under emergency use use authorization used during public health emergency.
This is very critical. That's why they keep extending public health emergency beyond any we don't have any emergency, but they keep extending it. Why? Because they need this. Under public health emergency, emergency use authorized, these kinds of medications countermeasures.
That's a that's a key word. These are not vaccines. They're countermeasures. So all these 3 together, they can use it this way. They don't have to inform the subjects what it is.
They can use a lot of secrecy. They don't have to run clinical trials. They're not required because these products cannot be investigational products. That's what the law says. If they cannot be investigational products, then we don't have any investigation.
We don't have any clinical trial subject. So that's that's how they they're pulling us off.
Speaker 0: So it's at the Pentagon. It's at the Department of Defense. You talked about countermeasures. And of course, think what we all think of immediately as a foreign threat, Right? That this is you're dealing with the Pentagon.
Right? It's supposed to protect us against foreign adversaries. So how is COVID a foreign adversary? And how is this being run through through the Pentagon?
Speaker 1: That's a great question. So, from the very beginning, it turns out that the Trump administration and, subsequently Biden administration treated this, COVID as war, as an act of war. Because the National Security Council is setting COVID response policy, which is National Security Council doesn't have any health, health, department representatives, only, defense and intelligence. And so, so National Security Council sets policy for COVID. HHS is not setting policy.
HHS does not lead agency in response to it. They're managing information. So there so the the talk of the government is treating it as an act of war, and they're telling all of us, oh, it's a health event. It's a naturally evolved virus jumped from a bat. And don't even mention, you know, lab creation because you'll be canceled on social media immediately and censored.
Right? So right from the start, we have huge deception going on. What, in fact, they're treating as war. They're telling people it's hell's event.
Speaker 0: And we learned from the and we learned from the Twitter files, Sasha, just this past week, the latest round of Twitter files, that the Biden administration was actively going after and trying to censor anybody who talked about lab leak theories and talked about Wuhan lab. And we're going after this idea that this came from a bat, it came out of a lab. And so they were actively trying to censor that narrative. And so this was all coordinated. And we know that multiple agencies were actively, of course, going after Twitter and social media companies, and trying to keep this quiet.
In these documents, does your research show, I mean, just how deeply does this go? And how how widespread is the Pentagon's tentacles in this? Does it reach to to doctor Fauci? Does it reach to, other main agencies?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. So they're all, they're all, in fact, coordinating this. In fact, there is, they even set up in 2013. So, by the way, the the planning goes preplanning goes years, at least 2012, 2013 based on the contracts and based on the documents that I I haven't covered. So for example, there is Pandemic Enterprise.
It's a quasi quasi private, quasi government enterprise that's been set up in 2013 that involves 10 heads of federal agencies. It's called PEMSI, the the abbreviation. And, so so 10 heads of federal agencies, including Department of Defense, HHS, FDA, NIH, Department of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs. So all of them together get together and secretly discuss these kinds of countermeasures, very secretly. So there there there is their memorandum of understanding pasted on on, on FDA's website.
And most of it, 90% of it deals with how we're going to keep everything secret between each other, all the confidentiality disclosures, how we're going to communicate about this. So so we have this cabal form with a lot of secrecy and a lot of procedures to maintain secrecy about pandemic responses in 2013.
Speaker 0: It's almost like they knew this was coming. I mean, this is where we talk about conspiracy theories on this show. I mean, we and it's all true. I mean, this is unbelievable. There it is.
There it is. All in 2013. It's all laid out.
Speaker 1: It's it's laid out how they're going to to keep everything secret. And I and I and I wonder why what's supposed to be a health event is so secret from the public. So how how is this even you know? So so then so then they're treating it as war, then again telling us it's health. So here we go.
So they're they're covering up military activity with this representation of health event and health response to a health threat. So, so that's where people are not informed right away and and being deceived. And then, you know, because they've they've invoked these set of laws and they're using countermeasures, not even vaccines. So countermeasures are not pharmaceutical products. Countermeasures is a it's all different category.
Speaker 0: FDA has a different To be clear, then it's not technically a vaccine. Right? It's No. It's just a countermeasure.
Speaker 1: Countermeasure and, specifically, Department of Defense ordered them from private manufacturers as prototypes. So people were never told, oh, come over, get injected with countermeasure prototype. Were they?
Speaker 0: No. They weren't told that. Right? Because as you pointed out, they were not on a need to know basis. Right?
So they didn't have to have informed consent. So here's a prototype we're gonna inject you with, just like the 13 year old girl we featured at the beginning here and talked about. Mhmm. Would would her family have allowed that if they knew that this was just a prototype?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. No. People were told, oh, this is vaccine. This is safe and effective. It's been tested rigorously.
By the way, no testing of safety have been done. They they have not done any animal trials. They have not completed any animal trials, not not even started them before they started mass injecting people in human trials. And that's a complete violation of all regulations everywhere in the world in you know, including FDA. And, again, nobody was told that.
They said, oh, it's been tested. It's been in development. We've done clinical preclinical trials, and they've done none. They just went straight into people and injecting, this girl who is now paralyzed as far as I understand.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
@ImMeme0 Just in case anyone missed it. https://t.co/gxcuY0YkPn
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by pretending to be Christian. I witnessed people being sent to death camps at 14, shaping my character to think ahead and anticipate threats. I assisted in confiscating property from Jews without feeling guilt, as I saw myself as a mere spectator, not actively involved.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Speaker 1: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that, that's when my character was made. In what way? That one should think ahead, one should understand and anticipate events, and one is threatened.
It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, this was a very personal experience of evil.
Speaker 0: My understanding is, is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were is adopted God's son. Yes. Went out in fact and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yes.
Speaker 0: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Speaker 1: Not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child, you don't see the connection, but it was it created no problem at all.
Speaker 0: No feeling of guilt? No. For example, that I'm Jewish and here I am watching these people go, I could just as easily be there, I should be there, none of that.
Speaker 1: Well, of course, I could be on the other side, or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there because that was, well, actually, funny way, it's just like in markets that if I weren't there, of course I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would would be taking it away anyhow. You know, it was the whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
The World Population HOAX https://t.co/3vg9N03LKq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The world population has allegedly reached 8 billion, but skepticism arises due to discrepancies in official statistics. India and the world's 300 largest cities show population figures that don't add up to the reported numbers. Exaggerated population data is used by governments to secure more funding and control. The overpopulation myth has led to harmful policies like China's one-child policy and forced sterilization in various countries. The real issue lies in government control, not population growth.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The official numbers for world population released by the United Nations, as of now, have just surpassed 8,000,000,000 people living on earth. In 1800, there were only 900,000,000 members of the human family spread across the world, raising to 1.6 5,000,000,000 in 1900 and skyrocketing to nearly 7,000,000,000 in the year 2000. Now in 2023, we have allegedly just passed the 8,000,000,000 mark. Given past failures and the many lies spewed by the UN during recent world events, however, It is fair and justified to remain skeptical of such statistics and to do some independent investigation before blindly believing. By collecting official statistics and doing your own math, it is difficult to find a way for these numbers to add up.
For example, India supposedly has a country wide population of well over 1,400,000,000 citizens. But when practical calculations are made using the UN's own numbers, how they could possibly conclude such a high figure is clear as mud. Taking their official figures of populations from the largest 300 cities in India, from 12,400,000 in the biggest city Mumbai, to just over a 100,000 in the 300th placed city of Aurangabad. And adding them all together, that barely accounts for 200,000,000 of this supposed 1,400,000,000. If all the 300 places with the largest populations in India taken together, only account for 200,000,000 people, it is statistically and geographically impossible for there to be another 7 times this number mysteriously hiding out in the remaining small towns and villages with populations all lower than a 100,000.
A similar situation occurs when adding up the official figures for the entire world's 300 most populated cities. Taking the UN's own official statistics, from 24,100,000 in the world's largest city of Shanghai, China, to only 361,000 people in the 300th largest city of Beirut, Lebanon. The combined figures only come out to approximately 1,000,000,000 people. Even after adding all the statistics calculated for surrounding metropolitan and suburban housing areas around each city, the total only amounts to around 1,500,000,000. Where are these other alleged 6,500,000,000 people hiding?
Being generous, independent analysts have estimated, at most, another 1,000,000,000 people who could possibly be spread out across the world's rural countrysides, still putting the actual number well below 3,000,000,000. The likely reason for these exaggerated statistics is that governments are incentivized to lie about population figures in order to collect more money for social programs. Then by raising population figures to shocking levels, fear is created in the minds of the masses, and they are even more easily able to control and sell us unexpensive, enslaving solutions. This hoax has resulted in 1,000,000,000 of dollars spent fighting the phantom of so called overpopulation, and led to many inhumane population control programs. In reality, however, if everyone were all squeezed into a population density of 27,000 per square mile, which is comparable to New York City, 8,000,000,000 people would only fill up the state of Texas, leaving the entire rest of the world uninhabited.
Thus, the idea that earth is dangerously overpopulated, and governments need to take drastic measures to combat the issue, is another paper tiger attempting to scare us into submission. Overpopulation concerns led China to enact a brutal one child policy. Forced sterilization is a method of population control in some countries. Nearly a quarter 1000000 Peruvian women were sterilized. Our government, through the UN Population Fund, is involved in population moderation programs around the world, including in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mangia, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.
The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government, not population growth.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
@liz_churchill10 Most people know what /who Blackrock is. But , do you know how powerful they are? Here’s a quick little education on Blackrock. Very scary just how powerful they have become. https://t.co/5tItklUswv
Video Transcript AI Summary
A senior adviser to BlackRock revealed that a group of elites, including leaders from major financial institutions and central banks, are working towards establishing a one-world order, one-world taxation, and one-world money. They plan to freeze the global financial system during an upcoming crisis and reset the world economy according to their vision. BlackRock is targeted to be classified as "too big to fail," allowing the elites to take control of its assets remotely. The elites, who are not democratically elected, include individuals such as Christine Lagarde, Mark Carney, and Ben Bernanke. The elites have conducted dry runs in countries like Cyprus, freezing entire banking systems and extracting wealth from citizens. This coordinated attack on the global financial system will have severe consequences for citizens worldwide.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was having dinner with a friend not long ago in New York City. We met at a place called Ariel, which is in Midtown. My dinner companion that night was a senior adviser to BlackRock. As you may know, BlackRock is now the largest asset manager on the planet. It directly manages $5,000,000,000,000 in assets, and it oversees another $11,000,000,000,000 through its Aladdin platform.
That means 1 firm controls more money than the GDPs of China, Russia, and Japan combined. Anyway, my dinner companion happens to work directly for BlackRock CEO. As we nourished our white wine and the evening wore on, she let something slip. If I remember her words, she said something like, they want to tell us we can't sell. What was she talking about?
Who was she talking about? I placed a few calls, first to my contacts in Washington, then to a few people on Wall Street. Soon, I was on a plane for a series of meetings to London, to Geneva, back to New York then down to South America. As I began connecting the dots, a pattern emerged. It revealed a network of more than 189 individuals positioned inside the world's major financial institutions.
Some of them hold senior positions inside the IMF, World Bank, and every central bank in the g twenty, including our own Federal Reserve. These elites share one vision, and they're about to make it a reality. That vision is one world order, One World Taxation and One World Money. They've worked for years behind the scenes preparing to realize that vision. They've literally rigged the laws of international Finance.
Everything is basically in place right now, and there's essentially no way to stop this from happening. When the crisis hits, they'll flip the switch, freezing the global financial system. That will give them time to reset the world economy according to their vision. As the coming crisis unfolds, president Trump will be powerless to stop it. In In fact, trying to stop them would probably weaken the president's power altogether.
Speaker 1: That is that that that is amazing, Jim. Really. So what did these elites want from your contact at BlackRock?
Speaker 0: Basically, they want to classify BlackRock as too big to fail. The technical term is systemically important financial institution or SIFI. That designation normally applies to banks such as Bank of America. If your bank gets the SIFI label, it means the government will bail you out first in a crisis, but it also means you must turn over control of your bank until the crisis subsides. In this case, they're trying to reclassify BlackRock, an asset manager, as too big to fail.
If they succeed, they'll be able to freeze BlackRock when the crisis hits. BlackRock clients won't be able to sell. They won't be able to buy either. Their accounts will go dark indefinitely, and the elite operators will take control of BlackRock's assets remotely via the Internet. But our research shows that their ICE nine plan goes much, much deeper than that.
Speaker 1: That you refer to their plan as ICE nine. You just said that. What what does that mean?
Speaker 0: It's a reference to the Kurt Vonnegut novel, Cat's Cradle. In the book, a mad scientist creates a new form of water molecule called ice 9. When it comes in contact with other water molecules, it freezes them at room temperature. One job of Einstein can freeze the whole ocean, and that's what these elite operators are about to do
Speaker 1: to the world economy. Now can you share with our viewers exactly who these operatives are and and what their ultimate goal might be?
Speaker 0: Like I said, John, more than 189 elite agents have slowly wormed their way into leadership positions across the board. They now sit at or near the head of the IMF, the World Bank, and even our own Federal Reserve. They also control much of what happens at the central banks of China, Russia, India, Brazil, Canada, and Europe. As you know, these institutions form a kind of global superstructure. It forms a kind of snare net encircling all nations.
Their leaders aren't democratically elected. They're not accountable to you and me. They're beyond the reach of government and citizens, and yet they hold the fate of the global financial system in their hands. To get a sense of how they Trade. Imagine an array of floating spheres.
1 sphere is labeled IMF, 1 is labeled Fed, 1 is labeled Bilderberg, 1 is labeled Wall Street, One is labeled central banks, one is labeled intelligence agencies, one is labeled media, and so on. The elites inhabit all of these spheres, and together, the network forms a kind of 3 d Venn diagram. As I see it, regardless of what sphere they inhabit, the elites all share the same vision, One world order, one world taxation, and one world money. All of their actions are geared toward moving that agenda forward. Now are you able to share the identities of these elites with our viewers?
We've identified more than 189 individuals who are in many cases hiding in plain sight. Regardless, they all share the same vision, one world order, one world taxation, and one world money. A shortlist would include Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, IMF, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, Raghuram ji Rajan, vice chairman of a bank for international settlements, Haruhiko Kuroda, governor of the Bank of Japan, William c Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Agustin Costens, governor of the Bank of Mexico, Janet Yellen, chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve System, Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, Zhilin, former deputy managing director of the IMF, Zhejiang, governor of the People's Bank of China, Robert e Rubin, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. This a list of central bankers and other elites is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, not one of these elites will tell you outright what's going on, but I've seen and heard enough to connect the dots for myself.
Not long ago, for example, I met with one of their senior operators. He's a leading economist who served as the chairman of the Federal Reserve during the last crisis. He's considered one of the most influential minds in banking today. We met privately during a conclave in Seoul, South Korea. Of course, I'm talking about Ben Bernanke.
I came away from my meeting with him stunned and convinced that ice nine was real. Not long before that, I set a 1 on 1 meeting with another member of the network. His name is Zhu Min, the former deputy governor of China's Central Bank. Until recently, he served as deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Zhu is a brilliant guy like Bernanke, and he's pleasant and well meaning.
There's no doubt in my mind that he's also a member of the elite network preparing to impose ICE 9 on millions of Americans, but I wasn't done with my research. I have since met with dozens of senior officials, intelligence analysts, and former Wall Street colleagues. My quest led to a final meeting, a face to face summit with the head of Bilderberg. We met at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan, and he was very eager to get my take on the euro as a currency. I was happy to provide it, of course, in exchange for some valuable intelligence.
As I say in my new book, he did not have horns. In fact, he gave me a nice gift when we parted ways, a blue Swedish buzz. I keep it in my writing studio at my home in Connecticut. But my point is I came away from all 3 meetings convinced of one thing. When the next crisis hits, the elites are planning to freeze the financial system and they'll replace with a new system, one not based on the US dollar.
When that happens, we'll wake up to a very strange and disturbing new reality.
Speaker 1: And for our viewers that are watching today, what Might their reality look like that morning? How does this manifest?
Speaker 0: 1st, they'll have gone to bed knowing that a massive financial crisis was underway. But when they wake up, they'll find it has worsened and the contagion has spread worldwide. When they go to withdraw money, their ATM will say closed temporarily. When When they go to sell stocks, their account will say transaction not available. When they go to their local business, that business will only accept cash if it's open.
As citizens realize they're being barred from the money, riots will erupt. It's going to get really bad really quickly.
Speaker 1: How would such a freeze Actually work, and and wouldn't that
Speaker 0: be highly illegal? Well, it wouldn't be illegal technically because they've been quietly laying the groundwork for years. They rigged the financial laws, changed the rules of the game to allow this to happen. The stage is set. They have the levers in place.
The lights are positioned. Now someone just needs to flick a switch and they'll impose ICE 9 rapidly. And again, all of this will be legal because they've rigged the system in their favor. Here in the US, for example, congress pushed through something called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPAA. This allows the government to freeze accounts, assets, even whole Rock.
The only condition is that there's some threat to national security with a foreign connection. Of course, with a global market, every financial crisis has a foreign connection. Any systemic crisis fits the bill. And the thing is, when the next crisis hits, it's going to be so bad, president Trump won't have any choice but to go along with the elite plan.
Speaker 1: Wow. That that is you have to admit that sounds somewhat hard to believe. Now how could these operatives actually freeze a whole country's financial system.
Speaker 0: Well, fortunately, we have some recent real life examples to study. The elites have been conducting a series of dry runs for years leading up Ice 9. Look at Cypress, for example. A few years ago, the Cypriot economy was in trouble, especially the banks. The IMF stepped in and loaned Cypress $10,000,000,000, but the loan came with strings.
Now pay attention because this is precisely what they're going to do, but imagine it on a global scale. So in exchange for the capital injection, the IMF demanded control over the Cypriot banking system. More specifically, the IMF froze the entire system, literally every bank in the country, Rodey, and they did that to ensure the IMS demands were met, including strict capital controls. So how did all this impact regular citizens? Their local ATMs went dark.
Even the bank branch is closed permanently in some cases. Citizens could not withdraw cash. They couldn't even transfer funds from 1 account to the other. What came next? Wealth extraction on a grand scale.
The IMF basically stole 6 to 10% of all the cash in the Cypriot bank accounts. How did the at least justify this? They called it a levy, the price regular citizens had to pay for their government's missteps. Keep in mind, these asset confiscations were done at the balance sheet level with the institutions themselves. They never had to confiscate individual accounts.
They froze every account by controlling a handful of the country's biggest banks. When the next crisis hits, we're going to see this here in the US and around the world, and it'll be a highly coordinated global attack on the entire system simultaneously
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
@DiedSuddenly_ Pure and simple , attempted murder in this case. Many other people not so lucky. https://t.co/WqZldy7htu
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are 3,400 peer-reviewed papers in the National Library of Medicine that describe fatal and nonfatal vaccine injury syndromes. These vaccines cause real side effects in four major categories: cardiovascular issues like heart inflammation and cardiac arrest, neurologic problems such as stroke and neuropathy, unprecedented blood clotting that doesn't respond to usual treatments, and immune system abnormalities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As we sit here today, we have 34 100 peer reviewed papers describing fatal and nonfatal vaccine injury syndromes in the National Library of Medicine. It is not controversial. It's not a theory. It is real. These vaccines cause very real side effects, and they're in 4 major categories.
1 is cardiovascular and cardi heart inflammation, myocarditis, cardiac arrest. Number 2 is neurologic, all forms of stroke, Gambray syndrome, neuropathy. Number 3, blood clotting. Blood clotting like we've never seen in medicine before. Blood clots that don't respond to typical blood thinners that are just a disaster.
And number 4, immune system abnormalities.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
@WesleyHuntTX Another good tune. https://t.co/WENsZXrRCu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Every American citizen is eagerly awaiting November 5th to vote for Donald Trump. People from all walks of life, regardless of their race, are united in their support for Trump. He is seen as America's quarterback, despite some criticism for his treatment of children and his choice of a black receptionist. There is a shout-out to Vannie Johnson, who is praised as a true American gangster. The video also mentions Democrats trying to cancel the voices of those who want to vote for Trump, while highlighting concerns about the transparency of the election process.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Every legal citizen in America cannot wait till November 5th to vote for Donald Trump. Make America Trump again. All around the country, you know we're voting Trump. White, white, black, and brown. United, we're voting Trump.
America's quarterback. Oh, Donald Trump. Face picking on children. Hey. Keeping his receptionist already black on his face.
Shout out Vannie Johnson, true American gangster. Demi's trying to cancel boys they won a favor to bang vote for Donald Trump. Ford, though. Democrats love it cheap. Nothing says free and fair elections like covering windows while counting ballots.
Fair elections
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
@JimFergusonUK Just in case anyone missed it. 👇🏼 https://t.co/OHJdf4gHLK
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses their involvement in building a vaccine payment system in New Zealand. They noticed discrepancies in the data, specifically a high number of deaths occurring shortly after vaccination. They provide information on the top ten batches with high mortality rates and mention a website where people can find their batch information. The speaker also highlights the high mortality rates among certain vaccinators. They question the reasons behind these deaths and emphasize that vaccines are meant to protect individuals. The speaker presents a chart showing spikes in deaths during flu seasons and a significant increase in deaths in 2021, even after COVID cases decreased. They conclude that the death rate in New Zealand has been increasing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I was involved with building a project, helped with, implementing a vaccine payment system for our providers. It's called a pay per dose system. So it means that every time someone gets vaccinated, they get They get a payment for it as a provider. And I helped build it.
I implemented it. And when I was looking at the data, which is part of my job, I noticed some discrepancies with the dates, of death, people getting people dying within a week of being vaccinated.
Speaker 1: So what did you notice When you first started to look at this data as you were building it?
Speaker 0: Well, as soon as the system went live, we noticed that, People were dying almost straight away after being injected. So that sort of prompted my curiosity a bit, and, So I dug a little deeper, and I am a scientist by nature. I I love science. It's my all time favorite. I've got a I've got a master's degree in signs.
No one Potentially does. This data. Nobody but me in New Zealand has seen this data. Now I'm giving it to the world.
Speaker 1: Explain why. Explain it.
Speaker 0: Because it's a it's a payment system, and I'm the database administrator for it. I'm the only one. Because New Zealand is a small country, you can get away with 1 database administrator to do this. So I'm in a unique position in the world. And because New Zealand is a tier one country with really good IT, I was able to manage and build the system and as be the only database administrator needed to look after it.
In other countries like America or Britain, you'd need a whole team of people. So it'd be very difficult for 1 person to get access to all of this information. But in New Zealand, because of the size and because it's got really good IT, I happen to be the the one.
Speaker 1: A lot of people want to know what was my batch? What can you do to help keep us with that?
Speaker 0: Okay. So what I did with the data was, look at the Top 10, batches that were had a high death count, a high mortality rate. And I put them on a chart, which you can see up there. So it's got a batch ID which is our internal number for a batch, but you can easily get the Pfizer batch ID from that. It shouldn't be too difficult.
Speaker 1: Tell us more about that because a lot of people will say, hey, that's only the top ten. I want to know my batch. What would you advise?
Speaker 0: Yep. You can do that. There's a website, find my batch for the whole world that can actually find that. And I we can list this on, a website, the whole number of batches. There are 119 individual batches so far in New Zealand, 119.
Speaker 1: Of the Pfizer?
Speaker 0: Of the Pfizer. Actually, not of all of them because we have we have Moderna. We have AstraZeneca, but they're only few and far between. Mostly, it's Pfizer. Mostly it's Pfizer in New Zealand.
Speaker 1: So people can find that?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Find my badge?
Speaker 0: Yes. They should be able to. Yes. Hello. So what I did was Our internal batch ID, I counted the number of vaccinated within that batch, and then I found out who was dead.
And so we then look at the percentage of the ratio.
Speaker 1: So do we know if these are all Pfizer, the top ten? And this is Pfizer's batch number 1. We've had 7 11 from batch number 1 vaccinated. 152 of those died, which makes a 21% death rate, Mortality rates. They are high.
Now
Speaker 0: There are different ways to look at the data. You can slice it and dice it. So another way I looked at it was, are the vaccinators themselves? What are they doing? Are we looking at some who have got a higher mortality rate than others?
And sure enough, If we look at the next one, unfortunately, there are some what we have here are the top Ten vaccinators who have the highest ratios of mortality.
Speaker 1: For privacy reasons, We have redacted the names of those jabbed and the names of those jabbed.
Speaker 0: We have to.
Speaker 1: We have, yes. So we've just called it VaccinatorOne.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But these are individuals. These are real people. These are real numbers. This is government data.
So the top v one That's vaccinated 2 46 people, and 60 of them are no longer with us.
Speaker 1: That is nearly 25%. One in 4,
Speaker 0: nearly 1 in 4 that, that person vaccinated is no dead. And you can come up with any number of reasons for it, For this should never happen. This should never happen. If they were all doing their job correctly, if there's a normal vaccine, who will be 0.75.
Speaker 1: And if you are arguing, okay, there was 1 vaccinator who was incompetent, not doing the job properly, That's an aberration, but look at the other numbers. So it looks then we start to say, what is it they were putting into people's bodies? Because the uniformity is what they were putting in. Look at this one, 621 by vaccinated, the 3rd highest Vaccinated. 621, 104 people dead, nearly 17% of the people they jabbed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And unless they they go around, terminally ill cancer wards And injecting people, who they know are gonna die, then there is no other explanation for this then. And why would they be doing that anyway? You know, it doesn't make any sense. The vaccine is meant to protect those people.
On the left there, the big red line, is the Christchurch earthquake event. So that is the outlier, and that's a lot of people died on that day. From there, the next Line where you get more than 120 people dying is sometime 2012. Then you get nothing for a year. 2013 doesn't have any.
2014, you got a couple, then nothing. 2016, you got one, Then nothing until 2018 where you get a whole bunch of whole cluster. That's probably due to a flu epidemic because always These spikes that you see, these black lines previously on the left hand side, they're all due to the winter flu season. So you've got to remember that they all these deaths happened June, July, August. So there in 2018, we had a big Flu epidemic.
Moving on to the right, we got another one. Then the next red one, the Christchurch massacre, which was in 2019 in March. But from that, you get A cluster in 2020, a whole bunch there. May have been another bad flu season. We don't know.
But then from 2021, Dwyane, you see a black line there appearing and then a slight flick of a switch. Suddenly, the black lines get closer together, and there's more of them, very thick black lines there. So this this one here, peak deaths was COVID, with or from COVID, but then the deaths from COVID, if you look at the World Automotive website correlates to that. At the same time, and they said that over 60 people died with or from COVID. Then after that, it suddenly suddenly drops off.
So after that, you only get a couple of people a day dying with or from COVID. So if you if you go back to the chart there, in that case, you would you would expect to see the black lines disappear because no one's dying from COVID anymore. Right? But you're not you're absolutely not. You're seeing the black lines.
There are more people dying than ever before. These are the biggest number of deaths we've seen in history of New Zealand. The death rate has gone up 6%, 8% year on year. Even after COVID wasn't a thing, the death rate is still going up. And that's illustrated here by these black lines which are still going on.
reSee.it AI Summary
Georgia's election fraud was extensive: 2,056 felons voted, 66,248 under 18 voted, 2,423 weren't registered, 1,043 used PO Boxes, 4,926 voted late, 10,315 deceased voted, 395 voted twice, 15,700 moved out, 40,279 changed counties. Trump and 18 others face 41 charges for exposing this theft. Dark days in America.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
GEORGIA Fraud was the worst of all: 2,056 felons illegally voted 66,248 under 18 voted 2,423 weren’t registered at all 1,043 used a PO Box 4,926 voted past the reg. date 10,315 died before the election 395 voted in two states 15,700 moved out of state 40,279 changed county Trump and 18 others charged 41 counts for exposing election theft. These dark days in America
Video Transcript AI Summary
66,248 underage individuals illegally registered to vote in Georgia before turning 17.5 years old, violating the law. Additionally, 2,423 unregistered individuals managed to vote, 1,043 of whom used a post office box to illegally register. Furthermore, 4,926 people voted in Georgia after canceling their voter registration by registering again. The election also saw 10,315 deceased individuals voting, 395 people voting in both Georgia and another state, and 15,700 individuals voting despite filing a change of address with the USPS. Lastly, 40,279 people moved across county lines but failed to properly re-register in their new county, violating Georgia law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Felons voted illegally in Georgia. 66,248 underage and therefore ineligible people to illegally register to vote before their 17th birthday when the law requires 17.5 years old, at least 2,423 individuals to vote who were not listed as registered, 1043 individuals to cast ballots who had illegally registered to vote using a post office box. 4,926 individuals voted in Georgia who had registered to vote after their Georgia voter registration date, thereby canceling their Georgia voter registration. 10,000 315 or more individuals to vote who are deceased by the time of the election. 395 individuals to vote in Georgia who had cast ballots in another state, which is illegal in both states.
15,700 individuals to vote in Georgia who had filed a national change of address with the United States Postal Service prior to November 3, 2020. 40,000 279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines at least 30 days prior to Election Day and who had failed to properly re register to vote in their new county after moving, also in violation of Georgia law.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Director of the World Health Organization Ghebreyesus: "Prepare for the emergence of a new pandemic worse than Corona." Meanwhile, Bill Gates released millions of genetically modified mosquitoes. https://t.co/2LuNzCgBGe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Health officials in Alabama and New York are urging people to protect themselves from mosquitoes due to the spread of a rare virus. One person has already died in Alabama from this virus. Although most people who are bitten won't experience any symptoms, severe cases can start with sudden headaches and high fever. It is important to take precautions to avoid mosquito bites in these areas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Health officials are warning people in Alabama and New York to avoid mosquitoes because of a rare virus can spread if they bite someone. It killed at least 1 person in Alabama. New York's health department says most people You're bitten won't develop any symptoms, but severe cases begin with sudden headaches, high
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
So Biden has Iranian spies working for him , and no a whisper out of MSM. IMAGINE THAT.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Rob Malley, a former official, had his security clearance revoked by the White House for undisclosed reasons. He had hired three Iranian operatives who were spies to help shape the Biden administration's policy on Iran. One of them still holds a senior position in the Department of Defense. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not addressed this issue, despite the fact that the US is providing significant funding to Iran while they support Hamas and the killing of Israelis. It is concerning that Iran would employ Americans to influence American policy. The Biden administration is avoiding taking responsibility for this situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: An espionage scandal connected to Iran and it's getting no coverage. Right. No coverage. Ted Cruz was on life, liberty, and Levin. He laid out some of the details.
Speaker 1: Rob Malley has been fired. His security clearance has been revoked. We don't know why, but he did something so egregious that even this White House revoked a security clearance. What we do know is that Rob Malley brought in 3 senior advisors, all of whom were Iranian operatives. They were spies.
They were recruited by the Iranian government. Those 3 Iranian operatives were helping lead the Biden administration's policy on Iran and one of them remains a chief of staff in a senior position in the Department of Defense, presumably with her security clearances still in place, it is shocking. And you know what? Senate Foreign Relations Committee hasn't held a single hearing on Iranian spies directing our Iranian policy while we're flooding 1,000,000,000 of dollars that is funding Hamas while they're murdering over 1200 Israelis. It is disgraceful and any Democrat who wants to stop it needs to stand up and say cut off the money and get rid of the Iranian spies.
Speaker 2: Amazing. Incredible. Imagine Iran hiring Americans to direct their policy toward America. It's crazy. You know what I mean?
It's crazy that we would allow such a thing. But you can see why the Biden administration now is saying, well, we don't know if Iran's involved because The Biden administration has a lot of culpability in what is happening right now. Very, very, very
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Not no, but hell no. I find it very interesting that none of the other Arab countries in the world want anything to do with these people. Why is that? Well, let’s watch a video of how they’ve been rise. This might have something to do with it.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent interview, Lester Holt questioned Iranian President Ebrahim about the allocation of the $6 billion provided by the Biden administration. Ebrahim stated that Iran would utilize the funds according to their own priorities. Meanwhile, the Biden regime, who funded the conflict between Iran and Israel, has remained silent since the fighting began. A month ago, Trump had predicted that the money would be used for terror attacks and kidnappings, which seems to be unfolding in Israel.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Lester Holt recently interviewed Iranian President Ebrahim in mid September and asked the president how they would use the 6 billion dollars. Ebrahim simply says the money will be used exactly how Iran sees fit for its people. The Biden regime funded this conflict with Iran and Israel and have been radio silent since fighting started yesterday. 1 month ago Trump predicted the $6 Billion that Biden gave Iran would be used for terror attacks across the Middle East and specifically kidnapping This is exactly what we are seeing in Israel this morning
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 asserts that the money belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran and they have the right to decide how to spend it. They clarify that the money will be used for various needs, including humanitarian purposes, as determined by the Iranian government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you believe you have the right to use that money in any way that you
Speaker 1: money belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran and naturally, we will decide the Islamic Republic of Iran will decide to to spend it wherever, we need it. How to spend our money. Of course, it is under authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Speaker 0: So if I hear you clearly, that it will be used for more than humanitarian purposes in your view.
Speaker 1: So this money will be budgeted for those needs. And the needs of the Iranian people will be decided and determined by the Iranian government.
reSee.it AI Summary
The New World Order concept gains credibility when multiple presidents mention it. The World Economic Forum (WEF) holds influence, with governments following suit. Klaus Schwab and George Soros established the WEF to prepare for over four decades. We're awakening to the imminent threat, but time is running out. It's not too late to act.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
How many 'presidents' need to say 'New World Order' before everyone believe it? None of this is by accident. The WEF is in charge, and the governments around the world are going along with it for what ever reason. Klaus Schwab created the WEF in 1971 over four decades to prepare. George Soros as well. We’re now just waking up to the evil that is at the door.. Is it too late? I don’t think so, but we certainly don’t have much time.
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is considering its foreign policy in relation to this new world order. George Bush has also mentioned it, emphasizing its importance. The idea of a new world order is seen as significant and there is a belief that we have the opportunity to shape it. This new world order is expected to be different from what we are used to.
Full Transcript
A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. It's a phrase that I often use myself, that we needed a new world order. What the Clinton administration's foreign policy will be. What this so-called new world order will look like. A new world order. George Bush has invoked a new world order. We all talk about a new world order. It is a big idea. A new world order. A new world order. The historic role in trying to make sure that there is, after all, a new world order. And today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we've known. I believe we, and particularly you, your class, has an incredible window of opportunity to lead in shaping a new world order. A new world order.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
Questions we'd all like answers to
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the influx of fighting-age men in immigration and suggests that they may be soldiers. They also mention the existence of FEMA camps and wonder why they would need to accommodate 2 million people. The speaker believes there is something cataclysmic happening that the government is not telling us about. They criticize the lack of preparations made for citizens and compare it to Putin's actions. The speaker questions why veterans and citizens are homeless while immigrants receive benefits. They express concern about a planned event and question why immigrants are coming when there is no war in their own countries.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We first say I'm not a racist. Okay? But men go to war, and women and children flee war. Where are all the women and children? Please.
Everybody that's coming over are fighting age men. They're soldiers. Now are they there to protect us, or are they there to What are these immigrations done to score if we're not using them? What are all these new prisons for if we're not using them? Prisoners being Please, early.
On Tyke, what
Speaker 1: are the FEMA camps built for? The largest one can accommodate? 2,000,000 people. But where the hell do they expect to find 2,000,000 people? And more importantly, Why?
There's something else going on they're not telling us about because it's cataclysmic, and we should be told. We should be allowed to make preparations. Putin, who's supposed to be the bad guy, has made preparations for every single one of his citizens, man, woman, and child. But what are our Government's doing for us absolutely nothing. So you wanna know what immigration is really all about?
Ask them because they're working with The SAS. They're working with our military. They are soldiers. That's my view. Why is it that our own veterans are living on the streets?
Why our own people are living on the streets? And yet these people can come over and live in hotels and get a £175 a week. That's more than our unemployed get because they're on the payroll. There is something being planned and it's not good, Not good at all for any of us. And I said before, where are all the women and children?
Men go to war. Women and children flee War. Why are they coming here? There's no war here. Why aren't they fighting for their own countries?
Why are they coming here? And why are we accommodating them when we're not even accommodating our own people?
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
I think he’s on to something.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the past 24 hours, there has been a significant increase in the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States and Europe. Some people are referring to this as an invasion or an act of war, particularly in Italy. It raises questions as to why governments are not taking action to stop this influx. It is suggested that if the United States were to allow 6,000 armed Russian soldiers to invade our southern border daily, it would be equivalent to the current situation. This leads to speculation about whether there is a larger plan at play, possibly involving the United Nations or the World Economic Forum.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Past 24 hours, we've seen a record number of illegal immigrants pouring across the border in the United States and in Europe. It's being called an invasion or an act of war, perhaps, as others are calling it in Italy. Why are governments, by the way, not stopping this? One has to wonder if this is not all part of a larger plan, of course. Would the United States allows 6,000 armed Russian soldiers to invade our southern border every day.
Because that's basically what's happening. That's how many people per day are now pouring across the United States border on on a slow day, by the way, because numbers are far in excess of that on other days. Could it all be part of a United Nations plan, a World Economic Forum plan?
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
A victim of this horrible vaccine.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I haven't made a video in a while, but I need to share something important. I recently looked at my blood under a microscope and what I saw was not good. Many of us are injured and dying. If you want to research us, you need to come and find us. Otherwise, we won't survive much longer. One of the nurses, Danielle Baker, is in a critical condition with heart failure and needs oxygen to survive. Our bodies are shutting down. I'm pleading with you to help us. These shots are harming and killing people, especially children. We need these shots removed and proper compensation and research. Please, do the right thing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, guys. I haven't done a video in a while, and I'm sure you guys have seen my blood. And I'm still trying to process and wrap my brain around what I saw through the microscope whenever we are looking at my blood. And it's not good. We need help.
There are so many of us that are injured. We are dying. If you guys want your research, You have to come get us. You have to seek us out. Tell us you want to research us.
If not, We're not gonna be alive much longer. I have a nurse, and you guys know her. Her name is Danielle Baker, she's the coerced nurse. And she had transverse myelitis, and now she is in diastolic Congestive heart failure, oxygen dependent and everything. Our body is shutting down.
I'm begging you guys. Please help us. Please. But the children pull these shots off the shelves. They're killing people.
They're injuring them. There's no compensation. We have no acknowledgment. We have no research. Please, guys, do The right thing.
Please.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
ICYMI: who initiated this investigation? Did the banks not do do diligence on all the loans they gave TRUMP ? The American people can recognize a hack judge, and a hack prosecutor. Enjoy your fun while you can.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speakers discuss Joe Biden's recent visit to Michigan and criticize his policies. They mention Biden's short speech and his support for electric cars, which they believe will harm the auto industry. They also criticize Biden for advocating for higher wages while allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country and compete for jobs. The speakers highlight low approval ratings for Biden and express their belief that he should have stayed at the White House. They also discuss a recent legal case against Donald Trump, claiming it is part of a larger effort to persecute the Trump family. The speakers argue that the case lacks merit and is politically motivated. They conclude by criticizing the New York Attorney General for targeting Trump while ignoring similar practices by other real estate developers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joins me tonight. It's good to have you back on. Your father heads, your father-in-law, I should say, heads to Michigan tomorrow. They dragged Biden there today to just barely beat him to to Michigan. He speaks for 58 seconds.
He hangs out for 11 minutes and he disappears. What vigor?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It is, as you said, very inspiring to see Joe Biden, Nearly fall down the stairs even though he is wearing the new tennis shoes we heard about to get out there for the full 11 minutes. What a waste of money, By the way, and we're all paying ladies and gentlemen of this country for the Air Force One for the plane that flew Joe Biden there to Michigan. It's really amazing to see. And then there he is with the auto workers as you just said, Rob, while he's simultaneously trying to end their jobs by pushing so hard for electric cars.
And let's not forget the fact that he's there with them saying, we need to get you more money While simultaneously flooding the market with cheap labor from from all these illegal immigrants that have poured over the southern border on his watch. It's incredible to see, but you're right. They wouldn't have to try so hard to make Joe Biden look cool if they Actually had policies that positively impacted this country. We know they don't. We know that people are fed up.
We know that 3 in 5 Democrats want anyone other than Joe Biden to be running. 36% of independents Actually think he's doing a decent job that is very low for someone running for reelection. So they have a huge problem on their hands. Unfortunately for Joe Biden and the Democrats, I think today probably would have been better off if he would have just stayed sipping his warm milk At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And you make you make such a great point about, yeah, what he's doing to that industry. I mean, this is a guy that when he was running, He he's talking about getting rid of all gas cars. I mean, that's what he want. He wants to phase all of this out.
He wants to go completely green. When you build these electric cars, they don't require nearly the manpower of gas powered cars. I mean, if he had his way, if he could flip the switch as they say, and and and just do it, I mean, there'd be thousands of those union workers would be booted out, and those companies would be would would be building electric cars with far fewer staff.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Not only that, but if you even got to half of the cars that he wants to see on the road as electric vehicles right now and they all went And plugged in at the same time, it would break down our power grid. We couldn't even handle it. And let's not forget, where do you actually get the energy For fueling these electric vehicles, of course, usually comes from fossil fuels. The whole thing is so insulting and ridiculous To the American people, yet here we are suffering under still super high gas prices, a dollar 87.
I'll remind people when Donald Trump was in office. I think people are ready for those days to come back.
Speaker 0: I think the poll certainly indicate that. I wanna get to some breaking news tonight about your father-in-law, a judge in New York ruling. Former president Trump is liable for fraud in part of the Leticia James case. The accusation, the Trump Organization inflated asset values and defrauded banks who were loaning him money. Now it's worth noting that these banks are more than capable of doing their own due Due diligence on loans that they're handing out.
Obviously, loans that they were making a fortune on by loaning money to former president Trump as he was doing projects in New York. The fact that this is even a legal case to begin with. Your thoughts.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's obvious what's going on here. This is more persecution of our family. This is Leticia James, don't forget, who was an attorney general running not to, of course, Protect the people of New York, but simply to take down Donald Trump just like so many of these other woke Democrat DAs across the country. And what you said there is very important, Rob. There was no allegation by any bank that there was ever an issue because there was never a loan Defaulted on by the Trump Organization.
These loans were paid back in full. These banks made 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars. Thanks to the Trump Organization and they did do their own due diligence. So Leticia James had to piece this together and Coordinate this with a judge who obviously was out for blood with Donald Trump. I will tell you this will make no difference to Donald Trump either.
The goal is obvious. The goal is to get him to to be in ruins and to say enough is enough. I quit. I back down. I want to bow out of this.
It's never gonna happen. These people are disgusting and a disgrace to our entire judicial system here in the United States of America. Unfortunately for them, this will stop nothing for Donald Trump and he will continue on.
Speaker 0: And and when when is this useless AG that we have here in New York going to file the those same allegations, those same charges against every real estate developer in the city who's been doing the same thing. As long as this rock has been here and as long as we've been developing it. It's it's it's just comical. Laura Trump, always good to have you on. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks a lot.
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
One of these days you will figure it out I suspect. Until then , listen and learn.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two years ago, Capitol Hill police officer Michael Byrd shot and killed an unarmed woman named Ashley Babbitt. Byrd had a history of negligence with firearms, including leaving a loaded pistol in a public restroom. Despite this, he remained on the force. Babbitt, a 14-year military veteran, was unarmed and posed no physical threat. Byrd admitted he had no indication she was carrying a weapon. Instead of facing consequences, Byrd was hailed as a hero and complained about racism. Babbitt's mother, on the other hand, was arrested for trying to hold a memorial service for her daughter. Ashley Babbitt's death is the most significant but least discussed event of January 6th at the US Capitol.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 2 years ago today, a Capitol Hill police officer called Michael Byrd shot an unarmed woman in the neck. At the time of that killing, Byrd had history of gross negligence with a firearm. He left a loaded block pistol in a public men's room at the capitol, which for a law enforcement official is a firing offense. But for some reason, Michael Bird was still in the force that day. Woman who killed was called Ashley Babbitt.
Babbitt was a married 14 year veteran of the US military. To win a pool cleaning company with her husband in San Diego. Physically, she was tiny. She was also unarmed. Michael Byrd later admitted he had no indication at all that Babbitt was carrying a weapon.
She posed no physical threat. He killed her anyway. Under normal circumstances, Bird would have been fired immediately and charged with murder, which he clearly committed. But that's not what happened. After doing essentially no investigation into the shooting, Nancy Pelosi's congressional police force declared Byrd a national hero, and the media strongly agreed.
Byrd went on television to accept accolades and to complain about racism. He was never punished for killing Ashley Babbitt. He was rewarded for it. Ashley Babbitt's mother, meanwhile, got a very different sort of treatment. Babbitt's mother was arrested day in Washington by the Capitol Police.
Her crime, trying to hold a memorial service for her daughter. 2 years later, it's clear that Ashley Babbitt is her death is by far the most significant thing that happened at the US Capitol building that day. But at the same time, it is the least talked about event of January 6th. Why is
@HappyCamper2626 - I’m No Angel
5 AMERICAN DOCTORS DISCUSS THE UNIVERSAL ANTIDOTE (Chlorine Dioxide Solution - CDS) Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Larry Plaevsky, Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Carrie Madej, and Dr. Lee Merritt discuss the universal antidote (chlorine dioxide) in the last 6 minutes of their weekly show.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss their experiences and beliefs regarding chlorine dioxide. They mention using it themselves and experiencing positive effects, such as improved symptoms and detoxification. They also mention its potential benefits for bees and express concerns about the use of vaccines on bees. The speakers discuss different protocols and dosages for chlorine dioxide, emphasizing the importance of individualized approaches. They mention a course on the subject and provide a link for further information. The conversation ends with one speaker expressing the need to leave for another meeting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So there's a question, I don't know if you want to address this because it's A loaded question, but I thought, you know, we've we've danced around this subject for so many months. Do you wanna talk about chlorine dioxide? Do you? Talk about
Speaker 1: Please or leave. Yes. I'll tell you what. I've become a believer.
Speaker 2: Well and in fact, that's why I have to go a little early tonight because I was asked to come because everybody on this 1 podcast, I won't name it, Is afraid to talk about chlorine dioxide because they don't wanna go to jail. Oh my God. You know? I mean, I don't tell you that Because I don't wanna go to jail, but I take it. And I tell you how I take it.
Speaker 3: I've used it, and it's helped. Yeah. I I mixed it myself. And I drink it, you know, once an hour for 8 hours. And then I would just gradually titrate it up as that universal antidote.com Tutorial taught me.
And for me, it was when I had really weird symptoms or doing a lot of those, tours And weird neuro symptoms. It was not a normal illness I had. And that helped tremendously. So, Even in a few days, I felt different improvement with that. And I actually sweated a lot.
Oh, it made me sweat. And I was so happy it was sweating. I knew it was You know, clearing out some garbage. And, yeah, so I've done it more than once for myself. I like it.
Speaker 0: Doctor. T, we can do critically thinking about chlorine dioxide, because I've been experimenting and I'm on day 12 of 21. And, you know that six and a half weeks ago, I was badly poisoned And it has taken me out very badly over the last number of weeks and I have trusted colleagues and in acupuncture, Chinese medicine and herbs and homeopathy and hyperbarics and ozone and the whole works infrared sauna And this was still kicking my ass. And even with these products, it's still kicking my ass and I have to say, Today is day 12, I've completed of 21 and I have to say that I wish I had done it 3 years ago when I first got sick
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Because I've seen changes that I just would not, did not, Could not have believed because of how poisonous these exposures are that they're they're putting in front of us. So Well, you know, Todd Callender was
Speaker 1: the one who told me about it, and he said it cured his cancer Yeah. In just, like, a month, like, complete. Like and and Lee has actually done an entire course on this, which I posted the link in there at learning for you.org. She's done an entire course on So you guys can get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. That's what she talks about the whole thing.
And so, yeah, so I put the link in there. I'll put it in again. If you want to go to Leigh's course out at learningforyou.org, she did an entire course on that.
Speaker 0: Yes. And it's, It's quite fascinating and I'm not going to report on my findings until I finish the full 21 days. But I am fascinated about How it's helping the body heal because
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna stop. I'm not gonna stop. I'm not gonna stop. I'm not gonna stop. I'm gonna go for 21 days.
Speaker 1: I also read a little article about, using spraying, scripting, chlorine dioxide on bees. Yeah. The bees that They're all disoriented and they're kind of wobbling around. They look pretty sick because they're getting exposed to all the pesticides and the EMF stuff. And if you just put it in and just script it on if you have beehives, if you do Bee farming?
What do they call that? Bee farming stuff? Beekeeping. Beekeeping. Thank you.
That you just spritz it. Just Spritz it and it really like your bees get all bee perky again, you know. So I sent it to several friends of mine. I sent that article to several friends of mine that are beekeepers. I do a lot of it because you know that their bees are going to get sick because they just are.
They're exposed to crap in
Speaker 3: the air and all that stuff. So Well, in Georgia, they plan on vaccinating the bees with the aerosol, unfortunately.
Speaker 2: I'm just really alone.
Speaker 3: Maybe the chlorine dioxide could help with that.
Speaker 0: I think so. Lee Lee, why did you say don't stop at 21 days?
Speaker 2: Well, because it you take it all the time. It's a universal antidote. Don't you think you're around toxins all the days?
Speaker 0: No. I get that, but there's a protocol. I'm following Jim Humble's Protocol one thousand.
Speaker 2: Okay. But that's the acute phase. Well,
Speaker 0: yeah. Okay.
Speaker 2: But then you gotta do a maintenance phase.
Speaker 0: Right. And where is that written about how to do a maintenance?
Speaker 2: Well, see, that's where it's a different thing like okay, now, Todd Callender, he's staying on a higher maintenance phase because he feels like with the count with that you know, with what he he went on with the with the cancer, He's saying it's 24 drops a day. My maintenance phase for me that I feel good on is, like, 10 drops a day. So I think that's individualized. How should you break it? Bishop, you just take it.
You you know? You you like, I don't use the I don't use the, myself. I just use the MMS. I don't use the activator because I've got normal stomach acid. The activator is just hydrochloric acid, it's what's in your stomach.
So it tastes just like water if you don't use the activator. In the first In the morning, I get one of those, I hate to say, the one of these, Starbucks Plastic or glass jars with a screw on lid and you don't wanna do it metal. And then I just put in, Filtered water with some ice, I put 10 drops of the MMS in, shake it up and just drink it the whole day. That's just me. Now, you can now Bishop Grennan uses 3 drops, and he thinks that's good for most people for maintenance.
It's just whatever. I just think that I do better with a little bit higher dose, you know, but Alright. I need to run. I've got another Zoom meeting. Thank you, guys.
So Thank
Speaker 1: you. Happy anniversary, friends.