reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @RedactedNews
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Putin warned Trump. The blockade is leaking. GCC allies are maxed on storage. Farmer bankruptcies up 46%. 13 dead. 400 wounded. And the Secretary of War is calling deployed troops liars. @DougAMacgregor says we are losing this war and the collapse is coming this year. https://t.co/reH91CWzDm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that the Israeli war for the greater Israel project is the catalyst for the collapse of American power worldwide due to unconditional U.S. support. He says the United States is on a road to an economic crisis, a financial catastrophe not experienced since the 1930s, and that until it becomes that bad, people will not voice their views in Washington. He contends that the Senate, the House, and the White House are all firmly in the grip of the lobby. He predicts that when the collapse comes, which he expects sometime this year, it will be “god awful hell to pay for the Israelis, and it’s going to be the end of this administration, and probably the end for most of the people on the hill.” He describes a movement from abundance—oil, cash, and everything—to scarcity, forecasting that the living standard won’t be enjoyed for long and that the country will resemble Great Britain after World War II: hopelessly in debt, retreating forces abroad to cut expenses, and unable to recover. He warns of a larger war and asks how long a blockade will last before others force it to end, whether it could become a global event, noting that the secretary of war has stated there will be a global blockade. He cites General Kane discussing boarding ships and blockading vessels coming out of the Persian Gulf and heading into the Strait of Malacca, calling the idea “stupidity on stilts” and predicting it will turn a current conflict into a global phenomenon and likely a global war. He insists there will be no good outcomes for the United States or its people, and that he does not blame Americans for their complacency, acknowledging that Americans are human beings and will only respond when hurt immediately or when they see clear pains such as shortages.
Speaker 1 agrees, saying many people are not intentionally burying their heads in the sand, but they will awaken when they notice changes on grocery shelves, at the gas pump, inflation rising, housing prices falling, mortgage rates increasing, and all the pressures tied to lack of food on the table. He hopes for waking up beforehand but does not anticipate it. He then shares a recent, disturbing note from Natalie: Benjamin Netanyahu posted on social media about Lebanon, showing bombs hitting infrastructure across Lebanon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think that, this Israeli war for the greater Israel project is the catalyst for the collapse of American power around the world because we have unconditionally supported it. We're we're on a road to an economic crisis, a financial catastrophe, something that we really haven't experienced since the nineteen thirties. That's how bad it it's going to be. Until it gets that bad, people are not going to stand up. They're not going to go into the streets.
They're not gonna make their views felt and understood in Washington. And right now, both the senate, the house, and the White House, all of these three institutions, are firmly in the grip of the lobby. So when this collapse comes, and I think it's coming sometime this year, it's gonna be god awful hell to pay for the Israelis, and it's going to be the end of this administration, and probably the end for most of the people on the hill. I think that's how serious it's going to get. It's hard for people to imagine because what we're really seeing happen right now is a movement from abundance, which we've had now for decades, an abundance of oil, an abundance of cash, an abundance of everything, to scarcity.
We're suddenly not going to enjoy the living standard that we've enjoyed for so long. We're gonna look a lot like Great Britain after World War two, hopelessly debt written and busy extracting our forces from everywhere in the world to try and cut expenses and get back on our feet. And we all know, historically, Great Britain never got back on its feet. It was finished after World War two. I hope it's not gonna be that bad, but the way I see it right now, if if things happen as I anticipate, we're gonna have a larger war.
Let's assume you just stick with the blockade initially. How long before others show up to force your blockade to end? Are we going to try and extend this blockade to becoming a global event? That's already been uttered by the secretary of war. He said we're going to have a global blockade.
You've got general Kane who's talked about boarding ships and blockading ships that are coming out of the Persian Gulf and headed somewhere inside the Strait Of Malacca. I mean, talk talk about stupidity on stilts, taking something that should already be over and should have ended, and now turning it into a global phenomenon, it's going to lead to a global war of some kind. And I just don't see anything good happening for us, and I don't see the American people profiting in any way. And and I don't blame the American people for their complacency. Americans are human beings.
If they're not hurt immediately, if they don't feel immediate pain, their tendency is, well, let's see how this turns out. This is not gonna turn out well. It's gonna turn out very badly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think you're right. I think so many people, going about their lives, they're not intentionally burying their heads in the sand. But until they notice it on the grocery store shelves, or they see it at the gas tank in a much larger capacity, the, you know, inflation going up and housing prices coming down, and mortgage rates going back up, and all of these things that are tied to this, lack of food on the table, etcetera. That's when there's gonna be an awakening.
And I hope that people wake up ahead of that, but I don't anticipate. Just a few minutes ago, Natalie just shared this with me. This is disgusting. But this is Benjamin Netanyahu just posting this on social media about Lebanon just a few minutes ago. Says Lebanon continuing and just sharing bombs just hitting infrastructure all throughout Lebanon.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 WARNING: There's a Depression level economic collapse coming, and no one wants to talk about it. Professor @xueqinjiang is with us to discuss what we should all know. https://t.co/48euqHLLDB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the global economy amid conflicts and energy disruptions. Christine Lagarde, head of the ECB, is cited as warning about food rationing and broader inflationary consequences from disruptions in fertilizer shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. Lagarde notes that the third of fertilizers pass through Hormuz, affecting the Southern Hemisphere where planting and fertilizer needs are urgent. She argues that if energy-related disruptions persist, inflation expectations could rise because people monitor food prices and gas prices closely. She identifies three indirect consequences: prolonged disruption could shift from price increases to rationing with different economic outcomes; higher prices would be inflationary, while shortages would directly hit output and growth. So far, there are limited signs of global supply-chain disruption, but local tensions exist: jet fuel prices have roughly doubled since the conflict began, with rationing at some European airports since April. The remark extends to Asia, where low-income economies are experiencing more severe hits and moving toward rationing. Speaker 0 highlights Lufthansa canceling hundreds of flights due to fuel shortages and reiterates Lagarde’s signals about Hormuz and fertilizer movements.
Speaker 2 (Professor Jiang) interprets Lagarde’s message as forewarning a major catastrophe for the global economy, noting that one-third of the world’s fertilizer passes Hormuz and fertilizer sustains global food production for billions of people. He emphasizes global fragility and the just-in-time supply chain system, which lacks resilience and was designed for efficiency, not resilience. He predicts policymakers may use crises to expand control, including digital currency and digital IDs, arguing that rationing could lead to a control system. He connects these ideas to a broader narrative about an AI surveillance state and governance tools.
Speaker 3 references U.S. policy movements: the Pentagon reportedly requested American carmakers like Ford and General Motors to shift toward weapon production, signaling a wartime footing under the Defense Production Act. He compares this to World War II-era rationing and Rosie the Riveter, and notes the notion of living under a wartime economy. Speaker 2 adds that a stock-market collapse or cyberattack could precipitate a depression, enabling a shift to a wartime economy and military production.
The discussion expands into a broader control-theory framework. Speaker 2 outlines two major pieces of an AI control grid: an enforced mechanism such as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) with a large budget, and Operation Stargate, which involves building data centers across the U.S. as part of a control grid. He asserts OpenAI and similar entities fit into this context. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 debate how such a grid could be justified by food rationing, national security, or a selective service-based draft, with Palantir reportedly pushing for a return to the draft. Speaker 2 ties AI surveillance, the control grid, and mass mobilization to depopulation theories, arguing elites aim to preserve vast wealth while the majority bear the costs.
The conversation then turns to energy infrastructure: many oil refineries, including BRICS-aligned nations, appear to be going offline, with a recent high-profile refinery fire in India just before inauguration of a new refinery. The causes are attributed to war, accidents from overcapacity, and sabotage, with examples like the Geelong refinery fire cited as suspicious.
Towards the end, the participants discuss the space program’s role in societal narratives: NASA’s programs and the mystique around space exploration, the Optimus robot, and the possibility that space endeavors could serve as instruments of control or unity. They speculate about the potential for a fake alien invasion as a means to push through a control grid, though acknowledge this as a disturbing possibility. Professor Jiang concludes by urging a shift from materialism toward spirituality, community, and family to better weather the anticipated economic storms, while signaling concern about the depopulation agenda and the strategic use of crises to consolidate power.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, how are things sitting right now with the global economy? We keep hearing the horror stories about fertilizer disruptions, famine, food shortages, everything else that could become as a result of the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz and this global war. Christine Lagarde, head of the ECB, you know, she's not given to hyperbole. I mean, she's, of course, you know, in control of largest banks and the, you know, European banking structure. Remember, she's famous for telling us that, know, she wanted us to move away from cash.
Of course, in my mind, this is all about control. But here is Christine Lagarde talking specifically about food rationing and what is coming. Listen.
Speaker 1: Third, the third of the fertilizers is shipped through the Strait Of Hormuz. Now, that is also at risk. And it matters particularly in the Southern Hemisphere where the planting and therefore the fertilizers is badly needed now. I'm not saying that just out of interest for agriculture. Don't forget, I was minister of agriculture in France for a month and a half.
But because it matters to me as a central banker now, because if the price of food increases significantly, it is not going to just be the price of food, it is going to be inflation expectations because we know that people are particularly attentive to two things, the price of food, processed and unprocessed, and the price of gas at the petrol station. So, here are three indirect consequences of what's happening in the energy world. So, if the disruption persists long enough, the adjustment shifts from prices, which we are putting up with now, to possibly rationing with very different economic consequences. Higher prices are primarily inflationary, shortages hit output directly and are worse for growth. Overall, there have been so far limited signs of supply chain disruption, both globally and in the Euro Area.
But local tensions are visible. Jet fuel prices have roughly doubled since the outbreak of the conflict, and rationing has been imposed at some individual airports in Europe since early April. And I'm not talking about what's happening in the rest of the world. I'm just back from the IMF and the World Bank spring meetings, like many of you, and you might have bumped into colleagues from Asia, in particular some of the low income countries economies that are taking a much more severe hit than us and are moving into rationing?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So Asia moving into food rationing, and fuel rationing. Lufthansa yesterday announcing the cancellation of hundreds of flights because they don't have the fuel for it. And then the fertilizer moving through the Strait Of Hormuz. Like, are people taking this seriously?
And you hear just in her voice, I mean, as a central banker, she doesn't wanna scare people, but she's kind of you can hear it there. But they're all the signals. She's basically pointing out all of the signals. We're back with professor Jiang to talk about the global impact of this war in Iran. Professor, what do you make of Christine Lagarde's message there, and do you see a much bigger problem emerging?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think she is, forewarning a major catastrophe approaching the global economy that's gonna come very soon. She points out one third of the world's fertilizer passes through the Strait Of Hormuz. And most people don't appreciate this, but fertilizer is what feeds the world. So what fertilizer, the globe, the earth, could sustain one one or 2,000,000,000 people, 2,000,000,000 people, if you're optimistic.
So basically, we're able to have 8,000,000,000 people on this planet because of fertilizer. Now if you take out fertilizer out of the equation, this means that a lot of people are going to starve. There's there's no way around it. So this bring brings up a much bigger point, which is people don't appreciate the fragility of the global economy. We use something called just in time supply chain system.
So there's very little inventory. There's very little resilience. The system doesn't know how to cope with setbacks, with with delays. It's designed to be as quick and as efficient as possible in order to maximize benefit for the consumer. So this system was not designed to be resilient.
It was designed to be efficient, and this is gonna cause a lot problems for the world. Another point that I will make is that these policymakers know that this catastrophe is coming. And the thing about policymakers is that they don't let a crisis ever go to waste. And policymakers are first and foremost concerned about how to create more control over people, how to create an AI surveillance state. And if you talk about rationing, well, what comes naturally with rationing is basically digital currency and digital ID.
Right? Because it's of communism, think of Marxism. How how think think of a command economy where because there's so little food, because there's food scarcity, there's fuel scarcity, well, we have to ration this, so we have to basically give you coupons. We do that digitally through digital currency. And so think of more control, think of more financial repression, think of possibly economic collapse.
Speaker 3: So, you know, I'm trying to extrapolate what this will be the lived experience for us because the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Pentagon was approaching American companies like Ford and General Motors to shift factory capacity towards weapon making. You know, they can ask them nicely, but they also can use the Defense Production Act to require companies to prioritize and accept government contracts. And Secretary of War Pete Hechtsef had said, this is to put us on a wartime footing. So that doesn't mean live your lives, we're gonna go to war. You know, it's all good.
It's you will live in a wartime footing. And so what was the lived experience during World War two for Americans is Rosie the Riveter, the woman goes to work, and food shortages and food rations, and it was not optional. So there is precedence for it for this. It's not hysterical to think that we are being pushed towards this. Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. No. I think history might repeat itself. So what led to World War two was, first of all, 1929 stock market crash where, you know, billions of savings were wiped out. We might see a similar situation where the stock market collapses, and possibly there is a cyber attack, a cyber false flag attack on the nation's financial data centers.
So all that money you have in the bank might be wiped out, and you can blame the Iranians for that even though it may not be the Iranians. This will lead to a depression in America where people become desperate for jobs, where people become desperate for food. The more government will can now step in and create a command economy just like just like what they did nineteen thirties. Right? Roosevelt's Roosevelt's New Deal.
And then the economy switches to a wartime economy where you are making drones, weapons, ammunitions for all these wars overseas that America has to fight in order to ensure it has control over the world's oceans and resources.
Speaker 0: Mean, everything you're talking about is already coming to fruition. Right? I mean, a $1,500,000,000,000 wartime budget at the Pentagon under president Trump. The move towards digital currency, the house resolution that's now coming forward, we've covered it here on the show about this new digital ID that would be required to sign into the Internet. Basically, as an age verification, they tell us it's about safety, but it's all about control.
This is the control grid that's coming right before our eyes. And we're just like walking blindly right into it right now in The United States.
Speaker 2: Right. So there are two major pieces to this AI control grid. Right? The first is you you would need an enforced mechanism, and this would be ICE. You really need soldiers with machine guns in the streets to deport illegal immigrants?
Obama was able to do so without without soldiers. He did it just through through cooperation with local law enforcement. Right? So I think the ICE, it's meant to be almost like a gestable, a part of a secret police in order to control the lives of people. Their budget is, like, I think, 90 projected projected to be $90,000,000,000.
That's a lot of money for to get rid of illegal immigrants. So I think ICE is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece of the puzzle is Operation Stargate, where the government has dedicated $500,000,000,000 to building data centers all around America. Listen. These data centers are not for having a AI girlfriend or for helping you cheat on your homework.
They are part of the control grid. Right? So look companies like OpenAI. They don't make money selling chat services to people. But so Aldman seems to be very confident that he'll be very successful.
So I think he knows something that we don't know.
Speaker 0: It's deeply, deeply troubling. You talked about also well, we've mentioned it before the show, which is the oil refineries. So, I mean, what what is going on here? And I don't know if you have the answer to it, but we're now seeing, I mean, dozens of oil refineries around the world, many of them in BRICS aligned nations. You saw in India, one of the inaugural you know, president Modi of India was about to have the inauguration of this brand new oil refinery, and the day before it goes up in flames.
So all of the oil refining capacity is being taken offline. What is going on?
Speaker 2: Right. So, I think there's a combination of war. So a lot a lot of the refineries that are being destroyed are because of war. Right? The Americans attacked the natural gas fields of Iran, and Iranians responded by attacking the natural gas fields of Qatar.
So war is a factor. Another factor is just accidental malfunction. So because of energy shortages, these refineries are have to maximize output, and so it's possible they didn't neglect safety measures because they're at they're at capacity. That's the second factor. Now the third factor is the sabotage.
Right? So if you look at the Australian Geelong refinery fire, that is deeply suspicious. They say it was an accident, but people locally said that this was probably sabotage. So these three factors going on. Right?
War, accidents, and sabotage. One thing that I will say is that if you're trying to change your society, you really need to better control your people. And quite honestly, from the perspective of the elite, the peasants have become too arrogant. The peasants have have become too uppity. And so you need you need to make them much more anxious.
You need to make them much more desperate. And so it's important to manufacture economic calamities in order to make them more obedient.
Speaker 0: Well, that's what colonel Towner Watkins says, and she's brilliant. And she talks about she talks about this as the strategy of tension. And these left behind armies, these NATO leave behind armies that created this strategy of tension, you create this tension on purpose in order to agitate and control. It's all about control.
Speaker 2: It's psychological warfare. They've been doing this for decades. And so so think of the color revolutions in The Middle East. Right? So they have this very good playbook, very effective playbook of using propaganda, of using spies, of using saboteurs, provocateurs in order to stir up discontent among the population and in order to better control the emotions of the population.
So I think that we are moving towards a period of massive unrest.
Speaker 3: Now, earlier off camera, you talked about the NASA program. And this seems to be something that's really irking people online. I see meme after meme of people saying, wait, you expect us to support a war in Iran. We don't have free health care. We have record debt.
We will have to pay more for fuel, but you can use up all this jet fuel and send science experiments into the What the hell? And you're saying you think that is another part of the control mechanism.
Speaker 2: Right. So if we just extend our logic, right, and just say, okay, during this war, in order to maintain the American empire, the population isn't gonna go with this war, so they need to create an economic catastrophe to make the population more obedient. And you wanna introduce an AI surveillance system. You want to have you you wanna have a control grid. Well, a possible strategy is to fake an alien invasion and make people so afraid that they basically obey the government.
But, you know, from the perspective of the government, this this doesn't really have to succeed because, honestly, baby boomers will go with anything. Right? So but maybe it's just theater. So everyone knows a fake alien invasion, but that allows the government to actually impose the AI civilians grid on everyone. And the boomers will go with this.
No one else will go with it, but no one really cares because they have eyes on the streets to to enforce obedience.
Speaker 0: Well, and president Trump recently, of course, announced the shift of Space Force to its new location with its massive new infrastructure. And of course, billions of dollars and a new budget. It has its own spy program inside Space Force. For years on this show, we've been calling out how this is just one big massive boondoggle for the defense industry. And of course, yes, the fears you you're seeing it online now.
This idea that we are about to face some sort of big disclosure, some sort of big alien invasion. You're hearing it from members of congress that disclosure is coming, and therefore to scare all of us into some sort of, control. And that I think this is just another big piece of the puzzle. Project Blue Bee.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I wanna reach two questions about about the space program. So we know that after every major government expenditure, huge government project, We have massive innovation. Okay? So think of World War two and the government spent billions billions dollars on a Manhattan project.
And in the nineteen fifties, we have this tremendous wave of innovation, right, including the transistor transistor, including the Internet, including, you know, semiconductors. So that's what happens when you have tremendous breakthroughs, technological breakthroughs. But the problem is this. 1969, America sent a man to the moon. What 10,000 breakthroughs do we have from that?
In fact, if you talk to NASA, they they they tell you, oh, sorry. We lost all that technology. We lost all that, you know, data. We lost all that footage. Yeah.
That's kinda weird. That's really weird. That's point one. Point two is that undergirding technological breakthroughs is all are synesthetic theories. Okay?
So think of the Manhattan Project and how how, you know, before the Manhattan Project, there were all these strenuous breakthroughs in science, primarily Einstein's theory of great of relativity and quantum mechanics, which allows for the Manhattan Project. I'm completely confused as to what what physical breakthrough or what what what theory theoretical breakthrough allowed for the space program. And why is it that after the space program was so successful, we we don't have breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe? This is all really weird.
Speaker 3: I guess Yeah. Don't you think we should know more by now?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, like, we're literally excited about getting back to the moon. I mean, we we you know, it's like we've done this. We've done this, you know, nineteen sixties. We've done this.
Like or did we? And now we're doing it all over again, and we're excited that we get some sort of four k iPhone video that's been going viral by one of the astronauts. Like, that's that's, like, arguably the most exciting thing that we've seen from this is an astronaut's iPhone video through the window of a sun or the the Earth the Earth rise or Earth sunset. It's it's very bizarre.
Speaker 3: I wanna I'm gonna out Clayton a little bit. He was telling me earlier that, you know, he's fascinated by the Optimus robot, the Tesla Optimus robot, and we'll see Tesla earnings this afternoon. And he was saying, it's not just to, like, walk your dog and do your dishes. What they want them to do is go to Mars and build the colonies, that they will be built by the Optimus robots. And he's fascinated by that.
There's no there's no shade in telling me right.
Speaker 0: I mean, just years ahead years ahead of human beings going to Mars that will have this like, fleet of Optimus robots on on Mars.
Speaker 3: Yeah. What do you think of that?
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's entirely possible where they're looking for a new control mechanism. Right? And they understand the power of narrative, how World War two was this great unifying, galvanizing event for the American population, how the space race was also a great unifying event for the American people as well. So maybe people are in poverty. Maybe maybe there's wars going on.
But if we're seeing all this footage of these autonomous robots going to Mars to go to colony, maybe this will make us, more appreciative of the government.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. I guess we'll we'll we'll just fall in line and just be happy with all of this control, and people are, you know, just walking into this control grid.
Speaker 3: Or imagine I I'm thinking like a science fiction writer now. You you are in this control grid. You see these Optimus robots. You think they're actually building a colony where there is food and life, and you don't have to live in this dystopic life. But, oh, you can only get here because of this.
And then we all think that we've earned it, line up to get on a machine, and we're blasted into death. This is the novel. Right?
Speaker 2: It's a Hollywood movie. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Do you like it? Yeah. Matrix.
Speaker 0: I don't like this dystopic future.
Speaker 3: It's macabre, but that's where my mind goes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Professor, any final thoughts on all of it? All of the things we talked about today? And I I mean, I just keep coming back to this economic, know, depression that we're facing, and I don't think people are prepared for it.
Speaker 2: No. I I think, like, the greatest challenge is for people to to, like, switch their mindsets because people are so complacent nowadays. You know, I don't think Americans appreciate how great their country is, how lucky their lives have been in that they've never really experienced a war, in that they've never really experienced scarcity, poverty, deprivation. And quite honestly, what's gonna kill most people is this radical kind of dissonance when they move towards a world in which things feel hopeless. So so I think, you know, what's really important is for people to start to switch their mentalities from a focus on towards materialism to a to a much greater focus on spirituality, on community, on family.
And if you do that, then I think you're much much more likely to weather the storm that's coming.
Speaker 3: You know, one more question I wanna ask because a German politician recently said that they should raise the age of enlistment for reservists to 70. A 70 year old being enlisted in the army. I mean, if this shows no lack of respect for human life, I don't know what does. And so I think that, again, this shows sort of an expansion of slave labor and war footing. What do you what do you think of that?
Speaker 2: Look. I think there's a depopulation agenda going on Yeah. Where the elite have known for decades that the population we have is unsustainable. This planet, its resources were really meant for only one or 2,000,000,000 people. Unfortunately, the elite don't wanna share.
They wanna they wanna live the life of billionaires, and they want us to own nothing and be happy about it. So they recognize that if they are to maintain their privilege, then they need to get rid of most of And so, you know, never let a a good crisis go to waste. And so there is clearly a depopulation agenda at work here behind the scenes.
Speaker 0: I guess I'll finally ask you about this Palantir big headline that came out about two days ago that they Palantir executives want to bring back the draft in The United States. They want to bring back the draft. It just as the selective service is now prepping for this, like, automatic registration in The United States, so you'll be automatically put in the selective service. What do you make of Palantir's push for a draft?
Speaker 2: Look. If there's an AI surveillance state, that's coming, then Palantir will be the heart and center of that. So food rationing will allow for, will justify a control grid, but also the national draft, if you think about it, will also justify a control grid where you need to make sure that young men know their patriotic duty and they're willing to go and die in The Middle East.
Speaker 0: Unbelievable. Professor Jiang, thank you so much for your deep analysis today. We really appreciate it. And and I and I hope you're not correct. I hope you're not correct.
Look.
Speaker 2: Look. I hope I'm wrong. Okay? People call me an Internet Internet super short. On the Internet, people call me an idiot.
I hope I'm an idiot. Okay? But but I also think I also think it's important for us to consider all possibilities and to be emotionally and psychologically prepared for the worst case scenario.
Speaker 0: Right. You've been right so far. So I I hope you are an idiot, and I hope that this is wrong, and that I hope we do not enter a forever war, with Iran. But you
Speaker 3: Well, how many of us were idiots not seeing the pandemic coming and then weren't prepared for it. So okay, you guys, there's precedence.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Professor, great to see you. Thank you so much. And I really appreciate you staying up late with us there in China. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks, guys. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I warn that the Strait of Hormuz closure and disrupted trade could spark a major fertilizer crisis, risking food and energy shortages as nitrogen-based fertilizers vanish and planting seasons falter, with assertions of a deliberately engineered collapse.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruptions to global trade routes, the world is facing a major fertilizer crisis that could trigger serious food and energy shortages. Without nitrogen-based fertilizers, planting seasons will be severely affected. The world is heading toward a famine, driven by a deliberately engineered collapse. We discuss this and more with @HealthRanger.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The first speaker argues that our modern food supply is energy repackaged through photosynthesis to create calories, and that nitrogenous fertilizers produced from natural gas are essential to feeding about half the world. Without these fertilizers, he estimates we could feed only about 4 billion people. He notes a delay in the current situation: we’re still consuming last year’s food for now, but as current crops fail, some farmers have bought fertilizer at high prices, some have applied less, and yields will drop. He warns that the shortage will be felt most during the fall planting season in North America and Canada, and that this will affect the food people eat next year. He predicts that 2027 will be far worse than 2026 for North America and regions including the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, India, and Turkey, and that the real hard part happens in 2027.
The second speaker points to a NaturalNews post describing an engineered collapse by design, referencing the framing of a collapse by design.
The first speaker embraces the idea that the collapse is engineered and compares the COVID years to a pilot program to test obedience, noting how people accepted mask mandates and distancing, which he characterizes as illogical. He suggests that authorities demonstrated they could compel people to accept higher gas prices and other policies, even as conditions worsened, arguing that many would go along with it while others would not. He asserts that for those who want to survive and thrive, preparation is feasible: individuals can learn to grow food, stockpile food, and diversify wealth into assets like gold and silver. He maintains that there are actionable steps to take and that the situation is not the end of the world if one is well informed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our modern food supply is simply energy repackaged through photosynthesis to create calories. That's the way the agricultural industrial complex currently operates. And without nitrogenous fertilizers that are produced as a result of natural gas, we would not be able to feed more than about 4,000,000,000 people or about half the current population of the world. And that's that's a very optimistic estimate. So there's a delay, though.
As you mentioned, the the timeline there, there's a delay. So we're still eating last year's food right now for the most part. As current crops begin to fail, and we don't have a total failure in North America, some farmers bought fertilizer, some paid a lot higher of a price, some applied less fertilizer, so they'll have lower crop yields. But it's not Mad Max yet. However, when you get into the fall planting season in America and in places like Canada, that's when you're really gonna feel the shortage, and that impacts then the food that people eat next year.
So 2027 will be far worse than 2026 for North America, for The Middle East, for Africa, for Southeast Asia, India, even Turkey, you name it. So the real hard part of this happens in 2027, and almost nobody is really aware of that yet. I mean, mean, your viewers are, so thank you for covering this issue.
Speaker 1: Well, I just wanna put this up on the screen. You posted this on NaturalNews dot com about the engineered collapse here and the collapse by and I love how you started off the collapse by design because that's exactly what this is.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Absolutely. This is clearly engineered. And it's it's like I said, see, I I think the COVID years were kind of a pilot program to see what they could get away with, what level of obedience could they achieve, what level of shutdowns could they get people to go along with. And and and it turns out that most of the world was very obedient to these insane demands.
Like, you have to wear this mask that doesn't work, and you have to stand five feet away because a virus can't can't fly six feet. You know? Things like that. It was all nonsensical. It was almost like a like a Simon Says game on a global scale for low IQ obedient cultists.
And as a result, then they realized they can tell people almost anything. They can tell people, oh, you're gonna have to pay higher gas prices so that we can win. And that when you're starving, it's a new golden age, things like that. And a lot of people will go along with that, but not the ones that wanna live. So for your audience that wanna survive and thrive, it's actually very doable.
I'm not actually a doomer. If you're well informed and prepared, you can learn to grow food. You can stockpile food. You can, you know, get your money into a system that preserves wealth like actual gold and silver, things like that. There there are things you can do.
It's not the end of the world if you're informed.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note the Strait of Malacca is next, carrying seven times the Panama Canal’s traffic. @Michael_Yon predicted Nord Stream, Groningen, and a screwworm invasion years ago. He says famine is being engineered on purpose, and the next choke point is already in play.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The Strait of Malacca is next. It carries 7 times more traffic than the Panama Canal. @Michael_Yon predicted Nordstream, Groningen, and the screwworm invasion years in advance. He says global famine is being engineered on purpose and the next choke point is already in play. https://t.co/HXTcF7Pn4M
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker and Masako describe a pattern of accurate predictions they have made, including the Groningen gas field closure in the Netherlands, and Nord Stream being cut, noting they were in the Netherlands and Germany researching these events before they happened. They also claim a prediction about screw worms moving from Panama back to the United States.
They argue that they know what “the beast” is up to, stating that the beast says it and does these things, with the clear aim of creating global famine. They assert that famine would enable various strategic moves, including generating “human osmotic pressure”—the push and pull of migration. They say they have witnessed this through years spent at the Darien Gap in Panama and along the entire US Southern Border, observing an invasion, which they say has set the table and shaped operations for what is unfolding: famine and a large amount of human osmotic pressure that could drive hundreds of millions to move across borders into Europe and into the United States, among other places.
They foresee famine as a forthcoming development and believe it will be accompanied by further unfoldings, such as the closing of the Strait of Malacca. They note that the Strait of Malacca handles seven times more traffic than the Panama Canal, and that the Panama Canal is vital to the United States. They suggest other wars may unfold and reference a map showing the Strait of Malacca and the Singapore Strait as critical, easily interruptible chokepoints.
The speaker highlights Indonesia as a focal point, stating that the United States recently negotiated overflight terms with Indonesia for its military. They describe Indonesia as a perfect place to close the Malacca Strait, adding that Indonesia does not like China and does not like Israel; they claim Israel uses the United States as a surrogate there. They mention Paul Wolfowitz, noting his past roles as ambassador to Indonesia and deputy secretary of defense, his Zionist identity, his leadership at the World Bank, and his reputation as a main architect of the Iraq War, suggesting these connections are related to the broader narrative.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: At this point, Strait Of Malacca is on the chopping board for being closed. Now keep in mind, the reason that Masako and I have been so accurate on predicting so many things like the Groningen gas field would close in Netherlands, biggest gas field in Europe. We successfully predicted that. We were in Netherlands quite a bit researching that actually before it happened. And, let's say, Nord Stream, we were in Germany predicting that before, Nord Stream was cut.
We were publishing. We thought Nord Stream was gonna get cut. And and it did. Right? And and and so many other things like screw worms coming up from Panama back to The United States.
We predicted that several maybe three or four years in advance, maybe four. And in any case, how are we getting this? Because we know what the beast is up to. Because the beast says it, and does these things, we can clearly see that they're trying to create global famine. That's obvious.
Right? And so with global famine, you can do many things if you want to destroy the world as we know it. One is you can create a lot of hop, human osmotic pressure. Human osmotic pressure is the push and pull of migration. So you see these years that we've spent in places like the Darien Gap in Panama or across the entire I've been across the entire US Southern Border watching the invasion.
All of these things have set the table, set conditions. They've been shaping operations for what's now unfolding, which is famine and a huge amount of human osmotic pressure, which can put hundreds of millions to people, you know, flooding over borders into Europe. They've already done so, but also flooding over you know, increased flooding of people into The United States and other places. But at the end of the day, we can see that famine is is coming, and that's how, I think that you're gonna be able to see, other things that are gonna unfold, such as closing the Strait Of Malacca. Strait Of Malacca does maybe seven times more traffic than Panama Canal, and Panama Canal is absolutely vital to The United States.
Now I think you're gonna see other wars unfold eventually. Okay. You've got up on the map there, Strait Of Malacca and the Singapore Strait. Right? So this is absolutely vital, and it's very easy to interrupt.
You see Indonesia right there. The United States just just negotiated overflight terms over with for our military over all of Indonesia. Indonesia is a perfect place to close that down. Right? Now Indonesia does not like China very much.
They don't like Israel very much either, but they use us as a Israel uses us as a sort of a surrogate there. Actually, Paul Wolfowitz used to be the ambassador to to Indonesia, and, he used to invite me to dinner and that sort of thing. He was a deputy secretary of defense. Right? So Paul Wolfowitz is a super Zionist.
He's in his eighties now. He was also the leader of the World Bank for a while till he lost his job there. But Paul Wolfowitz was said to be one of the main architects of the Iraq war. Right? So this is all related.
This is not unrelated to each other.
reSee.it AI Summary
I point out that the Strait of Hormuz blockade is already hurting the global economy, pushing key allies to distance themselves from the U.S. and Israel. With disrupted supply chains, the real consequences are surfacing worldwide, and I explore what this means for long-term U.S. influence.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The Strait of Hormuz blockade is already having a disastrous impact on the global economy. It’s pushing our key allies to distance themselves from both the U.S. and Israel. As global supply chains are being disrupted, countries around the world are beginning to feel the real consequences of this conflict. What does this mean for long-term U.S. influence globally? @DougAMacgregor and @DanielLDavis1 break it down.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: The GCC allies are largely blockaded and not getting anything through; only UAE or Oman might be getting a few shipments due to being on the Gulf of Oman side. This is driving higher oil prices. We can’t simply bluff or "play a game of chicken" because it affects the entire world—Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States. The shortage extends beyond oil to things like helium, and it’s impacting chip manufacturing and broader economic activity. These are medium-term issues already baked in and in short supply, so we’re facing real problems and a question of how long we can endure this.
Speaker 1: As energy becomes more expensive—oil at $110, then $120, $130, $140, $150, rising until this crisis ends globally—the risk is a financial collapse worse than 2007–2008, potentially a depression in much of the world. Economists predict a serious recession, possibly a depression, and these dynamics are what Putin was trying to convey to Trump because Americans are perceived as potentially catastrophic. China is dependent on energy but is expanding nuclear power, has substantial coal, and is investing in renewables; China will survive this. Japan and Korea are on the edge; India is affected; Egypt is trying to feed 100,000,000 and facing famine; Turkey is involved. These states are being pushed toward war not just with Israel but with the United States, since without Israel none of this would be happening, and they know it.
Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey, India, and possibly others may join a coalition to force the United States to stop. The speaker would prefer not to go there and believes President Trump should end the blockade, which was adopted because it was the only measure short of returning to war, but the blockade won’t work because the world won’t tolerate it.
The president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) has publicly said it’s time for Korea to defend itself. It’s been time for Korea to take control of its own armed forces for a long time, but the U.S. currently controls all their armed forces and Koreans have not liked that for at least twenty years. Now they want control of their own armed forces. The speaker expects the dissolution of the United States’ unofficial overseas imperial holdings, predicting the Koreans will expel the U.S., with Japan likely following. In the Pacific, trilateral efforts among Korea, the Philippines, and Japan are forming to cooperate with the U.S. in a future war with China—not in our lifetimes or on the planet, as no one wants war with China.
Nobody wants war with China; China is increasingly seen as a safer place for cash and investments in the U.S. This shift began when the U.S. began telling Russians they would not allow them to access billions of rubles and may seize funds, possibly giving cash to Ukrainians. People are watching and asking whether they want to depend on the U.S. financial system or face interference with bank accounts. There are many bad developments right now, and the last thing the American people need is a war, certainly not one involving China, Russia, or any other powers along with Iran, yet that seems to the direction in which things are headed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All of our GCC allies or the majority of them anyway are also still blockaded, and they're not getting anything through. I think only the, if I'm not mistaken, UAE or Oman is getting a few out because they're on the Gulf Of Oman side, but that's it. And so we need to be taking a look at that because that's what's driving the higher price in oil. See, I don't think that we can sit here and just say, yeah. I'll just, you know, play a game of chicken and see if I the pressure I can put on you is greater than the pressure you can put on me and who's gonna blink because it affects the entire world.
And I mean, we see in Asia, in Africa, in in Europe, all over the place, and in including The United States. It's it's driving the price of literally everything up, and it's the absence of things like even helium aside from the the the eating part. It's it's affecting our ability to make chips, which means everything that we have all the economic activity is being set up to have a real problem. And this is these are talking about medium term things that are already baked in that already are gonna be in short supply. So we're we've already got a problem here.
And then the question is, how long can we go?
Speaker 1: As the energy get becomes more expensive as it goes to a $110 a barrel of oil, a $120, a $130, a 140, a 150, and keeps going until this crisis ends globally, we're going to go under financially. You're gonna have a crisis here that makes 2007 and 2008 look mild. Many economists are predicting not just a serious recession, but certainly in much of the world, depression. And I think all of these things are what president Putin was trying to convey to president Trump because at some point, everybody says these Americans are maniacs. They've lost their minds.
Yeah. They're gonna destroy the whole world. And so suddenly, you have China, which is obviously very dependent upon the energy even though they have stockpiled more oil than perhaps anybody else. They are rapidly expanding their nuclear power. They've got enormous quantities of coal and coal fired plants.
They've done a lot of work in renewables. China will survive this. Japan and Korea, they're on the edge, and these people are supposed to be our friends. Yeah. We've done this damage to them.
Same thing is true in India. And at some point, Egypt, is trying to feed a 100,000,000 people and is having great difficulty doing so, is gonna face famine. And then, of course, you have the Turks at the other end. All of these states are being pushed into a state of war, not just with Israel, but ultimately with us. Because without Israel, we wouldn't be doing any of this, and they all know it.
So Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey, India, who knows who else may join such a coalition to force us to stop. I'd prefer that we not go there. And I think president Trump ought to end this stupid blockade. I think he adopted the blockade approach because that was the only thing they could think of short of going back to war. But the blockade isn't going to work because the world's not gonna tolerate that.
The president of The Republic Of Korea, we called South Korea, has now announced publicly it's time for Korea to defend itself. Well, it was time for Korea to do that a long time ago, but we wouldn't leave. We currently control all of their armed forces, and the Koreans don't like that. They haven't liked that for at least twenty years. Now they want control of their own armed forces.
I think we're going to watch the dissolution of our unofficial overseas imperial holdings take place. I think the Koreans are gonna toss us out. I think that Japan is right behind them. And now we have efforts in The Pacific to organize these trilateral relationships where the the Koreans, the Filipinos, the Japanese are all going to cooperate with us in a future war with China. Not on the planet, not in our lifetimes.
Nobody's interested in going to war with China at all. In fact, China is beginning to look like a better place in terms of being a a safe house for your cash and your investments in The United States. And this began when we started telling the Russians that we have billions of, rubles, and you're not going to be allowed to have any of it. We're going to tie it up. We may even give your cash away to the Ukrainians.
People have watched this and said, do you really wanna depend on The US financial system? Do you want them to tell you how you're gonna manage your own bank accounts or worse, steal your money? I mean, there are so many things going on right now that are bad. The last thing that the American people need is a war and certainly no war under any circumstances that involves China or Russia or any other powers along with Iran. And yet that seems to be the direction in which we're headed.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Stargates. Giants in stasis chambers. Ancient portals connecting Iran to Iraq to Romania to Egypt. @MichaelSalla says this is the real reason for the war, and the plan has been in place since 2001. https://t.co/4rU6abfqtg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctor Michael Saleh discusses a long-standing, multi-decade focus on Iran beyond contemporary headlines, arguing that plans to attack Iran began in the early 2000s, predating the Netanyahu era. He cites general Wesley Clark, who said that after 9/11 there were plans to attack seven Middle East nations that would culminate in an attack on Iran, with a memo describing taking out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing with Iran. Saleh connects these plans to the development of a new generation of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) that could be used from satellites to identify subsurface anomalies in countries including Iraq and Romania, anomalies he says correspond to space-time phenomena, portals, stargates, or halls of records.
According to Saleh, these GPR-detected anomalies revealed underground artifacts and portals. He asserts that under Iraq, and later Romania, there were hall-of-records and portals that could be accessed only by personnel with specific free-consciousness, and that troops were required to access them because the anomalies could be dangerous. He claims a US military satellite identified anomalies under both Iraq and Romania, leading to invasions: in Romania, the tomb of Gilgamesh and a stasis chamber; in Iraq, similar discoveries around the tomb of Gilgamesh and a stargate/portal, with the US Marine Corps establishing a base atop the area.
Saleh links stasis chambers to space-time distortion technology that preserves occupants for thousands of years; Marco Polo reportedly encountered three magi bodies preserved in stasis wells in Iran. He describes stasis chambers as stone sarcophagi and connects giants—described across traditions and modern whistleblower accounts—to these technologies. He cites witnesses such as JP, a former US Army member, who encountered a 14-foot giant in a sarcophagus during a mission, who woke up and moved on. He asserts Giants can activate technologies near sarcophagi and move through space-time portals, a capability he ties to the Montauk project (the Montauk chair and time-travel experiments) and to inner-earth portal networks described in the Transylvanian Sunrise by Radu Sinema.
The conversation extends to the role of secret societies, especially Freemasons, in monitoring anomalies and pressuring political leaders to justify invasions or align with NATO. Saleh suggests Romani portals connect to Iraq and Tibet and Egypt, with Iran now on the radar as other nations discover underground sites and artifacts. He claims Iran’s underground construction projects—including missile facilities and uranium enrichment plants—lead workers deeper, where they encounter ancient sites and portals, with the Chinese aiding Iran in these efforts. The US is pressured to gain access to these underground locations, with possible boots-on-the-ground operations either as overt invasions or as covert access alongside Iranian cooperation, potentially enabling the transfer of artifacts to the United States.
Saleh also touches on emergent portal-time-travel rooms discussed by whistleblowers, citing Montauk-era facilities in the US (Long Island) and other sites in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, where rooms and doors are associated with different time periods (for example, 1550, 1940, 2050, 2090). He links time travel and portal technology to a broader framework of earth chakras and a global portal system, including inner-earth civilizations and reptilian beings who understand these technologies. He concludes that, given current rhetoric, boots-on-the-ground action in Iran appears likely to access these underground portals and artifacts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, all the focus on the war in Iran has been focused on oil supremacy and energy shocks and the control of the Strait Of Hormuz. But what is actually going on with Iran? In fact, turns out that this whole plan for Iran and taking over this area has gone back decades, in fact, in to early two thousands. According to our next guest who's written extensively about this, doctor Michael Sala, this the plan for Iran started as early as 2001, the early two thousands. Was this even on your radar back then?
He has uncovered evidence that the powers that be have been using ground penetrating radar, have identified all sorts of ancient sites including stargates, and perhaps giants that have been buried in some of these deep underground caverns inside of Iran. Is that really the story for why there is such this focus on regime change, destroying the government, bombing this country with deep bunker busting bombs, and then sending in special forces to try to capture, the radioactive dust as president Trump has called it, or is it all tied to these ancient artifacts buried beneath the country of Iran? We wanted to bring in doctor Michael Saleh who's written this great piece over at exopolitics.org about the battle for these ancient technologies, these stargates, and giants, which dates back to 2001. Doctor, great to see you.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Clayton, for having me back.
Speaker 0: My pleasure. My pleasure. So, you know, I think a lot of people think, well, maybe this is just a few years old and, you know, going after the country of Iran, regime change. It's just something that's kinda popped up in the past few months. February is when we launched this attack with the help of Israel.
But you make the point that this goes back decades.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yes. I think it's very important that we look at this evidence that the plans for attacking Iran predate the the current Netanyahu administration that came into power in 2022 and has a very extremist perspective on relations with its neighboring countries. And, of course, you get the whole greater Israel project and people say that, well, Donald Trump is really aiding and abetting that because he's captured by the Zionist lobby. But the truth is that plans for attacking Iran go way beyond or way before Netanyahu regime that they actually began during the regime of Ehud Barak back in, early two thousand and one and, Ariel Sharon, which was, when the two state solution was being planned.
And, this is very well established by, general Wesley Clark, the former supreme allied commander of the European forces, a four star general, who says that after the nine eleven attacks, he went to the Pentagon, to see one of his former subordinates who was now a general, in charge of a major command, and that, this general told him that there were plans to attack seven Middle East nations that would culminate in an attack on Iran. So this was in 2001.
Speaker 2: This is a memo that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.
Speaker 1: So, you know, we're talking twenty five years ago, way well before the the great Israel project was being championed by Netanyahu and his cronies. So I believe that that's evidence that something else was happening at that time that made the powers that be place Iran a lot along with other countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and so forth on the radar as as countries where it was a priority for The US to get involved in a way where they would be able to get boots on the ground or have access to that country's resources. And this coincides with the, development of of new generation of ground penetrating radar established on satellites where now for the first time, the US military intelligence community was getting accurate data on what on what laid beneath the ground in all of these countries. And I believe that what they saw was what it was that led to this plan to attack Iran along with other plans for, a future GOG and Magog end times war.
Speaker 0: So what do you believe that they saw with this ground penetrating radar?
Speaker 1: Well, what they saw were anomalies. The ground penetrating radar. I mean, ground penetrating radar has been around for many decades. In 1972, for example, the Apollo seventeen mission used ground penetrating radar on one of its satellites, well, on the moon orbiting, Apollo mission to be able to peer up to 1.3 kilometers below the surface of
Speaker 0: the And to be clear, it's not finding because I know people in the comments have said, well, Clayton, you have to remember ground penetrating radar is not finding objects. It's finding maybe gaps or anomalies. Right? Is that to so just so we're specific. It's not gonna show it's not gonna show a body or but it could show the outline of something that's very odd.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. Yes. It will show, changes in the different mediums, as you penetrate the ground. And as far as stargates, giants, stasis chambers are concerned, ancient technologies are concerned, All these are associated with space time anomalies. And those space time anomalies was what it was that the ground penetrating radar was able to pick up.
They would still have to send in teams to find out what exactly was in those ground pain what was in those anomalies that they detected underground. And so, for example, they detected, anomalies under the ground in Iraq, and then shortly after, the same anomaly showed up under the ground in Romania. And what they what we do know is that, this there was a military satellite used to identify these anomalies under both Iraq and, Romania, and that was in in the early two thousands. And under Romania and Iraq, they found these space time anomalies. They found hall of records that dated back, many millennia, and they found portals in both of those locations.
And in particular, what we know a lot about the Romanian discovery because there was a whistleblower that came forward by the name of Radu Cinema. That's a that's a pseudonym he uses, but he described in a series of book called Transylvanian Sunrise what it was that they discovered in this anomaly under Romania, and the same thing was found in Iraq and that there were portals leading in and, but essentially they had to send in actual troops because the ground penetrating just identifies an anomaly so then you have to send in specialized forces who were trained to be able to access these anomalies because they can be very dangerous. Anything that impacts space time, they found that, only certain people could access these kinds of anomalies. And so they they found that, when they sent in the initial teams, the soldiers would be, in some cases, negatively impacted. And so they would have to choose people, people who had particular free consciousness who could access these anomalies.
So that's what happened in Romania. And the same thing was happening in Iraq at the same time, which led to and actually, I did write about this back in 2003 when I first got involved in this field of exopolitics that there was this space time anomaly or a stargate or a portal more more accurately in Iraq, and that was why they went into Iraq in 2003. And and that's kinda, like, substantiated, by the behavior of US special forces, who established the presence around this area called, what they discovered, the Tomb Of Gilgamesh, and they established a marine base right over it. And this is where they began to kinda dig, and they they encountered essentially a stasis chamber with, Gilgamesh. And and there was also Stargate or or a portal that, they were seeking information on.
So, yes, all this goes back
Speaker 0: to the early two thousands. So just to unpack all of that, that's a heavy a heavy dose to handle. So there's a militant so we know in Iraq, there's a US marine base built on top of a stasis chamber and portal or a stargate space where they started to dig.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right. They they found that there was a team of German archaeologists that found the tomb of Gilgamesh. And after the US invasion of Iraq, the Marine Corps established the base right over that area. And and, of course, that was a cover for US special forces to be able to go in and kind of, look around what was down there. And that's where I believe that they came across, some of these ancient artifacts associated with with Gilgamesh, who in the Sumerian records was this demigod.
And I believe what they found was a stasis chamber that is a kinda like a a technology that kinda like distorts space time so people or giants that get into it can be perfectly preserved for thousands of years.
Speaker 0: And so these stasis chambers, we have evidence that the US military has access to these stasis chambers through whistleblowers and others who have seen this and have been, like, sort of adversely affected by it. Is that do I have that right? And maybe you can talk more about what these stasis chambers actually do.
Speaker 1: Well, these stasis chambers, I mean, they essentially warp space time so that whoever gets into that chamber just goes to sleep. And for them, they might be sleeping for a few hours. But when they wake up, thousands of years have passed by. And and it's important to to point out that, records for these stasis chambers go all the way back to the thirteenth century. You have Marco Polo describing in he one of his books that, he came across a a stasis well, three stasis chambers in Iran where you had the perfectly preserved bodies of the magi.
These were the three, I guess, wise men that that visited Jesus at the time of his birth. And Marco Polo says that he saw the bodies in these tombs that were perfectly preserved, and he saw their hair, their beards, and they were perfectly preserved. And so these these magi were asleep. And and this is the kind of technology that was made available to the elites. And and and by elites, we're talking about people and giants that go back many, many, millennia.
And and the giants, of course, you you have the old testament talking about giants. You have, many cultures talking about giants existing in times, ancient times, and many of these giants appeared to go into these stasis chambers, this kind of technology that would perfectly preserve their body, all the way back to the fall of Atlantis. And and their bodies have been perfectly preserved for thousands of years, well over twelve thousand years. And many of them have been discovered using these ground penetrating radar technologies.
Speaker 0: Are they pretty much the same? Like when they find one of these stasis chambers, is it well recognized within maybe the the powerful within The United States and the and the sort of secret space program that these things will look the same pretty much across the board?
Speaker 1: Well, they they totally understand the the technology. I mean, they're associated with, a stone sarcophagus and, this that's one of the things about stone. There's there's particular types of stone that's actually a form of technology and you you find those in, many sarcophagi, all all over the world, in Malta, in in Egypt, and these were used to preserve bodies for extended periods. And and so they do, they do recognize the technology. And these giants, they were being discovered by special forces.
You've interviewed JP, former US Army, and and he, in one of his missions, encountered one of these giants that he was part of a 10 man mission and he had this 14 foot sarcophagus and inside it was this huge giant who was asleep, perfectly preserved, red hair, very long beard that kinda like stretched out and that, and this this giant woke up, during that mission that, he woke up and he and he moved on. And so there have been many many other stories.
Speaker 0: Hold. I was about to ask you. So when they find them, they're perfectly preserved. We've also interviewed Timothy Alberino on this subject who's studied extensively the giants and what what the US government knows about these giants. He's written books on it.
I mean, he certainly traveled, around the world to uncover this, and what people had photographs of these giants. So when they were awakened or if, like, you know, special forces are awakening these giants, when you say they move they're moving on, are they like going through this portal and and traversing? What what is happening to them?
Speaker 1: Well, the the giants as they're waking up, I mean, they have certain abilities and knowledge that allows them to activate the technologies near the sarcophagus or the the stasis chamber. And so they're able to move through portals. I mean, they're they're able to create space time portals. And and this is, something that was, well established during the Montauk project. You go back to nineteen seventy one to nineteen eighty four when when the Montauk project was created.
I mean, there was something called the Montauk chair, and people who got into that chair, which was essentially something that had been retrieved from a spacecraft. And when they got into that chair, their their mind was enhanced so that they could manifest things. And one of the things that could be done through that chair was, to be able to create a portal. And through that portal, you could move, you know, from one place to another. So it's the same thing for these giants.
I mean, they would or technologies that they could access and they could move, very, very rapidly. Again, this is something that's described in the Radu Cinema, book series, Transylvania Sunrise, where there's a book, book two in the series describes the inner earth, and it says that the inner earth is filled with all of these portals where you travel from one place to another or from one underground city to another through a portal that instantaneously takes you there. And and that this is known to the global elite, but has been kept from the rest of the population. That so we don't know about these portals, but those who have access to the knowledge, they're able to identify where the portals are and to be able to use them for for instantaneous travel anywhere around the planet.
Speaker 0: So that's why they would want to go to war in Iran because these portals are just incredibly powerful. Maybe you could just talk a little bit more about this technology, the space time portals, and what specifically The US would want with those inside of Iran. And how many do you think there are? Three of like, according to Marco Polo, you mentioned that there were three different locations of these sarcophagi with giants. Right?
Three if I'm not mistaken. Is that similar to the portal in the same room?
Speaker 1: Well, the the technology that Marco Polo saw was these sarcophagi with, the three magi in them. So these were magicians or these were people with incredible knowledge at the time. So they themselves weren't giants but the technology is similar to these sarcophagi, these giant sarcophagi found all over the world and in Egypt today you can go to places where they have these giant sarcophagi and they don't know what they were for. They thought that they were for kind of like bulls, for preserving bulls, which is ridiculous that these were actually for giants. So so this is, a technology that, is distributed all over the world and that the, special forces people understand how these technologies can be used.
And so when they began identifying those space time anomalies in all these different countries, including Iran, they they had to get access to prevent the government or the and, of course, all of those seven countries identified by Wesley Clark back in 2001, they were all authoritarian regimes. And so the the US special forces, along with, high level members of the Freemasons, this is where you get the secret societies come in because the secret societies, they have access to this knowledge and and to this, ancient technology. They know all about it. It's handed down from generation to generation in Freemasons and other secret societies. So what was done was that these secret societies, they would monitor developments in terms of, where these anomalies were being found, and then they would pressure the United States, government to come up with a rationale for taking over that country, forcing that country to do something like join NATO, which is what happened in the case of Romania.
But in the case of Saddam Hussein, there was no chance that he would, kinda, like, hand over this technology, so so they came up with a war. So so this is where we get the real culprit for for these wars. It's not so much, elected politicians such as Netanyahu. It's really the secret societies such as the Freemasons who understand the significance of these space time anomalies, portals, giants, and and they wanna get control over those. And so they come with justifications or pressure in political representatives to come up with the rationale for why they need to invade that country.
Speaker 0: So with Romania, for instance, is The United States still in charge of the portal that was discovered in Romania? Do we have, like, a military presence there that they the government just allows The United States or NATO to just sit upon?
Speaker 1: Totally. Yeah. United States has established a huge military presence in Romania. The Romanian government is under the tight control of NATO and the secret societies, the Freemasons in particular. And the information about the Hall Of Record, the portals associated with the Bucege Mountains in Romania, All of that has been heavily suppressed.
In fact, I went to Romania, in 2004 and, we we got to meet with some people that know Radu Sinema, the author of the Transylvanian book series. But he, he wanted to meet with us, but he was warned against it. And because he was told that the information is being suppressed. So they're they're putting a lockdown on all of this information coming out. They don't want the world to know that there are these ancient halls of records in Romania, in Egypt, in Tibet, and other places around the world that, have ancient records that stretch back to the Atlantean and pre Atlantean era and that the you have these portals that connect, these different sites.
So there's portal connecting Romania with Iraq, with with Tibet, with Egypt, and, Iran figures into all
Speaker 0: of that. Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you. Sorry.
But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest. It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Leer Capital and you bought some.
If you didn't, trust me. It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it. They know what's coming.
Isn't it time, folks? Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them. So does Natalie.
We both do. And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason.
Don't make the same mistake twice. Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I have been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more.
Call them. 1806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. So you could literally walk into one of these portals and be transported from Iraq right to Romania.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yes. You you essentially, are able to access that portal. There there needs to be a particular frequency and consciousness to open up the that portal network. And once they've done that, then it becomes much easier for people to just travel through these, portals.
Speaker 0: And are they adversely affected? So when US special forces, as you mentioned, had sort of stumbled across these sarcophagi, these portals, these space time portals. There's like adverse effects on their health?
Speaker 1: Yes. That can happen for people who don't have the right frequency or consciousness, which is why they recruit contactees, which is why they recruit people like JP because these are people who have, the frequency and consciousness so that they can interact with these ancient technologies, portals, so forth, safely. I mean, you know, to to give you an example, with the Montauk project, there there are estimates of anywhere between 100,000 to 300,000 children that were experimented on in the Montauk project, and only a handful of those survived. One of them is Stuart Swerdlow who I've interviewed, several times and and he's he's a Montauk survivor and he talked about these kinds of experiments and and what he was involved in in terms of time travel and so forth. So they were doing all of this in, in Montauk, Long Island, but they found that, you know, adults, for example, had a difficult time being able to move through these space time anomalies.
So they work with children, and they had to perfect the technology. And so they experimented with a lot of orphans, a lot of homeless children. And once they perfected the technology, it became much easier or safer for special forces people to be able to go through these, technologies. So now they've they've pretty much mastered the technology for being able to travel through portals. They they know what's required.
They know what people they need to have with them, and, they they now know where the many of these portals are showing up in the ancient technology. And and Iran is now on their radar as a place that they absolutely have to get into because they they believe that this technology is being discovered by the Iranians in their underground construction projects.
Speaker 0: So I was about to ask you, are the Iranians fully aware of this technology and they would absolutely wanna keep that away from The United States and Israel and other other enemies, so to speak, or or are they still in the dark about a lot of this technology?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, they're discovering this technology as they dig their, underground missile production facilities and uranium enrichment, plants. They they, you know, they're going deeper and deeper because they they understand that that's the only way to protect themselves from the smart weapons that The US and Israel has. So they've been going dig, deeper and deeper. And as they go down, they encounter these ancient ancient sites, and and it's on the record there. There are underground cities in Iran that's part of the public record now.
They've discovered some of these underground cities, but they go deeper than that. And as they go deeper, they encounter an ancient underground tunnel system. And this tunnel system goes back many thousands of years, and it's quite extensive. So they're finding all of this, and they're finding the artifacts, they're starting to find the anomalies. And the Iranians don't know about these themselves because, I mean, they're they're it's a fairly new regime.
So they've called in the Chinese. So the Chinese have been helping the Iranians with their underground construction projects, but that's where the the Chinese and and the Iranians are finding these portals, artifacts, stasis chambers, and the the Chinese are getting access to this. And so this is why now The US is being pressured or was was well, the Trump administration was pressured to go forward with this invasion, and and I don't believe it has I mean, the the surface justification is, of course, well, Iran is on the verge of, developing nuclear weapons and that that Iran's missile production is a is a threat to the to the region and, of course, oil. They won't have access to the oil, but the real reason is because, I think the Trump administration, is is being pressured behind the scenes to get in to get their kind of boots on the ground or special forces in to take control of these underground locations.
Speaker 0: Recently, and you and I were talking offline about this, a former employee at OpenAI, ChatGPT, basically is now blowing the whistle on Sam Altman, claiming that he has been building portals and summoning aliens using artificial intelligence. It's kind of a shocking admission, but I think and I don't know if it's demonic or what it is, but he says the the portal the portals are reportedly located in The United States and China with a new one that they've added in The Middle East, and that they're basically building these portals, and that's what OpenAI and Sam Altman are doing, basically summoning aliens. Any truth to this at all?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that, this is touches on a very important point that the creation of a portal where people can move through space time or aliens could come into our world through space time is is something that's been discovered, many many years ago. And that either through things such as torsion fields, establishing torsion fields. So for example, if you have a linear accelerator and and you you you spin plasma around at at a very high rate, you start generating space time anomalies. High voltage electrostatic charges can also be used for generating these kinds of portal effects. There's also sacred geometry, arranging things in geo in a particular geometric pattern can also create these portals.
So people in in secret societies have known about this, especially when it comes to sacred geometry. Mean, if you look at the Freemasons, I mean, they they've known about portals for, for a long, long time. I mean, using pentagrams, for example. Pentagrams and circles with crystals and chanting and so forth, that opens up a portal for aliens or deep well, people call them demons, but these are really aliens, in particular reptilians who can come through. And so, I think what Sam Altman may have discovered is through his kind of like experiments or research.
He's discovered one of these ways of being able to create a portal and to have beings show up. And and some and the and the beings that show up are are very willing to show up if they're from, say, a world another world or they're, say, reptilian beings from the inner earth, and they see a human who's pretty naive, doesn't know the consequences of what they're doing.
Speaker 0: You know, they'll show up, and they can take advantage of that human and the situation, which is, again, why there is this kind of, like, urgency to to prevent the Iranians, doing this in a way that could lead to, some aliens or aggressive aliens coming through these portals creating all kinds of problems. You know, David Ike, of course, one of his big messages is about the reptilians who, in in many ways, control control us to his point, really nefarious things and sort of created this simulation. But one of his big, of course, messages is about AI and the biological fusion of AI and this control. Really, it's the control mechanism to control all of us. And so when I hear the story about reptilians that you're just telling me and Sam Altman and Chad GPT and artificial intelligence, like, all of that starts to come together and coalesce.
Am I wrong? Am I seeing it incorrectly?
Speaker 1: There definitely is a connection between all those things. I mean, the reptilians, I mean, they are an ancient race. I mean, they're both indigenous to the planet Earth, and, of course, they have civilizations in other worlds, and and they know about these technologies. They understand how portals work. They also have advanced technologies like starships and so forth.
But the but the ones that humanity interacts with a lot of the time, you know, they're here through portals. They understand how to use these portal systems. And and, of course, you know, that means that they can, for example, very easily intimidate any world ruler. You can imagine being a king, whether an ancient king or a modern king and some eight foot tall reptilian comes through a portal into your sleeping chambers and says to you, well, you're you're gonna work for me now. And and and that king or that president or that leader, you know, they don't really have any choice because, these reptilians, they understand how to use these portals to be able to travel all over the place.
And and there's a kinda, like, battle, if you like, between white hats, people who want to kinda, like, ensure that these technologies are not misused or that you don't have these off world species or indigenous reptilians kinda, like, generating undue control over the rest of humanity. And so, yeah, you get the the white hats kinda, like, stepping in, trying to control all of that. So, yeah, so that's why I think you you you have Iran.
Speaker 0: So one of the things that I have been fascinated about as it relates to these portals is time travel. And there seems to be a a a wealth of knowledge within the United States government about time travel and the fact in these portal rooms that are set up for time travel. Now, you know, speaking to secret space program insiders who've witnessed these rooms specifically in The United States where they walk into a room and there's multiple doors within this chamber with different dates on each door. For instance, the year 2050, 2090, 1940. And what these witnesses have said is they they witness human beings kind of walking in and out wearing clothing from that time period as if they're going on a mission.
They're coming out of those doors. Almost think of it like Grand Central Station in a way where you're going to this subway, you're going to that subway train, you're going to Track 1, Track 3, Track 4, but it's in these large sort of time travel rooms. What do you know about these rooms, and do you have any idea where they might be located? I know there's at least one maybe in The United States, and I've been trying to get information as to where this this, is located. Of course, it's highly classified, but maybe you have some insight into these portal time travel rooms that the US government knows about.
Speaker 1: Well we know that in the Montauk project on Long Island Camp Campiro in particular back in the 1970s that they developed these kinds of time travel technologies and that they were being used to send people back to to conduct espionage in in the past to observe what was going on in those eras. And and you mentioned a whistleblower who saw a facility, a military facility, where there were four rooms and each one would go into a particular period of time, 1550 for example and then 1940 and 2050 and 2090 as you mentioned. And so that was another facility in The United States. I've had other whistleblowers who have identified, places in New Mexico, Arizona, Pasadena, in California where these time travel technologies and portal technologies can be located. So there's a close relationship between portals and time travel, because again, you're you're warping space and time.
So you can either travel back in time or travel through space to another location. So there's multiple locations in US where these portals connect And, also in the inner earth, as I mentioned, there's an extensive portal system that that is used by inner earth beings. I mean, they're able to travel throughout the world just by understanding the portal system. There's a kind of system of portals, and and there's ley lines, that are used for being able to travel the portal system. And so you have these ancient civilizations that live under the earth that can use this portal system.
You have on the surface of the earth, you have members of these societies that know how to use the portal system. You you have, like, in the earth reptilian beings that know how to use the portal system. And so you also have now kinda like, special projects where these portals are studied and understood, and and they are very much kinda like, connected to the earth as a kinda like energy grid that, you know, this this gets us into the idea that the earth has, like, 12 major stargates, which is very interesting that that the earth is like a physical body where you have, like, 12 chakras. People describe, you know, anywhere from seven to 12 chakras, and these are all energy, conduits. So the the planet Earth is is similar that you have these chakras, and they connect each each of these stargates connect to a different dimension or a different world.
So this is where you actually have off world travel. And and that the chakras are all over the over the planet Earth and that the portals are a kind of like derivative of that, that you you can connect the portals, with this chakra system. So so it's so it's quite quite complex, but people or the projects that use the portal system, they understand how this works.
Speaker 0: So to wrap it up, when you look at Iran and you look at this war and you hear about the threats of course of like boots on the ground and we're gonna bomb you into oblivion and all of these things, the rhetoric over the past few weeks. And who knows? Like, when people see this interview, this may have already happened, but, the threat of US boots on the ground, do you think that that's an inevitability that there would be some sort of US force in order to obtain access to these portals?
Speaker 1: I I think that that's really where we're heading, that there's gonna be boots on the ground. Now, of course, that can be done in two ways. You know, one would be some kind of invasion, and you have, military forces in different areas of Iran, and that, that's a cover for the special forces teams to go underground and to be able to kind of, like, access, what's there in Iran. The the other way, which I think is what, president Trump was signaling very recently, last Friday when he was saying that, well, we've reached an agreement with Iran, and and that they've agreed to us going with them and finding the uranium dust and and bringing it to The United States. If you read between the lines, I think what is really what is really saying here is that what they're seeking is an agreement with the Iranians where, US special forces people can go in there with the Iranians into these places places where all the where the Iranians have been finding these ancient artifacts, and they want to be able to bring those to The United States.
And and in return, the Iranians will get some kind of material benefit. So, essentially, I think what Trump is trying to do is kinda like pull a Venezuela here and and get the Iranians to do what the Venezuelans did, was to shift from being allied with China to now being allied with The US and and getting access to these underground, locations. And and this is where you get the kind of like, within Iran, you have, deep divisions between the the theocratic governing system and and those that, connected with kinda like earlier, what what that that they are more connected with the ancient Persian culture that aren't necessarily Muslims or maybe they're they're nominal Muslims, but they're more connected to the Persian culture and Zoroastrianism and and so they're the ones that are more likely to to wanna work with the Trump administration because they understand that, you know, there'll be proper respect for what's found.
Speaker 0: That's fascinating. You always have to go below the headlines, below the stories because it's what they're not telling us for sure. Doctor Michael Sulla, great to see you. People can read more about your work over at xopolitics.org and your analysis of this and look at all of the evidence themselves. Thank you so much, Michael.
Great to see you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, Clayton.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note the U.S. signs new Arctic commitments with key nations, raising questions about unapproved conflicts and control of ports and shipping routes amid a looming food crisis. Yon argues Zionist and Chinese interests seek influence in Argentina, shaping the global order and famine risk.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The United States is making new agreements with key Arctic nations. Is this preparation for another unapproved conflict in the region? Are we positioning to control strategic ports and global shipping routes ahead of a potential global food crisis? @Michael_Yon shares his perspective on efforts by Zionist and Chinese interests to gain influence in Argentina, and what that could mean for the global order and the risk of famine.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a cluster of geopolitical moves and predictions:
- The United States has recently made more than 40 basing agreement agreements up in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. This is described as “under the radar,” with emphasis on time spent recently up north.
- They mention spending about a month with Catherine Austin Fitz in the Netherlands looking at the same issue.
- A warning to watch the Baltic and the Arctic is issued; Speaker 1 says a trusted private contact urged watching the Baltic and the Arctic, and notes that “No one's talking about it,” but “I think it's absolutely coming.”
- They refer to the Baltic connection after leaving Denmark, noting Nord Stream was blown up and leads to the Baltic Sea. The claim is that to “close off that area,” one would take out Denmark via the Danish Straits, and Denmark’s deep involvement in Panama through Maersk is highlighted (Maersk is described as deeply entwined in global logistics; a claim that “Maersk owns a country basically” in comparison to Panama’s influence).
- Potential targets are discussed: Hamburg (the biggest port in Germany), Rotterdam (the Netherlands, largest in Europe), and Antwerp (second largest in Europe). They traveled and spent significant time in Rotterdam and Hamburg, with Hamburg specifically noted as the biggest port in Germany and Rotterdam as the biggest in Europe, followed by Antwerp.
- The narrative asserts these locations could be targeted as part of efforts to create a global famine, with at least some constraint around Panama.
- The speakers state that the big power structures in Panama are “Zionist and Chinese. Full stop.”
- They recount a CPAC event in Argentina (November or December 2025) where Viva Argentina, Viva Estado Unidos, and Viva Israel were invoked, with speakers including Ben Shapiro. They claim the Chinese and the Zionists are confronting each other in Argentina, noting the Argentine president’s surname MeleKovsky (not Mele) and Netanyahu’s surname Melekovsky, suggesting a shared lineage; they claim Melekovsky from Argentina, also known as Mele, visited Israel.
- A claim that Artyn is probably going to attack the Malvinas is stated, followed by the phrase “Kissing the ring.”
- Speaker 1 adds a summary: the predictions include the Baltics, the Arctic, Argentina, the Strait of Malacca, and cautions, “Don’t be surprised if all of these things come to pass.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Keep in mind, The United States has recently made more than 40 basing agreement agreements up in in Finland and Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Right? This is kind of under the radar, but that's why we just spent so much time up there. We just spent more than a month with Catherine Austin Fitz up in in Netherlands looking at
Speaker 1: same thing. Pay attention. I I honestly I just saw a friend of mine in a private email chain today say, watch the Baltic. Watch the Baltic and watch the Arctic. I mean, I trust these individuals implicitly, and said, keep your eyes on this.
No one's talking about it. We've been talking about the coming war that's coming to the Arctic for a while here on the show. No one's talking about it. And, I think it's absolutely coming.
Speaker 0: Right. And that's why we were up in Denmark and at the Baltic, actually, after we left. You know, keep it in mind, Nord Stream, they got blown up, goes to the Baltic. Right? Baltic Sea.
And, now if you wanna really close off that area, you're gonna take out Denmark. And Denmark is that's the Danish straight right there. And keep in mind, Denmark is deeply involved in Panama too, Maersk. Right? So, you know, for instance, China owns a shipping company called Costco, but Maersk owns a country basically called Denmark.
Right? I mean, Maersk is a huge logistic company deeply involved in Panama and global logistics. This is all entwined. Right? And so I I think that you're gonna see, for instance, places like Hamburg could be targeted.
Places like Rotterdam and Antwerp could possibly be targeted as well. We were just up in Rotterdam. We spent almost two weeks up there. I'm I'm sorry. In Hamburg looking at you know, Hamburg is the biggest port in in Germany.
Right? It's the third largest in Europe. The biggest in Europe is Rotterdam there at Netherlands, and the second largest is Antwerp there Belgium. But these these all are potential targets as they try to create global famine, which they're working on. I think that you're gonna see at least some constraint under at Panama.
Right? And, you know, and and and they're signaling these things these things. Right? And by the way, you see, when you look at Panama, the big power structures in Panama are Zionist and Chinese. Full stop.
I mean, when I say that again, they're like conspiracy theorists. I'm like, no. You just don't know what you're talking about. I mean, the same down in Argentina. Masako and I went to a CPAC, thing there.
When was it? November or December 2025? And they started off with Viva Argentina, Viva Stado Onidos, and viva Israel. Right? And who spoke there was, like, Ben Shapiro and that sort of thing.
Right? And so and you've so you've got the Chinese and the Zionist going toe to toe down there in Argentina. And keep in mind, the president of Argentina, his last name is not Mele. It's Melekovsky. And Netanyahu over in Israel, his last name was Melekovsky.
Right? So so both of those shared the last name, Melekovsky. Those names were changed. But Melekovsky from Argentina, also known as Mele, was just over in in Israel. Right?
There Right. Clear that Artyn is probably gonna attack Malvinas, by the way.
Speaker 1: Kissing the ring.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's his prediction. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. No. I've just you had a question, but I I just wanna lay out these predictions. We're talking about the Baltics.
We're we're talking about the Arctic. We're talking about Argentina. We're talking about the Strait Of Malacca. Don't be surprised if all of these things come to pass.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
⛑️ Red light therapy has studies behind it. It's non-invasive. It has almost no side effects. So why is the medical establishment pushing back? If Big Pharma is scared of it, that's reason enough to pay attention. https://t.co/nm9k5TkYym
Video Transcript AI Summary
Red light therapy, or photobiomodulation, is described as the body responding to light it is biologically designed to respond to, especially red light and near-infrared light. Jonathan Otto explains that the technology has historical roots, with Nobel Prize context in 1903 for light therapy (Niels Ryberg Finsen) and early work by John Harvey Kellogg; red light therapy as known today was advanced by Andre Mester in the 1960s and further developed with LED technology funded by NASA, enabling high power delivery with minimal heat.
Key evidence and claims:
- In major clinical studies, red light therapy is being explored as an alternative or adjunct to palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in cancer. The Lancet Oncology published a trial with 413 men in which the red light group did almost 400% better than the non-red-light group; only 6% in the red light group required surgery versus 30% in the non-red light group, a claimed 500% difference in that aspect.
- In a lymphoma pilot study (PubMed, 2006), three patients achieved complete remission within a week after photodynamic therapy with methylene blue, with no side effects reported and pain easily managed.
- University College London conducted studies showing 49% remission in a red-light group versus 13.5% in a non-red-light group in a prostate cancer context when combined with a photosensitizer; separate eyesight research with 6, seven 0-nanometer parameters demonstrated immediate improvements, with larger long-term effects reported in various other conditions.
- Red light therapy is claimed to impact a broad range of conditions: eyes (macular health, myopia in children), autoimmune diseases (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, autoimmune thyroiditis), hair loss (androgenic alopecia), skin conditions (acne, eczema, psoriasis), chronic pain (arthritis, back pain), depression and anxiety (rapid improvements noted within hours in some studies), and post-stroke or neurodegenerative conditions (mood, cognitive function, overall energy).
- Specific eye-related findings include a large trial where 41 clinical trials in children showed the therapy stopped vision worsening in many cases; in the UCL eyesight study, 70–80% near-infrared penetration targets deeper tissues, with evidence of rapid improvements in vision when light was delivered in the morning or near the eyes at 670 nm in LED form.
- In thyroid and metabolic contexts, there are reports of thyroid medication reduction and remission in chronic autoimmune thyroiditis with certain dosing regimens (e.g., 20 minutes twice a week for five weeks in a trial cited), and a Hashimoto’s thyroiditis study showing substantial medication reduction.
- Hair growth is reported to respond to red light therapy due to stimulation of hair follicles and scalp stem cells; anecdotal reports include improved hair density and delayed graying in some individuals.
- The therapy is claimed to affect fat loss via photonic lipolysis and to modulate mitochondrial function, with mitochondrial chromophores described as light receptors in about 25% of cellular organ content, generating reactive oxygen species and ATP to drive cellular energy.
- A long-COVID study by the European Society of Medicine reported four sessions of 64–84 minutes each yielding total remission of all symptoms in 60 of 62 participants within one week; two others improved with the same protocol.
- Dosing guidance and safety: thousands to millions treated with red light therapy have reported minimal adverse effects; overexposure can occur, but the majority of clinical experience indicates a favorable safety profile; a dark period and sleep in darkness are noted as important to maximize benefits.
- Delivery devices: panels that deliver broad-spectrum light (including multiple wavelengths such as 630 nm, 660 nm, 670 nm, 810–860 nm, 1060 nm) are preferred for broad organ coverage and deeper tissue penetration; these devices aim to deliver high irradiance (e.g., over 200 milliwatts per square centimeter at about three inches) to accelerate healing and support whole-body photobiomodulation.
- Practical use: exposure parameters vary by condition, with some studies showing immediate or rapid improvements (e.g., eyesight within 24 hours in some trials; depression or anxiety improvements within hours; autoimmune symptoms over weeks), while others report improvements sustained for months if therapy is continued, though some benefits persist beyond cessation in certain conditions.
Historical and practical context:
- The interview frames red light therapy as a natural, noninvasive modality that aligns with the body’s use of light for healing, contrasts it with more invasive conventional therapies, and positions it as having broad clinical study support across multiple journals (including The Lancet Oncology, British Medical Journal, and other major journals). It’s presented as a scientifically backed, broadly applicable therapy that can be used at home with high-quality devices.
Applications mentioned:
- Cancer and tumor-targeted approaches (photodynamic therapy), eyes and vision, autoimmune thyroid disease, skin conditions, hair growth, wound and tissue healing, pain and inflammation, mood disorders, long COVID, and metabolic effects such as fat reduction and thyroid regulation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is red light therapy? Does it work? Why is it exploding in popularity? The medical world seems to be fighting back against it, which always raises my alarm bells when they see something that could be a natural curative for something and they're pushing back against it. Just walk into any Best Buy or Target, and you'll see entire stations set up for red light therapy.
Jonathan Otto is an investigative journalist, filmmaker, and humanitarian whose work has focused heavily on health, healing, and conversations that sit outside the usual medical mainstream, and he's the author of the book, The Cancer Off Switch. So we wanted to invite Jonathan on today to talk about red light therapy specifically. Jonathan, welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for having me, Clayton. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: So maybe we can just explain to our audience, you know, when people go into a Best Buy and they see these, like, red light therapy masks and these other things, and they seem to be all the rage right now. Just go on Instagram and you see, like, a lot of women buying them and using them on a regular basis, my wife included. And she she gave it to my son, my adolescent son, who had, like, a bit bit of a big acne breakout at one point a few months ago. And he's like, I don't wanna wear that thing. He put it on for, two nights and his acne went away.
So, like, what the hell is that? Anyway, what is red light therapy, and why is maybe the big pharmaceutical complex, scared of it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, Clayton, that's a great question. It it really touches my heart to hear about that case study with your son and your wife because it it's something that he would have potentially lived with, and then the scarring from it and then being tempted to take Accutane and that would have damaged his liver. And so you see the cascade of effects that happens. And so the proof is in the pudding, people are seeing it, you're observing it without being an expert in it.
And that's one of the wonders of this. But what it is is it's your body responding to what it was designed to respond to. Clearly, you could see in nature that you're biologically designed for light and as and red light being the sunrise and sunset, which is actually probably the part of the day, Clayton, that you and a lot of the viewers are missing daily. And it's interesting to see what it's doing for people. And the reason why I would say the pharmaceutical industry may have some major concerns around it is because it's become an alternative for palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery in major clinical studies now ranging into the thousands specifically on cancer into the high hundreds through photodynamic therapy.
And The Lancet Oncology even published a clinical study with four thirteen men. The red light group, because it was a randomized control control trial. The red light group did almost 400% better than the non red light group in a in a 413 person group. And only six percent got surgery in the red light group. Thirty percent got red light in the non got surgery in the non red light group, which is a 500% difference on that front.
So that's major. These are major medical journals and these are major issues that men after these surgeries, nine out of ten will become impotent. And so people are running now for these less invasive, more selective therapies that are targeting tumor cells instead of carpet bombing the body or just taking out organs that we actually want, which I would say in some ways is forced or transgender surgeries that are not intentionally transgender surgeries. Not to guess or not to kind of rage bait people, but my point is that that's happening to people where they're getting organs removed because they don't think there's a better option, then I think that that's the big threat right there.
Speaker 0: Jeez. When you first started looking into red light therapy, what convinced you that this was something worth taking seriously rather than just like a health fad?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was producing on a series called The Truth About Cancer about twelve years ago that became the most prolific holistic cancer documentary series in world. And I went around the world literally hundreds of over a 100 in that particular series of the world's best medical doctors that were the ones putting their head out of the foxhole and getting shot at whether it was Doctor. Stanislaw Bazinski or Doctor. Matthias Rath or the Gerson Therapy Center and Doctor.
Antonio Jimenez from the Hope for Cancer Treatment Centers who was kind enough to write on that book that I shared with you when we're off camera. His words were that my work is groundbreaking and potentially life saving and not just recommended, but essential. When I went inside of his clinic back twelve years ago, I remember being blown away from the results that people would get on what what was referred to and is referred to as photobiomodulation, which is photo, light, bio, life modulation to change to change the process of life through light, and and it was a staple. And then you're hearing this combination of therapies with methylene blue, it's not a coincidence that when Mel Gibson was on Rogan's show and says, I had three friends. I'll tell you a good story.
Three friends with stage four cancer. They basically implying that they were going to die. They had a lot of things going on. Now they don't have cancer at all anymore. And so these were the big blockbuster statements that were coming out.
He says they were taking And then he lists antiparasitic, Fenbendazole, Ivermectin, then he says methylene blue. Methylene blue has to be activated by red light to work properly, and that's called antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, which is specifically antiparasitic. So now you start seeing these worlds come together, and I started seeing this and it blew my mind and I knew it was more than a fad. I knew it was more than just something that was a passing trend. And then after more research, I found that the Nobel Prize was won in 1903 by Niels Ryberg Finsen for light therapy reversing chronic disease.
They were using incandescent bulbs, which is basically the same thing as a a reptile lamp, a $10 chicken lamp or a reptile lamp. I'm I'm not exaggerating because this was the technology at the time. And his case was lupus vulgaris that that was one specifically for autoimmune condition, which then brings you into the whole autoimmune category. So it was using these incandescent bulbs and it was John Harvey Kellogg, which I would say has a mixed reputation. This was the good side of his work.
And he wrote the book Light Therapeutics and was treating tens of thousands of people in the sanitariums with light therapy in this same type of technology, which means that, you know, people, for example, try those types of things. But what happened though in the eighties and it was Doctor. Andre Mester, the Hungarian physician in the sixties that then pioneered what was then known as red light therapy as we know it today. By then the nineties, once NASA, which I think a lot of people are distrusting NASA probably for a lot of good reasons. Anyway, we won't go there.
But the the good thing that they did was they actually did fund LED light emitting diode research, which LEDs have a bad name when you have high flicker rates in the home, but they became the highest power way to deliver light into the body. And so once that tech came in, they don't flicker in devices like what I have behind me. And those are the ones like, for example, the Hope for Cancer Treatment Centers that, as side note, they're using our devices for their patient program. But the reason why they went to light emitting diodes is because they could push 90% of the power into light and only 10% into heat. So they became that much more bright and that was what was needed.
And so then the thousands of studies started pouring in like the one I just cited from The Lancet. But it was from everything from eyesight to chronic back pain to any autoimmune condition you could imagine from arthritis to lupus to macular degeneration to post stroke, to dementia. I'm not exaggerating and I could show each one of these studies and the results were almost unbelievable for many of them. And they were published in every big journal you could imagine from the British Medical Journal to the Lancet Oncology. In children, elderly adults.
Yeah. It's true.
Speaker 0: I mean, and it seems to me that this there's a suppression going on. We had, Nicholas Holcher on from the wellness company a few weeks ago to talk about ivermectin and men benzodol and the largest study basically of cancer reversal or showing incredible signs just as you mentioned ivermectin and benzodol. And I learned, I didn't know it at the time, that the CIA knew about this, knew about the parasitic infection of cancer in the body as early as the nineteen fifties, and basically helped suppress this information. So the idea that you could go out and get sunlight or red light therapy or just sitting in your backyard could help ward off macular degeneration, all sorts of issues, And that happened more than a 100 years ago, and we're we're we're now maybe just learning about it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And once you get this, you you'll kind of get a little obsessed in a good way, I think, Clayton, where if you look at your mitochondria, which equate to about 25% of your organ cells, they contain something called mitochondrial chromophores, which are light receptors. So biologically, you're designed for it.
You look out the window and you look at the plants growing, you look at the animals in nature, and they're getting two things at the same time, which is the Earth's magnetic field, which is grounding, which is really fascinating when you stack those therapies with a pulsed electromagnetic field with light therapy and they're getting light both the red, particularly in the sunrise sunset and the UVB during the day and the whole spectrum, full spectrum of light, both red, near infrared, mid infrared, far infrared. What's happening when it goes into the mitochondria through the light receptors, mitochondrial chromophores, they're generating reactive oxygen species. It's adenosine triphosphate, is cellular energy and reactive oxygen species. They're the specific aspects that target circulating tumor cells and zombie cells known as senescent cells. Whether it was a circulating tumor cell or something that was going to become a problematic cancer, because preventative studies have been done on red light therapy on cancer, particularly in animals showing that it is preventative, which is fascinating in and of itself, considering that one in two males are getting cancer during their life, one in three females, and then you're in a big pharma, typically, like, they're selling you the these expensive and invasive therapies that really, I would say, don't that they're not they're not as efficacious as what people maybe think they are.
And and then you end up in a whole another sphere, which is when you specifically are targeting the cancer cells without harming the body. And whether it's reversing another chronic condition, it's really about shutting down unhealthy cells and then creating new cells, which is the genesis or it's called the proliferation of new healthy stem cells and differentiation, both of which red light is heavily proven to do, not within your bones and within your organs like the kidneys.
Speaker 0: So what conditions or symptoms seem to respond best to red light therapy? Pain, like arthritis, inflammation, maybe skin issues, like I mentioned with my son, sleep, maybe energy, recovery, something else? What do you what maybe responds best to red light therapy?
Speaker 1: Yes. All all of the the conditions, Clayton, that you mentioned do have clinical studies that back them, and one of the fun things for people to do is to do their own research and to put the chronic condition they have into Google or Google Scholar or Grok or ChatGPT and then whatever whatever condition they have, red light therapy, those just those words together. Show me the best study. Show me what time frames. Me the the time and the day they used it.
Show me what wavelengths of light that they used. Because, like, for example, you're seeing nine different wavelengths right there, which which you know, the the studies on breast cancer were showing specifically six sixty was the one that could drop the breast tumor proliferation by forty percent in vitro, in twenty four hours. Alright? So that was a PubMed study. And it's in vitro, so I'm not saying that this was a, you know, 400 person group, but it was showing that there was a direct response, but it was a specific type of wavelength of light that was interfacing with that particular part of the body.
So they become the deeper parts of the conversation, but it was specifically everything from lung cancer, which is the biggest killer. It kills more people than prostate cancer, breast cancer and colon cancer combined, lung cancer. And smoking's not going up. So what is it that we're inhaling that is causing this? And then people then start saying, well, what's getting sprayed in the skies?
And then they also say, what's in my home that's off gassing? And then they look at indoor air filtration or plants to put in the home to absorb these things. It's it's it's the various types of cancer, the biggest ones that are affecting us, with the combination of methylene blue and red light. And then you come into all these other, you know, chronic conditions from joint pain, knee pain. I I spent $30,000 on my dad's knees and I couldn't get a result.
But red light was something that cost under $300 was able to work wonders for him. He's building my sister's home right now and he's able to be mobile and that's a blessing for me. Those So conditions, the autoimmune spectrum from the chronic conditions, whether it's eczema or acne or psoriasis or whether it's the chronic eye conditions which range from myopia, even in children, the forty one clinical trials equated to six thousand four hundred children. This is specifically an eyesight study, which in many of the studies, they're just opening their eyes looking directly into red light. It was the number one thing that stopped vision worsening in children over that large group.
Speaker 0: Wow. I mean, I've been trying to reverse my vision problems. I've been going down that rabbit hole of trying to heal my eyes naturally, and it's been like a slow process. And as you can tell, I still need my reading glasses, and I'm, you know, trying to take walks and be out in the morning with the dog with no glasses on and just, like, looking at the distance, the horizon, and all of that to try to get the light in there. Wow.
But it but it's a slow process. And I I you know, maybe you and I can talk offline how to.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you this. I want I wanna tell you this during during this, if you don't mind, Clayton. You'll love this. K. So this is University College London.
They were the same guys that backed the prostate cancer study that I just mentioned. Okay? So forty nine percent went into remission in the red light group. Thirteen point five percent went into remission in the non red light group. That was only one therapy added.
There was no diet change. There was no additional therapies added. It was the red light with a photosensitizer, like comparable to methylene blue. It was a different type for that one, but people can find the study. Now, the same group then did a study on eyesight and they tested people after the age of 40 with myopia.
And they tested them in the morning, in the afternoon, they did three minutes up to forty five minutes. And if they did it in the afternoon, they got zero But if they did it in the morning, on average, immediately within the same twenty four hour period, they equated If it was the morning, whether it was three minutes or forty five minutes, it would equate to 17% improvement in eyesight immediately. And that lasted an entire week until it relapsed, which it wasn't a reversal study. It was it was really just testing these parameters, which I've now seen 90 year olds get vision back and and and maintain it.
Speaker 0: And is this like sitting in front of a red light light or is this out in nature?
Speaker 1: It was it was in it was in six seventy nanometer red light, which was through a light emitting diode LED. So and it was
Speaker 0: Like the ones you have there in your studio?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It was the same tech. It was LED six seventy directly into the eyes, eyes open, three minutes looking into it. That's that's exactly what they did.
And so if you're not doing that and you're trying different things, it's kind of it's sad because now that you know this, the next show that if, you know, us doing another thing, might then report or or a show outside of this one, with me, you may report dramatic changes because I I often see people within the same day, shocked that they can now read. Because 17% is is not is not a 100%, but that was only three minutes of exposure. What I'm saying is that if people were to do that daily or a few times a week, they could expect a complete reversal. That's what I've seen personally even in people that you wouldn't think could get much hope. Because the retina is one of the highest concentrations in mitochondria and the brain, some of the cells have up to hundreds of thousands of mitochondria.
So the eyes are really the pathway to getting red light into your brain. So you will see improvements in mood as well. And so your wife may report, hey, Clayton's a lot happier. I'm not saying that you're not a happy guy Yeah. But our wives can notice the slightest changes or the most dramatic changes.
And, yes, I do believe that it will be, like, a remarkable difference for you.
Speaker 0: Wow. Alright. I'm gonna I'm gonna try it. Okay. And, you know, you and I can talk again offline how
Speaker 1: to to it.
Speaker 0: Find some of that. But how long does it take I mean, you're saying almost immediate, but how long does it take to see, like, the effects of red light therapy? Like, the benefits? You mentioned at least for the eyesight piece of this pretty, like, pretty quickly. But what about other we talk about eczema or acne or cancers or something else.
Do we have, like, a length of time, maybe sitting in front of red light or being out in nature that would help people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I love that you're talking about being out in nature. Because one of my friends has reported this to me where he it was during the middle of the day where you don't have red, but he was facing the sun. I don't have any data on this. It was just a fascinating observation where but then it was red in his eyes because it's going through the the skin, which is then working potentially like a filter, which is then making so I'm not saying he's looking at the sun during the day.
I'm saying he's got his eyes closed for just a couple of minutes, but he was reporting his eyesight changing as well that way, which is fascinating because it is going to it it's visibly red, so it's showing that it the eyelids are working like a filter of some sorts. Again, I I have no proof on that. That's an interesting observation that that worked for him. But in terms of timelines, the the eyes are really quick. Depression, some of the things that I'll say will sound unbelievable, but you'll see all of them backed up by clinical research and not just, they're not hearsay.
The depression studies were tested a single hour after the therapy. And the first hour was an improvement. The second hour was a greater improvement than the first hour because there's a stacking effect. So depression and anxiety are like quite fast from what I've seen. Then the fibromyalgia studies, for example, a lot of them are like the autoimmune categories typically a four week study on average from all the studies I've looked at.
And they're showing large groups going into largely into remission of a lot of the aspects, or they're at least saying that it was clinically managing the condition to the effect that they were dramatically different to the control group and that the red light group then maintain those changes for three, four months, even up to six months into the future. I mean, even though they weren't regularly doing it, though ideally when it comes to reversing the conditions and people obviously did better when they were doing it more regularly because again, you're biologically designed for it. The cancer studies that Lancet Oncology one I was quoting to was a two year study. And again, they were doing the other therapies, which I would say like the chemo surgery and radiation or the surgery only for the small of the red light group, six percent. But there are studies that we're showing.
Okay, this one is again gonna show is unbelievable. We're gonna show this on screen. It was a lymphoma study done in 2006. It's on PubMed and it was three people in a pilot study. They all went into complete remission in a single week.
Two of them after one session, the other one after two sessions in complete. And the findings were all three patients experienced complete remission defined as a clinical and complete absence and histologic complete absence of cutaneous B cell lymphoma after a maximum of two photodynamic therapy sessions at a one week interval. No patient experienced any side effects and the pain was easily managed after the photodynamic therapy sessions. That was the clinical finding word for word in that 2006 pilot study. So it ranges some of them a little longer, some of them are shorter.
And it's especially with the photodynamic aspect, taking methylene blue thirty minutes before, it will accelerate a lot of things things because, again, it's working as an antiparasitic as well. So you're it's called antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. So it's stacking. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Does it work for hair loss? I mean, not that I'm really worried about it.
Speaker 1: Mean You look great, man.
Speaker 0: But I'm Almost 50 years old, and my dad had a full head of hair till he passed away at 86 years old. So hopefully, but nevertheless, you know, you like you don't like the receding hairline, but does it work for hair loss as well?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It it does. I'm I'm 40. I just turned 40, and I I got three children. I'm married.
And, like, what I'm saying, I'm married. Like, so that would naturally give me gray hairs, I guess. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 0: It's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There is some truth to that. But both ways. Right? My wife because we're would you you deal with more problems that you could easily escape if you were more transient, passing through life, you have to hit your problems head on in a marriage, right?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: The character flaws all come to the surface. I thought I was a good person until I got married, then I realized I had some work to do. I could see it visibly working for me not having a gray hair at 40 with baldness on both sides of my family. But aside from the anecdotal report on me, because what can you say about that? But androgenic alopecia is the clinical name for male or female hair loss.
And the studies on red light are amazing for stimulating hair follicles and the stem cells within your scalp to regenerate and produce healthy hair. And I've seen it countless times and people I had not yet seen it where somebody has said, I got zero improvement. I haven't seen that yet, which is really cool. That's the same thing I've seen with eyesight. I'm not saying everything I immediately see the result that I expected.
The thyroid studies are the ones that people are gonna be amazed at because my 87 year old grandma being on thyroid medication for decades now no longer needs thyroid medication at all anymore. And so the clinical studies on that are fascinating, but the hair loss, when you think about it, is not just A lot of people are going to think about, okay, just topical. Like, hey, I'm just gonna go for the hair. There's something to be said for that and I do see amazing results. But when you think about the fact that the thyroid is regulating a lot of what's happening when it comes to hair loss and weight gain and weight loss, which is the process for weight loss through red light is called photonic lipolysis, which is now getting used as a substitute for liposuction.
Okay. So that's verified. What I'm saying is true in that. So it's breaking open fat cells and people are losing a lot of weight, but it's because of the improvement in the organ function, like the thyroid producing thyroid hormones naturally, which is what is arguably then one of the biggest factors for why then people are getting hair regrowth as well as the fact that they're applying it directly to the scalp and stimulating hair hair follicles.
Speaker 0: Can you overdo it? All of this red light therapy? Can you think, well, I'm gonna cure everything. I'm just gonna sit in front of this panel for twelve hours a day.
Speaker 1: Yes. You can because, it it's not that you would cause issues because, there's been approximately a hundred million people treated clinically with red light therapy without adverse effects being reported to any significant degree. Like you could have some mild Herxheimer reaction, which is like a healing crisis, but that's not even typical with red light because it's dealing with surface level inflammation and dealing with the root cause of what's driving that, like the toxins that are within the cells. And it's inherently detoxifying cells through cellular energy, which is mind blowing. So the absence of light then becomes important as well.
And that's why you need to sleep in the dark. The lymphoma study I mentioned before had something called an occlusion time. You think occult, which means hidden, to cover. And so an occlusion time means that you're putting yourself in the dark. And so the typical time is really only fifteen minutes a day.
And many of the, like the thyroid studies that showed that half the group went into remission after a five week treatment of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, which is twenty minutes twice a week for five weeks. And it just that little, it wasn't even daily. And half the group went into remission. The other one was ninety six percent went into remission of enlarged thyroid with Hashimoto's thyroiditis. And that was only a few minutes over the thyroid.
And so a little goes a long way and it's not about doing it all day long. And like the three minutes or forty five minutes, whether it was three or 45 for the eyesight, then the outcome was still the same. It wasn't more than seventeen percent immediately. So that was the max that you could get in a twenty four hour period and that more didn't equate to better. But there is an acute long COVID study.
These are some of the longer times I've seen. It was conducted by the European Society of Medicine. There were 62 people in the study. It was four sessions that were sixty four to eighty four minute long sessions. And it was total remission of all symptoms for acute long COVID, which meant that it was a total resolution of dysapnea, shortness of breath, oxygen saturation above 97% in the blood, executive function resolved, cognitive function resolved, emotional deficits resolved, digestive issues resolved.
Within one week, sixty of the sixty two had complete remission, total remission of all symptoms. And the other two got better after the four sessions, no additional sessions, but these were longer sessions. So that's the longer period and because acute long COVID is often caused by people getting that intervention that happened a few years ago, getting something injected into their body, then that becomes a game changer for people.
Speaker 0: So this is amazing. I mean, I hope people will dive into the research. Like you said earlier, go to, like, Google Scholar, maybe put in the thing that you have that you're suffering with and see what the look through all of the studies on red light therapy as it relates to your affliction, whether it's alopecia, whether it's macular degeneration or otherwise, and do the research on that hair loss or otherwise cancers I guess as well. But if people want to buy something, I have no idea where to start. Like if I wanted to buy a red light panel for my house, I I see those masks, like I mentioned, my wife has.
You know, like, what what's the benefit of getting, like, a panel? What would you recommend? Maybe you can point us in a direction if people wanted to buy something. I could I'll put a link in the description if people wanna pick something up.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. No. Thank you, Clayton. We I I obviously really care about this, and I want more people to know about it. And I give all the facts from the research so that people can do whatever they like with that knowledge and information and get back in touch with nature, get on the ground, grounded and get light in nature.
And the reason why somebody should look at getting a high quality panel or like a smaller device, like a precision device from a company like mine, Redlife, is my company is because you're able to accelerate your healing and you're able to do something that's clinically backed. And so the reason why somebody would do a panel is so that they can get it over all their organs. The acute long COVID study that I just cited was whole organ photobiomodulation. So head to groin area, which would be something like this or like what I have here. These would be an example of how you're able to get all your organs into red light therapy, into red light, into the light so that you can then improve the function of all these organs.
So then what you're doing then is what you saw then when you got all these different colors coming out of here. Right? So you're seeing You can't see the near infrared because it's invisible. But this blue is four eighty, which blue light people get confused because they think of it like, okay, well, this must be bad. But the reason why your son one of the reasons why he may have gone into remission of acne is because that red light mask may have had blue light in it.
And that- And likely did, almost all of them do, right? And so that's gonna land in the dermis and stimulate the cells in this area to regenerate. It's going to kill bacteria better than anything else. So that's why you go as low as in the spectrum as four eighty, and then you come into the red, which is six thirty, six sixty. And so we're using nine here.
So what you're seeing is then six seventy, which is the one I mentioned on the eyesight. So that's there as well. And then you go into eight ten, eight thirty, eight fifty, which is near infrared. Now they're all invisible. The reason why you're seeing everything lit up is they're dual lights, which often devices are skipping that and that you'll see some lit, some not because that's not and and so you're not using dual light in that sense.
And then And then all the way up to ten sixty, which is the deepest spectrum of near infrared light, which then gets into the center of the organs, center of the bones, which is why you'll see those ones show up in the prostate cancer studies or the bone cancer studies or lung cancer. They're all near infrared almost exclusively. And so then you're hitting all these levels at the same time from the shallow to the deepest area of the organs, stimulating the stem cell production in these areas to cause both the differentiation to create them is particularly within the bones, but then to mature them, which is called the proliferation is to create them and then differentiation is to mature them. And so they're the processes that you're seeing that you activate with using the broad spectrums, and then you're looking for something as well that delivers a high amount of irradiance. The amount of power delivered is then the critical factor for the studies that I was mentioning.
And it's why we're using over 200 milliwatts per centimeter squared at three inches. And that's why groups like I mentioned, like the Hope for Cancer Treatment Centers who the chief medical officer, I mean, was the guy that put Olivia Newton John and Suzanne Somers cancer in remission. And part of the reason why they then implemented our red light panels for their patient follow-up program is because you can't go to a center and then go home and then go back to your same environment. You need something that will continually work for you. This was the device I sent my grandma home with after she split her head.
She got about sixteen stitches from cognitive function decline, and I think I know what was causing that with the interventions that she was being encouraged to get, which everyone was encouraged to get over the last few years after all my attempts and persuasion that didn't work. So then I went into the remedial aspects, but this is what she was using, daily, which was able to then help her regain her cognitive function, move back into the home that my my wife and I built for her and, be able to enjoy her life into a ripe old age of 87 and get off a thyroid medication. So it's pretty simple, and it you know, this is what I got Lance Armstrong using right now and Mark Calloway, the the undertaker, the wrestler, and some some well known folks.
Speaker 0: How close do you have to sit to them?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Ideally, it would be even a centimeter away or or three inches. Most people are standing like a foot away, but you'll get a more therapeutic recovery. And the like, the eyesight studies was directly against the eyeball, almost touching if the University College London, you could see the images directly against their eyes. So you can get close, but you don't have to.
You could work out a foot away from it and you which means that you could be there longer as well or two feet away from it, then you could be there longer. And ideally, you're unclothed, so I'm not technically doing it properly. Near infrared will penetrate through the clothing. That's why it's going all the way through to your bones, but red will probably mostly get blocked by the clothing that you're wearing. But, you know, yeah, if you're wearing training gear or something like that, then you're you're kinda minimally closed, so you'll still get a lot of the benefits.
Speaker 0: That's fascinating. Well, I'll put a link in the description so people can can go through and take a look at these different panels themselves. Yeah. This is amazing. I mean, this is really fascinating.
I've I've seen this explosion. And it just I'm always fascinated whenever have big pharma like, trying to suppress this information because they want us on all of these drugs. They want us on all these pharmaceuticals. They don't want us to know about these natural curatives. And it's to me, that means we're over the target.
We're over the target for sure. Jonathan, any final thoughts on this? I think it's fascinating.
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you, man. Oh, yeah. Like, look, people can get started at any level, and I and I love that. And, like, I've seen people fighting with, like, a simple device like this. Right?
This is an example of I've got a lot of pro athletes, like guys like Tim Tebow. We we do some of the anti human trafficking work together, but he's Okay. He's always traveling with this. Right? Yeah.
Yeah. I think you know what he's doing. It's it's amazing. Like, for the last Yeah. You know, three years, I've been in a group, you know, advancing the tech companies fighting human trafficking, child trafficking, and we're having tremendous success, which is just awesome because what future do we have, right, for our children?
But this is an example. This has got five different wavelengths through triple lights here, but, so I've seen people with nine out of 10 back pain go to a zero, which sounds unbelievable, but I've seen it a lot. And then, you know, I remember massage therapist, Didi. So that's what happened to her. And then she couldn't work with that.
So that was a $48,000 salary that she had to forego. But then through something that costs like a few $100 literally, like under $400, she was able to get that and restore and go back to her work. And so I just want people to know that there's always a way and don't like And the panels become the cheapest thing. I want people to know that because like my grandma for her thyroid medication, she Like I gave that, she's my grandma, right? But she would have spent that money like that year on her thyroid medication.
Now, over the next ten years, God willing, I that's my wife's grandma, My dweller. And but my grandma got hurt at 98 years old. And so let's imagine she gets to that age or greater over the next ten years that was $12,000 that she's going to spend in thyroid medication. Or you do the math on taking supplements and it becomes very expensive. Not that I'm against that, but you saw even a thyroid study, the red light group did 70 times better than the group that weren't taking the red light, seven zero and fifteen times greater.
It was a Hashimoto study as well for producing thyroid hormone and 15 times greater at reducing medication needs. So my encouragement is to do a therapy, get a therapy that ends up becoming the cheapest thing you do. That couple of supplements that you're taking a year is over the next ten years probably gonna cost you north of $15,000 if you do the math every month. So then people make a saving by doing something like this, getting something like this in their home, the whole family can use it. And so you do the math and you realize, wow, this is the cheapest thing I'm doing.
And so I want people to do the math in their head so that they can make the right choices today and get therapies that will be preventative and substitute a lot of the things that they're spending money on that aren't really working properly. And, and then that that's my big encouragement, Clayton, for people. And and and as well, just so, the audience are aware, we've got the codes available for 25% off discount on our products. Yeah. So that so that code is redacted 25 for 25% off single items and redacted 30 for 30% off bundled items.
So we've got a massive saving there for a limited time, And, yeah, we're subject to sell out because of the massive demand, but just so, you know, people have that now. So I want people to know to grab those savings and there's payment plans there as well. So what it would cost for a month what it would cost for a month is what it would cost for a single session at a clinic. So I'm I'm saying like save money, get it so you could do it multiple times a day or do it how the studies say do it so you can do it right before bed to get a better sleep or first thing in the morning, which the clinics aren't open then, right? So you make good choices like that.
Use the codes redacted 25 or redacted 30myredlight.com. So that's where to go. And, use that at checkout, and we could support you, get the best health ever. And, you know, I'm just excited, Clayton, for the audience, you know, for everyone that's watching this and the response and the the the the transformation that's ahead. And and please do also write back to the show or leave a comment to share the results that you get in the future, because this is, this is a game changer.
Speaker 0: I would love to hear how people are are healed by this as well. Yeah. Drop me a comment below for sure. Thank you for that. So redacted 25.
Thank you. I didn't even know you were gonna do that.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Really appreciate that. Well, Jonathan, great. It's been a pleasure meeting you, and thank you for your incredible research on this, and I'm excited to, I'm excited to be standing in front of one of these every day in my home. That's for sure. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: You got it, my friend. Yeah. I'm looking forward to supporting you. And and I mean that, Clayton. So let's, let's make sure to follow-up, and I I wanna see you have the success that you're looking for.
It just, yeah, it touches my heart that you want to to have those improvements. I I I really care about that. I feel like that's a God given gift when people really believe that something is possible and they don't accept and settle for the status quo. And I see that in you and I always want to see people like that get the results that they're looking for because you deserve that and so does everyone watching and listening. So thank you for the time and the respect and letting me share this with your audience and and being a support to your community.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
He was RIGHT! Tucker Carlson, a friend of the show, predicted the Iran war before it started. He was right—the energy disruption, the alliance with China & Russia, the betrayal of Trump voters. I’ve been inside the White House 3 times trying to stop it. Nobody listened.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
He was RIGHT! ✅ Friend of the show, @TuckerCarlson, predicted the Iran war before it started. He was right. The energy disruption. The alliance w/China & Russia. The betrayal of Trump voters. He's been inside the White House 3 times trying to stop it. Nobody listened. https://t.co/RKMIqy35yQ
@RedactedNews - Redacted
This is not a ceasefire. It's recalibration. @xueqinjiang says the forever war playbook is already running. Distract with Cuba. Bore people into submission. Slowly starve Tehran. And use the crisis to justify digital ID, digital currency, and an AI control grid. https://t.co/BTifReom7r
Video Transcript AI Summary
Professor Jiang discusses the Iran war and its wide-ranging implications, framing it as a protracted conflict with potential strategic recomposition rather than a quick end.
- Trump’s posture and off ramp: Jiang says Trump is frustrated by the war, expected a quick strike and Iranian capitulation, and has sought an off ramp through negotiations (notably in Islamabad) that the Iranians rejected. He states there is no clear, real off ramp at present, with Iran “holding the global economy under siege” and controlling the Strait of Hormuz despite a naval blockade. He notes two alleged off ramps discussed by Kushner and others: (1) Trump paying reparations to Iran (about a trillion dollars) and granting Iranians sovereignty over Hormuz while removing US bases; (2) deploying ground forces to topple the regime and install a more US-friendly government. He predicts the war will drag on, potentially for months or years, and suggests Trump may distract with other conflicts (such as Cuba or actions against Mexico’s cartels) to avoid losing face.
- Long-term, three-pillar US strategy: The first pillar uses ground forces to strangle Iran by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, destroying Iran’s oil export capacity and finanical leverage. The second pillar involves forward operating bases in Iran’s ethnic enclaves (e.g., southeast near the Pakistani border with Baluchis, and northwest with Kurds) to stir ethnic tensions and foment civil conflict. The third pillar aims to “suffocate Tehran” by targeting infrastructure, water reservoirs, power plants, and rail networks to starve the population, all while trying to minimize troop casualties. Jiang emphasizes that this would be a gradual process designed to pressure Iranians toward a political settlement.
- Perception and domestic storytelling: The speakers discuss how to frame this as not a real war but as economic consequences or recalibration, with ongoing disruption and potential shortages as a form of pressure. Jiang notes the goal of creating a new strategic equilibrium that reduces domestic desire for prolonged engagement unless casualties rise substantially.
- Domestic and global economic concerns: The conversation shifts to the economy, with Christine Lagarde warning that one-third of the world’s fertilizer passes through Hormuz and discussing risks of price inflation, shortages, and potential rationing. Lagarde argues that disruptions could lead to inflationary pressures and supply-chain fragility, with ripples in aviation fuel and European airports imposing rationing. Jiang agrees Lagarde foresees a major catastrophe approaching the global economy, highlighting just-in-time supply chains as particularly vulnerable and suggesting policy responses may involve greater control over populations, possibly including digital currency and digital IDs.
- How the war could influence American society and policy: The discussion covers the possibility of a wartime footing in the United States, including a broader move toward control mechanisms such as digital currencies and surveillance. Jiang and the hosts discuss the potential for an AI-driven control grid, the role of hypersurveillance agencies like ICE, and a “Stargate”-level expansion of data-centers. They raise concerns about the implications of a draft, and Palantir’s stated push to bring back conscription, arguing that an AI surveillance state could justify such a mechanism.
- War as a narrative and distraction tool: The hosts explore the idea that the public may be gradually desensitized to ongoing conflict, with the war in Iran serving as a backdrop for broader geopolitical maneuvers, including space and defense initiatives. They discuss how narratives around space programs, alien-invasion scenarios, and “control-grid” technologies could function as social control mechanisms to maintain obedience during economic or political crises.
- Final reflection: Jiang cautions that a shift in mindset is needed, urging viewers to consider the worst-case scenarios and to prepare for economic and social stress, including the possibility of a prolonged, multi-pillar strategy aimed at reshaping Iran and embedding a wider, domestically straining economic order.
Overall, the conversation centers on a predicted transition from a rapid conflict to a calculated, multi-pillar strategy aimed at eroding Iran’s capacity and potentially fracturing its social fabric, while simultaneously highlighting impending domestic economic distress and the possible expansion of control mechanisms in the United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. We're lucky enough to be joined by professor Jiang. He's the author of Predictive History on Substack. Of course, he went viral, for accurately predicting that president Trump would take us to this war in Iran. And he's been right all along.
So we wanted to invite the professor on now, given the president's most recent remarks about an open ended ceasefire and that Iran is basically on the ropes. And he is actively trying to find an off ramp to end this war. But, of course, he's being pressured significantly by the Israelis and Mossad to continue this war. So we wanted to invite the professor on to talk about the war, economic depression, and everything else. Professor, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Clinton.
Speaker 0: Pleasure to have you here. So you heard the president, yesterday release this statement about really like an open ended ceasefire with Iran. And it seems like the president, among reports from Washington, is actively trying to end this war, trying to find an off ramp to get out of this. You predicted him getting into it. How do you predict he will try to get out of this?
Speaker 1: Right. So I think Trump is very frustrated with this war. He was expecting a quick strike, like what happened in Venezuela, where Delta Force went in and kidnapped Maduro. It was a it was a tremendous victory for America. So on the first day of the Israelis and Americans attacked, Tehran and killed the Atollah, and he expected that the Iranians would capitulate right after that.
But, these ferocity and resolve of the Iranians have taken Trouble back. Then expect that the Iranians would close off if Shreve Homuz does threaten the global economy. He didn't expect that Iranians would attack the GCC energy infrastructure. And so this has been very humiliating for Trump. And from his from his perspective, he doesn't like he doesn't like like to fight long wars of attrition.
It's very popular back at home, and he doesn't really know how to spin this. So as you say, he would like very much an off ramp. And he really believed that these negotiations in Islamabad would be his off ramp. Unfortunately, the Iranians see through Trump's antics. They refused to send a delegation to meet with Trump's team in Islamabad.
So we are stuck in a situation where Trump wants an off ramp, the Iranians refused to negotiate. And quite honestly, I do not know how Trump developed his off ramp because right now, the Iranians are holding the global economy under siege. The Iranians still control the Sheikh Hormuz even though Trump has imposed a naval blockade. That naval blockade is very porous. It's very leaky.
There's reporting today that over 30 Iranian tankers have been able to break the blockade and sell their oil overseas. Iranians now are threatening to cut overseas cables, which would destroy the Internet of Dubai and basically destroy Dubai as an economy because they rely so much on the Internet connection with the rest of the world. They will no longer be able to do any international banking. And this is not Dubai. The Iranians are also threatening, all the other GCC economies, threatening to close off the sorry.
Threatening to close off the Red Sea, for their proxies, the Houthis, and threatening to destroy pot pipelines, and basically take one third of the world's energy offline. So this this is a very dire situation for the GCC. And as such, there's a the Saudi Arabia and UAE have put a lot of pressure on the Trump White House, primarily through Kushner, just to seek a resolution as soon as possible. There were only two off ramps. The first off ramp is for Trump to pay reparations to Iran, maybe about a trillion dollars, and then to give sovereignty to Iranians over the trip of Hormuz and remove US bases from the Middle East.
The second solution is setting ground forces and escalate the situation and hope that ground forces will will be able to topple the regime and instill a much more friendly regime to The United States. So those are those are the two major solutions. Unfortunately, it seems as though there is no real real, off ramp or quick exit for Trump. This war is gonna drag on possibly for months, possibly even for years. What I think Trump's gonna do is that he's going to pretend this war doesn't exist anymore because that's what Trump does, and he might switch attention to Cuba.
So as you know right now, there's this massive embargo on Cuba. They have blackouts everywhere, and they have the rational ration both food and fuel. And it's and the Pentagon is on a plan to actually invade Cuba at some point. It's possible that Trump threatens Canada. He's having he's been having this fight with Kearny for the longest time over a new NAFTA.
It's possible he sends in special forces to attack the cartels in Mexico. But what we know from Trump is that he does not like long wars, at the same time, he does not he does not like to lose face. So it's possible that Trump being Trump, he just distracts us with a new war somewhere else.
Speaker 2: Well, right. I wanna ask about the lived experience. That's exactly what I was just thinking. You know, a lot of people, even in our audience of geopolitical enthusiasts are starting to just get tired and bored of this back and forth. We're at war.
We're gonna destroy them completely. Never mind. We're on a seafare. Now we're gonna kill them. We're gonna beat the shit out, and now it's okay.
And how can we possibly stay engaged with this? But this may be a tactic to keep us weary while the war drags on. And I'm wondering because I lived through the twenty years of the war in Afghanistan, the eight years of the Gulf War, that how it maybe this is how it was done. Maybe I was just too young to know that it just keeps going. And then we're like, well, it might it might end at one point.
Is this a part of it?
Speaker 1: I think so. I think I think that we will be slowly desensitized, normalized into another form of war in Iran. Jeez. What we're looking at right now is not actually a cease fire. We're actually looking at round two or recalibration of American strategy.
So in round one, remember, the Americans focus on shock and awe, basically try trying to decapitate the regime through strategic strikes. And they did kill a lot of leaders, but the government is still resilient. It's still standing. So that has failed. And round two is basically trying to impose a blockade on the Iranian economy, basically trying to stridently the economy.
So we're not actually seeing a ceasefire. If if there's a ceasefire, you not you would not blockade the the Shreve Of Hormuz because that's an act of war. What we're seeing is recalibration. So and and and, basically, I think they will continue this for as long as it takes to topple the government in in Tehran. But but what's gonna happen, as you point out, is that eventually we'll sick of all this drama and and switch our attention elsewhere.
Speaker 0: And this is what happens. Right? Because we then at home, we've got jobs to to take care of. We've got kids to take care of. And this is part of the strategy.
If it's not on the front page every day, like in Gaza, they can continue the war in Gaza, and now the focus is on something else. So they can distract us. So what will the pieces of this forever war look like? I think the last time you're on our show, you you I I believe you said, you believe that this is becoming Trump's Vietnam. And so what are the what are the pieces of this look like in terms of five years, six years?
Are we talking about permanent naval presence in the Strait Of Hormuz, a permanent blockade? Will we actually see boots on the ground? Doesn't seem Trump wants to do that. But what, you know, bases in the region that are being built up, I guess, what is your prediction on that?
Speaker 1: Right. So I think moving forward, the long term American strategy is a three pillar strategy. The first pillar will be to use ground forces in order to, like, strangle Iran. And the way you do that is by controlling the Strait Of Hormuz. Right?
So you you don't control the Strait Of Hormuz to allow for free maritime navigation as before, but what you wanna do is destroy Iran's capacity to export oil. That might mean seizing cargo island, But you also want want to destroy Iran's capacity to exact tolls on any ships that wanna bypass the Strait Of Hormuz. And so you basically want to cut off all financing for Iran, and you do that by having limited ground operations near the Strait Of Hormuz, primarily Carga Island and and Kassim Island, possibly even the Iranian coastline. Okay? And you do that.
And basic basically, what you're doing is you're trying to besiege Iran and try you're trying to minimize troop casualties. Okay? So that's the first pillar. And strike regulation. Second thing you do is that you set you set up a forward operating basis in safe places in Iran, meaning ethnic ironclaves.
Right? So it's possible you set up a forward operating bases in the the Southeast of Of Iran by the Pakistani border where the bullocks are. This is this is an ethnic group in Iran. You also can set up a forward operating base in the Northwest Of Iran where the Kurds are. What you what you what you're trying to do basically is you're trying to stir up ethnic tensions in Iran, and you're trying to create an ethnic civil war in the country.
Okay? That's step two. And step three is you try to suffocate Tehran. So Tehran is a city of 10,000,000 people. It relies on railways transportation for its food.
So what you do is you attack the infrastructure of Tehran to basically starve out the population. You attack the reservoirs to deny them water. You destroy power plants and do not to deny them electricity. Okay? What what you're trying to do in this process, you're trying to work slowly so you do not create backlash back at home because these are essentially war crimes.
And what you're trying to do is slowly apply pressure on Iranians so that their population gets gets restive, gets very angry, and they're forced to reach a political settlement with the Americans.
Speaker 0: That's terrifying. I mean, it's terrifying to think that this is how this plays out, but you can see it clearly. Do you see any similarities here in the in the pieces that you just laid out from the ground forces, the strangulation, the ethnic enclave piece of this to what we did in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, this sort of solution, it's meant not to commit to regime change. It's really meant to destroy the country as a viable nation state. So I think the end goal is to break Iran into ethnic enclaves, the balkanization of Iran essentially, and have them fight over scarce resources, especially water. And so they need to create conditions for that.
But this is obviously a war crime. This is obviously an act of, genocide, and so they need to move slowly towards that. And it might take them five years in order to reach that goal. Wow.
Speaker 2: And so can you talk a little bit about how this is gonna play out and be spun to us as not really a war? These are just economic consequences of other more complicated things. You don't understand it. Run along. But in the meantime, we will have shortages, food shortages, and things like that.
Speaker 1: Right. So what will happen is that this war will be drawn out. Right? So the Americans will behave much more strategically, much more methodically, much more in a much more calculated manner in order to reduce troop casualties because that would that's what would make people this war very popular in at home, right, if troops started to come back in coffins. So only 13 troops have died so far, but if the count reaches a 100, then we we can see massive protest against this war back at home.
Okay? So that's a first step. Like, to take a more slow, patient strategic approach to this war. Second thing is to continue to distract American people with more conflicts, possibly with with candidate Mark Carney. It's possible Donald Trump will encourage separation of Alberta.
It's possible that Trump and Carney will get into a screening match at some point. Cuba is definitely on the menu, so Trump will wanna take over Cuba at some point. So you're distracting the population. The third piece, and this is most important, is that as the economy suffers, and you point this out, but as the global economy suffers, as people are not able to book vacations to Europe anymore, as they're not able to buy whatever they want, whenever they want, people will slowly get bored of this war and focus more on domestic issues like the economy.
Speaker 2: Just I I wanna we're gonna take a break and talk more about the economy. But I guess since I didn't have a family during the Afghanistan war, I didn't during the Gulf War two, I just wonder, like, how did we let this just drag on? How is this I just don't remember. You know? Like, how did my parents just run a family while this atrocity was happening?
And so, yeah, do you have a comment on that? How did we just let that go for so long? And now we seem so hyper focused on not letting that happen.
Speaker 1: Right. So Afghanistan happened right after 09:11, when people rally around the flag. So there was a lot of popular support for an American invasion of Afghanistan in order to topple the Taliban. That's point one. Point two is that you remember, the Americans actually attacked the Taliban through proxies, through something called the Northern Northern Alliance, which was just a bunch of warlords in rebellion against the Taliban.
So it was a very quick war, and it was not very costly for the Americans. But what happened was that the Americans stayed for twenty years in order to try to rebuild the nation. So the war itself was actually fast and quick and decisive, but then Americans commit themselves to nation building, which took which took the longest time. The nation building was just a pretext for blatant corruption. Right?
Right. So that's point two. And point three, what what was that there was not much of American commitment. It was an international effort. And so so people felt that this was a legitimate process.
Speaker 0: I mean, I I interviewed a gentleman who was there in Afghanistan, and he was literally working with the CIA. He was responsible for taking the giant pallets of money off of the incoming aircraft. And he was basically told not to ask questions, but he would have to then, on a constant basis, be bringing these giant pallets of cash, which were then being, of course, distributed out to these warlords and payoffs and everything else. Just a massive money laundering operation in Afghanistan. So we know if there's one thing they love to make money, that's why the Ukraine war continues on.
And to your point, this could continue on as a forever war. Professor, stay right there. We wanna take a quick break. We wanna come back and dive deeply into the economy. I know your predictions about how we are heading towards a global recession.
I don't think these warnings are being heeded by individuals. People just kinda going about their lives and not even preparing, making sure that they have food and supply for their families. We'll talk about that, when we come back. But first, here's something that'll make you look at your rain jacket differently. Most waterproof jackets, the ones from those big outdoor brands, the ones you've been wearing for years, they're coated with something called PIFAS.
Yeah. They call them forever chemicals because they don't break down, not in the environment, not on your body, not ever. PIFAs are what make the water beat up and roll off of your jacket. So that's that satisfying moment where the rain just hits the fabric or slides right off. Yeah.
That's a toxic chemical doing its job. And then doing its other job is poisoning you slowly. That's why I wanna tell you about the Bearskin Heavy Storm rain jacket. It's rated to 20,000 millimeter waterproof. That's expedition grade.
That's the same rating that you'd find on serious mountain gear, but it uses zero PFAS, forever chemicals. None. None. No chemicals on the membrane, the coating, or the waterproof treatment. That's a 20,000 millimeter waterproof rating without the poison.
That's a rain jacket innovation that you can try out for yourself. On top of that, it packs into its own pocket, so you can actually stash it in your bag, your truck, your golf bag. It's always there when the weather turns bad. It zips into the bearskin hoodie also. So right now in Colorado, we got a snowstorm here in the April.
It's unbelievable. Snowing. I can't believe it. And so what did I do? I put this on top of my, bearskin hoodie so I have full three in one warmness walking the dog this morning.
Kept me dry because it's super wet heavy snow today. April. What the heck? And I stayed warm because the temperature plummeted down to like 20 degrees. So this thing is sealed zippers, taped seams, the works.
Right now, Bearskin is running a 60% off the Heavy Storm rain jacket sale right now with free shipping. Here's what to do next. Text the word redacted to 36912. That's redacted to 36912, and they'll send you a link so you can grab one at 60% off. Stop wearing a jacket that poisons you while it protects you from the rain.
Get a Bearskin Heavy Storm rain jacket today. Text the word redacted to 36912. That's 36912 and save 60%. Well, how are things sitting right now with the global economy? We keep hearing the horror stories about fertilizer disruptions, famine, food shortages, everything else that could become as a result of the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz and this global war.
Christine Lagarde, head of the ECB, you know, she's not given to hyperbole. I mean, she's, of course, you know, in control of largest banks and the, you know, European banking structure. Remember, she's famous for telling us that, you know, she wanted us to move away from cash. Of course, in my mind, this is all about control. But here is Christine Lagarde talking specifically about food rationing and what is coming.
Listen.
Speaker 3: Third, a third of the fertilizers is shipped through the Strait Of Hormuz. Now, that is also at risk. And it matters particularly in the Southern Hemisphere where the planting and therefore the fertilizers is badly needed now. I'm not saying that just out of interest for agriculture. Don't forget, I was minister of agriculture in France for a month and a half.
But because it matters to me as a central banker now, because if the price of food increases significantly, it is not going to just be the price of food, it is going to be inflation expectations because we know that people are particularly attentive to two things, the price of food, processed and unprocessed, and the price of gas at the petrol station. So, here are three indirect consequences of what's happening in the energy world. So, if the disruption persists long enough, the adjustment shifts from prices, which we are putting up with now, to possibly rationing with very different economic consequences. Higher prices are primarily inflationary, shortages hit output directly and are worse for growth. Overall, there have been so far limited signs of supply chain disruption, both globally and in the Euro Area.
But local tensions are visible. Jet fuel prices have roughly doubled since the outbreak of the conflict, and rationing has been imposed at some individual airports in Europe since early April. And I'm not talking about what's happening in the rest of the world. I'm just back from the IMF and the World Bank spring meetings, like many of you, and you might have bumped into colleagues from Asia, in particular some of the low income countries or emerging market economies, that are taking a much more severe hit than us and are moving into rationing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So Asia moving into food rationing, and fuel rationing. Lufthansa yesterday announcing the cancellation of hundreds of flights because they don't have the fuel for it. And then the fertilizer moving through the Strait Of Hormuz. Like, are people taking this seriously?
And you hear just in her voice, I mean, as a central banker, she doesn't wanna scare people, but she's kind of you can hear it there. That they're all the signals. She's basically pointing out all of the signals. We're back with professor Jiang to talk about the global impact of this war in Iran. Professor, what do you make of Christine Lagarde's message there?
And do you see a much bigger problem emerging?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think she is forewarning a major catastrophe approaching the global economy that's gonna come very soon. So she points out one third of the world's fertilizer passes through the Strait Of Hormuz. And most people don't appreciate this, but fertilizer is what feeds the world. So what fertilizer, the globe, the earth could sustain one one or 2,000,000,000 people.
2,000,000,000 people, if you're optimistic. So basically, we're able to have 8,000,000,000 people on this planet because of fertilizer. Now if you take out fertilizer out of the equation, this means that a lot of people are going to starve. There's there's no way around it. So this bring brings up a much bigger point, which is people don't appreciate the fragility of the global economy.
We use something called just in time supply chain system. So there's very little inventory. There's very little resilience. The system doesn't know how to cope with setbacks, with with delays. It's designed to be as quick and as efficient as possible in order to maximize benefit for the consumer.
So this system was not designed to be resilient. It was designed to be efficient, and this is gonna cause a lot of problems for the world. Another point that I will make is that these policymakers know that this catastrophe is coming. And the thing about policymakers is that they don't let a crisis ever go to waste. And policymakers are first and foremost concerned about how to create more control over people, how to create an AI surveillance state.
And if you talk about rationing, well, what comes naturally with rationing is basically digital currency and digital ID. Right? Because it's of communism. Think of Marxism. How how think think of a command economy where because there's so little food, because there's food scarcity, there's fuel scarcity.
Well, we have to ration this, so we have to basically give you coupons. And we do that digitally through digital currency. And so think of more control, think of more financial repression, think of possibly economic collapse.
Speaker 2: So, you know, I'm trying to extrapolate what this will be the lived experience for us because the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Pentagon was approaching American companies like Ford and General Motors to shift factory capacity towards weapon making. You know, they can ask them nicely, but they also can use the Defense Production Act to require companies to prioritize and accept government contracts. And Secretary of War Pete Hechtsef had said, this is to put us on a wartime footing. So that doesn't mean live your lives, we're gonna go to war. You know, it's all good.
It's you will live in a wartime footing. And so what was the lived experience during World War two for Americans is Rosie the Riveter, the woman goes to work, and food shortages and food rations, and it was not optional. So there is precedence for for this. It's not hysterical to think that we are being pushed towards this. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I think history might repeat itself. So what led to World War two was, first of all, 1929, stock market crash, where, you know, billions of savings were wiped out. We might see a similar situation where the stock market collapses, and possibly there is a cyber attack, a cyber false flag attack on the nation's financial data centers.
So all that money you have in the bank might be wiped out, and you can blame the Iranians for that even though it may not be the Iranians. This will lead to a depression in America where people become desperate for jobs, where people become desperate for food. The more government will can now step in and create a command economy just like just like what they did nineteen thirties. Right? Roosevelt's Roosevelt's New Deal.
And then the economy switches to a wartime economy where you are making drones, weapons, ammunitions for all these wars overseas that America has to fight in order to ensure it has control over the world's oceans and resources.
Speaker 0: I mean, everything you're talking about is already coming to fruition. Right? I mean, a $1,500,000,000,000 wartime budget at the Pentagon under president Trump. The move towards digital currency, the house resolution that's now coming forward, we've covered it here on the show about this new digital ID that would be required to sign into the Internet, basically, as an age verification. They tell us it's about safety, but it's all about control.
This is the control grid that's coming right before our eyes. And we're just like walking blindly right into it right now in The United States.
Speaker 1: Right. So there are two major pieces to this AI control grid. Right? The first is you you would need an enforced mechanism, and this would be ICE. Do you really need soldiers with machine guns in the streets to deport illegal immigrants?
Obama was able to do so without without soldiers. He did it just through through cooperation with local law enforcement. Right? So I think the ICE, it's meant to be almost like a gestable, a part of a secret police in order to control the lives of people. Their budget is, like, I think, projected projected to be $90,000,000,000.
That's a lot of money for to get immigrants. So I think ICE is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece of the puzzle is Operation Stargate, where the government has dedicated $500,000,000,000 to building data centers all around America. Listen. These data centers are not for having a AI girlfriend or for helping you cheat on your homework.
They are part of the control grid. Right? So look companies like OpenAI, they don't make money selling chat services to people. But Son Alman seems to be very confident that he'll be very successful. So I think he knows something that we don't know.
Speaker 0: It's deeply, deeply troubling. You talked about also well, we've mentioned it before the show, which is the oil refineries. So, I mean, what what is going on here? And I don't know if you have the answer to it, but we're now seeing, I mean, dozens of oil refineries around the world, many of them in BRICS aligned nations. You saw in India, one of the inaugural you know, president Modi of India was about to have the inauguration of this brand new oil refinery, and the day before it goes up in flames.
So all of the oil refining capacity is being taken offline. What is going on?
Speaker 1: Right. So, I think there's a combination of war. So a lot a lot of the refineries that are being destroyed are because of war. Right? The Americans attacked the natural gas fields of Iran, and Iranians responded by attacking the natural gas fields of Qatar.
So war is a factor. Another factor is just accidental malfunction. So because of energy shortages, these refineries are have to maximize output, and so it's possible they didn't neglect safety measures because of their their capacity. That's the second factor. Now the third factor is a sabotage.
Right? So if you look at the Australian Geelong refinery fire, that is deeply suspicious. They say it was an accident, but people locally said that this was probably sabotage. So these three factors going on. Right?
War, accidents, and sabotage. One thing that I will say is that if you're trying to change your society, you really need to better control your people. And quite honestly, from the perspective of the elite, the peasants have become too arrogant. The peasants have have become too uppity. And so you need you need to make them much more anxious.
You need to make them much more desperate. And so it's important to manufacture economic calamities in order to make them more obedient.
Speaker 0: Well, that's what colonel Towner Watkins says, and she's brilliant. And she talks about she talks about this as the strategy of tension. And these left behind armies, these NATO leave behind armies that created this strategy of tension. You create this tension on purpose in order to agitate and control. It's all about control.
Speaker 1: It's psychological warfare. They've been doing this for decades. And so so think of the color revolutions in The Middle East. Right? So they have this very good playbook, very effective playbook of using propaganda, of using spies, of using saboteurs, provocateurs in order to stir up discontent among the population and in order to better control the emotions of the population.
So I think that we are moving towards a period of massive unrest.
Speaker 2: Now, earlier off camera, you talked about the NASA program. And this seems to be something that's really irking people online. I see meme after meme of people saying, wait, you expect us to support a war in Iran. We don't have free health care. We have record debt.
We will have to pay more for fuel, but you can use up all this jet fuel and send science experiments into the What the hell? And you're saying you think that is another part of the control mechanism.
Speaker 1: Right. So if we just extend our logic, right, and just say, okay, during this war, in order to maintain American empire, the population isn't gonna go with this war, so they need to create an economic catastrophe to make the population more obedient. And you wanna introduce an AI surveillance system. You want to have you you wanna have a control grid. Well, a possible strategy is to fake an alien invasion and make people so afraid that they basically obey the government.
But, you know, from the perspective of government, this this doesn't really have to succeed because, honestly, baby boomers will go with anything. Right? So but maybe it's just theater. Everyone So knows a fake alien invasion, but that allows the government to actually impose the ash civilians grid on everyone. And the boomers will go with this.
No one else will will go with it, but no one really cares because they have eyes on the streets to to enforce obedience.
Speaker 0: Well, and president Trump recently, of course, announced the shift of Space Force to its new location with its massive new infrastructure, and of course, billions of dollars and a new budget. It has its own spy program inside Space Force. For years on this show, we've been calling out how this is just one big massive boondoggle for the defense industry. And, of course, yes, the fears you you're seeing it online now. This idea that we are about to face some sort of big disclosure, some sort of big alien invasion.
You're hearing it from members of Congress that disclosure is coming, and therefore to scare all of us into some sort of, control. And that I think this is just another big piece of the puzzle. Project Blue Bean.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I wanna raise two questions about about the space program. So we know that after every major government expenditure, huge government project, we have massive innovation. Okay? So think of World War two, and the government spent billions billions dollars on a Manhattan project.
And in the nineteen fifties, we have this tremendous wave of innovation, right, including the transistor transistor, including the Internet, including, you know, semiconductors. So that's what happens when you have tremendous breakthroughs, technological breakthroughs. But the the problem is this, 1969, America sent a man to the moon. What technological breakthroughs do we have from that? In fact, if you talk to NASA, they they they tell you, oh, sorry, we lost all that technology, we lost all that, you know, data, we lost all that footage.
Yeah. That's kinda weird. That's really weird. That's point one. Point two is that undergirding technological breakthroughs is all is all are synesthetic theories.
Okay? So think of the Manhattan Project and how how, you know, before the Manhattan Project, there were always strewn as breakthroughs in science, primarily Einstein's theory of great of relativity and quantum mechanics, which allows for the Manhattan Project. I'm completely confused as to what what physical breakthrough or what what what theory theoretical breakthrough allowed for the space program. And why is it that after the space program was so successful, we we don't have breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe. This is all really weird.
Speaker 2: I guess. Yeah. Don't you think we should know more by now?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, like, we're literally excited about getting back to the moon. I mean, we we you know, it's like we've done this. We've done this, you know, nineteen sixties. We've done this, like, or did we?
And now we're doing it all over again, and we're excited that we get some sort of four k iPhone video that's been going viral by one of the astronauts. Like, that's that's like arguably the most exciting thing that we've seen from this is an astronaut's iPhone video through the window of a sun or the the Earth the Earth rise or Earth sunset. It's it's very bizarre.
Speaker 2: I wanna I'm gonna out Clayton a little bit. He was telling me earlier that, you know, he's fascinated by the Optimus robot, the Tesla Optimus robot, and we'll see Tesla earnings this afternoon. And he was saying, it's not just to, like, walk your dog and do your dishes. What they want them to do is go to Mars and build the colonies, that they will be built by the Optimus robots. And he's fascinated by that.
There's no there's no shade until he knew me right.
Speaker 0: I mean, just years ahead years ahead of human beings going to Mars that will have this, like, fleet of Optimus robots on on Mars.
Speaker 2: Yeah. What do you think of that?
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's entirely possible where they're looking for a new control mechanism. Right? And they understand the power of narrative, how World War two was this great unifying, galvanizing event for the American population, how the space race was also a great unifying event for the American people as well. So maybe people are in poverty. Maybe maybe there's wars going on.
But if we're seeing all this footage of these Optimus robots going to Mars to go to colony, maybe this will make us, more appreciative of the government.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. I guess we'll we'll we'll just fall in line and just be happy with all of this control, and people are, you know, just walking into this control grid.
Speaker 2: Or imagine I I'm thinking like a science fiction writer now. You you are in this control grid. You see these Optimus robots. You think they're actually building a colony where there is food and life, and you don't have to live in this dystopic life. But, oh, you can only get here because of this.
And then we all think that we've earned it, line up to get on a machine, and we're blasted into death. This is the novel. Right?
Speaker 1: That's a Hollywood movie. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You like it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. The Matrix.
Speaker 0: I don't like this dystopic future.
Speaker 2: Macabre, but that's where my mind goes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Professor, any final thoughts on all of it all of the things we talked about today? And I I mean, I just keep coming back to this economic, know, depression that we're facing, and I don't think people are prepared for it.
Speaker 1: No. I I think, like, the greatest challenge is for people to to, like, switch their mindsets because people are so complacent nowadays. You know, I don't think Americans appreciate how great their country is, how lucky their lives have been in that they never really experienced a war, in that they never really experienced scarcity, poverty, deprivation. And quite honestly, what's gonna kill most people is this radical kind of dissonance when they move towards a world in which things feel hopeless. So so I think, you know, what's really important is for people to start to switch their mentalities from a focus on towards materialism to a to a much greater focus on spirituality, on community, on family.
And if you do that, then I think you're much much more likely to weather the storm that's coming.
Speaker 2: You know, one more question I wanna ask because a German politician recently said that they should raise the age of an of enlistment for reservists to 70. A 70 year old being enlisted in the army. I mean, if this shows no lack of respect for human life, I don't know what does. And so I think that, again, this shows sort of an expansion of slave labor and war footing. What do you what do you think of that?
Speaker 1: Look, I think there's a depopulation agenda going on Yeah. Where the elite have known for decades that the population we have is unsustainable. This planet, its resources were really meant for only one or 2,000,000,000 people. Unfortunately, the elite don't wanna share. They wanna they wanna live the life of billionaires, and they want us to own nothing and be happy about it.
So they recognize that if they are to maintain their privilege, then they need to get rid of most of us. And so, you know, never let a good crisis go to waste. And so there is clearly a depopulation agenda at work here behind the scenes.
Speaker 0: I guess I'll finally ask you about this Palantir big headline that came out about two days ago that they Palantir executives want to bring back the draft in The United States. They want to bring back the draft. It just is the selective service is now prepping for this, like, automatic registration in The United States, so you'll be automatically put in the selective service. What do you make of Palantir's push for a draft?
Speaker 1: Look. If there's an AI surveillance state, that's coming, then Palantir will be the heart and center of that. So food rationing will allow for, will justify a control grid, but also the national draft, if think about it, will also justify a control grid where you need to make sure that young men know their patriotic duty and they're willing to go and die in The Middle East.
Speaker 0: Unbelievable. Professor Jiang, thank you so much for your deep analysis today. We really appreciate it. And and I and I hope you're not correct. I hope you're not correct.
Look.
Speaker 1: Look. I hope I'm wrong. Okay? People call me an Internet Internet super short. On Internet, people call me an idiot.
I hope I'm an idiot. Okay? But I also think I also think it's important for us to consider all possibilities and to be emotionally and psychologically prepared for the worst case scenario.
Speaker 0: Right. You've been right so far. So I I hope you are an idiot, and I hope that this is wrong, and that I hope we do not enter a forever war with Iran.
Speaker 2: You Well, how many of us were idiots not seeing the pandemic coming and then weren't prepared for it? So okay. You guys, there's precedence.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Professor, great to see you. Thank you so much. And I really appreciate you staying up late with us there in China. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks, guys.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Jared Kushner became a billionaire during Trump's presidency. Now he's at the center of Middle East peace negotiations while floating a Gaza real estate development plan. @OwenShroyer1776 joins us to connect the dots on the corruption hiding in plain sight. https://t.co/8ZlCvdPgaG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that there is insider information at play, noting that people inside the administration are making huge stock bets ahead of President Trump’s announcements on oil, with tens of millions of dollars in Brent crude futures short bets placed twenty minutes before the news breaks, and questions why there is no investigation. They assert that somebody has insider information and imply it should be illegal.
Speaker 1 discusses potential legal and regulatory issues surrounding prediction markets, distinguishing them from traditional gambling. They explain that in Texas they cannot gamble on sports via apps, but in Missouri those apps work, and prediction markets are not considered gambling. They reference a Trump administration stance that effectively signaled insiders within the administration should stop gambling in prediction markets, suggesting awareness that people inside the administration were making plays on these markets. Speaker 1 notes uncertainty about whether the big players are inside or outside the administration, but emphasizes that the insider trading angle during the administration hasn’t received much attention. They recount following the topic sinceTrump’s election, noting early claims that Trump would crash the stock market, which Speaker 1 says did not happen and, in fact, the market rose for those who invested then. They describe the market as fluctuating with corrections, and remark that Pam Bondi stated the market was hovering around 49,000–50,000, implying continued manipulation.
Speaker 1 asserts that Trump often makes declarations on Fridays right before the stock market closes, attributing this pattern to market manipulation. They claim to have bet against the narrative that the stock market would collapse under Trump, and that those bets performed well. The speaker says they feel a bit guilty about profiting, noting that friends who run stock brokerages look at them as if from the future, and claims that the White House is effectively running an insider trading operation. They state that knowing someone is coming to the White House or that a person from a big tech company is arriving allows one to get ahead of the news and secure about a 5% stock bump, or a 5% gain by investing before the news becomes public.
Speaker 0 adds that with a Trump tweet, markets swing drastically—either ending civilization or extending a ceasefire—implying that market movement is driven by Trump’s statements.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It seems like they have access to insider information, Owen. Just like the individuals in the in the administration who are making huge stock bets ahead of president Trump making announcements on oil. Twenty minutes before that announcement hits, they're making mill tens of millions of dollar short bets or Brent crude futures bets and no investigation whatsoever. But clearly, somebody has insider information. This sounds like it should be illegal.
Speaker 1: I wonder if there isn't some sort of a legal regulatory issue with these prediction markets. You know, it's a little different, the prediction markets, than, say, normal gambling, which is which is a valid issue in a lot of states. I mean, an example might be where I live in Texas. I can't go and gamble on a sports betting app. I can't do it.
Now if I go to my hometown of Missouri, all of a sudden, my my sports gambling app apps can work. I can make any sports bet I want. But down here in Texas, they don't work. But prediction markets are different. Prediction markets are not considered gambling for whatever reason.
So I can I can get into prediction markets all the time and and make bets, and it's not considered illegal? Now the Trump administration did come out and basically kind of with a wink and a nod told everybody inside of their administration, stop gambling in prediction markets. So to me, that's that's kind of the the sign that they at least had some level of awareness that there were people inside of the administration, you know, making plays on the prediction markets. Now are these the big whales that you mentioned with the big plays? I don't know.
That could be out some that could be somebody outside of the administration, maybe maybe kind of privy to insider information. But at a but on a but on a larger scale, this story, the insider trading angle of this administration, I think, is not getting not getting good attention. I've been following this since Trump got in because, when Trump first got in, they all said the same thing. And and this was when the fake news media we were still kind of in we still kinda had nostalgia from the first Trump administration. So Trump gets in.
They say he's gonna crash the stock market. And, of course, what happened? The exact opposite happened. So anybody who got in at that time when they claimed Trump was gonna kill the stock market, it did a major dip. Anybody who got in at that time, you're up, like, 20% right now on your investments.
Now it's been fluctuating 10% kind of market corrections. Everybody knows it's kinda hovering under, you know, 50,000 as, Pam Bondi reminded us during her hearing. So it's kinda hovering around 49, 40 8. But if you watch this stuff, why does Trump always make a declaration Friday right before the stock market closes? It's all market manipulation.
It honestly it's the craziest thing I've ever seen. I've never done stocks my entire life, and I decided when they they told the American people that the stock market's gonna collapse under Trump, I decided to bet against that. I did quite well. I'm not gonna lie. I feel a little guilty, actually.
I'm beating my major I mean, I have friends that run stock brokerages, and they're looking at me like I'm from the future or something. And I'm trying to explain to them. I'm like, the whole White House is running an insider trading operation right now. So I'm really not that smart. I just happen to follow political news, and it's pretty it's pretty obvious you can see what happens.
If you know somebody is coming to the White House, if you know somebody from a big tech company is coming from the White House and you can get ahead of that news, you're gonna get a 5% bump. If you make an investment in that stock ahead of the news finding out that this person is at the White House, you're gonna get a 5% bump. I mean, fail, guys.
Speaker 0: With Yeah. I mean, it's like all you need is a Trump tweet, and you know it's either gonna swing oh, we're gonna end civilization, so you know that's gonna go down, or, hey. We're extending the ceasefire, and then the market's gonna go up.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 You've been WARNED: The collapse is ahead of schedule. Jet fuel is running out in Europe within a month. Air Canada is cutting flights now. @ProfessorPape says we're entering stage two of three and stage three is full economic contraction by the end of May. https://t.co/xVkh6yRT5d
Video Transcript AI Summary
Professor Robert Pape warned on X that within ten days parts of the global economy will start running short of critical goods, based on thirty years studying economic sanctions and blockades. He said this would bring not just higher prices but shortages, and that markets are not ready for this. The Kobelisi letter stated the world is experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history with 600,000,000 barrels of lost oil supply, US gas prices up 47% since December, and inflation approaching 4% in a path similar to the 1970s. The discussion then touched on Iran’s war potentially returning to open conflict. The United States seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, which Larry Johnson described as piracy and an act of war aimed at clearing the Strait of Hormuz; Tehran called it armed piracy and promised a response. JD Vance was headed to Islamabad for talks, though Iranian officials said they had not agreed to anything. Fox’s Tel Aviv correspondent relayed that Trump told him they would blow up everything in Iran if they didn’t come to the table, saying the deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from possessing highly enriched uranium.
Professor Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago and author of Escalation Trap on Substack, joined the program. He referenced his April 12 post predicting shortages within forty-five to sixty days and described three stages: Stage one, the first ~45 days with price increases; Stage two (40–60 days) with shortages emerging; Stage three (day 60–90) with worsening shortages and then contraction, beginning around May 31. He explained that shortages would escalate into reduced production of commodities, fewer airline seats, and broader disruptions across supply chains.
Pape detailed the implications for air travel and energy: jet fuel shortages could cause European and global aviation reductions, with Europe’s ~110,000,000 monthly air passengers dropping to potentially 80 million or fewer as fuel becomes scarce; cargo, mail, and just-in-time deliveries would be affected, and overall product availability would contract. He argued that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran’s potential shutdown and the U.S. response would complicate efforts to keep that oil flowing. He emphasized that the contraction would begin even as oil access becomes more difficult and other nations (including the U.S.) struggle to secure energy.
The conversation then shifted to China. Pape noted that in China, the impact on GDP could be modest (about 1%), but the U.S. could be drawn into a larger conflict that could benefit China. He observed China’s preparation for energy independence: stockpiling oil, relying on solar, nuclear, and coal, and maintaining a robust energy strategy even during tensions with the U.S. He suggested that tariffs and conflicts did not significantly disrupt China’s planning, which could lead to China gaining relative advantage as the U.S. faces a widening energy and economic crisis.
There was discussion about the United States’ energy independence. Pape stated he has long advocated energy independence since 2005, but warned that the broader picture involves debt, energy policy, and strategic choices that could threaten American leadership. He stressed the need for a concrete five-year plan to navigate the crisis without harming the economy in the short term and cautioned against escalating war in Iran.
In addressing the everyday impact, the speakers considered who would be hardest hit: the poorest, and particularly non-college-educated white working-class voters, who had experienced the largest deterioration in income since 1990. The conversation included proposals to mitigate consumer pain, such as targeted economic measures for working Americans affected by rising gas prices, potentially including tax considerations or subsidies for those whose jobs require fuel, while avoiding broad handouts.
Pape reiterated that his Escalation Trap Substack presents a framework based on twenty-one years of modeling the bombing of Iran and indicates that the stages he predicted are unfolding faster than anticipated, with a focus on concrete policy options that could be enacted by May 1. He emphasized that his analysis centers on consequences for ordinary people and urged practical policy steps to address the crisis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, are we heading into a global disaster? Well, it appears that way. A few days ago, professor Robert Pape posted this on x with an ominous warning. Within ten days, parts of the global economy will start running short of critical goods. After thirty years studying economic sanctions and blockades, I don't say this lightly, not just higher prices, shortages.
Markets are not ready for this. He posted that on April 12. So in two days, we'll have hit the professor's ten day deadline and escalation trap. By the way, that's the name of his substack, by the way. And just about two hours ago, the Kobelisi letter published this on the economy.
It's official. The world is now experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history with 600,000,000 barrels of oil of lost oil supply. US gas prices are up 47% since December. They were already going up before this war. And inflation is nearing 4% in a similar path to the nineteen seventies.
What happens next? Let us explain, and you can read there. They do a great job over there as well. Meanwhile, the Iran war may be heading right back into open war. Over the weekend, The United States seized an Iranian flagged cargo ship.
Friend of the show, Larry Johnson, said this was piracy. This was an act of war, trying to clear the Strait Of Hormuz, saying it was trying to break the American blockade. Tehran called the move armed piracy and vowed a response to this. Meanwhile, a US team led by J. D.
Vance was heading to Islamabad, Pakistan for a new round of talks even though the Iranian side say they haven't even agreed to anything. So JD Vance essentially might be going into an empty room. He's gonna sort of sitting over there, and maybe maybe they'll have some tea and coffee, and you can just sort of sit there and no Iranians show up to talk to him. Fox's Tel Aviv reporter says Trump called him, talked to him on the phone, and told him they're gonna blow up everything in Iran if they don't come to the table. Watch.
Speaker 1: I just spoke with president Trump for about twenty minutes, and he told me if Iran does not sign this deal, the whole country is getting blown up. He went on to say that bridges and power plants will be targeted if Iran does not sign this agreement. The president telling me that US special envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are heading to Islamabad, Pakistan for meetings on Tuesday, possibly into Wednesday, to try and get this agreement across the finish line. The president telling Fox News this is a very simple deal, but this is the last chance for the Iranians. The president, very clear in our conversation that he is not making the same mistake that president Obama made, giving cash to the Iranians and allowing them to continue a nuclear program.
The deal on the table is to reopen the Strait Of Hormuz to ensure that the Iranians do not have this highly enriched uranium that is buried deep underground after operation Midnight Hammer last summer. And, again, the president telling Fox News that the entire country will be blown up. Bridges and power plants will be targeted if the Iranians do not sign this agreement.
Speaker 0: So Fox News sure loves that. Absolutely. Professor Robert Pape is the director of the Chicago project on security and threats at the University of Chicago and the author of Escalation Trap on Substack. Professor, great to have you here on the show. Welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. It's really quite a pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 0: Well, it's our honor. And I wanted to kinda go wind the clock back to something you posted, a few days ago on April 12, about where we are heading. Within ten days, parts of the global economy will start running short of critical goods. After thirty years, as you've been studying economic sanctions and blockades, you don't see this lately. Well, we're about two days away now from your sort of prediction.
Anything you wanna change in your prediction or maybe accelerate?
Speaker 2: We're ahead yeah. We're ahead of schedule. So just, four or five days after I made that that prediction, and by the way, there's a much longer paper on the substack that really goes into it. Of course, you can't do that in a tweet. That, jet fuel, we're running about a month it's about a month before we're gonna be out of jet fuel in Europe, and you're already seeing that airliners are already cutting back.
So Air Canada is cutting back their flights, to LaGuardia for a month at this point, maybe longer. It's not clear when they'll restart them. I spend a lot of my time now on different media with Australia. The 80% of their oil comes in here into this essentially an island continent, and they're really already strapped in in in crisis. And I also spend a lot of time with India because they are already experiencing dramatic shortages as well.
So what you are seeing here play itself out. And now for your audience, I think it's important to understand there's three stages I'm explaining. It's not just a crystal ball throw the dart prediction. There's three stage. Stage one is for the first forty five or so days, you have, when you have a short a cutoff, you have prices go up.
And then you get into the forty five to sixty day range, and that's that ten day period you're talking about where you actually start to have the shortages occur, and that's what you're seeing emerging now. And then as you go from day 60 to day 90, the shortages get worse and worse. It's not like shortages stop, and prices keep getting worse and worse. But then you have contraction kick in, and that's really what will start to kick in by May 31 here. So what you're seeing is already the the predictions I'm making in terms of the shortages are coming sooner than I was anticipating, not later.
And you're already starting to see the glimmers of the contraction and what you just described with the possible escalation coming, could actually, I guess, even further double confirm the the the expectations I had.
Speaker 3: What does that mean contraction for us consumers?
Speaker 2: It means we're gonna stop producing commodities. We're gonna stop having actual goods and actual seats on aircraft. So let me just pick air traffic because a lot of people we hear travel in the air. So in Europe, there are about a 110,000,000 passengers on aircraft every single month. So if you don't have jet fuel, if you literally zero it out, the first step is you'll scramble.
How can I get some more of it from somewhere? So you'll go to Nigeria. That's a place, and you'll actually come to The United States. But that is actually occurring well, everybody else is running out of jet fuel too. Europe's not gonna be the one.
And so you'll get about 50% maybe if you're lucky back. So that means suddenly, after about four weeks, the contraction piece of this is that you'll go from a 110 to something like 80 and then 70 and then 60,000,000 passengers. And then that's just the passengers. You see there's all the cargo, all the mail, all the just in time deliveries that happen through the air that we've gotten so used to. That's going to contract as well.
And then the actual products, not just the delivery system, the actual products will start to contract as well. So that we experienced some of this contraction during COVID, but this is now, in some ways, even even more more disastrous because the Strait Of Hormuz, 20% of the world's oil, there's just not a spare 20% laying around to pick up. And you now have both Iran shutting shutting that down and effectively The United States shutting it down. So you gotta persuade two countries to let that oil open up, not just one anymore.
Speaker 0: Is this really about China?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. So I spent two weeks in June when we're bombing Fordow in China visiting their advanced industries. See, I'm very interested in power and where power comes from. I wanted to see for myself the advanced industry. Xiaomi, that's an electric vehicle factory.
BYD, these are these advanced electric vehicles you can't buy here. Alibaba, I wanted to see, their robotics. So I really wanted to see for myself. And what all those top executives told me at all these dinners I was at for two solid weeks is, sure. There'll be some maybe 1% of GDP loss for China at most, but at the end of the day, America is gonna get sucked into a quagmire here, and that can only help China glide up and surpass America faster.
So they didn't really wanna get their nose in it. They weren't trying to make it worse. They just saw this as a no lose situation for China, and they really couldn't have been happier that after getting out of two forever wars, America got into an even an even bigger one. So so from their perspective, the business part of China perspective, it's just not a problem for them.
Speaker 3: Wow. Because they are have more energy independence because we see other parts of Asia are suffering because they cannot get the energy that they need through the Strait Of Hormuz. Is there any collaboration that's possible that's not already happening between, let's say, East Asia and China?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So what I discovered when I went to China, which I've done many times, but since COVID, very few Americans, including American business people, have actually been to China. Almost no politicians have actually gone to China. So they don't know that, for example, for the last five starting in COVID, China has been stockpiling its oil. It hasn't just worried about this crisis right now and then starting to scramble.
For years, it's built up a giant stockpile of oil. It only its whole energy and its whole entire economy, it's 80% driven without oil at all. So it's not like all of its economy hinges on its oil. What's been happening is they've been because they don't produce oil, they produce they've got into solar in a big way. They, their backup is nuclear and coal.
And then if they have to, they'll go to the stockpiles of oil. And they were explaining this to me and showing me their plans, the actual business models, at these giant companies, in China that are just taken off. And this is also, by the way, why the, tariffs just are not they don't miss a beat. Their their whole, for ever since, Trump slapped tariffs on China way back in 2017, China got the memo. And so they've been building almost ten years to be independent of America wrecking their economy.
Can I
Speaker 3: follow-up on that, Dima? Please. So, you know, something the president has said to us many times since starting this war is we don't need to collaborate with other countries. We have our own oil. We're all good.
We don't actually have a stockpile that's comparable to China as far as I can tell. We have some, but not like what you're explaining. And how how energy independent is The United States if you were to give us a grade, a letter grade?
Speaker 2: No. We are energy independent. I'm one of the people pushing for that going back to 2005 with Dick Luger in the senate. So my work on suicide terrorism said being too wedded to the Middle East was a bad idea. Let's become energy independent.
That was that that's him dying to win my 2005 book, and I worked with senator Luger in the senate on these issues. I'm very big believer in that, but that is missing that's looking at a small part of the picture. And I think what what I want is I want America to be the richest, most powerful country on the planet. I just wanna be super crystal clear. And the problem that we face right now is I believe and I'm not saying that president Trump is is intending this, but I believe that a lot of his policies are working the opposite to that goal of America as number one, as the most powerful.
And I am deeply concerned not because of some liberal thing at all. I'm deeply concerned that we are hastening the day when China will be number one. And that's why they're sitting back effectively smiling at these big dinners and saying, yeah, you just go to it in The Middle East.
Speaker 0: Well, and that you saw an armada of about a 171 oil tankers heading to The United States to buy up about 200,000,000 barrels of oil. From what I'm reading, that's about half of what's left in the American strategic oil reserves. So all of these ships that were trying to make it through the strait are not able to go go through there, so they're coming to The United States. But how much how much oil do we actually have left to give them?
Speaker 2: No. You're exactly right. And then layer into that that as the world's commodities contract, that means we will have to pay higher prices for the same goods in a short time, not in five or ten years. So so I'm all up for trying to reassure in in I I'm not opposed to many of these ideas. I just wanna be super clear in principle, in practice, what's happening is we are, basically, wrecking a lot of things in the short term.
And I think this is going to, unfortunately, you need a real, not just a strategy, not a goal. You need a plan, a five year plan for how are we actually gonna get from here to there in five years without hurting ourselves in the meantime. And I believe that, I I actually do believe that a lot of those goals could be achieved in that in that five year period. I see no sign of anything that looks like that. And in fact, part of that five year plan would not be this giant war in Iran.
It just would make no sense.
Speaker 0: Right. So when you write about this in escalation in your substack, where things are heading maybe over the next forty eight hours, I mean, where do you see JD Vance on his way to Islamabad. It doesn't look like the Iranians are even coming to the table. Where what do you see happening within the next forty eight hours?
Speaker 2: Well, I think that it's it's it's not impossible. Let's look on the positive side. Let's try to be a little positive. And for me, I've been pretty gloomy here. Okay?
It's possible you'll get some kind of paper idea or of this, but I think we need to be understand that whatever comes out of this is not going to have a lot of stickiness to it. And you see how easy it is for these hopes. We had hope a week ago because we had a truce in Lebanon. President Trump with Marco Rubio, they're brokering this truce. And within forty eight hours, as you have been reporting, this whole thing just came unglued, and they're shooting at each other again.
Well, this is because these issues are that zero sum. I wrote a big article on the Substack about the zero sum nature. It is not possible that Iran can control the Strait Of Hormuz and have all that global power and not. It is not possible. Iran can have, the beginnings of the material for nuclear weapon and not.
And this is about power. If Iran gives those two things up, what's to stop other states, Israel, from demanding even more and bombing them even harder to get things they, they want or just literally to wreck them like they've wrecked Gaza and they're wrecking Lebanon. So these it's just not we're we're not really, I think, approaching it with what I my books are called bombing to win. So I really wanna win, and I want a strategy to win. And that's really my my my issue here.
It's not really what these end state objectives that are being discussed. It's with how are we actually gonna get there in ways that aren't gonna, and one more point I just wanna put on the table, your listeners will know we're $40,000,000,000,000 in debt. We're wrecking we're messing with the world's economy. We're we're not exactly in the position. We're not even in the position we were with COVID because we've lopped on so much debt in our country.
I'm concerned that we're rocking this boat at the worst possible time for our debt situation.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I wanna ask you about how this plays out in our lives so that I mean, I think it's important to talk about how this is gonna be for us because most of us don't support the war. We, you know, did not support the Biden administration because of the continuous perversion of capitalism, because of the destruction of our economy around COVID and the war in Ukraine. And we're getting all of that doubled down even worse. And so I wanna I wanna talk about, like, you guys, we have to pay attention or else we will be like this. Not just you can't take your Hawaiian vacation, but
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Can you feed your children? So first, I'm gonna take a quick break, if you don't mind staying there for just a minute.
Speaker 0: Grab some water. Well, say bye bye to receding gums. Gum recession is not just cosmetic. Millions of people deal with bleeding gums, tooth sensitivity, even tooth loss. And once gums start pulling back, most toothpastes do absolutely nothing to help you.
Well, that's where Smile comes in. Smile is the wellness company's next generation toothpaste designed to support gum repair, strengthen teeth, reduce sensitivity, and gently whiten your smile. Smile is powered by healing peptides like BPC-one hundred fifty seven, known for helping reduce inflammation and supporting the repair of gum and bone tissue. The formula uses advanced AQA SOME technology, a mini liposomal shield that protects these peptides and delivers them directly to the damaged gum tissue. It also includes GHK CU, a peptide to support collagen and healthier gum structure.
It also has probiotics to help people balance the oral microbiome in their mouth and PAP whitening that removes stains without harsh peroxide. So the result is just basically stronger gums, healthier teeth, and a much brighter smile. So get 10% off plus free shipping for US residents. Over to twc.health/redacted and use that code redacted, and you'll get 10% off. Again, twc.health/redacted.
Speaker 3: We're back with professor Pape now. We're talking about what this war continues to do to our pocketbook, to our budget, to our economy. We can work as hard as we want in what we think is a capitalist system, but it can't actually work if there are, let's say, bugs in the system perverting the system. And the way that's working right now is we we will not have energy. Right?
And that won't let us
Speaker 2: So so let me let me let me give you my 2¢ on this because I think you've teed up a very important issue. The first principle and then how to apply it. When you have these shortages, the people who go without are the poorest people, always. Yeah. The richer people and the middle class people, they'll pay more prices, and they will, give up luxury like steak, but they will not go without as much as the poorer people.
Now the people who have become the poorer in the last thirty years, your the audience may not really know this, are exactly Trump's core base, which is the non college educated white working class. That group has lost more ground since 1990 than anybody else, anybody else. So other groups can complain, but I'm just telling you the curves, the actual reality curves. So that group here is a group that, for example, could be truckers. They could be the people that are gonna be using and that what's happening is, I think it would make a great deal of sense.
So president Trump is already I'll just float an idea here, which I've never done before, but this your this vehicle might be able to get to the West Wing, which is there needs to be something akin to no tax on tips for the gas prices that are being paid for by the white working class here who are actually using that fuel for their jobs. And so I believe there needs to be some actual legislation. Right now, you've got the Republicans in control of the of the presidency, the Senate, and the House, and they're constantly saying they can't do anything. Well, let's just put something on the table that I think should be if they could do anything, they should do this. And that is for the white working class I'm not saying just give handouts.
I I'm not I'm not a believer in the handout. I am, however, a believer in giving people money to continue their jobs so you're not actually then having to pay people on welfare and on unemployment, etcetera, etcetera. I believe that this would be a smart thing for Scott Besson to think about, I think for, others in the administration to think about, and president Trump. And I think this would be a very smart time to be thinking that way because that group, no matter how they're they don't care about the spin. They're not gonna buy the spin.
Okay? And Joe Rogan showing up at the White House, that's nice. Okay? But they're gonna be feeling that, and especially people like truckers, are gonna feel that. And the people putting that gas in the in the tractors on those farms, they're gonna feel this problem.
Speaker 0: We also just had a new poll out showing I mean, it's disastrous for president Trump right now. And, of course, the Republicans who'd ride his coattails for the November elections, it's a disaster. And one of the things that Scott Besson kind of floated last week was this idea of withholding and your income taxes. And a lot of people thinking maybe he'd be laying the groundwork for removing income taxes in The United States. And, you know, if you wanna maybe win in November, be the president of The United States that eliminates income tax right here at tax time for most Americans.
And on top of that, you're maybe I know maybe that's a bridge too far, but president Trump is into that.
Speaker 2: Would do, sir. I it's a smart idea. I I don't really fully disagree with it, but what I would just do is I would just focus this a little bit. Already, the people who voted for president Trump already make far less than those who voted for Kamala Harris. I I study these things.
This is part of what I part of my my other my job, my my daytime job when I'm not on Fox. So the, what you what you see is it's already many, people here who are not making ends meet very easily at all, but they are actually trying to work. They they believe, and they have a work ethic here. And that's very important to keep going. So I believe you what you should be doing is finding specific ways to target the working continuing by this group even as those gas prices just went up by a third or 40%.
Something like in my area here in Southern Chicago went up by about 40% in the since the war. It's gotta be about that anywhere everywhere else too.
Speaker 0: So, you know, everyone the American people feel it at the dinner table. They see it on their bank accounts. They see it to your point about gas prices. I mean, how bad do you think it's gonna get over the next sixty days as as this continues?
Speaker 2: Oh, I I think what you're again, what you're gonna see, I'm focusing on the white working class who are actually working. Okay? Because I think between now and May 31, they're gonna be the ones who are gonna be feeling it. And then now we'll have cascading effects with the prices of, it's gonna be more expensive at the grocery store because it's more expense because you have fewer truckers, you have fewer people moving. So I'm really focusing on what my comments here.
But beyond that, I don't really we we I I can't I wanna be very careful here all the way through my sub stack. What has made this successful, what's made these predictions accurate is I don't reach out six months from now. People keep wanting to ask me, make a prediction a year from now, like, about The US economy. And believe me, I'm pretty sure can make a lot of money right now on the Substack doing that. But I'm not gonna do that because that's just simply not solid.
It's it's just a hocus pocus. We can look out. I looked out on the economic front based on my work on on sanctions and blockades. You could see the three trajectory path where you could see the price rise, you could see the supply, shortage, and you could see the contraction. As we go further, I may well extend this because it's true.
There are things further out, but it it really does matter where you are on May 15, where you'll be on July 1. It's not true that you can really fully see out six months from now. So I really do. And believe me, I'm I'm gloom and doom. I think I've become mister gloom and doom on all these shows.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, it's
Speaker 2: I don't know. Fair.
Speaker 3: But we've been through the pandemic. We remember when you couldn't get things in the pandemic. That was contraction. We've been and if it's gonna get worse and we don't look it straight in the eye, that's on us. So we have to hear this.
Speaker 2: And what I'm telling you is that the thing to do is to see that it's already starting to actually get worse and then to start thinking as I am doing, putting on the table an actual policy that by May 1 could get through congress and the president. I again, I I really am not understanding why this has not already happened except it kind of con conflicts with victory rhetoric, you know, that's gotta come out. We can't but I think we should be doing this already here because, as you heard from Scott Besson, he said in his his assessment that he hopes by sometime in the middle of summer, gas will have a three in front of it. Well, that's not a two in front. I didn't hear two in front of it.
Right. I heard three in front of it. So that tells me there's more to be done right now. You see what I'm saying? And I think that that's important.
And and I don't even mean this politically. Honest to God, I'm from Erie, Pennsylvania. I come from a very poor background in Erie, Pennsylvania. And my goodness gracious, you know, my mom was a waitress. Just I'm sorry to go into this, but my god.
It's not coming from politics. This is coming from my heartfelt for Erie, Pennsylvania is gonna get smashed here, and, those are big Trump supporters. I'm not it's not about Do you think this is intentional? Professor, you think this is gonna be hurt.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's intentional? I mean, this is obviously, you heard president Trump talking about the purposeful devaluation of the US dollar, right, in order to bring manufacturing back to The United States. We, you know, purposely devaluing The US currency in order to bring that manufacturing back. But others are saying, look, this is intentional. This moves us to, like, a central bank digital currency.
This moves us to some sort of a universal basic income. You're seeing energy lockdowns hitting across Europe now. You heard Ursula von der Leyen last week saying conserve energy, and now you're seeing the EU moving towards staying home one day per week. We don't want you driving. Like, is this intentional, or am I being too cynical?
Speaker 2: So so so it's not that you're being too cynical, sir. It's that we don't have the information to really judge that. And and it's similar to me when you ask this intentional. It's did Israel intentionally hoodwink us or something? And you never hear me go down those roads.
It's not because I wouldn't go down those roads or something. It's because I want data. I want actual information. I have never spent time with Scott Besson or the president or the other people or Howard Watnick and so forth to have them explain to me why somehow they think all this is going to make sense when it appears from all the evidence that it's going the other way around. The real issue is not what they for me, I don't really care what their intention is.
I care about the consequences and especially the consequences on people. And I care about that for Democrats, Republicans, and it's the people that I'm focusing on here. And that's what you see from if you listen to all of my it's even hard to tell. Is pay what is pay anyway? Payp is folk is for is a kid from Erie, Pennsylvania whose mom was a waitress.
His his grandfather was a carpenter. That's who paid this, and he's concerned about what's what's happening for ordinary people when all these when they go to war, when they're in the economy, it's just the same thing. And I don't wanna go down the conspiracy idea. I think it's distracting. I think we need to focus on here are the actual consequences.
Let's get on with the job of fixing them.
Speaker 3: Right. And, yeah, I mean, I guess that's for us to take one step further and say, did we ever need to do this? And we will do this. But let me just respond to this, in the chat. People are saying that's racist to say that it will affect poor white people.
Now I want to point out that it is unequivocally true.
Speaker 2: You can't win.
Speaker 3: Right. Let me let me just point out that the data shows that the
Speaker 2: Because I'm not I didn't mean only. Please everybody. I didn't mean only.
Speaker 3: Let me just let me just speak to this unequivocally. The data shows across the board that the racial group that makes up the largest percentage of poverty in The United States is white. Yes, there are poor blacks, there are poor Latinos. They will hurt in the same way.
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania when I grew up.
Speaker 3: Right. We're talking about what is the group that will suffer. The racial group that makes up the biggest percentage of poverty is poor whites. We also are concerned with poor everybody because war is a tax on the middle and lower class. So this has nothing to do with racial preference.
Speaker 2: Racial filter on giving money for to pay for the gasoline to work. Right. It's not about the race. It's about the reality of working people need to move in vehicles. That's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: Right. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification.
Speaker 2: Well, and and I appreciate it. And it's just so hard when we were it it's very difficult in the media because that's why I did the substack where I try to have these lengthy thousand word pieces. And even there, it's sometimes not enough, but it's it at least provides some more context.
Speaker 3: Right. Yes. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you coming on Redacted today.
Speaker 0: Professor, where
Speaker 2: can Oh,
Speaker 0: yeah. Where can people find your substack?
Speaker 2: Oh, the escalation trap. Just look up the escalation trap, and you'll see I started it a week before the war because I was worried about the war. And you'll see if you start reading the very first piece I posted three days before the war, it basically predicts better, and I'm sorry to say this not humbly, better than anybody else what was gonna happen in the as the war took off. The stages we'd go through taking Hormuz, all of that is there before the first bomb fell.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: From based on twenty one years of modeling the bombing of Iran, teaching for the US Air Force, this is not just being, you know, coming out of thin air or reacting to events.
Speaker 0: Well, that's why we wanted to have you on. I've been watching your work very closely. So, professor, thank you so much. We hope you'll come back, and we hope it's under better circumstances. Thank you, professor.
Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Me too. And thanks thanks for everything you're doing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You bet. Thank you. Thanks, professor.
reSee.it AI Summary
The U.S. has achieved nothing in Iran so far, and we are on a path toward losing this conflict. Escalation to solve problems created by entering the war in the first place seems misguided. The longer this goes without a deal, the stronger Iran becomes, risking a prolonged conflict with no clear exit. I discuss the impact on the U.S. and the global economy with Professor John Mearsheimer.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The U.S. has achieved nothing in Iran so far, and we are on a path toward losing this conflict. Now, the response seems to be further escalation to solve problems created by entering the war in the first place. The longer this continues without a deal, the stronger Iran becomes. This risks locking the U.S. into a prolonged conflict with no clear exit. We discuss this and more on the impact on the U.S. and the global economy with Professor John Mearsheimer in this interview.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation highlights that, beyond the nuclear enrichment issue, there are numerous unresolved questions that must be addressed to reach a meaningful agreement. Key topics include who controls the Strait, the future of US military bases in the region, what security architecture would reassure Iran that it won’t be attacked again, and how to handle reparations and sanctions. The participants note interconnected problems involving Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran’s relations with them.
Speaker 1 points out that the president has described force as the greatest cudgel, using bombs and the threat of bombs to compel a unified proposal and bring adversaries to the table, but Speaker 1 questions how viable this approach is given current fractures. Speaker 0 agrees it’s a repeated pattern of insisting on force, and emphasizes the irony of proponents claiming that bombing will produce a unified outcome when negotiations seem unlikely.
Speaker 0 reinforces that the war was started and heavily bombed for a long period without achieving goals, arguing that the result so far is a loss of the war. They criticize President Trump’s belief that resuming bombing would yield the desired outcomes not achieved earlier, calling that line of reasoning foolish. Speaker 0 emphasizes there is no military option that will succeed and warns that escalation could benefit Iran.
Speaker 0 further argues from an Iranian strategic perspective, suggesting that if they were playing Iran’s hand, they would not go to Islamabad soon but instead would urge the United States to escalate and see how the international economy would be affected—likening it to a Titanic approaching an iceberg—thereby increasing Iran’s leverage for a better deal than presently available.
Speaker 1 notes that Israelis do not want the war ended and prefer continued escalation, implying a disconnect between U.S. strategy and Israeli preferences. They reiterate that Trump seems to be holding a weak hand, unable to secure a war-winning outcome, while the broader situation remains fragmented and complex with multiple regional actors and strategic considerations to resolve.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A lot of the focus is on the nuclear enrichment issue. First of all, we don't even know what the deal is regarding nuclear enrichment, but there are a whole slew of other issues that have to be dealt with, like the question of, who controls the Strait, what's the future of US military bases in the region, what sort of security architecture are you gonna put in place to convince the Iranians that they're not gonna be attacked again, what are you gonna do with reparations, what are you gonna do with sanctions? I could go on and on. There are just a lot of big issues. Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis and Iran's relations with them.
So all these elements have to be worked out to get some sort of meaningful agreement.
Speaker 1: Well, also yeah. I mean, it's weird because the president today on CNBC specifically said that using force is his greatest sort of cudgel in this. You know, to use bombs, use the threat of bombs. That's that's how he can get them to come up with a unified proposal. That's how he can get him get get them to come to the table.
And now he's basically admitting that, well, they're too fractured. We're just gonna step back and allow them to come up with something on their own. I don't understand.
Speaker 0: It's so funny when you put it that way because who buys that? Like, oh, yes. Grand and merciful.
Speaker 1: Well, we get them to negotiate through through killing them. That's how that's how it works.
Speaker 0: But but you wanna this is not to disagree with you for one second, but just to reinforce your point. You wanna remember that we started this war, and we bombed them heavily for a long, long time, and we did not succeed. If you look at where we are today, we have not achieved any of our goals. And for me, that means so far, we have lost the war. And president Trump seems to believe that even though we've lost the war by bombing them up to now, he can now restart the bombing, and for some reason, it's gonna do all these wonderful things that it was unable to do from the start of the war up until the recent ceasefire.
And, of course, this is a foolish argument. We have no military option here. It's just very important to understand that. And, actually, if we begin to escalate, I believe that plays into the hands of the Iranians. I have long argued that if I were playing the Iranian's hand, I would not have gone to Islamabad.
I would not be talking about going to Islamabad in the next couple days. I'd say to The United States, go ahead. Up the ante. Go up the escalation ladder, and let's see what happens to the international international economy, which I, liken to the Titanic heading towards an iceberg, gets closer and closer to that iceberg, I think Iran's leverage will grow by leaps and bounds, and they'll be able to get an even better deal than they would get now. But the fact is president Trump is not playing a strong hand here.
He is playing a remarkably weak hand here. And the problem he faces again is that the Israelis don't want him to end the war. The Israelis understand that we have lost, that we have not achieved their goals, and they want him to continue. President Trump, that is, they want him to continue pounding Iran to escalate. But Trump knows that that is not a war winning formula.
reSee.it AI Summary
You can't sue Pfizer, so @phdsansone is suing @GovRonDeSantis instead. His suit claims mRNA vaccines are bioweapons, and he says shedding harmed him without taking the shot. He's also a witness in a Netherlands case targeting Bill Gates and the Pfizer CEO.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
💉 You can't sue @pfizer. So @phdsansone is suing @GovRonDeSantis instead. His lawsuit says mRNA vaccines are bioweapons, & he says he was harmed by shedding without ever taking the shot. He's also a witness in a Netherlands case targeting Bill Gates & the Pfizer CEO. https://t.co/DQjSsKovRX
@RedactedNews - Redacted
CON JOB. 🇮🇷 The Strait was never opened. Ships are being fired upon. 20 minutes before Trump's announcement, someone placed a $760 million bet that oil would drop. The ceasefire ends Wednesday. Bombs likely resume. This was never peace. It was a con. https://t.co/U6Py0SCX1E
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The video argues that the ceasefire in the Iran conflict is collapsing and predicts a renewed crisis in three days, citing Professor Robert Pape who predicted “three days left” for a developing disaster. The Strait of Hormuz is described as never having truly opened, with ongoing restrictions and navigation dangers.
- The presenters criticize mainstream reports that markets were surging and that the Strait was open, asserting these were lies. They claim Iran is signaling through radio to ships and that ships, including those linked to the United States and Israel, remain barred or require special coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They note continued mine risks flagged by the U.S. Navy and that several vessels attempted to pass on Friday but turned back.
- They quote a statement that a deal would be announced and a supposed opening would be conditional and unstable, and they reference Trump aboard Air Force One admitting that bombs would likely start falling again if no deal is reached by Wednesday when the ceasefire ends.
- A discussion of purported market manipulation follows: Reuters reportedly stated that about twenty minutes before an announcement that Hormuz was open, traders dumped nearly 8,000 Brent crude futures, a $760 million bet that oil would fall. After the president’s announcement, crude prices dropped sharply. The presenters claim someone in the Trump administration likely knew the announcement in advance, suggesting insider trading and a broader pattern of insiders making large bets just before news hits.
- On Saturday, the narrative of “open passage” collapsed publicly: Britain’s foreign secretary said there was still no normal passage; Iran’s Revolutionary Guard officials said only a limited number of tankers would pass and that Hormuz would remain under strict Iranian control, allowing certain nations but not the U.S. They note the U.S. did not ensure full freedom of navigation for Iranian-linked shipping, and that at least two merchant ships, including two Indian-flagged vessels, were hit while attempting to cross.
- Iran’s side is cited: a professor on the show claimed Trump lied and fabricated the whole situation, suggesting that Iran did not agree to the commitments Trump claimed. The blockade by the U.S. is described as ongoing, with over 10,000 U.S. personnel and multiple ships involved, and U.S. officials reportedly planning to board and seize Iranian-linked tankers in international waters with gunships.
- An Iranian general is quoted as warning that if the war restarts, it could become a wider world war. Professor Pape’s warning is emphasized: within ten days, shortages could occur, moving from price shocks to physical constraints to economic disaster, with today’s date cited as April 19 and the three-day forecast implying disaster around April 22. The Financial Times is cited for a story about a coming global food crisis due to the war. The Strait’s lack of genuine normalization is claimed to threaten fuel, plastics, fertilizer, supply chains, food prices, and manufacturing, potentially impacting every family.
- The video ends with a warning to prepare with food stores and family protection, reiterating that the Strait was never truly opened and that a market fairy tale was fed to investors. It suggests a new escalation could occur in the coming week, with those who lied on Friday potentially denying responsibility.
- Sponsorship segment: The video promotes US Gold Mining Incorporated (ticker USGO) and the Whistler project in Alaska, detailing a positive preliminary economic assessment (PEA) projecting 2.7 million ounces of gold, nearly 600 million pounds of copper, and nearly 6.6 million ounces of silver over about a 15-year mine life. It notes a potential life-of-m mine of about 3.6 million gold-equivalent ounces, with payback estimates varying based on gold pricing. The sponsor highlights favorable tailwinds from Washington, Alaska’s mining-supportive policies, and a tight ownership structure (roughly 74% held by the parent company and 4.5% by insiders). The presenter urges viewers to conduct their own research using links in the description and highlights exploration targets and political support for domestic mineral production.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we better brace for impact because in three days everything could change, and disaster could strike thanks to this Iranian war because round two is about to happen and the ceasefire is collapsing in real time. It is a joke. I say three days because that's exactly what Professor Pape has predicted. He studies global conflicts, he has for thirty years, and he says we have three days left. We'll get into that part of the story in a moment.
But first, are you sick and tired? I mean, you sick and tired of being played by these people? I couldn't help thinking about that this morning because that's exactly what just happened. Once again, they lied to all of us on national television. We were told by the Trump administration and the mainstream media that the markets were surging.
This war was essentially over. The Strait Of Hormuz was open, they told us. But, of course, nothing could have been further from the truth. It was a lie. The Strait was never opened.
That was a flat out lie. And now we're seeing that lie all fall apart here on this Sunday morning. In fact, the Strait Of Hormuz is so closed that Iran is sending radio messages to ships that are trying to make it through. Don't listen to some idiot on social media, they're telling people. Listen.
Speaker 1: The Strait Of Hormuz is still closed. We will open it by the order of our leader, Imam Hamani, not by the tweets of some idiot.
Speaker 0: In other words, don't listen to Trump's truth social posts about the Strait Of Hormuz. Do you wanna get killed? So let's dive into the latest news here and cut through all the lying and try to bring you the truth. So if you were watching the news on Friday, they wanted you to believe the danger had passed. Wall Street surged to new fresh records.
Oil prices plunged. Investors celebrated after Iran said commercial shipping could move through the Strait Of Hormuz, and Trump talked like a deal was close. Well, that was a story sold to the public heading into the weekend. Calm down. The Strait Of Hormuz is open.
The war is cooling off. Everything is fine. Great. We're super excited on Friday afternoon. We can enjoy our weekend.
But that story was false. Even while they were telling it, Iran's opening came with some major strings attached that simply was never going to happen. All ships still had to coordinate with the revolutionary guard of Iran. Ships tied to The United States and Israel were still barred. Shipping companies were demanding clarification before moving forward, and The United States Navy was still warning seafaring about
Speaker 1: all
Speaker 0: the mine risks that were there. And then multiple visit vessels trying to make the passage on Friday wound up turning around. I mean, look at this video here. They go up, and they come right back around. So, no, the strait was never truly reopened in the way that the White House and the markets wanted people to believe on Friday afternoon.
It was conditional. It was restricted, and it was totally unstable from the very start. Would you risk sending your ship through there not knowing whether it was about to be fired upon? Trump onboard Air Force One just admitted once the markets close that the bombs will likely start falling again very soon.
Speaker 2: Of it. We'll get it. Go ahead. If you don't have a deal by Wednesday when the ceasefire ends, will you extend the ceasefire or will you I don't know. Maybe not.
Maybe I won't extend it. Okay. But the blockade is gonna remain. But maybe I won't extend it. So you have a blockade, and unfortunately, we'll have to start dropping bombs again.
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. I think it's gonna happen. Thank you. What about the UFOs, mister president?
Speaker 0: And here's the part that should make everybody furious this Sunday afternoon because this wasn't just a false narrative. It may also have been a very profitable fake one. Reuters reported that around twenty minutes before the announcement that Hormuz was supposedly open, traders dumped 7,990 lots of Brent crude futures into the market. That was a $760,000,000 bet that oil was about to fall. Guess what?
Then the headline hit twenty minutes later from president Trump. Crude prices dropped sharply. Somebody made a killing. Somebody knew that president Trump was about to come out and talk on camera. Now we don't know who placed those trades, but someone in the Trump administration knew this was coming.
And we should be honest about that. This is now part of a broader pattern where someone on the inside is making huge bets just minutes before the news hits. Somebody has some explaining to do. So when people ask, why are people losing trust? This is why somebody knew something, and it was all fake in order for them to make millions of dollars.
And now you fast forward to Saturday, and the whole fake peace narrative started collapsing in public. Britain's foreign secretary said there was still not normal passage through the Strait Of Hormuz. Iran's revolutionary guide said guards said only a limited number of tankers would be managed through the waterway and that the strait would remain under strict Iranian control, meaning, hey. We'll let Chinese through. We'll let Russian ships through, not US.
The US did not ensure full freedom of navigation from Iranian linked shipping as well. So this is not what open looks like. That is what leverage looks like. And then things got worse because at least two merchant ships two merchant vessels said they were hit by gunfire while attempting to cross yesterday to just try to make it through. Boom.
Then we got confirmation that two Indian flagged ships also came under heavy attack while trying to cross through the strait. So the same weekend where we were lied to, told that this thing had stabilized, ships were being shot at in one of the most important waterways on Earth. Iranian professor Morandi was on our friend Colonel Daniel Davis' show and said that Trump was lying the whole time and made the whole thing up.
Speaker 3: Which he is. That Iran agreed to this, Iran agreed to that, which is all nonsense. So that perhaps that when the in three or four days, he can say, Iran promised all these things, but now they're they've refused to abide by their commitments, nonexistent commitments. You get what I'm saying? He'll say he's saying that the Iranians have agreed to A, B, C, D, E, and F.
And then in two, three days, he said, they promised all these things, which they didn't, and but they're not doing them. So what happens next? A military assault.
Speaker 0: And then meanwhile, the blockade never went away. Since The United States imposed its blockade on Iranian ports in coastal areas, American forces have turned back at least 23 ships. Earlier in the week, the blockade involved more than 10,000 US personnel, more than a dozen warships, dozens of aircraft, vessels entering and departing the blockaded area or subject to interception, diversion, capture. That's not the architecture of peace, that is the architecture of escalation. And president Trump says the blockade is gonna continue, so don't be fooled.
Now comes the Wall Street Journal and their bombshell report that the US military is preparing in the coming days to board Iranian linked oil tankers and seize these commercial ships in international waters, using gunships to do it. Just imagine if that happens. American forces landing on board, seizing ships. You're one mistake, one misread radar contact away from a much bigger war. Yet an Iranian general went on TV on Saturday and said if this war starts again, which it likely will, this is going to become a wider world war.
Oh good. That's why Professor Robert Pape's warning matters so much here. So he posted this on April 12. He says within ten days, this turns into shortages, real shortages, not just higher prices, as the system moves from price shock to physical constraint, to outright economic contraction, a disaster. Now you remember, today is April 19, meaning if his numbers are correct, we are heading for disaster in about three days.
The strait has never been opened. So none of this has been flowing. So Papes Point still sits. Three days. And the Financial Times just published this big ass story yesterday about the coming global food crisis because of this war.
We are not ready for what's coming. We are going to face a disaster the likes of which we've never seen before. If Hormuz does not genuinely normalize, that means trouble for everything built on top of that shipping flow: fuel, plastics, fertilizer, supply chains, food prices, manufacturing, all of it. It's not some faraway conflict that only matters to Fox News junkies. This can hit every family who's watching this right now in the wallet.
So I hope you guys are preparing, making sure you have food stores in your house preparing and protecting your family. Because here we are on this Sunday afternoon. The strait was never really opened. The market was fed a total fairy tale. Somebody made a lot of money off of it.
Traders made gigantic bets just minutes before that headline hit. Ships are still being turned back. Ships are being fired upon. The US is still enforcing its own blockade, and Iran says talks are not set. What?
And now The US is reportedly preparing to board and seize vessels in the days ahead. That's not de escalation. This is a setup. This is a countdown. And if this thing blows up again in the coming week, the people who lied to you on Friday are gonna pretend nobody could have seen it coming.
But you can see it coming right now. Probably gonna lie to us again in order to tamp down fears as we head into the weekends or market. I mean, just crazy. So that's the news update part of today's video. Now I wanna tell you about today's news sponsor.
And today in the current precious metals bull market, I am profiling a gold and copper exploration and development opportunity on US soil right now. That's the sponsor of today's video. That's US Gold Mining Incorporated. Here's their ticker on your screen. It's USGO.
You can find it right on the Nasdaq. So with gold and copper trading near all time highs right now, here's why I think you should take a look at US Gold Mining Inc, which owns the large gold, silver, copper exploration and development in Whistler, the Whistler project, which is located just 100 miles from Anchorage in South Central Alaska. US Gold Mining recently announced the results of an initial economic assessment study that was completed on Whistler, which is a PEA. The PEA provided a positive preliminary economic assessment for the Whistler project, which is located in a top tier jurisdiction, The United States Of America. The PEA estimates that the Whistler project would produce 2,700,000 ounces of gold and almost 600,000,000 pounds of copper, plus nearly 6,600,000 ounces of silver over an almost fifteen year initial mine life.
This model has an estimated life of a mine total of almost 3,600,000 gold equivalent ounces at an average of 246,000 gold equivalent ounces per year. If you use consensus, use consensus gold pricing of $3,200 an ounce of gold, the project has an estimated payback of capital after two point one years. But to understand the true potential leverage of this asset, at current spot metal prices, payback is estimated at just one point two years. The PEA incorporated just one of three existing gold copper deposits on the Whistler property, and on top of that, the company has indicated it is getting ready to undertake further exploration programs this coming summer. They reported up to 25 exploration targets in the Whistler Raintree area alone.
So U. S. Gold mining and the Whistler project may benefit from a number of additional market catalysts. Let me break it down for you. Number one, the tailwinds from Washington DC are encouraging.
They're productive and constructive towards mining and positively contributing towards the overall rally in mining stocks. Number two, Alaska. Clearly important for Trump's administration. Trump issued an executive order on day one of his presidency called the unleashing of Alaska's extraordinary, resource potential on day one. The administration then issued a second executive order called Immediate Measures to Increase Mineral Production.
The executive order directs government agencies to take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum extent possible, including copper and gold. In addition to federal support, state level policies are also strong in Alaska. Alaska's Governor Mike Dunleavy is a strong proponent of economic growth and the infrastructure to support mining in his state, and he has personally visited the Whistler project himself. The state of Alaska, under Governor Dundelevy's leadership, is moving forward with a planned road system called the West Sistina Access Project, which will connect the Whistler project with Anchorage, Alaska. Along with the governor's support, the project also has been visited by the Alaska delegation to Washington, D.
C. That's right, U. S. Representative Nick Begich. In addition to gold, the twenty twenty six Whistler project mineral resource includes estimated copper and silver resources, which were both recently added to the list of critical minerals and are being prioritized for exploration and development by the Trump administration.
Third, the company's ownership structure is attractive. Take a look at this. 74% of the outstanding shares are held by the parent company, and another 4.5% is held by management and insiders. So almost 80% of the shares are tightly held. So let me recap why I'm telling you about US gold mining right now.
Gold, copper, silver at near record highs. Strong political tailwinds, including Trump's executive orders on Alaska and resource development, and the PEA results indicate the potential for a robust base case opportunity at the Whistler Gold Copper Project with potential for future and further growth. The company's tight ownership structure is also a big piece of this. So guys, do your own extensive research on US gold mining. I'll have links in the description for you to do your own homework on that, and we will see you next time.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤯Founded by a convicted Nazi. No press allowed. No votes taken. Just 150 of the most powerful people on earth in a room together. Bilderberg just met in Washington, DC, & nobody in the mainstream media is talking about it. https://t.co/Bl0RyX5ASz
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on the 72nd Bilderberg meeting, held in Washington DC from April 9 to 12, at the Salamander Hotel. Reporters attempted to get footage and comments; Dan Dix is noted filming outside, and a large green press fence was set up to keep the press away, though wind kept blowing it down. High-profile attendees mentioned include Peter Thiel (Palantir) and the head of MI6, with footage of her leaving the venue. The discussion covers the gathering’s official topics—AI, China, Russia, the Middle East, the transatlantic defense-industrial relationship, and the future of warfare—as well as the broader significance of the meeting.
Andrew Goff, a researcher and presenter, joins to discuss what the Bilderberg Group is and why it matters. He explains that the group originated at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands in 1954, founded by Prince Bernhard. He notes Bernhard was a card-carrying Nazi and was involved in bribes with Lockheed, aligning with David Rockefeller, which he presents as early red flags. The group is described as an elite gathering of politicians, media executives, high-tech leaders, and other international figures, alternating meetings between Europe and North America, with this edition in Washington DC.
Journalists have faced debanking, illustrating constraints on coverage; a reference is made to a journalist who was debanked for coverage of the war in Ukraine. The conversation includes a promotional aside about Rumble Wallet, which is not relevant to the Bilderberg discussion and is omitted from the summary per instruction.
Speaker 2 asks for a comparison with the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Andrew responds that Davos involves about 2,500 people, publishes its agenda, and streams information, whereas Bilderberg has 100–150 members, invitation-only, with the location announced only weeks before the meeting, and it does not publish formal agendas or resolutions. The Chartum House rules (originating from the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London in 1927) are cited as key to understanding how Bilderberg operates: private meetings where participants can discuss publicly but cannot reveal who said what or to whom. Topics discussed at Bilderberg are described as cutting-edge, including AI and the future of warfare.
Andrew notes that the attendance can include high-level figures from Greenland and a Polish politician, indicating some international presence, though the forum is primarily Western leaders and Western media. He likens NATO to the transatlantic arm and Bilderberg to the brains, with MI6 as the “arms and legs” disseminating the agenda. He adds a literary reference, suggesting a probable esoteric undercurrent, mentioning James Bond (MI6) and Ian Fleming, and alluding to connections between the Epstein circle and such organizations.
The dialogue moves toward implications for real-world policy, arguing that there is no voting or formal policy statements at Bilderberg; instead, influence and access are the mechanisms by which agendas are shaped. Andrew and the host discuss the Arctic as a potential flashpoint, noting geopolitical maneuvering around Greenland, Alaska, and adjacent regions, and suggesting that Arctic security and related interests are a focal point of concern within Bilderberg’s conversations. The exchange ends with gratitude toward Andrew for his insights and acknowledgment of the head of MI6’s attendance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bilderberg. While while the public was busy watching the daily chaos cycle of one of the most secretive power gatherings in the world was happening in Washington DC, the seventy second Bilderberg meeting ran from April 9 to April 12, just wrapped up at the Salamander Hotel. Some journalists try to get their hands on some information there. They were trying to get some people on camera, like Dan Dix was capturing a bunch of in information there as well. But, they were the official agenda had AI, China, Russia, The Middle East, the Transatlantic defense industrial relationship, even the future of warfare was a big discussion of the Bilderbergs.
Here's the head of MI six. She's just walking out casually. There she is. Like, she's not even trying to hide it. Like, the Britain's top spy is at the Bilderbergs meeting there.
No. Notice that green fence that they set up. They set up this big green fence to try to keep the press away. But unfortunately, the wind in Washington just kept blowing it down. I just hope that's that's just like I don't know.
That's like a metaphor. I just I hope that that's a metaphor for all the wind that's blowing this down. Dan Dix captured this footage outside the hotel. It's just he's like, I'm a journalist. I'm not gonna help you pick this damn thing up.
Keeps blowing down. I'm just gonna get more footage. Peter Thiel, also there. He was caught on camera. Plenty of other globalists.
There's Peter Thiel coming out there. Your friend from Palantir. Andrew Goff is a researcher, writer, and television presenter on various historical conundrums and joins us once again here on the show to talk about the Bilderbergs, the secret meeting, and what we may have covered. Andrew, great to see you. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, guys. It's a pleasure to be back. Thanks for having me on the show.
Speaker 0: Our pleasure. So when we throw the term Bilderbergs around for some people, and they don't realize it's, you know, goes back seventy some years, but what what exactly is the Bilderberg organization, and why should we even care about it?
Speaker 1: You know, organizations like this, I really try to, take the straight and narrow and use Occam's razor and give them the benefit of the doubt at the start. But it doesn't take long to realize that the Bilderberg Group is not a think tank with an agenda that's looking after our best interest. It appears to be far more nefarious. And I always like to look at the origins of this group. The Bilderberg Hotel, The Netherlands, 1954.
You know, prince Bernard of The Netherlands created this group of elite from politicians to media to CEOs of high-tech companies and and just international who's who to come together. Now what's interesting about him is he was a card carrying Nazi. He was convicted of bribes with with Lockheed. He was in unison with David Rockefeller. So big yellow red flags right at the start of the conception of the Bilderberg Group.
As you said, an organization that just celebrated its seventy second annual meeting alternating between Europe last year with Stockholm, and this year was Washington DC.
Speaker 0: So many of our, journalist friends have been debanked. That's right. Because the banks don't like their politics or like their news coverage. I was literally sitting next to a journalist one afternoon, doing an interview. He found out right in the middle of the interview that he had just been debanked for his coverage of the war in Ukraine.
This happens. Well, that's why Rumble Wallet is so powerful because it's a self custodial wallet that lives inside an ecosystem that actually defends free speech and financial freedom. No banking no bank is gonna hold your balance. Not even Rumble can touch your funds. It's on the blockchain, and so all of your money is your money on your terms.
No one can touch it. And if you're already using Bitcoin or Stablecoins, Rumble Wallet gives you even more power. It connects your money to a marketplace of ideas that refuses to cave to censorship. So if you're serious about sovereignty, financial, and digital, this is where you level up. Go to wallet.rumble.com.
Search Rumble Wallet in your App Store, download it, back up your recovery phrase, and move your money where it belongs in your hands. Again, wallet.rumble.com. Download it today on whatever device you're using.
Speaker 2: Now can you compare it to the World Economic Forum? You know, that maybe gets a little bit more press, but we understand and we can see the streams that these are powerful people making decisions. They are unelected, and usually they're making decisions in the interest of the ruling class.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's a great question. Now now, Davos, the World Economic Forum, it's like 2,500 people. They publish their agenda. They have live streams.
They're not trying to hide anything. It's it's all the nefarious sort of censorship and world dominance is out there for everyone to see. Now compare and contrast that with the Bilderberg Group, which is between a 100 and a 150 members, invitation only, private. They announced the location just weeks before every year. Doesn't stop good journalists from finding out and filming and and seeing who's actually attending.
And what's really interesting about them is they use the the the Chartum House rules. And this in part is how we know what it is their agenda is and what they're talking about. Chartum House 1927, you know, the the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London came up with this policy of it's okay to have a private meeting and you can talk about what was discussed publicly, but you can't say who said it or who they said it to. So in that regards, it's semi private, but but that's how we learn about the agenda of what the Builder Group is is on about. And the topics are, you know, as Clayton has shared, really cutting edge AI.
Right? The future of warfare. Why can't we have an agenda item that says the future of world peace? Right. They have
Speaker 0: because you have pal you have you have Peter Thiel there and and Palantir who's making billions of dollars off of war, so they can't have peace talk.
Speaker 1: Oh, exactly. Exactly. And and you you mentioned, like, the the the chief of MI six, attending. Now MI six is is, I'm speaking to you from London tonight, and and and they're the equivalent of our CIA. Right?
And and they focus only on international affairs. They can't make policy. They can't arrest anyone. But but guess what their ethos is? It's it's all about relationships, access, and influence.
And that's exactly what Bilderberg is about. It's like these, octopus spidery tentacles going out into the world to disseminate the propaganda that was on the agenda in the annual meeting.
Speaker 0: Right. You're per you're great, great point because there's no voting. There's no resolutions. There's no policy statements. They don't issue anything.
It's all about getting like Peter Thiel and the head of MI six and these other nefarious players in a room together so they can rub elbows, but that's really where the real power comes from. That's where the real there might not be any votes or any policy papers, but that's really where all the policy comes from, these clowns getting together. So do we get any do we get any pieces of information at all out of this meeting? Like, do we know where they stand on AI, Andrew? Do we know where they stand on the future of warfare?
Do we know where they stand on China and Russia and these other things that were on the agenda, or are we just left to guess?
Speaker 1: Well, I I I think we can infer based upon the agenda what their position is gonna be. And for instance, it's really interesting. They had an agenda topic about Arctic security. And and, you know, what is that? Well, it's Greenland, and they have, like, really high officials, both current and past from Greenland present as if to tell Trump that, hey.
This is not gonna be as easy as you think it is. But the the Arctic security is interesting because the very first Bilderberg meeting, guess what was on the agenda? What was happening at that time was the Antarctica treaty. You have Cold War documents talking about Russia studying the firmament, that snow globe that globe that encapsulates Earth. And you need an organization just to make sure you can disseminate the propaganda to control these things.
So what's going on with presenting preventing Trump from taking over Greenland? Is there something beyond that that they're trying to control? Maybe it's they don't want people talking about BlackRock. What is BlackRock? Well, not the conglomerate, but the the magnetic center of the earth.
There there's so much that Bilderberg can influence, especially when at its core are all the media heads of the world's, you know, leading magazine magazines and newspapers.
Speaker 0: No. It's such a great point. So very, yeah.
Speaker 2: I just Clinton brought up, you know, what are their stances on Russia and China. There are no eastern leaders. It is all western leaders and western press.
Speaker 1: Well, there there are some. I mean, we we saw that, like, one one of the senior politicians from Poland, attending, it's a real international who's who. And the the way that I kind of like to think about it is if you have NATO, you know, which is really the strong-arm of the transatlantic sort of alliance. And I guess what that was on the agenda. What's gonna happen if Trump pulls out of NATO?
You know, they're discussing that. Right? But so if NATO is is the transatlantic arm, then Bilderberg is the brains, and MI six is sort of the well, kind of the arms and legs are going out because they have no other objective MI six other than just to spy and report back to the government. And I think it's interesting. It's a really quick aside.
MI six, that's James Bond, o o seven. What's o o seven is the signature of the most famous alchemist, in in England, John Dee. And and so it's it's almost as though, the author of James Bond, Ian Fleming, who himself was, you know, into this whole international spy ring is trying to tell us that these organizations have an esoteric element to them. They're not just pure think tanks or nefarious organizations or something just a bit weird about them.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, yeah, we found that in the Epstein class.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yeah. And so we can't really know how much of that demonic, dirty, satanic, you know, stuff is on the agenda there. We just don't know. Yeah.
But we know that a lot of people who protected that were there. So we can yeah. So we can draw our inferences.
Speaker 1: And and look at the founding fathers, Nazi card carrying. By the way, I think in fifty years, a hundred years for sure, the world's gonna look at the Nazi era perhaps differently. Today, if we talk about that subject, we can be extradited to prison. That tells me there's a lot of untruths that have been hidden, a lot of truths that have been hidden about that subject. So it doesn't make the founder of the Bilderberg a bad guy, but he's been convicted of all sorts of nefarious things.
And, you know, that's the foundation of this organization, and it really doesn't seem as though it's changed it, changed very much over the decades.
Speaker 0: That's right. It's absolutely fascinating. Andrew, thank you for that. And I've been saying for a while that we are going to war over the Arctic Circle. That is coming.
Just look at what's unfolding with these ice cutters, Russia, China, and having control of that area. And if you wanna get even more conspiratorial, look at Billy Meyer. Billy Meyer's predictions about the war that is coming to the Arctic. It's gonna happen. It's gonna happen.
So
Speaker 1: I I I think you're absolutely right. I mean, look at Trump trying to we have Alaska. Right? You know? Then the Canada, then Greenland, you've surrounded BlackRock, and that's a whole another subject as to why that is so important.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, that shipping lane, just absolutely vital as those as that ice begins to melt. Andrew, great to see you. Thank you so much. Thanks for staying up late for us over there in London.
We really appreciate your thoughts on that, especially given the fact that the head of MI six from your neck of the woods was was in attendance showing her face. Thanks so much, Andrew. Great to see you.
Speaker 1: My pleasure.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
💸 Age verification is the cover story. A national digital ID embedded in every device is the goal. @A_steinbart says once it connects to CBDC, they control everything. https://t.co/KG6aZp54FF
Video Transcript AI Summary
A discussion centers on a new proposed law, HR 8250, which would require operating system providers to verify the age of any user of an operating system and for other purposes, covering Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, with open-source Linux considered in the debate. The claim is that this could serve as a Trojan horse to control people through a digital ID system, rather than being merely safety-focused.
Speaker 1 references Catherine Austin Fitz, who says that if global elites deploy digital ID systems, they will control all aspects, including health freedoms and financial transactions. She argues that once financial transaction control is in place, all protections in health and food freedoms could be negated, and a 100% digital system with a digital ID and programmable money would allow authorities to dictate health decisions, vaccine status, gender-transition decisions for children, and other policies by turning off funds.
Speaker 0 notes that Fitz is not hyperbolic and mentions Austin Steinbart, founder of the Quantum Party of America, who is joined by Speaker 0 to discuss the issue further.
Speaker 2 (Austin Steinbart) asserts that the HR 8250 proposal is a disaster and goes beyond a digital ID concept by embedding age verification into the core of every device. He says the bill is six pages long and delegates enforcement to the FTC, creating ambiguity about whether biometrics, ID cards, or face scans would be used, leaving the mechanism up to the executive branch. He points out that the proposal could coordinate with companies like Apple (potentially via Face ID) and Microsoft to embed verification, while raising questions about how open-source Linux distributions would be forced to comply. He notes that Linux is open-source and typically users have root access, enabling workarounds or removal of such core files, and questions how a retrospective integration would work on devices like POS systems or hotel front-desk computers.
Speaker 0 asks how the implementation would occur and whether the digital ID is the core objective beyond age verification. Speaker 2 confirms that the core goal is a universal digital ID across platforms, tying to privacy and cybersecurity concerns by requiring every service to interact with core OS files to verify age, with California already moving toward age verification that apps and websites would rely on.
Speaker 0 links this to a broader move toward a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a digital ID, quoting a sound bite from Catherine Austin Fitz about health identifiers affecting travel and other activities. Speaker 3 (a figure from the World Economic Forum) is cited, emphasizing tokenization of financial assets and the rapid rollout of a digital wallet and digitized currencies globally, with a critique that many countries are unprepared for such changes.
Speaker 2 clarifies that blockchain or tokenization per se isn’t inherently bad, but concerns arise when centralized actors with anti-freedom aims design and control the system, shaping speech and policy. They discuss the potential benefits of tokenized assets in theory, while warning that centralized control could enable censorship and restricted financial activity.
Speaker 0 ends by urging viewers to contact members of Congress to oppose HR 8250, urging them to “burn this thing down,” and thanks Speaker 2 for the analysis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, a new national law has been introduced to require all operating systems to have mandatory age verification. They couch it as safety. Right? They wanna protect you from predators or, I don't know, OnlyFans models or whatever else is out there lurking. Right?
This is house resolution eight two five zero to require operating system providers to verify the age of any user of an operating system and for other purposes. So think Windows, macOS, iOS, Android. What about open source Linux? I guess we'll get to that in a moment. Here it is.
Here is h r eight two five zero to require operating system providers to verify age. Now I think this is a Trojan horse, but maybe I could be convinced otherwise, which would be to control all of us. Catherine Austin Fitz says if global elites fully deploy digital ID systems, this is how they will control all of us. Listen.
Speaker 1: All the great work that you have done in health and all the great work you have done in food to preserve food and health freedoms, the minute they get financial transaction control, they will delete all of it. They will negate all of it. They will reverse all of it. Financial control and controlling the financial transaction train tracks is the metacontrol that they will use to control food and health. So I don't care what you're doing in the food and health area, if if these guys get a 100% digital system with a digital ID and programmable money, guess what?
They're gonna dictate you you don't get your vaccine this month, they're gonna turn off your money. You don't transgender your kid, they're gonna turn off your money. Wow. They're gonna dictate all of your health and food policies to you. So we did a wonderful
Speaker 0: So, I mean, that sounds dramatic, but she doesn't seem what what I love about Katherine Austin Fitz, she's not, like, hyperbolic. I mean, she's been in the government. She understands exactly how these operations work. Austin Stein Austin Steinbart is a social engineer and the founder of Quantum Party of America, and Austin joins us to dive deep into this. Austin, great to see you again.
Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 2: Pleasure to be back with you, Clayton.
Speaker 0: So am I being a little hyperbolic here, a little overexcited about this idea that HR two 60 two five zero is a Trojan horse that will allow them to gain control of us through this digital ID system with these operating systems, or is this just it's just safety, just protecting our kids. How do you read it?
Speaker 2: You're not being hyperbolic at all. This is a disaster at every level. And I would say it goes even deeper than just a digital idea. It puts this idea mechanism into the core of every single device that's out there in existence. And then it not only does that, it is a six page bill that they delegate how that's going to go down to the FTC.
Right? So it's one of those, you know, in addition to the constitutional abomination that is the digital ID thing, the Congress is, again, just delegating their authority to the executive branch to write the law however they please. So is this biometrics? Is this, ID card? Is this a face scan?
Like, what what even is this? It's completely up to the whoever is in charge of the executive branch.
Speaker 0: So they can just say, hey. We're gonna partner with Apple. We're gonna use your face ID system, which by the way was developed in Israel. Apple's face ID unlock of the phone was developed in Israel. So we can just use face ID.
We'll just use, like, Apple's way of getting into this. So, like, all these companies need to be on board. Microsoft, we just we'll scan your retina, scan your face. We'll have a database of that, and we'll confirm that you are of age. Like, who's gonna be in charge of this database?
Who's gonna be in charge of this? The federal government?
Speaker 2: Well, they're they're trying to make the operating system providers in charge of this. It kind of is piggybacking on something that already happened here in California, where they are saying that people need to put their age in and then every single website or every service they use it handshakes with that original age verification thing. So they are essentially trying to put this in an operating system level, and then every app you visit, every website you go to, every service you use, it will go and read that age field on your operating system. So it is a privacy nightmare and it's a cybersecurity nightmare, right? Because they're they're essentially saying that every single service that you use has to interact with that, core files on your operating system.
Speaker 0: But at the heart of it is the digital ID. Right? So forget just the age piece of it. It is about making sure that they have this digital ID across all of these platforms now so that this will invade kind of every aspect of our life, no?
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. And it's about doing it in a way that, you know, we use devices, we can't get around that. And it's putting it in at a molecular level. The thing is though, how would they even do this, right? With Apple, with Microsoft, they can go lean on these guys to do this.
But with Linux, Linux is what runs a lot of the data centers, runs a lot of the routers, what runs a lot of these industrial control systems. How do they force an open source kind of like volunteer run program to embed this in their operating system?
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, it's open source. How do you do that with Linux? I guess that was my question at the beginning. Is that even possible?
Speaker 2: Well, it's possible for them to try to do that, to try to build it into whatever is the retail distribution of Linux. But anybody who knows how to use Linux, you have root access to the system. You could just delete that core file. There'll be all kinds of workarounds for this. Furthermore, let's, because they want it to be on every single device out there.
So let's say, you have a POS system at a restaurant or like a front desk check-in computer at a hotel or any number of things that are community controlled computers. Who puts their ID in there? And how how exactly does that work? It it just doesn't.
Speaker 0: Right. It I just don't know how they're gonna yeah. You're right about this. How are they gonna absolutely implement this? But, of course, this is, like, really the first step.
I mean, this digital ID, I think, is the part of the larger CBDC, central bank digital currency. It's about the control. I don't know if you heard the sound bite there from Catherine Austin Fitz where she was talking about, of course, you know, if you don't meet certain health identifiers that you're not allowed to travel, You know, if you haven't done x, y, and z, we're not gonna allow you to do this. All tied to your digital ID. Do you know, like, what mechanisms they're planning to have in place where there was be sort of a database tied to your digital ID?
Speaker 2: I think the REAL ID system was setting the stage for that because right now, you effectively have it's not a fully digital ID because you don't use the digital end of it, but they have that's a federal database that every time you go to a gas station, scan that thing or walk through an airport or do anything, it pings the database and it's able to be seen where you're going and what you're doing. So I think they are trying to piggyback it off of that and then just turn it into a digital system. They potentially will use some catchy words like blockchain and other stuff to try to make us feel better about it. That's we need a one of the things we do with Quantum Party or one the things we're advocating is like we need to update our Bill of Rights to comport with the reality that is technology world here. Right now, we have a constitution that the founders, they could have never foreseen some of the stuff that we're dealing with here.
And our government just doesn't seem to care about, you know, the first, second, or fourth or sixth amendments at all. And so how are we going to adjust our system here to work with technology land? And if we don't, we're pretty much gonna get drag kicking and screaming into this very centralized control system here. And as we see with this, you know, the oil markets and the war in Ukraine and the de dollarization pressure, they it's not like they're gonna let us vote on this or that we're gonna have a say. It's kind of being set up to where we're just gonna get dumped into it because everything's gonna be like, there's gonna be no other choice.
Speaker 0: Some people have called this the great taking. Right? They're gonna be sort of consolidating all of this power. Larry Fink has just admitted openly about what's going to happen with every currency and financial asset will be digitized. He says it's coming.
Of course, the head of BlackRock, also the World Economic Forum taking over for Klaus Schwab. Just listen to him briefly what he said just the other day.
Speaker 3: Not spending enough time talking about what how quickly we're gonna tokenize every financial and the opportunity we're gonna have to have a digital wallet and moving, you know, ETFs and other things through a digital wallet. And I think that's gonna happen worldwide very rapidly and I think most countries are ill prepared for that and under appreciate how technology is changing that not not unlike how technology is changing AI and other things. It will be changing the technology around the plumbing of finance.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So his point spending enough time talking Sorry about that. His point, of course, is that these countries aren't prepared for it. It's coming. And we've been talking too much about AI.
That was one of his things. We're talking too much about AI. We need to be talking more about central bank digital currencies and the tokenization and the digital tied to your digital ID because it's absolutely coming.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. And and the blockchain chain technologies in and of themselves aren't intrinsically bad. It's just we have these people who are influenced by this particular foreign country and who don't necessarily have our freedom and our constitutional rights in mind as they architect us. So I like at a core level, tokenized assets isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Right?
Like so. Right. If I'm an investor and I go buy stock in a private company and that's tokenized, right now you have to wait for a formal liquidity event to get out of that or to trade that or to use that for anything. So it would be nice if you have a rapidly appreciating asset or a position in a private company that you could use that essentially in a way that's just as liquid as cash and use that to kind of make trades and wheel or deal your way into more wealth. It would be a good tool.
But when it's very centrally controlled like that, then that's when it gets scary. Because as we see right now, you know, they their definitions of what's hateful, their definitions of what speech is dangerous, you know, it's it's we're seeing the other side of the coin. Under Biden, saw, you know, you can't criticize vaccines, you can't criticize, you know, trans and kids, you can't criticize this level of pieties. And now we are seeing the woke right. And I would call that aspect the censor, the pro censorship, anti Second Amendment.
Yes. You know, everything is anti Semitic. I would call them the woke right, not the people that are criticizing that the woke right. You know? Right.
Because what are the hallmarks of wokeism? It's cancel anybody who disagrees with you, blow up your family and friend relationships over, you know, anything you perceive to be racist. Don't let any countervailing facts influence your opinion whatsoever. Just just all the hallmarks of wokeness do not apply to kind of this war critical section of the Internet. They apply it to the other side.
So it's a very comical case study and projection there.
Speaker 0: No. It's very smart. Very smart. And you're absolutely right. We are slow marching into the destruction of The United States, bill of rights, one after the other.
Thank you so much for joining us. Great to see you again, and, really appreciate your analysis on this. So call your members of congress and tell them you do not support this bill. Tell them to burn this thing down right now. Great to see you.
Thanks so much for joining us once again.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, Clayton.
Speaker 0: You bet.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Pollard's spymaster was invited into a U.S. uranium plant in 1968; 400 lbs of weapons-grade uranium disappeared. The CIA blamed Israel; Hoover allegedly blocked the probe. Two presidents allegedly covered it up; the documents remain classified.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
URANIUM Cover-Up? ☢️ Jonathan Pollard's spymaster was personally invited inside an American uranium plant in 1968. 400 lbs of weapons-grade uranium went missing. The CIA said Israel took it. J. Edgar Hoover refused to investigate. 2 presidents covered it up. The documents are still classified.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Apollo, Pennsylvania, a small town near Pittsburgh, hides a dark nuclear secret. In March 1976, General Brent Scowcroft was summoned to an emergency meeting where Marcus Roudin, head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), warned that some younger nuclear staff were about to spill the beans about an American scandal tied to an Apollo company called Numec (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation). The CIA had briefed the NRC that Apollo was the source of highly enriched uranium used in Israel’s nuclear weapons program. The room confirmed the CIA’s conclusion, and a forty-year cover-up followed, ostensibly to avoid hurting Israel’s feelings.
Numec processed nuclear material in Apollo. In 1965, a White House memo and a 1966 AEC report disclosed that more than 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium were missing, totaling north of 178 kilograms (close to 400 pounds). This was a national security alarm: someone had stolen 400 pounds of America’s most precious material. The missing uranium raised the question of whether it could have ended up in Israel’s bomb program. Was this an accounting error or something more?
The real question: did bomb-grade uranium disappear from an American plant and wind up in Israel? The FBI, CIA, and Congress investigated, and the GAO reviewed the matter, but the case remained unresolved. Across investigations, officials could not fully account for the material in Apollo. Some high-level officials believed Israel had obtained it and concealed it.
Zalman Shapiro, Numec’s founder and president, was not a minor figure. He had worked on the USS Nautilus reactor program and fuel development, and he was a noted supporter of Israel. FBI documents show Shapiro had frequent contacts with Israeli officials, including a science attaché believed to be an intelligence officer, and he had close ties with leaders in Israel’s government and its nuclear program. Shapiro hosted four Israeli intelligence officers at the Apollo plant in 1968, one of whom was Mossad agent Rafael Eitan, who later ran Jonathan Pollard’s spying operation in the U.S. for Israel. Eitan’s presence in Apollo is documented, along with other visitors connected to the Israeli embassy and Masad.
Shapiro’s legal team later claimed the investigation was due to his fondness for Israel. The FBI noted the visitors’ roles, and the CIA’s Carl Duckett briefed NRC officials that the CIA believed the missing uranium ended up in Israel. The Ford and Carter administrations faced political and diplomatic concerns about public knowledge of Israeli involvement, and there were discussions of surveillance, which J. Edgar Hoover reportedly refused. The Brzezinski memo from 1977 noted that the AEC did not require annual physical inventories in the 1950s and 60s, and Newmick’s inventory practices were particularly deficient, with no physical inventory between 1957 and 1965.
There are claims of environmental samples from 1968 pointing to Israel via a signature linked to Portsmouth, Ohio, where Pneumoc sourced uranium. Much of the truth remains classified, and the GAO was denied access to CIA and FBI documents. The public never received a full transparent investigation. The story also ties to local consequences: Apollo and nearby Parks Township host a 44-acre shallow-land disposal site with 10 trenches of contaminated waste, a remnant of uranium processing.
In sum, there were massive nuclear discrepancies, extraordinary Israeli access to Numec, Mossad involvement, and years of secrecy driven by political concerns about Israel’s reputation, leaving the case shrouded in classified materials and unresolved publicly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Guys, I wanna tell you a story about the town of Apollo, Pennsylvania, a sleepy little Pennsylvania town with some dark secrets. But first, let's start with a prologue. A dark morning in March 1976. Yeah. The year I was born.
General Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to president Gerald Ford, was panicked. He called an emergency meeting. Everyone gathered around to listen to the head of America's nuclear regulatory commission, Marcus Roudin. Everyone's jaws were slack, there is Marcus, as he told a room of people that were gathered there that some younger members of the nuclear staff were about to spill the beans. His quote, spill the beans, and go public at about American scandal of the highest order about an American company in Apollo, Pennsylvania called Newmick.
Now Roudin told the room that he had been briefed by the CIA a few days before, and the CIA told the NRC that the CIA concluded that Apollo, Pennsylvania was the source of highly enriched uranium used in Israel's nuclear weapons program. Now the NRC was stunned by this. They confirmed the CIA's conclusion. That meeting then gave rise to a forty year cover up of the truth because one country's feelings might get hurt, our greatest model ally, Israel. So just put a pin in that for a moment.
Now let's go to Apollo, Pennsylvania. Because in the nineteen sixties, Apollo was a sleepy little town outside of Pittsburgh, about a forty minute drive with a population of about 2,694 people. Sounds like low. Right? But then when you think about it and actually in the year 2020 in the census data that I was looking at, it dropped.
So fewer people live in Apollo now today than they did back then. But back then, 2,000 people, everyone knew everyone. Apollo was home to a little manufacturing plant called Numic, the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation. There it is. Looks like a library, doesn't it?
On the outside, it didn't look like much, just another industrial building at a small Western Pennsylvania river town. But locals knew this was no ordinary shop floor. Everyone in this town knew this was a place handling enriched uranium for America's atomic bombs, a nuclear program. New Mexico's Apollo facility processed nuclear material. And then one day on what should have been just a normal routine audit by the Atomic Energy Agency, it turned into one of the most disturbing nuclear mysteries in American history.
So in 1965, government audit auditors came into Newmark, and they were trying to count up the amount of highly enriched uranium that was there. There wasn't a lot of it, so it's easy to check. What the auditors found, though, was stunning. More than 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium was missing, gone. In a White House memo and a 1966 AEC report, Atomic Energy Commission report, later confirmed losses north of a 178 kilograms, which is close to 400 pounds of highly enriched uranium.
So however you slice the accounting, this was not like a rounding error. Like, oops, Margaret forgot to put the uranium back in the closet, and she left it out under on her during her lunch break. This was a national security alarm bell. Someone stole 400 pounds of America's most precious material. So, like, if you just stop right there for a moment, this was a national security bombshell by any stretch.
If a private American company today, like, misplaced even a tiny fraction of that amount, the country would lose its mind. There would be wall to wall coverage, congressional hearings, criminal subpoenas perhaps, all of it. But in Apollo, Pennsylvania, this story became something it became even stranger because it wasn't just missing uranium, but missing uranium that was now tied to one of the most protected subjects in the world, something you're not allowed to talk about, Israel's secret nuclear weapons program. So was this just an accounting error? Did Margaret forget to put the uranium back after her lunch break?
Of course not. The real question was, did bomb grade uranium disappear from an American plant and then wind up in Israel? Well, that suspicion was not invented by Internet conspiracists twenty years later. People with an axe to grind against Israel know this revelation existed inside the US government. The a the AEC investigated it.
The FBI investigated it. The CIA investigated more than just about anybody. And then congress got involved. And then the government accountability office later reviewed the matter. The GAO got involved and were stonewalled.
We'll get to that. And across all of those investigations, one fact never went away. US officials could not fully account for what happened to the material in Apollo, Pennsylvania. And some of the highest level people involved at the CIA, the GAO, and Congress believed Israel got it, concluded that Israel got it. Israel stole it.
They covered it up, took that material to Israel to build their own nuclear weapons program. So how did this happen exactly? Well, it turns out back in Apollo, Pennsylvania, the Pneumoc plant's founder and president Zalman Shapiro, there he is, Zalman, was not some obscure middle manager hanging out with Margaret while they were looking at enriched uranium over their lunch break. He was a serious scientist with deep nuclear credentials. He had worked on the USS Nautilus reactor program, on fuel development, building the first nuclear powered submarines.
He was also connected to early commercial nuclear power in The United States, and he was a well known supporter of the country of Israel. Now according to the FBI's own investigation, we later learned that Zalman Shapiro had frequent contacts with Israeli officials, not just friendly phone calls. He was very close with a science attache thought to be an intelligence officer. If you read the documents, it's pretty stunning. And they don't pull any punches in these documents, by the way.
They look like they were written yesterday. So it was thought to have this connection to this intelligence officer by the FBI, and Shapiro received VIP treatment in Israel. Even worse, according to the declassified documents, Shapiro was by then known to have contacts with with, head of Israel's military intelligence and the head of its nuclear weapons program, so like all the big players in Israel. And the documents show that Zalman was under investigation for most of the nineteen sixties. But his lawyers claimed later it was only because he had a fondness for Israel that he was under investigation.
Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: A fondness to what extent?
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: So you're friends with the head of Israel's military intelligence and the head of its nuclear weapons program. That's a fondness. Zalman later acknowledged also knowing Benjamin Bloomberg, who was the head of Israel's Bureau of Scientific Liaison, which engaged in a lot of, like, high risk intelligence thefts stealing. Oh, you don't say? You mean, like, stealing things from foreign governments?
He was friends with that guy. And it gets worse. On one bizarre afternoon in 1968, Shapiro requested, and that word is important in the FBI documents, by the way, requested. Shapiro requested and hosted four Israeli intelligence officers at the Apollo plant in Pennsylvania, one of which was the famous Mossad agent, Rafael Eitan, right there in the documents. That name matters because Eitan later ran Jonathan Pollard's spying on The United States for Israel.
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
Speaker 0: You can't make this up. There he is. Eitan, the Mossad agent, was in charge of Jonathan Pollard.
Speaker 1: All the bad guys know each other.
Speaker 0: The treasonous spy who was given a hero's welcome by Netanyahu and, by the way, ambassador Mike Huckabee.
Speaker 1: I didn't know this.
Speaker 0: So Zalman Shapiro invited Eitan into his nuclear plant according to the National Security Archives' summary of the file. The visitors also included figures connected to the Israeli embassy. Shin Bet Masad, Masad linked covert operations, and Lockham, Israel's scientific intelligence apparatus. These were not innocent tourists wandering through a Pennsylvania fuel plant. So under Zalman's leadership, Numix started processing fuel at Apollo in 1959.
But by the early nineteen sixties, the US government had already raised concerns about security at the plant. They thought it was too loose. They said this in documents. Remember, during the 1965 audit is when the missing 200 pounds was discovered, but according to the CIA's own documents, the Atomic Energy Agency as far as back as 1960 and 1961 were raising concerns about the lack of security at the plant. But the government really didn't do anything about it.
And we only learned about this after a declassified White House memo, of course, the famous Brzezinski memo prepared for president Carter in 1977. It says the AEC did not require annual physical inventories from licensees in the 1950s and 60s, and that Newmick was particularly bad in this respect. The memo says no physical inventory was performed between '57 and '65. Perfect window. Right around the time when JFK was being assassinated.
Speaker 1: And which, if you don't mind, I'm gonna insert this little bit because, JFK was constantly looking for nuclear inspections in Israel. They told him that Dimona was a tech textile factory, and he famously said, and I'm gonna I'm gonna curse, so cover the kid's ears. He famously said, these fuckers always lie to me. Just adding that in case that wasn't already in your
Speaker 0: Yeah. And also, of course, president Eisenhower warned JFK about their nuclear ambitions and nuclear program before he came into office. And by the way, when Dwight D. Eisenhower made his famous beware the military industrial complex speech on his way out of office, he already knew. He already knew what was going on.
So he already knew that the Israelis were fully invested in this nuclear program. So when Numick was finally forced to do an audit 1965, it revealed that nearly 400 pounds of enriched uranium was missing. That same memo also says the FBI's first investigation beginning 1965 focused on Shapiro's relationship with the Israeli government and found that he had frequent contacts with Israeli officials, especially that science attache believed to be an intelligence officer. It even says that CIA director Richard Helms pushed J Edgar Hoover to take additional steps including surveillance. And guess what?
Hoover refused. It's in the FBI documents. Quote, Hoover refused. What the fuck? So let that sink in.
The federal government knew there was a huge nuclear discrepancy. It knew the plant chief had an unusual ties to Israeli officials. It knew the Israelis around this case were not just random visitors taking a tour of a small PA town, and still, this thing never got blown open in public the way you would expect.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: But in
Speaker 1: Can I just make another connection? Hoover, the same person who is known to have drag sex parties with Roy Cohn, who was an adviser to Donald Trump. That that's the connection we're making here? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Just wanna make sure who also was a lawyer to McCarthy. Got it. K.
Speaker 0: Same one. Same guy.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So interestingly, CIA took this seriously. Very seriously. The CIA did. They tracked down the missing uranium. And according to former NRC officials Victor Galinsky and Roger Matson, CIA Deputy Director Carl Duckett, there he is, briefed NRC officials in February 1976 and said the CIA believed the missing highly enriched uranium ended up in Israel.
They also wrote the top US officials considered the CIA's case was strong, possibly even conclusive. In other words, case closed. In the same article in the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, they say that Ford and Carter teams both had to grapple with the political and diplomatic implications if the public had learned that nuclear bomb grade material was stolen by the Israelis. Think about how insane that is. They were worried about the appearances, hurting the feelings of the Israelis.
You stole from us and we're worried about what people might think of you? It's awfully gracious. In fact, the United States government own owns an intelligence apparatus was reportedly telling senior officials that missing weapons grade uranium from Apollo may have ended up in Israeli bombs. This is, like, not a minor bureaucratic disagreement. This is an act of nuclear theft from an ally on American soil, but it gets worse.
Because Skolinski and Matson also wrote that later documents pointed to a 1968 CIA environmental sample taken in Israel that allegedly showed highly enriched uranium with an enrichment signature that pointed back to Portsmouth, Ohio. Why Portsmouth, Ohio? What does that have to do with Apollo, Pennsylvania? Because that's where Pneumoc got its uranium stock for some of its work. Of course, that claim has long been, like, wrapped up in secrecy and redactions.
Of course, much of the truth is still classified. Perhaps maybe president Trump or Tulsi Gabbard will finally release these documents proving this connection. Don't hold your breath. And so we're left with what the government is still hiding. They did not reach one neat conclusion on this.
One side of the record, of course, says there's no evidence of a theft of a significant amount of material and that a simple accounting error might be behind the missing 400 pounds. Like, whoops. We just made a mistake in the ledger. The later FBI investigation ordered under president Ford was able to uncover direct evidence of a theft. Of course, that does not make this story go away.
Excuse me. They did not find a direct evidence of theft. That's what their conclusion was under the Ford administration. But remember, the Ford administration along with the Carter administration was really worried about how Israel might be perceived if they got this story out there. And, of course, that meeting that I told you about the very beginning is the meeting that happened in March 1976 and was then covered up afterwards.
So it makes the story much, much worse, the cover up, because something big happened here. The record is this. There were massive nuclear discrepancies, serious intelligence breaches, extraordinary Israeli access, Mossad invited to Pennsylvania, requested to come to Pennsylvania, then years of secrecy. So J. Edgar Hoover learned about this from the CIA, did nothing about it.
No surveillance. Nothing. That is a scandal of the highest order. It's also really a story about how Washington handled all of it. Don't you agree?
I mean, following the assassination of JFK, clear intelligence ties to murder and the massive cover up swept under the rug. I just think about this for a minute, and I can't help but think about this as as as I was writing this story. If this had been Soviet Union or China or Iran or literally any other official enemy of The United States, this would be taught in schools as one of the great spy stories of the Cold War. John Lei Ketteri probably write a spy novel about it. How Russians snuck into Pennsylvania, stole our nuclear materials, built atom bombs, threatened us.
That didn't happen, of course, but because it points towards Israel, the case was hidden and covered up. We later learned that even the GAO said it had been denied necessary access to the CIA and FBI documents, making it impossible to check everything it was already being told. Like, hey, guys. Can we see those documents? Because we're working on this investigation.
Oh, no? We can't see those? Okay. Sure you have a good reason for covering them up. So when Israeli apologists will say, well, where's the smoking gun?
Well, the honest answer is parts of that gun may still be buried in classified files, and we know this because the GAO asked for those files and they were rebuffed in order to protect Israel's feelings. What we do know unequivocally is already enough to slam the case closed on this in a court of law. Imagine the amount of evidence that I just presented to you in a court of law. It gets overwhelming. People have been locked up for life for far with far less evidence of this.
So we know the material gap was real, missing uranium. We know the plant was under heavy scrutiny for years according to the AEC and the FBI. We know high level Israeli operatives visited Numik, including Jonathan Pollard's spymaster himself. We know the CIA believed Israel got the uranium. They found trace signatures in Israel that linked them to the theft.
We know the CIA asked the FBI to put Israeli Israelis under surveillance. They were rebuffed by J. Edgar Hoover across the addressing J. Edgar Hoover. We know the White House under Ford and Carter worried about the political fallout.
We don't wanna hurt Israelis' feelings. Even just a few years after the Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty. Like, we're like, hey. It's fine. You can kill our sailors.
You can target our ships. We're fine. We don't wanna hurt your feelings, though. And we know the public never got a full transparent investigation, not one. And those facts are irrefutable.
By the way, there is one more layer to the story that people in Western Pennsylvania know better than the officials in Washington. Apollo and nearby Parks Township have lived with the story of Pneumoc for decades. Redacted has spoke to residents of Apollo who who told us, quote, we all know the story. We know the Israelis stole it. And years later, that town is still dealing with the nearby shallow land disposal area in Parks Township.
It covers 44 acres. That's what you're seeing here on your screen. Contains 10 trenches of contaminated waste and soil. Stay away from this contamination zone. Don't let your kids play near it.
The NRC says the site was used from '61 to 1970 for waste disposal of nuclear materials from the Apollo fuel facility, including radioactive, non radioactive material put in those trenches. The US Army Corps of Engineers has now been working for years to try to clean it up. So Israel didn't have to contaminate their soil. We did it for them, and they got a nuclear program. And we don't wanna hurt their feelings.
Speaker 1: Well, that's nice.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
IMPENDING CRASH. 📉 In 2008, they bet against mortgages. Now they're betting against private credit: same mechanism, different target. @SilverGuru22 says the cracks are forming, and no one is exempt when this blows. https://t.co/vKL16y2siJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Clayton introduces a concern about a new set of Wall Street mechanisms that could profit from a future economic disruption, likening it to preparations seen before the 2008 housing collapse. He invites economist David Morgan, author of the Morgan Report and Second Chance, to unpack what’s happening and how it relates to past crises.
David Morgan presents a top-down view of the current environment. He argues that inflation is not going away and is embedded in the system, requiring debasement to survive. The core message is that sound money equals freedom; fiat currency systems historically end with loss of purchasing power, and gold and silver are money outside the system. Debt levels globally are beyond anything in history, central banks are trapped, and rates cannot stay high; yet rates cannot stay low in a way that would quell inflation, creating a dilemma for the market. He suggests the market may ratchet higher inflation even as rates go higher, requiring yields that entice holders to retain dollars longer. He notes a growing social and political awakening, but emphasizes that the economic setup tends to widen the wealth gap, portraying the moment as revolution-time.
Clayton cites Moody’s lowering its outlook on US BDCs from stable to negative and uses the Big Mac index as an illustration of currency debasement. He asks how the same mechanisms seen with credit default swaps in 2008 are reappearing, but this time relating to private credit rather than mortgages.
Morgan explains that insiders can influence the market and use leverage through financial instruments, including ETFs with two- or three-times leverage. He notes the investment banks underwrite many derivative products and can disseminate information counter to the direction they want the market to move, then position themselves to benefit. He asserts that following the money is often closer to the truth than other methodologies and that insiders front-run common narratives through signaling.
Regarding information flow, Morgan says “wars are bankers’ wars” and that insiders signal the likely direction of oil and interest-rate markets, using outsized options activity ahead of political shifts to steer market outcomes. He describes a pattern where private sector bets help shape market moves, suggesting a lack of transparency in how information is released and acted upon.
The key mechanism now, Morgan argues, is a hedge against trouble in the private credit market, rather than mortgage bets of 2008. Private credit refers to loans outside the traditional banking system—capital from investment funds, pension funds, wealth managers, private equity—that lend at high rates. He stresses that private credit is illiquid, not publicly traded, and often not transparently valued, making it vulnerable to mark-to-market distortions and execution risk. The loans typically involve real estate and other private investments; many are not easily sold, and private loans may be carried at par even when their real value has declined.
Morgan cautions that federal backstops for private equity are uncertain; bailouts depend on who is connected within the system, echoing concerns about favoritism over pure capitalism. He argues that higher interest rates would squeeze private equity liquidity and raise defaults, exposing a fragile, yield-driven market sustained by easy money. He maintains that private credit represents claims on future cash flows that may not materialize, making the system highly sensitive to confidence and liquidity.
In closing, Morgan reiterates that no one is exempt from potential systemic failure, even if an individual believes they are insulated. The overall message emphasizes heightened risk in private credit, potential defaults, and the possibility of a broader market disruption that could impact ordinary Americans through higher rates and tighter liquidity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, something really troubling is happening on Wall Street right now and almost no one is talking about it. And so to keep it as simple as possible, because I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, try to try to explain this as if I'm a fifth grader, I suppose. Because basically, some really big money people on Wall Street are building a new button that allows them to make a lot of money if another big part of the economy suddenly collapses. It reminds me a lot of 2008 where a few people saw the housing collapse coming, people that were getting mortgages without jobs, and they made billions of dollars when the housing collapse happened while the rest of of the world suffered, myself included. Well, right now, that very same thing is happening, and we better pay attention to what's happening, but it's happening in a much different way.
That's why we wanted to bring on David Morgan, author of the Morgan Report, an economist. He's also the author of Second Chance, How to Make and Keep Big Money from the Coming Gold and Silver Shockwave, a must read book. David, great to see you, and welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be on.
Speaker 0: So, you know, I understand that this is in your wheelhouse, but it's pretty darn complicated. And as I was looking through these notes over the weekend when I was seeing these these little bits and pieces of this story, I was trying to piece this all together. And, essentially, a lot of the same mechanisms, it seems, that were unfolding during 2008 with these credit default swaps. I mean, no one even really heard of that term, and then they made a movie about it, The Big Short. Somehow they managed to make a movie about credit default swaps, and they actually made it interesting.
Basically, people were betting big money that we were about to see a major mortgage collapse in The United States. And something seems to be happening again that just went into effect on April 10, and some big money is gonna be moving in a different direction. Can you maybe unpack what is going on here? And and am I being a little hyperbolic or not really?
Speaker 1: No. I think you're spot on. I'm gonna go from, like, the a very top view. I'm sort of a top down analyst. I'll paint the big picture, hopefully, in a succinct way and kinda drill down to to what you have have spoken about, Clayton.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And treat me like a fifth grader because
Speaker 1: Well
Speaker 0: I I pretend pretend I'm an, you know, elementary elementary school right now and educate me on this because it's a little complicated.
Speaker 1: Most people feel something is wrong economically, but they just can't define it. So inflation is not going away. It's embedded in the system and the system requires debasement to survive. This isn't about predicting a collapse. It's about understanding the direction of the system.
The core message is that sound money equals freedom. Throughout history when money fails, freedom follows. Fiat currency system always end the same way, loss of purchasing power. Gold and silver are not investments first, they're money outside of the system. And as you know, if you don't hold it, you don't own it.
This time is different but somewhat the same. Debt levels globally are beyond anything in history. Central banks are trapped, rates can't stay high but lower than fuels inflation so they're caught between as the old expression the devil and the deep blue sea. They can't go either way, the market my view, steady view will take inflate now we see higher inflation but interest rates commensurate with that which means they're going higher not lower even though the Fed can set the discount window of the federal funds rate and make that lower. The market may say good for you but we still require this kind of a rate in order for me to hold on to a dollar longer than you know a week a t bill t note or t bond.
Hope that makes sense we can drill down on that. So people are waking up just not financially but politically and socially and then turn it back over to you Clayton you're right we're in a setup where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and this is a time in history over and over where this huge divide and the gap widens more and more. Or I hate to say it, but look, it's my job to tell as it is. I tell them as to see it, especially on programs that have a a reach like yours. That's revolution time.
Not that it won't be inevitable, but certainly things are leaning that way as we both know.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We got these Moody's numbers. It's cut its outlook on US BDCs from stable now to negative. You talk about the debasement of the currency and our inability to buy things. You know, our dollar is not you know, it's like the we think about the Big Mac Index.
Right? I think it's the Big Mac Index when you look, you know, internationally, like the cost how much does it cost you to buy a Big Mac? And it's it's skyrocketing right now. So this is not going away. So how then are some of the same mechanisms being put in place on Wall Street that we saw with these credit default swaps in 2008.
Like, there there were very smart people that saw what was coming and started to bet against they started to bet against the mortgage market. How are you seeing similarities to that right now with some of these mechanisms that these people are putting in place?
Speaker 1: Well, what they do is as you kind of alluded to, they take first of all, they see what's coming, and they can manipulate the market. Secondly they put in all kinds of financial instruments that give them great leverage. So you can have an ETF or you know a two to one or 3x situation and lastly they are working the Wall Street system is set up for their benefit not for yours. And the investment banks were the ones that underwrite most of these derivative products that are highly leveraged that give them the advantage. And so what they will usually do is put out information that's contrary to the direction they want the market to move.
They load up during that time frame and then they take it wherever they want. I mean that's about as simple as I can make it. People say, wait a minute that's a conspiracy theory. But basically, if you study history, the conspiracy side of things is where you should start. Is it always perfect but it actually leads to a much clearer trail of how things work.
To sum it up actually more simply, most of the time, any journalist, be it a financial or such as you and Natalie, where you cover a broad base of thing, if you follow the money, you're usually gonna get closer to the truth than any other methodology.
Speaker 0: Right. And so what sort of information are they putting out right now through their intermediaries like CNBC or Bloomberg or other individuals? What sort of information are they trying to push to the American people right now for us to believe, trying to force us to swallow that isn't true do you believe?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, again, for the big big picture, I think the one thing to bear in mind at all times is that all wars are bankers wars. I mean most of the news feed has to do around the war especially Iran and of course the Ukraine thing continues and the constant beat of the drum is Trump this, Trump that and you know he's about wishy washy as anyone's ever been in political history. And on that basis, saying something positive about oil move the market up, saying something negative move market down and they're front running those things. So what am I seeing? I'm seeing signaling from the insiders into the thought of which way is the oil market going to go, which way is the interest rate market going to go.
And of course, they hold the cards. They know which way it's because they can force the hand any direction they wish. And of course, when you especially see following the money and outsized, let's say, options position that's let's say 10 x of normal activity just before the White House makes a U-turn and all of a sudden, the market goes the other direction. So am I seeing that? Yes.
Can I quantify it exactly, Clayton? I won't. I don't wanna get in trouble. But nonetheless Right. I think I've done a fair job of explaining
Speaker 0: So the mechanism that they've now put in place that Wall Street has launched this time, like we talked about in 2008, it was the bets against the mortgage market. This time, it's now a way to hedge against trouble in the private credit market. And I know this can maybe go over some people's head, but betting that private credit, so the stuff that's not the big banks, the private credit is gonna start to weaken, is gonna start to plummet, and they're taking bets against private credit. Can you explain why they would bet against private credit? Like, what specifically is happening there?
What is private credit, and why should, like, the average American care?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I'm gonna digress a bit here for you, but, I was at the money show last year, and it was a panel at the very end of the money show, and I'm always there it's usually it's me and maybe one other that features you know resource stocks resources but primarily gold and silver and the panel was like the big big picture which you're talking about and the guy to the right of me and I I've given him credit I can't remember his name forgive me but all he talked about was private credit and how more than big big problem it was. But in private credit is loans made outside of the traditional banking system and instead of a bank making loans, it's typically like an investment fund, a pension fund, a wealth manager, sometimes mid sized company, private equity firms, those type of things. So am playing English, private credit is Wall Street being replaced. Excuse me, credit is Wall Street replacing the bank as the lender.
So these firms will say on the street they can be off the street they can be in you know Wisconsin, but they are firms that hold funds that can loan them out at exorbitant rates or for other purposes. And why it exists is because after the two thousand and eight financial crisis which is kind of the main thing that we're talking about here, regulators tighten the rules on banks. They required them to hold more capital, reduce risk, and lend more conservatively. And so private funds stepped in and took over that gap of people that were, let's say, excessive gambling on these derivative products.
Speaker 0: So they stepped in and filled that gap for whether it's big real estate projects or or otherwise where the banks were now really kinda handicapped because of the regulations from 2008. So that sounded like a great thing. Right? Capitalism. We could continue on.
People could continue to build, continue to loan money. Money could continue to move. But now it seems like they're very concerned that that money is gonna stop moving. Why would that money stop moving in private equity? And what does that mean for the average American?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get to private equity, but first, wanna make this statement. But there's nothing really wrong with taking a loan if it's for productive purpose. So in other words if you borrow a dollar and in your business you put that dollar use and you produce let's say a dollar 20 out of that loan then obviously that's productive use of capital. Unfortunately, at the end of the great inflations which we're now experiencing, what the federal government does is they take they borrow a like $2 and they get like a dollars worth of productivity out of it. In other words, they're the faster they're running, the further they're getting behind.
That's true at the federal level. Now I know you addressed private credit. What's happening in private credit is that reality is shining through and the sunshine is shining on the fact that a lot of these loans were based on one people that were undercapitalized couldn't pay it back. Two projects that weren't worth doing in any way shape or form from the very beginning I e the credit default swaps which are bets upon bets that were in a mortgage situation with people that couldn't repay the loan. Similar situations here.
So they're looking for higher yields, more return. And what has happened for a long time is that the banks or let's say the private credit facilities have said, oh, well, you can't pay me, Clay. Well, don't worry about it. What I'm gonna do is give you an interest only loan. Loan you more money so that you can actually pay me the interest back that you owe me.
I provided the money. How sick is that? But that's the system that we see at the very end. And as in all cases, David Morgan, no, it is not, but that has taken place.
Speaker 0: So in other words, a lot of the it sounds very similar to 2,008 in a lot of ways. Now, I guess I guess it leads to me to the inevitable question, David, which is, you know, then we were talking specifically about the housing crisis. A lot of people that didn't have jobs were able to get mortgages, and the entire housing market collapsed. What types of projects have these people been getting money to from private credit in order to build? In other words, as you pointed out, these were sort of based on sort of faulty promises, I guess.
Is it commercial real estate? Is there one particular sector, or is it is it completely diverse and we don't have to worry about it?
Speaker 1: Well, it goes basically on the hierarchy of investments across the board. So what's the number one investment worldwide that's been infungible? Well, not fungible but then one of the best ever and that's of course land. So real estate improved or otherwise that would be primary. But there's many others like let's say a bridge loan for taking over a business.
So let's say doing a merger that type of thing. I mean almost anything you could think of in the financial sector does can be covered by private equity, but you also could take the big picture where is the main amount of investments done and that's primarily in real estate although there's all kinds of things done. The main point that I think our viewers need to understand is it's illiquid. You can't easily sell these. These are private loans as I outlined.
There is no open market for it. There's no daily pricing and you're often locked in so you made a loan to take over this other company and the other company reneged on the deal or decided not to do it or they found an escape clause or whatever. Now that's dead money. You can't do anything with it And the market's I mean, these loans are not traded. The prices are not visible.
And if they fall, they're not necessarily reported because it's private. So perhaps you put in a $10 bill as an example, and it's really worth 5. It might carry on the books at 10, and they're not required to say anything other than, well, and put in 10. It's still at 10. When the real value, if you had to liquidate half that price.
Speaker 0: That's fascinating. So these are not public banks. This is all private money that a lot of it is gonna collapse, and they're not gonna be able to gather up and have these have these loans wiped off the books. So the federal government normally, when you have one of these big banks having a problem, the Fed comes in and saves them. Do you think there's any backstop from the from the Fed or from the US Treasury that they're gonna come in and try to bail out all these private equity firms?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, let me compliment you. I think that's the best question you've asked, and you've asked a lot of good ones in my opinion. Possibly doubtful. These are private firms.
Now, you know, there's the hoo hoos and the zoo, my favorite expression. I mean, if they're buddy buddy with the invest certainly investment bank is very, very tight with the fed. You know, one of their brethren is working at the Fed or close to it. You could see that happen. I mean, we saw it happen in 2008.
We saw what happened. Leibman Brothers and Bear Stearns. I mean, Bear was taken out. No doubt about it. Lehman was was there as well.
So, it's kind of a who you know, not what you know situation. So, I can't look in the eye and say, they will bail them all out or none will be bailed out. I think it'll be again favoritism, non capitalism, not equal rights for all. Basically, if you know the right person, you might get subsidized for your failure which of course is anti capitalism. Remember, the right to fail and the right to succeed are the same thing in capitalism.
In a tree free market, if you do something wealth that provides a use to you in society, you benefit monetarily and otherwise. If you make a product that you think is the greatest thing since the ripple and the bobby pin and it doesn't hit the market and you lose money, then you should lose money and move on.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I guess I'll get you out of here on this, David. How bad do you think this is gonna be? And I'll circle back to like my average American question. You know, the mom and dad that are taking care of their kids, send them to school, they work two jobs, they each have a job, just trying to put food on the table.
Is this story gonna impact them in any kind of appreciable way?
Speaker 1: Yeah. When interest rates go higher, as I said earlier, and I believe they will, that will definitely put a lot of problems to the private equity sector, private private funding. There will be less and less liquidity, which means defaults will continue and they'll go higher and higher. So the financial start to see the cracks in this this private system. From a sound money perspective, it's just another layer of financialization to keep the system going on a lie further than it should.
It represents claims on future cash flow, but most of these things are not cash flow and they're not real assets, they're they're games, they're gambles. And so that depends on confidence and liquidity. There's less and less confidence and there's less and less liquidity. So basically private credit is inherently bad. It doesn't really serve a true purpose.
It's not less transparent. It's very illiquid and it's vulnerable to a lot of stress which you're going to see. It's a yield driven market that grew out of easy money from these private credit facilities and the signal is going to blow up badly. Is it going to be as bad as 2008? I'll just have to say remains to be determined because no one knows exactly how big it is and what the cascading effects can be.
A lot of people think, know, well, look, I don't own a stock. I've never owned a stock. I don't have a stock account. The stock market doesn't affect me. It does.
The stock market affects everyone because of the overall health of The United States. Let's say corporate entity. So it's all tied together, it's all connected and something that appears to be benign relative to you living in Idaho and some big facility blows up in Florida. Well, that doesn't affect me. You don't know Maybe your bank actually got a swap with that other bank.
I'm not trying to go drill down too far, Clayton. I'm just trying to explain that, no one is exempt from these type of large large system failures.
Speaker 0: David, thank you so much for joining us, the author of the book Second Chance, How to Make and Keep Big Money from the Coming Gold and Silver Shockwave. Great to have you on the show, David. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
📉 We can't manufacture interceptors fast enough. We can't afford another month of this. Col. @DanielLDavis1 says Iran knows it & has planned around it from the beginning. https://t.co/NDrjJWfZvf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 notes that, “if you listen to our leaders, it seems like everything is fine,” with a war “barreling towards a close,” markets “exploding,” and Trump praising the stock market. He says Pam Bondi reminded us about why we can’t have the Epstein files because “the Dow is over 50,000.” He reports Trump said Israel and Lebanon have agreed to begin a ten day ceasefire, starting at 4 PM Eastern, and claims they “haven’t spoken in thirty four years” but now are at a ten day ceasefire, while Israel is carrying out “last minute terrorist attacks, blowing up civilian homes in Inatah, centuries old village in South Lebanon,” and “blowing up a school” in Marwan, South Lebanon. He also says Trump spoke an hour earlier that Iran and the United States are close to an agreement to end this war. He closes with a tongue-in-cheek jab about a “ten days to regroup” from Tony in the chat.
Speaker 1 emphasizes the priority: “The big thing we have to do is we have to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon,” stating that Iran “agreed to that” and that Iran has agreed to give back the nuclear dust “way underground because of the attack we made with the b two bombers.” Tony Garrett in the chat is cited again confirming “ten days to regroup, restock, and reassess.”
Speaker 0 then introduces Colonel Daniel Davis as host of Deep Dive, noting a bombshell from his sources and that despite positive rhetoric, military movement suggests otherwise.
Speaker 2 asserts that, even without his sources, President Trump was asked if there’s no deal, “we’ll definitely do that,” and that Secretary Hagstads (Hagstad) briefing said, “we are locked and loaded and we are ready to get right back into this.” He says there has been “lots of ammunition and fuel and restocks” moved into the region during the ceasefire to be used, and cautions that “until an order is given, it doesn’t matter what you’ve prepared for,” but that “militarily, all the pieces are in place to restart this thing.” He concludes the pause is a pause to reload, not a true end to hostilities.
Speaker 3 asks about ten days’ viability to replenish ammunition, and about a Wall Street Journal report that the Pentagon is pushing Ford and GM to shift factory capacity toward weapons production. Speaker 2 says such conversions are possible (World War II precedent) but would be expensive and time-consuming; more likely, the U.S. “can take them out of our stockpiles” and deplete them, possibly for months or years to replenish, with Iran possibly calculating they can outlast U.S. firepower. He notes the risk that a protracted war could outstrip American stockpiles, whereas Iran could endure longer.
Speaker 0 shifts to gold and silver promotions, then returns to the strategic issue, describing that Mossad head’s claim that Iran war ends only with regime change, and Russian intelligence’s counterclaim that the ceasefire is a mask. He asks the chat if the ceasefire is real; Speaker 2 confirms it is real in a technical sense (no missiles fired) but calls it a pause to reload, not a negotiated settlement.
Speaker 4 (Secretary of War remarks) says, “Iran can choose a prosperous future…we will maintain this blockade,” and “if Iran chooses poorly, then they will be a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power, and energy,” while Treasury is launching “Operation economic fury.” Speaker 2 responds that such measures are physically feasible but question their effectiveness in achieving supply and demand balance or restoring fertilizer, helium, and chip supply chains, arguing Iran will endure and that the war is militarily unwinnable.
Speaker 2 reiterates concerns about escalating consequences in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, noting the USS Ford’s voyage around Africa to avoid the Houthis, and arguing continued aggression risks destroying global supply chains, with the war demanding a quick exit. Speaker 0 and Speaker 3 thank Colonel Davis and close.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So if you listen to our leaders, it seems like everything is fine. The war is barreling towards a close. Nothing to see here. The markets are exploding as a result of this because president Trump loves to look at the stock market and, sort of base his, his success off of how well the stock market is doing. Pam Bondi, of course, did that as well, reminding all of us about why we can't have the Epstein files because the Dow is over 50,000.
So all good. Right? Everything's fine. President Trump said today in a post on truth social that Israel and Lebanon have agreed to begin a ten day ceasefire. He he basically touted the fact that he got them together at the table.
They haven't spoken in thirty four years. So now they're talking ten day ceasefire. We'll start in about it is, 4PM eastern. So in about fifty seven minutes or so, that ceasefire is set to take place. Meanwhile, Israel is carrying out last minute terrorist attacks, blowing up civilian homes in, Inatah, centuries old village in South Lebanon, making sure to get as many civilian homes and structures as possible.
Take out all of these centuries old homes there, you know, right ahead of this ceasefire. Do what you can. Also blowing up a school. We gotta Israel loves to blow up schools and hospitals. So hitting, hitting this, hitting one here in, Marwan in South Lebanon, just destroying that school, that public school.
Wow. There. They had to take that one out. President Trump spoke about an hour ago telling reporters that Iran and The United States are close to an agreement to end this war. So, again, everything's fine.
Listen.
Speaker 1: The big thing we have to do is we have to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon because if they do, you wanna talk about problems, you'd have problems. So very important is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and they've agreed to that. Iran's agreed to that, and they've agreed to it very powerfully. They've agreed to give us back the nuclear dust. It's way underground because of the attack we made with the b two bombers.
So we have a lot of agreement with Iran, and I think something's gonna happen very positive. Tony
Speaker 0: Tony Garrett in our chat room here. You can put this up on the screen. Tony Garrett says ten days to regroup, restock, and reassess. Yes, Tony. Spot on about that.
Meanwhile, Russia, a Russian security council is warning that these all this negotiations that's all taking place right now could just be masking this big planned strike on Iran. Colonel Daniel Davis is the host of the deep dive with Daniel Davis. Colonel, great to see you. Welcome back to the show. Yesterday, you dropped a bit of a bombshell, with some of your sources reporting on well, I don't wanna take the words out of your mouth.
So we hear all of this positivity about end of this war, ceasefires, markets are going up, everything's fine, but you have some news that maybe you can share with the massive amounts of military movement that's heading to that region.
Speaker 2: Well, you even without any of the sources that I had, I mean, just today, you you had, president Trump was asked at that same press conference there, If there's not a deal done, are we gonna go back to war, which which is next Wednesday when the ceasefire time comes to an end on the twenty second? And he said, yep. Definitely. Yep. We will definitely do that.
You had secretary Hagstad this morning at his press briefing who said, we are locked and loaded and we are ready to get right back into this if there's not a deal then we're gonna do it. So, the all the evidence and we definitely have seen plenty of lots of open source reporting about lot of ammunition and fuel and and restocks of of missiles have been just nonstop going during the ceasefire period from The United States and other bases that we have around the world into the region to be able to be used but so all the pieces are definitely in place there and you know, it doesn't take much of a genius to figure out that if if this doesn't go off the way that the an order can be given. Now, I will caveat that saying as I personally observed in some of my combat operations in the past when I was on active duty Until an order is given, it doesn't matter what you what you've prepared for, what you're equipped for, what your logistics setup, etcetera. It only matters what the order is. But I can tell you militarily, all the pieces are in place to to restart this thing and to, to go back to a kinetic, engagement.
Speaker 3: Now ten days is not gonna mean that we've actually built so many bombs that we're in a better shape. Now you had said before that when the war was hot and heavy, we are running out of ammunition. I don't think there's any way to replenish in just ten days. Is there? And I want you to respond to a Wall Street Journal report that the Pentagon is trying to approach major American companies like Ford and General Motors about shifting factory capacity towards weapons production.
Is this is this possible, or is this fantasy? What what do you think?
Speaker 2: Well, certainly possible. I mean, that's what we did during World War two is we we converted a lot of, civilian infrastructure and and lots of factories and whatnot into military. So, it's something there's definitely precedence for whether we actually do it as a separate issue. That would be number one very expensive but it would also be very time consuming to get that conversion done and then to start making something because it's, I mean, you're talking many months, if not years, process to even change over to something else because it's not, you know, easy to transition into from civilian into military. But in terms of your first question there, we can't make a bunch of new weapons, but we can take them out of our stockpiles.
We can continue to deplete them further and that we can do by taking our our war stocks from, know, in case we get into an unexpected war somewhere, especially god forbid, with an appear adversary, Russia, China, North Korea, something like that. We're getting into those stocks. No matter how you wanna slice it and dice it, wherever you're getting them from, whether it's pulling it back from some allies, like taking some dads out of South Korea or something like that or taking anything back even from possibly some European allies. The bottom line is you can't get rid of, you can't keep going with this war unless you get continue to dwindle those stocks because you see, just in the first week, I remember the report came out that there was like 3,000 interceptors had been used during that time and we make like $6.50 a year. So, by the math, it just automatically means that our stockpile has been deleted by that much more and it's going take multiple years to get all that reponding.
Once this war stops and we stop using them but we haven't stopped using them yet and especially if this pause in the fighting turns out to be just a pause and then we have to get back into it. I mean, how long can you go like this? I I doubt that we could go another month or two and then we would be at the point to where we could literally be running out, not low, but out. We just cannot sustain a war. I mean, I've been saying this from the beginning and I think that the Iranian side is aware of this, and I think that they have calculated, my estimate is, that they say, we can suck down these missiles and it'll cause us tremendous loss of life and damage, but then at the end of the day, we can outlast you.
And we're not talking like the Russia Ukraine war worth five years from now. It could be like three or four months from now. And if the Iranian side calculates that they can endure and sustain themselves for that period of time, I don't think The US can, and then we're in a position of strategic loss even without the loss on the battlefield.
Speaker 0: Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you. Sorry. But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest.
It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Lear Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me.
It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it. They know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks?
Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them. So does Natalie. We both do.
And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice.
Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I've been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them.
1806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Man, it's so crazy to think about. I mean, it really is. But I all of the markers are there. Right, colonel?
I mean, we had the head of Mossad over two days ago telling us publicly that this war will not be over with Iran until there is regime change. And other markers, you're hearing from the Russian side from their intelligence saying that this is all a mask and fakery. I'll just ask our chat room right now. Do you guys believe that this is a real ceasefire? I mean, I've seen people in the chat room saying fake ceasefire, fake ceasefire, fake ceasefire.
It's just crazy.
Speaker 2: Well, it
Speaker 1: is a
Speaker 2: real ceasefire. Just definitely that. I mean, because we're not shooting missiles. They're not shooting missiles. Israel didn't shoot missiles.
True. Catching it. So that in in the lit a technical sense, it is a ceasefire. Now I I called it a pause because I think that everybody, to include the Iranians and the Israelis and us, are just using it to reload because I think we had to bring it in. We used most of our stocks, and we needed the time to replenish our local stockpiles to be able to to keep going.
The Iranians have definitely taken advantage of the same opportunities. I just don't see any movement on anybody's position to where it's gonna lead to an actual end of, war negotiation.
Speaker 3: Can I please circle back on just counting the beans? I'd like to count the beans, which and by beans, I mean weapons. So yesterday, senate the senate voted to continue arming Israel. They also declined to vote to stop further aggression in Iran. How can, if we don't have it, how can we keep arming Israel?
And what do you make of these votes?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Those votes are a very sore point. I think there was another one today in the house, if I'm not mistaken. I think I saw the headlines in between some my earlier shows today. And I just find that an egregious abdication of constitutional power that the House of Representatives and the US Senate have basically voted themselves out of any kind of association.
Their job, that's one of their constitutionally mandated article one jobs is that they alone have the power to declare war. The reason they had it is so that the framers set the situation so that one dude doesn't get to decide if we go to war and send our sons and daughters off to die no matter what anyone else thinks that the representatives would. So it would be hard to go to war and we have destroyed that and now even when there's a chance to actually vote on doing your constitutional job, we punt and say no, we're not gonna do that. We are gonna continue to let the chief executive violate the constitution, violate the 1973 War Powers Act and violate international law and continue to do this full scale war, without with impunity. And so they voted themselves out of that while taking a full salary.
They can't keep the damn government open. They can't pass a budget. I mean, what good are they? I think every one of them should be voted out. I I'll tell you that.
I'm not voting for any incumbent on any election come November. I'll just tell you that. I'd like to see the whole lot of them because the the blues know better if if I'm just being honest here. It's congress. It's a problem.
But to your point a minute ago, the same issue with that of saying we're gonna send these weapons and ammunition to Israel is the same one that we've got. Yeah, you can keep doing that but the reason why we're in the red situation now is because we gave for four years all these weapons and ammunition to Ukraine and they offered two and a half years to Israel and now we're using them. And so you you can keep sending them out, you keep getting into our stockpiles. And at some point we're gonna run out because we can't manufacture them enough. It is a math problem.
It is a bean counting problem and the beans can be counted. It's not something ethereal. These are real and we have to do something about it or we will put our national security across the globe at risk because I'm telling you Clayton, it doesn't matter how many tanks we have, how many airplanes we have, how many ships we have if you don't have ammunition to shoot from them.
Speaker 0: So that's what I wanna ask you here as we kinda wrap up, colonel, which is militarily, what are we looking at next? We maybe you can talk about the Strait Of Hormuz. Let's talk about the Red Sea. We also saw a US I think I believe it was a US battleship today or a US aircraft carrier that had to be turned around because of the Houthis essentially and had to be redirected out of that range to go all the way around out of the Red Sea. Like, we can't even deal with the Houthis, and we think we're gonna somehow puncture through the Strait Of Hormuz.
Anyway, what do you see happening next after this pause?
Speaker 2: Yeah. That that was the the George W Bush which is coming to replace the the the Ford, the USS Ford, and instead of just going through the normal, I think it's the Suez Canal down into the Red Sea like the normal shorter path, We went all the way around Africa because we were worried that the Houthis may take it under attack. And if you get in the Red Sea there, I mean, it could be like a shooting gallery as would be the case if we actually went into the Strait Of Hormuz with our ships not during a cease fire, they would be at risk of being hit by any number of different ammunition and weapon systems that the Iranians have. So that does show that we are, despite what words we use, we are aware of the limits of our power and we don't want to put ourselves in a position to having some of our especially flagships sunk or flames and getting burned up in the waterways there. But that also tells you that there's a reason why the Strait Of Hormuz is still closed is still controlled by the uranium site of any oil we want to get out because we can't compel them to do it.
We can't force them out of it. And so if you start firing back again, it's not going to change that. So the Strait will stay closed and the fertilizers will still not be able to get out. The helium will not be able to get out. So that means the chip making in Asia is gonna start to really suffer and the whole supply chain issue all around the world with our whole global economy is gonna start falling apart.
All this because we will not exceed to reality and that this is a war that is militarily unwinnable. It should never have been fought and needs to be gotten off the table quickly. But because president Trump has too pride and can't accept that he can't do something and he's been surrounded by people like Stephen Miller yesterday who just keeps saying, yeah, we can do everything just like in Venezuela even though there's no comparison between the two situations here. But they think there is in there telling president Trump it's similar because we can do whatever we wanna do. That's what Stephen Miller said.
And if Trump is listening to that, he may believe it and be making policy decisions based on it, but it's not true no matter how much Stephen Miller says that it is, and we're gonna find out if we keep going down this path.
Speaker 0: Is this true? Let's play this. This was secretary of Warhag, Seth, just a few hours ago. Take a listen to the plans for Iran.
Speaker 4: Our negotiators have said, you, Iran, can choose a prosperous future, a golden bridge, and we hope that you do for the people of Iran. In the meantime, and for as long as it takes, we will maintain this blockade, successful blockade. But if Iran chooses poorly, then they will have a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power, and energy. And at the same time, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson and our friends over at Treasury are launching Operation economic fury as well, maximizing economic pressure across the entirety of the government. Too early.
Speaker 0: Okay. So to your point about Scott Besson earlier, colonel, yes, and now this economic fury, but also on the success of the blockade during a ceasefire. Can you unpack that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Most of what he said there can physically be done. You can keep the bombing. We can definitely keep the thing blockaded.
We can we can board any ship that comes through or if anybody tries to to run it, we can we can physically attack it. I mean, we wanted to, we could. I mean, just look at what the Iranians did at the first part of this by making clear that to everybody that they could and they did blow up a bunch of ships in the Persian Gulf there just because it's a shot across the bow to say, Anybody else want to try it? And nobody else has that hadn't gotten permission. So, we can do the same, we can block it off and we can say, Yeah, you either agree to us or we are going to start bombing, we are going hit your energy supplies, we're gonna hit your bridges, we're gonna hit all the targets that he mentioned there, we're gonna put more sanctions on, sure.
We can do every one of those but the question is towards what end? How is that gonna undo what I've just described about getting the rest of the oil coming out so that the total global market, the demand is met with supply and it doesn't send the thing, the price through the roof and that we do get out the urea, we do get out the fertilizers, we do get out the helium so that the rest of the supply chains can start working again. How does that get to any of that? All that's gonna do is to solidify that Iran who is in an existential fight, they're literally in a fight for their death and they're not just gonna give in because you put a little more pressure on them. If you couldn't do that in six weeks of 13,000 targets attacked, by what logic can you say another few 100, another two or 3,000?
I mean, how many is that gonna work? And again, you're getting you're burning through our interceptors and our offensive with JASSM long range, with the the Tomahawk cruise missiles, the THAAD interceptors, PAC two, PAC three arrows, arrow two and arrow threes. You know, how many of those are you gonna go through before you realize it's not accomplishing the objective? The Iranian side is clear that they know how to suffer and that they have calculated they can suffer longer than we can, and I think that they're right. They have more history of suffering, we don't, because everything depends on this whole supply chain of everything coming out of there and all of it is because we chose a war that we didn't need to fight and now we can't choose to get out of it because the cost is going be too high personally for President Trump.
But I I I just don't see why you're gonna go down a path that is only gonna exacerbate the problems that we have caused for ourselves. But that's the way I see it coming out if we try that.
Speaker 3: That's right. Well, that's why I love tuning into your show. You're doing a really good job staying on the breaking news, and a lot of times the rest of us will go to x and we'll see the president or the secretary of war saying, we're gonna do this. And you think, oh, that's so bad. I don't want us to do that.
I don't wanna be the bad guys. And then I go to your show and you're like, we can't do that. That's that's bluster. Yeah. There's no talk.
Yeah. So that's why I need you. So We
Speaker 0: need you, Kyle.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for coming on our show and keeping your show current. Don't you can't go on vacation
Speaker 2: It's my pleasure.
Speaker 3: Until this is over.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We'll we'll we'll we'll call HR. Yeah. We'll call HR.
Speaker 3: Your paid time off denied, sir.
Speaker 0: Colonel, great to see you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Alright. Thanks very much. See you guys next time.
Speaker 0: You bet. Thanks, colonel.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that the USS George H.W. Bush carrier strike group bypassed the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb due to Houthi threats, raising questions about securing the Strait of Hormuz. I discuss this with Daniel L. Davis on how neocon influence steers U.S. policy toward destruction.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The USS George H.W. Bush carrier strike group was forced to bypass the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait due to threats of Houthi attacks. If even the U.S. Navy’s most powerful assets are being rerouted, what does that say about our ability to secure the Strait of Hormuz? We discuss this, and more with @DanielLDavis1, on how neocon influence is steering U.S. policy towards destruction.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: We also saw a US battleship today that had to be turned around because of the Houthis essentially, and had to be redirected out of that range to go all the way around out of the Red Sea. Like, we can't even deal with the Houthis, and we think we're gonna somehow puncture through the Strait Of Hormuz. Anyway, what do you see happening next after this pause?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That that was the the George W. Bush, which is coming to replace the the the Right. Ford, the USS Ford. And instead of just going through the normal, I think it's the Suez Canal down into the Red Sea like the normal shorter path, we went all the way around Africa because we were worried that the Houthis may take it under attack. And if you get in the Red Sea there, I mean, could be like a shooting gallery as would be the case if we actually went into the Strait Of Hormuz with our ships not during a ceasefire.
They would be at risk of being hit by any number of different, ammunition and weapon systems that the Iranians have. So that does show that we are despite what words we use, we're aware of the limits of our power, and we don't wanna put ourselves in a position to get into having some of our, especially flagships sunk or or flames and getting burned up in, you know, in the waterways there. But that also tells you that there's a reason why the Strait Of Hormuz is still closed and is still controlled by the uranium side of any oil we want to get out because we can't compel them to do it. And so if you start firing back again, it's not gonna change that.
So the straight will stay closed, and the the the fertilizers will still not be able to get out. The helium will not be able to get out. So that means the chip making in Asia is gonna start to really suffer. And the whole supply chain issue all around the world with our whole global economy is gonna start falling apart. All this because we will not exceed to reality and that this is a war that is militarily unwinnable.
It should never have been fought and needs to be gotten off the table quickly, but because president Trump has too much pride and can't accept that he can't do something, and he's been surrounded by people like Stephen Miller yesterday who just keeps saying, yeah. We can do everything just like in Venezuela even though there's no comparison between the two situations here. But they think there is, and they're telling president Trump it's similar because we can do whatever we wanna do. That's what Stephen Miller said. And if Trump is listening to that, he may believe it and be making policy decisions based on it, but it's not true no matter how much Stephen Miller says that it is, and we're gonna find out if we keep going down this path.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We also saw a US battleship today that had to be turned around because of the Houthis essentially, and had to be redirected out of that range to go all the way around out of the Red Sea. Like, we can't even deal with the Houthis, and we think we're gonna somehow puncture through the Strait Of Hormuz. Anyway, what do you see happening next after this pause?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That that was the the George w Bush, which is coming to replace the the the Right. Ford, the USS Ford. And instead of just going through the normal, I think it's the Suez Canal down into the Red Sea like the normal shorter path, we went all the way around Africa because we were worried that the Houthis may take it under attack. And if you get in the Red Sea there, I mean, could be like a shooting gallery as would be the case if we actually went into the Strait Of Hormuz with our ships not during a ceasefire.
They would be at risk of being hit by any number of different, ammunition and weapon systems that the Iranians have. So that does show that we are despite what words we use, we're aware of the limits of our power, and we don't wanna put ourselves in a position to get into having some of our, especially flagships sunk or or flames and getting burned up in, you know, in the in the waterways there. But that also tells you that there's a reason why the Strait Of Hormuz is still closed and is still controlled by the uranium side of any oil we want to get out because we can't compel them to do it. We can't force them out of it. And so if you start firing back again, it's not gonna change that.
So the the straight will stay closed, and the the the fertilizers will still not be able to get out. The helium will not be able to get out. So that means the chip making in Asia is gonna start to really suffer. And the whole supply chain issue all around the world with our whole global economy is gonna start falling apart. All this because we will not exceed to reality and that this is a war that is militarily unwinnable.
It should never have been fought and needs to be gotten off the table quickly, but because president Trump has too much pride and can't accept that he can't do something, and he's been surrounded by people like Stephen Miller yesterday who just keeps saying, yeah. We can do everything just like in Venezuela even though there's no comparison between the two situations here. But they think there is, and they're telling president Trump it's similar because we can do whatever we wanna do. That's what Stephen Miller said. And if Trump is listening to that, he may believe it and be making policy decisions based on it, but it's not true no matter how much Stephen Miller says that it is, and we're gonna find out if we keep going down this path.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
⛴️ The US blockade is a joke, and @RealScottRitter says everyone knows it. Iran is collecting tolls, Chinese and Russian ships are sailing through untouched, and the Navy won't enter the Strait because they'll get sunk. https://t.co/j3iU2eNdOh
Video Transcript AI Summary
CENTCOM reports more than 10,000 U.S. sailors, Marines, and airmen, along with over a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft, are enforcing a blockade of ships entering and leaving Iranian ports. In the first 24 hours, no ships passed the blockade, six merchant vessels turned around and reentered an Iranian port in the Gulf of Oman, while other reports claim two U.S.-sanctioned Iranian ships and another Panamanian ship managed to pass. With mixed accounts of what’s getting through and what’s blocked, the discussion turns to Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, who has been closely tracking the situation.
Ritter and the hosts discuss the Strait of Hormuz and what the United States can actually do there. They speculate the U.S. plan is to block at the opening of the strait. Reports of mixed passage capabilities are noted, including a quip about Iranian embassies posting that “you cannot block someone who blocked you,” and the group questions how such blocking would work and whether it could be followed by firepower, given a current ceasefire.
Concerns are raised about what would happen if a ship simply proceeds in defiance. The possibility of firing on merchant vessels is framed as piracy, and there’s mention of threats against U.S. ships from Iran. The ceasefire’s remaining duration is noted as only a few days, with online betting markets (Polymarket) showing odd optimism that the conflict could end imminently, which is questioned by the panel.
The conversation broadens to regional implications: Lebanon is seen as not halted by the current actions, and Gaza ceasefire violations persist amid ongoing rhetoric and Hezbollah presence. The discussion shifts back to awaiting Ritter’s input.
When Ritter appears, he weighs in on whether the blockade can be escalated and what Iran’s response might be. He argues that if the United States wanted to resume pre-ceasefire behavior, it could bomb Iran, absorb Iranian missiles, and endure destruction to U.S. infrastructure, but that is unlikely, as the blockade is “a joke” used for posturing to justify negotiations. He suggests a political off ramp is sought, with a resumption of negotiations likely on Thursday through Pakistan, since the blockade’s effectiveness is limited and other nations have told the United States to “pound sand.”
Regarding the blockade’s impact, Ritter notes that most Iranian shipping has already moved out of the trade routes or is skirting the coast, and major actors like China, Russia, and India have signaled they will not be pressured by the blockade. He challenges CENTCOM to show one instance of boarding a Chinese vessel to turn it around, while noting the U.S. Navy would risk being sunk if challenging shipping along Iran’s coastline. He stresses that a blockade is technically an act of war, and the United States would need a new description for its current actions.
On nuclear negotiations, Ritter states Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and that there is no evidence of one sustaining past claims; he argues that the 60% enriched uranium is a provocation and explains that Iran’s leadership has claimed enrichment to maintain leverage in negotiations. He recounts past discussions with Iranian officials about limiting enrichment to 3.75% under IAEA supervision, arguing that Iran has the right under the NPT to possess the totality of the nuclear fuel cycle and that a mutual agreement could permanently limit higher enrichment pathways, potentially resolving the issue. He criticizes U.S. and Israeli positions and asserts that Israel’s influence is obstructing a straightforward resolution. The discussion touches on U.S. policy shifts and the idea that Netanyahu’s influence is affecting negotiations. Ritter concludes by reiterating that a realistic off ramp and negotiations are the preferred path, with a termination of the blockade and a resumption of talks anticipated.
The hosts thank Ritter for joining and note audience appreciation from viewers who view his insights as truthful.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, CENTCOM says that more than 10,000 US sailors, marines, and airmen along with over a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft are executing the mission to blockade ships entering and departing Iranian ports. And during the first twenty four hours, no ships made it past The US blockade. Six merchant vessels complied with direction from The US forces to turn around and reenter an Iranian port in the Gulf Of Oman. There are other reports that two Iranian sanctioned ships by The United States have now made it through. Another Panamanian ship also getting through.
So a lot of differing stories about what's getting through and what's getting blocked around all of this. That's why we wanted to bring in today from our UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who has obviously been following this very, very closely, to talk all about this.
Speaker 1: Scott's not quite here yet. So Okay. Maybe we can, talk about what we're seeing here, these other naval blockade ports. And what we're looking at here is where the actual Strait Of Hormuz is, where Iran has actually shut down the street of Hormuz and what The United States can actually do there. Now, I think what The US plan was was to block at the opening of the street.
And so, you know, we are getting mixed reports about who can and cannot pass. You know, comically, the Iranian embassies have posted, this is not social media. You can't block someone who's blocked you. That's not really how this works. So what we're the question that we're asking and that we have been asking since the weekend began is how can you do that?
And is it a danger? Are you prepared to follow-up these words with firepower, which I don't think anybody wants because we are still in a ceasefire?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that was my that was my concern was like, so what happens? What like what if somebody's just like, now screw it, we're going anyway. What are you gonna do? Like shoot a merchant vessel out of the water? Like, really?
Right. That's piracy.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Exactly. You know, this is something Iran has said is like you will be in deadly whirlpools that, you know, you cannot test this. It does not seem like, you know, there has there has been major firepower, but the the mere threat of it is a serious threat.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, how effective this will actually be, who knows, and whether Iran will comply with it. Already threats, of course, against US other US ships. And we how much time we have left in this whole ceasefire agreement, just a few more days in the ceasefire agreement. If you look at Polymarket, like, I I don't know where these people get their their data, but, like, Polymarket right now is trading like, people are betting that tomorrow by April 15, this entire conflict ends. What?
Yeah. People are Under what? 75% chance that it's this is all done tomorrow. Uh-huh. What like, what what world are they living in?
Right.
Speaker 3: I mean
Speaker 1: Done for who, though?
Speaker 0: Because conflict is over. The Iran, Israel, US, conflict ends tomorrow.
Speaker 1: But certainly not for Lebanon. There is there is nothing at this moment that seems to be stopping Israel from its continued assault on Lebanon. There is plenty of world condemnation, strongly worded tweets, and letters attached to said tweets, but it does not appear that Israel is going to stop in any form or fashion in Lebanon. It's interesting that this has continued to raise awareness about what happened and what is continuing to happen in Gaza because the ceasefire is still being violated inside Gaza. And, again, you know, the rhetoric online as well, there's Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is there, And so they need to do this. But something Clayton posted on his ex last night, you know, you you're not gonna get rid of the Hezbollah by bulldozing a building. This other buildings exist. Like, what is the purpose of that?
Speaker 0: I don't know. Exactly. Let us know in the comments if you have any questions. We can put them up on the screen here. We're just waiting for Scott to dial in here.
Speaker 1: There he is.
Speaker 0: Is Scott here yet?
Speaker 1: I see his face.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Thank you for your patience, everyone. The audience anticipating and waiting and waiting and waiting.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, let's get to Scott then. Let's ask him. Scott, thank you so much for joining us today. What is your sense of how much The United States will escalate if the blockade is not holding, which it does not seem like it is? Do you think it can do anything?
Is is there any there there?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, of course, there's something there if The United States wanted to resume the pattern of behavior that, they had been undertaking prior to the ceasefire, then they can send airplanes in to bomb Iran ineffectively, and they can sit back and absorb Iranian missiles as the the Iran continues to destroy, you know, billions of dollars of US infrastructure. They can keep their navy away from Iranian shores because the Iranian missiles would threaten to sink the ships. And they can be humiliated on the world stage as they prove yet again that they're incapable of defeating Iran militarily in a conventional fight. So this is why they're not going to do that. The United States is looking for an off ramp.
It just has to be a politically acceptable off ramp. You you know and I know and pretty much everybody in the world knows that this blockade is a joke. It was and it was always going to be a joke. But it allows the president to posture. It allows the president to say that he has done something decisive.
And then the next thing is, for the president to say that, because of his decisive behavior, the Iranians have reached out, and, they want to have negotiations. Now we know that Iran hasn't reached out. It's The United States reaching out to Pakistan, but their president will spit it the way he wants. And I think on Thursday, you're gonna see a resumption of of negotiations because The United States has no option. They've reached the, the cap of their, conventional escalation capabilities.
There's nothing left for them to bomb. They don't know what to bomb. What they were bombing wasn't effective. So there's no sense in them continuing this.
Speaker 0: So CENTCOM is saying more than 10,000 US sailors, marines, airmen, dozen warships, dozens of aircraft are all involved in this operation, turning ships around. How effective will that be? Do you what do you see the Iranian response to this? Or how do you see the Iranian's response to this?
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, you have to understand the majority of Iranian shipping has already left the trade war moves in the Indian Ocean is out, around the world. They they've loaded a whole bunch of oil up on tankers, and because of sanctions, they were unable to, you know, offload that oil. So that oil is out there right now, and it's being offload because there's high demand for, for for oil right now. And so, you know, this isn't gonna have any impact on Iran at all. China, Russia, India, other nations have told The United States to pound sand.
I challenge SITCOM to prove one instance of them boarding a Chinese vessel and turning it around. They're not. They won't touch them. And I also ask, oh, what these 10,000 sailors, airmen, marines are doing, to the ships that just skirt the Iranian coast. Okay?
So you come out of the Strait Of Hormuz. We know the United States Navy is not in the Strait Of Hormuz because they'll be sunk. So the ships come out the Strait Of Hormuz. And what happens if they, you know, just skirt the Iranian coast? What's The United States going to do?
Send its vaunted navy into, to challenge shipping on on on Iran's coastline? No. They'll get sunk. So, you know, this is this is just pure posturing. There's nothing real about this, this blockade.
Plus, I need to point out that a blockade is a, is an act of war. The last time I checked, The United States, hadn't declared war against Iran. It was a military operation. Now there's a ceasefire. So I think The United States gonna have to come up with a different term to, describe what they're doing.
I think it's called just sailing around in circles.
Speaker 1: Okay. It's a pleasure, Cruz, really. Yeah. I I wanna ask you about the negotiation about nuclear because the president just keeps screaming Iran can never have a nuke. I mean, we never had proof that they did.
But Iranian officials are saying, we just are not gonna let them tell us that we can't use nuclear power. We are not gonna let us tell let them tell us what to do anymore. They're you know, if they're uncomfortable with our uranium, they can come and inspect it. This has always been the case. You know, but we continue to move the football.
So what is the stage of the negotiation about nuclear a nuclear weapon at this point? And I wanna tie this in because I was reading something over the weekend about chemical weapons because Iran had the technology to have chemical weapons when they were attacked by Iraq in the Gulf War or in in the eighties rather and refused to use them. So maybe you can tell us about what you know about whether or not Iran has a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb, what they're doing with their uranium because you've said many times they should not have re enriched to 60. It was antagonized. It it didn't antagonized us.
So can you give us a state on that?
Speaker 3: Well, sure. We know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. They never had a nuclear weapons program. There's no evidence to sustain any allegation that they've had a nuclear weapons program. All evidence that's been put on the table in that regard have been shown to be fabricated.
Remember in 2000 was it '18, the Israelis launched some sort of famous attack, a a raid on Tehran where they broke into a facility and stole, documents. And then they they they did that in early two thousand eighteen, and then they went to, Donald Trump, and they showed Donald Trump the documents. And Donald Trump said, this is proof they're cheating, and he withdrew from the JCPOA because he only takes instructions from Israel. But the interesting thing is, when these documents, some of them were made public, it turns out that, these documents had, already been previously submitted by the Israelis to the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 2004 and were shown to be outright fabrications, forgeries. And that's the reality of the Israeli case against Iran.
It's 100% fabricated, consisting of forged documents or documents that are, taken out of context. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Never has been, and there never will be because Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. They've made that quite clear. It's not just that they don't want it, but it's also incompatible with their religious beliefs.
There are, you know, fatwas or religious edicts that have been passed by the first two supreme leaders that said no to this. As you pointed out, the Iranians are serious about this because even when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops, inflicting serious casualties on these troops, Iran never responded in kind saying that chemical weapons weapons of mass destruction in general are, are, you know, against, Islamic jurisprudence. So, you know, it's it's not that the you know, that they say one thing and do another. They're consistent all along. I have pointed out that 60% enriched uranium, is a provocation.
I asked the Iranian president straight to his face, why did you do it? Because it makes it look like you're moving towards a, a nuclear weapon. And what his foreign minister answered, and after talking to him, Arakji said, we we're doing it so that we have, negotiating leverage. You know, the the world has to take us seriously because, right now, The United States doesn't. They just say zero zero zero zero, and the Iranians are saying you don't get to say zero.
So the idea was to have this so that there would be a card to play so that they can retain enrichment, but not, you know, enrich to a level they demonstrated they have. And this seems to be backed up because prior to this most recent round of conflicts starting on February 28, the Iranians had met extensively with Jared Kushner and and Steve Lukoff, and they where they basically agreed to get rid of their 60% enriched uranium and also agreed that they would never again enrich, that there would be inspections that would limit the enrichment to 3.75%, which is the enrichment level needed for fuel used in the Boucher Nuclear reactor. Iran has an inherent right under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to possess the totality of the nuclear fuel cycle inclusive of enrichment. The United States and Israel do not get to dictate, things that differ deviate from the treaty, and this is what Iran is saying. There will be no Iran exception to the treaty.
Iran will do what Iran is allowed to do under article four of the NPT. But Iran will agree, I believe, that if The United States would agree to, you know, low levels of enrichment, Iran would agree to close the door on higher levels of enrichment to limit the number of cascades They have to limit the amount of nuclear material that would be accumulated and do so without any sunset clauses so that these limitations would become permanent. And that's how you get out of this nuclear issue, but the problem is Israel refuses to allow Iran to have a nuclear enrichment program. It's somewhat ironic since Israel is neither a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and they possess nuclear weapons. So, you know, it's, it it it it's stunning that The United States and the world continues to even listen to what Israel has to say on this issue.
This isn't the easiest this is the easiest part of the negotiation if the United States would just use common sense. Allow Iran to enrich uranium to 3.75% to sow under, the, you know, supervision of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. And Iran will agree that, all pathways to, you know, enrichment at a higher level will be shut down. Therefore, there is no pathway to a bomb. Therefore, there is no potential of a nuclear weapon.
Therefore, Donald Trump gets to say that he has a better deal than the JCPOA. This is how you get out of it, and this is, I what I believe is the direction they'll be going.
Speaker 0: Do you think that president Trump is trapped? And yesterday, Tucker Carlson, in an interview, said that that president Trump is a slave to Benjamin Netanyahu. And when challenged on it, he followed it up with clearly he doesn't want to do this. He's being pushed to do this, and he has no choice but to do it. Do So you think that he's trapped?
Speaker 1: You know, I'm I'm thinking, okay. Are we allowed to say this? You know, we are up against major filters.
Speaker 3: The real evidence. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Well, no. No. But this, what's interesting is we can designate kill lists of terrorists as long as they are Muslim. We can do that. We do it.
Obama did it every Tuesday. He had Taco Tuesday where he was given baseball cards of who he decided to kill. And if I were to say, okay, let's kill this, you know, who I think is whatever opposition leader, you know, Palestinian leader, I could absolutely say that. Hey, let's kill that guy. I could say, let's kill Osama bin Laden.
I could say that. Absolutely. Right? We we could say that. What the filters now are is, you know, who we can and cannot target.
And so I think it's worth pointing out. What's interesting. You know, the contradiction.
Speaker 3: You know, again, I'm being a little bit, a little extreme. Of course, we don't hunt down and kill Benjamin Netanyahu. He's the leader of a sovereign state, but we don't let him do this either. But I wanna make the following point. You know, the International Criminal Court, when they seek to hold Americans accountable to the rule of law, to international law, we passed a law that basically said if an American ends up under their jurisdiction, we can send the United States military in to recover them.
Why? Because we don't allow other nations or entities to hold jurisdiction over us. And yet this is what Netanyahu is doing. He's holding jurisdiction over us. And this is a national security threat to The United States Of America, one that cannot be tolerated.
You know? And and you're a 100% right. If we had a I mean, there's you know, to give you an example, there's talk that, Muammar Gaddafi had the goods on Sarkozy, back in 2000 and, '10 or so, because Sarkozy, a corrupt individual that he is, was taking Libyan gold and Libyan money to finance his campaign and then, you know, felt threatened by that Libya having that knowledge. So Sarkozy helped cook up the, invasion of, of Libya and the elimination of of Gaddafi. So it happens.
It happens. When people have the goods on you, you sometimes will hunt them down and, and and take that. Why do you think Manuel Noriega is in prison for the I think he might not be alive right now, but, you know, because he had the goods on us. Manuel Noriega knew all the secrets. So we made sure that he can never tell the secrets to anybody.
Yeah. Benjamin Netanyahu has the secrets. So what do we do to people who have the secrets?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: yeah. I mean, at the very least, can we do what we did to the president of Venezuela? Can we put him on trial inside our own country for whatever corruption that we know the justice department has?
Speaker 0: Right. Can we have a Nuremberg we style, trial where we actually get to the bottom of this?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Can we have him here? You know, at least can we go and get him and keep him here? No. He comes here and he gets the red carpet.
And if you saw
Speaker 3: dirty laundry, we do his dirty laundry.
Speaker 1: Right. Literally. Yeah.
Speaker 3: No. Literally. He comes in with his dirty laundry and makes the state department do his dirty laundry. The state department needs to burn his laundry, burn his airplane, and arrest him on the spot. I mean, this this man insults America on a daily basis.
This is a man who brags to his Jewish constituents how he owns America, how he owns the American Congress. Listen to me, America. This is a Jewish leader in Israel bragging about how he owns United States Congress, your Congress, your house, your representative. He says he owns them. He can make them do anything he wants, and apparently, he can.
And apparently, he owns the presidency as well. You know, for all the MAGA people out there, my god, you've you've surrendered. The second you say we support Israel, you've surrendered. You don't support United States anymore. You support a foreign entity.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And if you're not MAGA, if you're just an American patriot, this is intolerable. Intolerable.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I don't every American patriot I know is furious about this. I mean, I get texts all day from people all over the country. And it's anecdotal, of course. Right?
But it is absolutely indicative of the feeling that people you know, individuals who may, you know, voted for president Trump who are absolutely furious about being sold out to Israel. Scott, I guess we'll get you out of here on this. On the Strait Of Hormuz, over the next forty eight hours or so, just militarily, what do you see happening from The US side and the Iranian side, maybe over the next forty eight hours, seventy two hours?
Speaker 3: I don't think Iran cares. They're already to they're they're doing the tolls. They're collecting their money. No ship goes through there without paying money to to Iran. They're shipping their own ships.
Iranian tankers are leaving. They're skirting the coast. United States will never touch them. Chinese tankers are leaving. United States will never touch them.
Russian tankers are leaving. United States will never touch them. You know, we may pick on some, you know, some tanker from Trinidad And Tobago, you know, because we're The United States. Why not? And, you know, do something.
We'll we'll put Navy SEALs on board, and we'll take photographs, and we'll show everybody how tough we are, how we took down this tanker that violated everything. But the bottom line is the Pakistani, prime minister is, saying, dude, we gotta have these negotiations. We gotta restart them, and they're talking about Thursday. And you got Donald Trump saying, yeah. Maybe we'll go back because The United States Trump knows.
The longer this right now, he can still there's still enough, you know, oxygen thieves in the MAGA industry, the mouth breathers out there on social media who will post, you know, how this is genius five e chest, and, you know, Donald Trump is the greatest thing in the world. He's he's Christy, apparently. And that he has reached down, he has touched the, the moves and everything is is is good. And for the next couple days, the they can sell this lie. But very soon, it'll just be exposed as a lie, this president needs to end this blockade as soon as possible and move on to negotiations.
He can claim all he wants that, the only reason why he received that phone call from the Pakistani president was that the sanctions that the blockade was working so well, and everybody's scared to death of the might of America. Let him sell it the way he wants. I mean, he's been lying to us since day one. Just go ahead and accept more lies. I don't care what lies he tells as long as we end up at the negotiating table on Thursday in Pakistan and Islamabad, and we bring this thing to a close.
According to the Iranians, they we were this close. The Islamabad Memorand of Understanding was about to be signed when Benjamin Netanyahu made his magic phone calls. Again, I wanna remind the American people of that. The United States decided they were ready to, you know, come this close to ending this war when Benjamin Netanyahu called and said, no. You're not because we're not ready to let you.
We're taking direction from the prime minister of Israel, and it's to the detriment of the national security of The United States and global peace and security.
Speaker 0: Real quick question here from True Texan. You can put this up on the screen. True Texan asks you, Scott, can Iran not buy enriched uranium or a weapon? Thank you for that super chat.
Speaker 3: Well, it's easy to buy a weapon, I think people have done it by now. So, since there's no recorded instance of somebody buying a weapon, I would say that that probably exists in the minds of Hollywood screenwriters as opposed to reality. Enriched uranium, again, it's highly controlled substance, you know, that has to be handled very carefully. There are limited instances on the black market where, you know, radioactive materials in small quantities have been, you know, put out there. Many of them were sting operations, so, you know, it's not as though there's loose nukes out there.
But now we you're missing the point with your question. Doesn't matter what it what what's possible. Iran doesn't want to. Iran doesn't seek to. There's no evidence that Iran has been trying to do anything of this nature.
First of all, why would Iran seek to purchase, enriched uranium? They have built their own, uranium enrichment process, which they're very proud of. This is something that The United States and Europe said we didn't want Iran to be able to do. Israel insisted that Iran not be allowed to do this, and Iran, despite all that, was able to build using its own capabilities, its own engineering to build a, a a highly effective uranium enrichment program. They don't need to buy it from anywhere.
They have their own capabilities.
Speaker 1: Did you know that in 1976, Washington offered the Shah the technology to extract bomb grade plutonium from spent reactor fuel, which would have so there was a time when we backed the Shah when we wanted them to have enriched in radium and all the tools. But then when they overthrew the shah, Washington went to Iran and tried to kill the protesters to to see if the Carter administration had the stomach to, like, can we tamp down this revolution? Can we make it stop? Can we kill them? So my how times have changed.
You know, we are not consistent when it comes to Iran. We've only made them an enemy because Israel wanted us to.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The the the interesting thing is there's all these people today who call themselves Iranian experts who say, Iran is an oil producing country. Why do they need nuclear power? My god. Why you see, it's a scam.
They don't need nuclear power. They have energy. They have oil. Why why why the this this civilian use. I'm like, yeah.
But, you know, when they first made that argument back in 1975, it was the Shah that made the argument. And what the Shah said is we are a industrializing nation. We are modernizing. And the more we modernize, the more energy we will consume. And the more energy we consume domestically means the less energy available for sale on the, on on the on the foreign markets where we derive the bulk of our, income.
So in order to maximize over time our ability to earn money, we want to create a nuclear power capability that provides energy for our domestic use, liberating the energy for sale abroad. This is 1975. And the Ford administration said, genius. We love it. We support it.
Then they turned on, as you said, and said, we'll give you the totality give you access to the totality of the nuclear enrichment, the nuclear fuel cycle to include reprocessing because that's what they're talking about. They're talking about taking spent nuclear fuel rods and reprocessing them, and what you do is you extract the plutonium. Now that doesn't mean that Iran would keep the plutonium. Iran would then sell the plutonium to The United States, for disposal. But the point is, you know, we were telling saying, no.
The Iranians can have all of the technology just like Brazil and, Japan have all of the technology. But then the, you know, Iranian revolution came in, and we suddenly decided they can have no technology and, actively block them in total violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Nothing we have done with Iran is legal. Nothing we have done with Iran is legal.
Speaker 0: Well, some person in our chat says, Scott was a former UN weapons inspector. He knows more than demented Trump. Somebody else says, thank you, Scott, for speaking the truth. We love Scott for speaking the truth. Thank you, Scott, for joining us.
We really appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thanks very much for having me.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note 10 missing scientists tied to advanced tech and U.S. nuclear/space research, with overlaps at NASA, Los Alamos, and defense networks. Could their deaths and disappearances reflect a cover-up of highly classified tech amid rising secrecy? @TheProjectUnity breaks it down.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
There are now 10 missing scientists tied to advanced technology and U.S. nuclear and space research. Their work closely overlaps, with connections to NASA, Los Alamos, and various defense and space research networks. Could their deaths and disappearances be connected to a cover-up of highly classified technology, especially during a time of increasing geopolitical instability and increasing secrecy around government programs? @TheProjectUnity breaks it down.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Incidents involving the killing, death, and missing status of scientists connected through national security, black budget technology, high energy physics, and related fields are not uncommon. A notably cited case involves roughly 25 scientists and engineers tied to the UK defense contractor GEC Marconi in the 1980s, many of whom were linked to the Reagan-era Star Wars Defense Initiative. The goal at the time was to develop a system to detect and destroy nuclear missiles before they hit the United States, and a string of mysterious deaths, suicides, and disappearances within this network followed a pattern one might expect from a coordinated effort to silence these individuals.
Currently, ten scientists are listed as missing, with Steven Garcia identified as the latest missing nuclear official. The names in this group are connected in various ways to black-budget technology, high-energy physics, and the search for extraterrestrial life. This occurs during a period of significant geopolitical instability and while the United States administration has publicly expressed an interest in declassifying currently classified UFO-related intelligence. The discussion raises questions about whether elements within murky, private aerospace circles—loosely connected to government programs—are concerned about daylight breaking into their black projects. While certainty is elusive, the pattern mirrors the GEC Marconi incident from the eighties, suggesting a potential suppression of certain research avenues.
Among the highlighted cases, the killing of professor Nuno Larrero in 2025 stands out as a major red flag. Larrero was a leading fusion and plasma physicist, widely regarded as a top-tier scientist in exotic energy and propulsion research, areas that intersect with extreme national security secrecy and potential danger for those who disclose such secrets.
Another notable case is general William McCasland, who has been missing for over a month. He was revealed in WikiLeaks emails as a senior adviser on UFO subjects to Tom DeLonge, founder of To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science, which brought figures such as Lou Elizondo, Christopher Mellon, and Jim Semivan into public view on government UFO disclosure topics. The WikiLeaks communications show DeLonge bragging to John Podesta about McCaslin being one of his top UFO advisers. The disappearance of McCaslin, alongside several prominent scientists in exotic physics, plasma research, and the search for extraterrestrial technosignatures, is cited as evidence that a coordinated situation could be occurring.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Incidents involving the killing and death and missing status of scientists that share connections through their respective fields, especially in the realms of national security and and classified technology research is not an unheard of thing by any means. A particularly famous case which you just highlighted is the 25 or so scientists and engineers connected to The UK defense contractor, GEC Marconi. Now many of those scientists back in the nineteen eighties were connected, as you said, to the Reagan era Star Wars Defense Initiative. Now that was the, goal at the time to make nuclear missiles obsolete by building a system that could detect and destroy them before they hit The United States. And a string of mysterious deaths and suicides and disappearances within this network follows the kind of pattern you'd expect to see from a coordinated effort of some form to silence these people.
And what we see here, we have now 10 missing scientists, Steven Garcia being the latest missing a nuclear official, And all of the various names in this group of 10 were connected in one way or another into the realms of black budget technology, high energy physics, and even the search for extraterrestrial life. At a time of immense geopolitical instability and at a time when the current administration of The United States has publicly voiced an interest and a desire in rendering their currently classified UFO related intelligence declassified. So it makes me wonder if there are, you know, elements within the murkier levels of private aerospace with loose connections to governmental programs who are concerned about, well, daylight breaking into their black projects. And although we can't be certain, much like the GEC Marconi incident in the eighties, we see a pattern here, and I don't think it would be right to ignore that pattern. Can we surmise what kind of research will be thwarted with these deaths?
I know we can't know, but can we surmise? Well, I would say the killing of professor Nuno Larrero in 2025 is one of the biggest concerns and red flags for me. He was shot at his home, and he was widely regarded as a top tier scientist in fusion physics. He was a leading plasma physicist and fusion researcher, and these are exactly the types of exotic energy and propulsion avenues that cross over into extreme national security secrecy and the potential for your life to be in danger if you were to divulge those secrets. Another example, I mean, general William MacCastland, who's been missing for well over a month now, I believe, he was revealed through the, the WikiLeaks emails targeting John Podesta to be a senior adviser on the UFO subject to none other than Tom DeLonge, the rock star celebrity who founded To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science and brought the likes of Lou Elizondo and Christopher Mellon and Jim Semivan, all of these various government defense, DOD, CIA guys onto the scene as the public face of government UFO disclosure.
So the WikiLeaks emails actually show that Tom was bragging to John Podesta about how general William McCaslin was one of his top advisers on the UFO subjects. And so when you see the general disappear alongside several prominent scientists in the realm of exotic physics, plasma research, the search for extraterrestrial technosignatures, you know, we can begin to see how a situation could be coordinated.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🫣 Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at 10% of normal. 2 more months of this triggers a global recession, according to the White House's own economic advisor. Mark Wilburn breaks down where to put your money before it gets worse. https://t.co/0ZFM15U2FM
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the Strait of Hormuz, potential global repercussions, and how investors are reading the shifting geopolitical and technological landscape.
- The Strait of Hormuz is portrayed as a critical chokepoint with the potential for devastating global economic reverberations. The hosts question whether the strait will stay closed and warn it could push the world toward a global recession if blocked for an extended period. A peace delegation has arrived in Pakistan to negotiate, with JD Vance, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff among those involved, but officials warn bombing could resume within 24 hours if no plan is reached.
- Israel reportedly views Iran’s new leadership as more dangerous and is accused of continuing military actions in Lebanon and civilian attacks, undermining hopes for peace. President Trump issued statements criticizing Iran’s restrictions on shipping through Hormuz, while a graph shows Hormuz traffic collapsing to about 10% of normal. Kevin Hassett, the White House adviser, suggested the strait could reopen in two months, a claim met with skepticism.
- Trump and White House spokespeople are characterized as projecting an immediate and complete reopening of the strait, with others labeling that view as unrealistic. Trump said results of talks with Iran would be known in about 24 hours, while describing a “reset” and signaling a pause in Operation Epic Fury before a potential relaunch with harsher consequences. Iran is described as seemingly buying into the pause, with ships refueling and ammunition flowing into the Middle East.
- Marc Rutte (Netherlands) is cited as stating NATO will assist in securing the strait and ensuring safe passage, prompting questions about the logistical capabilities of NATO and the weapons available to support such an operation, raising concerns about the feasibility of a NATO-backed effort.
- On the investment side, the guest, Mark Wilburn, president of Neo’s Capital and author of Understanding the Matthew Effect, emphasizes that a two-month Hormuz closure could trigger a global recession and inflation spikes, while any constructive peace talks could spur market upside. He notes a current bias toward cash and a bearish tilt given geopolitical tensions and the AI/tech disruption cycle.
- The discussion covers “expanded tech,” including Anthropic’s Claude and its potential to replace traditional SaaS functions, leading to capital leaving expanded tech from Intuit, Adobe, ServiceNow, Cadence Designs, and others, and moving into consumer goods, industrials, and utilities. Claude is described as capable of creating agents that could replace standard software solutions, with anecdotes about AI-enabled businesses reaching high valuations and single-person ventures achieving substantial scale.
- The AI revolution raises questions about job displacement, surveillance, and the potential societal transformation, with concerns about a transition to a more monitored, possibly socialist framework if governments fund broad programs.
- The housing market and energy strategy are discussed in the U.S. context. The president’s policies are scrutinized, with speculation that he might emphasize energy dominance to influence global oil dynamics, including Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The potential impact of higher oil prices on inflation and recession risks is highlighted.
- On manufacturing and the dollar, there is debate about a Trump-era push to bring制造 back to the U.S., the costs of domestic production, and whether firms will relocate supply chains despite higher costs, versus continuing offshore production for cheaper inputs. The Nord Stream pipeline destruction and Europe’s LNG shift are cited as context for U.S. energy strategy.
- Mark’s current trading posture is largely cash-based due to the conflict, with a plan to deploy capital if peace talks progress, particularly in tech equities like Amazon. He emphasizes avoiding chasing trades and using inverse ETFs to profit from potential declines. He points to a “transition” phase in many big tech names and suggests opportunities in semiconductor and other meme sectors.
- The two free live training sessions hosted by Mark are scheduled for April 16 at 6 PM ET and April 18 at 4 PM ET, with a landing page at redactedtrading.com. Attendees will learn chart-reading skills, risk management, and portfolio positioning to navigate potential market volatility.
- Final notes stress staying educated and prepared for both optimistic outcomes and downturns, with the overarching message that financial education is essential for protecting assets and making informed decisions amid geopolitical and technological upheaval.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is Trump trapped by the Strait Of Hormuz and the choke point that could have devastating economic reverberations, around the world? Are we heading for a global recession? Of course, today, we're watching what could be a peace agreement, but by all accounts, seems like that's not going to happen. A peace delegation has, of course, arrived in Pakistan. For today's meeting, JD Vance, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, all there to hash out a peace plan, but the Trump administration seems to be preparing for the worst.
Administration officials saying the bombing will resume. If a plan can't be reached within, like, twenty four hours, they'll kick off this war again. Israel says the new leadership in Iran is more dangerous than the last one, so clearly Israel doesn't want peace. That's why they started bombing Lebanon and carrying out those terrorist attacks on civilians. The president on Thursday released a statement slamming Iran for only allowing Iran friendly ships to flow through the Strait Of Hormuz.
And if you just look at the Hormuz traffic here, it's absolutely stunning. Look at this graph from February down to April. Virtually nothing. And then interestingly, of course, you had yesterday, White House chief economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, saying the Strait Of Hormuz could be reopened in the next two months. I don't where he's getting that information.
Two months, though. And the traffic is currently running at about 10% of the normal pace, he told Fox Business this information. But, of course, if you listen to the Trump administration, you listen to Pete Hegseth, you listen to Carolyn Leavitt, the propagandists in the White House who are standing at the podium telling us that there was a complete and immediate safe reopening of the strait. Hegseth said on Thursday that the strait is now open. Under like, in what world?
What world are they living in? Some sort of bizarro fantasy world? It's not open. And then you have president Trump issuing a statement saying the results of the talks with Iran will be clear in about twenty four hours. We're gonna know soon.
Meaning, what happens today in Pakistan, we'll know. He said, we we have a reset going right now, which has been my theory. He says we're loading up the ships with the best ammunition even at a higher level than we used to do a complete decimation, he said. So in in other words, this was a pause in order to end Operation Epic Fury, put the pause, allow this sort of fake ceasefire agreement to unfold, and then relaunch with devastating consequences. But Iran seems to be falling for it.
They're there at this peace delegation, like, all of these ships to be refueled, allowing all of this ammunition to flow into the Middle East once again. Fool me once. Right? But it seems like the Iranians are going along with it. The last time they met for peace negotiations in Qatar, they were bombed.
So, man, they must be really trusting people. I don't know. I wouldn't trust them with a 10 foot pole. That's for sure. So then you just had Marc Ruta, the head of NATO, of course, the failed leader of The Netherlands, then who gets, of course, promoted to the head of NATO.
That's how these people work. Right? They you fail in life, and then you get elevated to the highest levels of European politics, which is always amazing to me. Anyway, Marc Rutte, just a short while ago, on Friday coming out, announcing that NATO is now going to help secure the Strait Of Hormuz and is gonna allow the safe passage of ships through the Strait. Listen.
Speaker 1: It came time to provide the logistical and other support The United States needed in Iran, some Allies were a bit slow, to say the least. In fairness, they were also a bit surprised. To maintain the element of surprise for the initial strikes, President Trump opted not to inform allies ahead of time, and I understand that.
Speaker 0: So I don't know what he's smoking. Of course, he's from, The Netherlands, so who knows? But with what? Colonel Towner Watkins, formerly of CENTCOM, asked that question. With what?
With what weapons and military prowess are you going to allow ships to flow through the Strait Of Hormuz? With what is NATO gonna pull this off? Good question. So all that to say, it seems like we are heading for a global recession if the Strait Of Hormuz stays closed for two months, as Kevin Hassett has pointed out. That's why I wanted to talk today with Mark Wilburn on the show.
He is the president of Neo's Capital, friend of the show. He's also the author of Understanding the Matthew Effect. And Mark isn't just a theorist. He's a market expert with, like, a surgical record of predicting these exact macro shifts that we're seeing right now. And he he's he's kind of a glass half full kind of guy.
And, he's a he's a positive guy like me even though we're dealing with such dark topics right now. And I wanted to welcome Mark back to the show. Mark, great to see you.
Speaker 2: Clayton, it's awesome to be here with you guys once again.
Speaker 0: Well, my pleasure to have you here. And a lot to unpack because we've got the Fed chair who's refusing to leave, and Trump's trying to push in Kevin Walsh. We've got the Strait Of Hormuz. We've got what's going on with AI right now. We've got moves with the US dollar.
A lot you know, these transactions in the Strait Of Hormuz being settled
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: In Chinese yuan instead of the US dollar. So, like, this US dollar hegemony, like, all of these pieces you watch very closely. So I wanted to have you back on about it. Just at a 30,000 foot level, how are you feeling right now about what's happening globally with a possible global recession? Am I way off the mark on this?
Speaker 2: I don't think you're off the mark. It's in my opinion, it it can go either way at any moment. Right? So we're in this situation, unfortunately, where if the straight is blocked for another two months, like you're talking about, the White House came out and said that, which again, where does that number come from? That could have huge ramifications across pretty much all Eastern countries.
That causes a go global recession. You're gonna have massive inflation spikes everywhere because oil prices are gonna go through the roof. On the other side, if we do see something good happen, you know, like this past week is a great example. Trump gives this ultimatum and says, hey. Unless something happens by the end of the day, you're gonna see the end of a civilization.
He said they're gonna hold off for two weeks and the market explodes higher. We could continue to see that upside movement. And so it it's almost $50.50 coin flip. I tend to lean more towards the bear side because I don't think it's over in The Middle East. I think there's gonna be some continuation here.
Listen to what you're telling viewers as far as moving assets to The Middle East. That doesn't seem good for a ceasefire. You don't you know, if you're planning a ceasefire and you're planning a a peace treaty, you don't move assets there. You actually start removing assets. But, again, I'm not a geopolitical expert either.
My my job is to follow money flow. And so that's what I'm looking at, and that's how we're we're predicting our what is likely to happen next in the the my the markets.
Speaker 0: So and just at the end of today's show, I wanna talk to you. You you've got a special, live event that you're putting on, I think, on April Mhmm. For people. It's totally free. So we'll talk about that at the end of show, but if people, like, are worried about, like, where to put their money right now, stick around to the end of the show.
We'll talk about this live event. The last one that you did was a huge success. A lot of our redacted viewers, watched it and and thanked us for it. So great stuff. Particularly in these dark times and where to kinda move your money.
So if you're looking at the US dollar, you're that's what you focus on. Right? You're focusing on the money flow. Where
Speaker 1: are
Speaker 0: you seeing the money moving right now?
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you what I'm seeing it coming out of is ex what's called expanded tech. And this kinda gets to your AI point that you were mentioning because you have companies like Anthropic with their new cloud updates, and you have a lot of these expanded tech companies like a CRM that are very worried because Claude is able to do what a lot of these companies, individual companies, used to do. And so we're seeing a lot of finances come out of those particular sectors, and we're actually starting to see more money come back into consumer goods, industrials, utilities. So we're starting to see more of what I call a transition happen from where these these stocks have been going down. They're beginning to actually turn and come back up now.
Speaker 0: So when you say expanded tech, educate our audience on that. I'm trying to think of companies that maybe ten years ago I might have used for my business, you know, like Salesforce? Or Mhmm. You know, is that like an expand what is what do you mean by expanded tech and money's flowing out of those companies?
Speaker 2: Very good question. So Intuit, Adobe, ServiceNow, Cadence Designs. Some of these, I still like, like defense companies, cybersecurity companies, like CrowdStrike, decent, Fortinet, but then Take Two Interactive, W Day, Workday. A lot of these are what's considered expanded tech like a SaaS, software as a service type companies because Claude is coming in taking over those areas.
Speaker 0: A friend of mine a friend of mine just set up a whole Claude thing. He he's been a longtime friend of mine. He said, Clayton, I just set up a whole Claude bot on his one computer. He's like, it's unbelievable. And he had to do a whole bunch of API things, and he's building up to and I said, holy smokes.
How are you you know, how did how did you do that? You know, you've seen all these videos going viral about people using Claude. They're going out buying Mac Mac Mini, and they're setting up Claude on a their own Mac Mini so it's not on their main computer. Can you explain to our audience what Claude is and why, like, with Anthropic, this is such a threat to some of these companies?
Speaker 2: Claude is a interface that has the ability to become its own agent. In fact, there was a company with one employee who is the founder who just started selling the weight loss shots, and he crossed over $400,000,000 in annual sales as a single person business setting up and using AI software. It's gonna be a huge game changer. It's gonna be a changer.
Speaker 0: Instead of having a 100 people or a couple 100 people working in your office, we could see the era of, like, the the the solo billionaire with with companies using AI. It's insane.
Speaker 2: Based on valuation measures, this young man's already there. Based like, if you were to if you were to look at a company's valuation and how Wall Street values those companies, he is actually there if he were to go sell his company. And so using Anthropic and Claude, which I'm literally just now starting into, so I don't wanna come out as an expert on that. I've used ChatGPT for a very long time. I've used Grok, as well, but I'm just now getting into Claude.
It what it can do is remarkable. And it is it literally creates these agents that have the ability to replace these normal software as a service type companies. And that's why you're seeing money flow out at a very rapid pace from those areas.
Speaker 0: So when you look at the future of AI and you look at where this is all going, and and as an investor and as someone who educates people on these markets and market conditions right now, I mean, there's lot of people that are really, really scared. And I heard Eric Weinstein the other day say, he said, you know, all of those jobs that you identified as as a title, like, I'm a dentist or I am a doctor or I am a teacher. AI is gonna change all of that. And you're not get Elon Musk has said openly that within three years, Optimus robots or robotics will be far better surgeons than the the human beings that we have doing surgery right now. In three years, they'll be better by leaps and bounds.
So when you're moving money around and when you're seeing these money flows, where are you seeing maybe the biggest upside over the next twenty four months, twelve months?
Speaker 2: Well, I hate to reiterate what I've heard people, like Mike Rowe say, but you're not gonna be able to replace carpenters, plumbers, electricians, these skilled laborers. That's huge. Obviously, you can't really invest a ton in that unless you go into the homebuilder sector, which that has other ramifications because we do go into recession. Typically, home prices drop. So you've gotta be careful in that regard.
But, you know, as far as looking into an occupation, those are awesome skills to have. I mean, I I studied as a carpenter, and that's how I put myself through college is I was a carpenter. I was a trim carpenter. So and I'm very grateful for that skill set. But like you're mentioning, I saw a video of a pulmonologist who was looking at a lung, and he said it took me twenty five years to be able to recognize this cancer, and I have an AI bot that can do it in thirty seconds.
Wow.
Speaker 0: That's insane.
Speaker 2: That's kinda scary. But, you know, the the flip side is it's it's also really awesome because now it opens up the opportunity for everybody. So it it kinda depends on, like you mentioned, glass half full. It's great for society at large. It's terrible when it comes to the occupation that an individual has dedicated their entire life to.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. And, of course, I worry about the surveillance state and the Palantirs of the world and what, you know, what data they're gathering about all of us. That really terrifies me, and I'm not I'm, you know, I'm I'm on a libertarian stay out of my life.
Speaker 2: 100.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's how I feel. So it's terrifying to see where this is going. So I wanna unpack more of this. So right now, we're seeing you mentioned housing.
When you look at the housing market in The United States, we're in a real problem. And Yes. President Trump obviously is in a real is in real trouble heading into the midterms. His poll numbers have absolutely plummeted. I'm not asking you to be a a political analyst, but when you see how to the American American people do not support this war.
60% of Americans now in a poll this week said they do not support Israel. They have an unfavorable view of Israel, which is a total turnaround. Like, that that never before has had a number like that. And yet the president seems to be all in on the Middle East war, on protecting and supporting Israel. His poll numbers have plummeted.
And so do you see the president of The United States? He's made some big overtures. He said dividend for the American people. Housing. We're gonna, you know, basically declare, you know, housing emergency and try to really turn this around.
Things here on the home front that he could do heading into the midterms, maybe eliminating the income tax. Are there any things you're watching from him that you're saying this could be transformative, whether it's housing or income tax or anything else as we head into the midterms?
Speaker 2: Honestly, I haven't seen anything from, like, the housing perspective that's really come in. I know a a big investor came out and said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were great steals of a deal right now. That's to be determined, in my opinion. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. However, I'm not seeing any policy that I think could actually bring change and bring transformation.
Now nice thing about the president is he has a couple more years in office. Right? Midterms or senators or congressmen, they don't have that luxury. And so I think that's where the the panic kinda comes in from the Republican standpoint. Maybe some excitement from a democratic standpoint.
But looking at it, I do think that and I have a a big theory on this I kinda wanted to throw at you. I think he's trying to to make a play to control energy more than anything right now. And looking at just this year, the things that have happened going into Venezuela, taking over Maduro, and then taking all of their oil reserves. One thing I didn't know until this year is that Venezuela was actually the largest oil reserve nation on the planet. It's got over 300,000,000,000 barrels of oil.
Then it goes Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and The US. We now own that. Let me rephrase that. We now The US maybe we can edit that. The US now controls that oil.
I find it quite interesting that we go into war with Iran, block the strait. You know, Iran blocks the strait, and now oil prices explode and are up seventy, eighty, 90%. And so is he making a play so that other countries of the world have to come to The US for their oil, for their energy, which then would in turn help the American people because that would bring more prosperity because they're buying stuff from us rather than us buying energy from other nations. Maybe that's that's happening.
Speaker 0: I think it absolutely is. We he's in in even in public statements, Trump is telling, you know, Europe and otherwise, buy your stuff from us now. Stop buying it from stop buying it from Iran. Stop buying it from Russia. Buy your stuff from The United States.
Come on over here. We'll sell it to you. I mean, hell, we blew up their Nord Stream pipeline. United States destroyed under Biden the Nord Stream pipeline coming from Russia to Germany, and then Germany started paying three times as much for natural liquid liquefied natural gas from The United States. So this was already like a plan.
It was even happening under Biden in a lot of ways, but now with this sort of North American energy infrastructure that Pete Hegseth talked about, like, a week or so ago, this idea of, like, the Technate creating this, like, North American energy empire that we control, I think you're absolutely right about that, I think. But, you know, how does that really trickle down to the American people in a meaningful way? Like, when we talk about housing, like, it's gonna make a lot of oil executives a lot of money. How exactly and and if we bring manufacturing back to The United States, are you seeing manufacturing coming back to The United States in an appreciable way?
Speaker 2: Honestly, I'm not qualified to answer that. I haven't personally, but that's that's not something that I would be looking into.
Speaker 0: Like, when you see these companies, like, you see Apple bringing, you know, new manufacturing back to Texas, they've made these overtures. We're gonna hunt hundreds of billions of dollars into the American economy. It's a long play. I know Trump says we're gonna bring manufacturing back to The United States from China and Mexico, and that's a big part of this plan. But
Speaker 2: One of well, one of the things that Trump touts is 4,000,000,000,005 trillion dollars of investments, something like that, in The US from other companies to have their manufacturing plants, which is gonna create jobs for the American people, we hope. The question is, are we getting follow through on that? I know that there's a ton of data centers that have been planned to be launched in 2026, and every single one of those, every single one of those, they're expecting to have delays on at this point. And so are we going to have delays in these factories? Now you do have people like Elon Musk that made the Gigafactory in in Texas, and it's huge, and it's it's awesome.
He's making a new tariff factory that's gonna be even larger, have more jobs there. There are some people who are following through with it. There are some companies that are following through with it, but is every company gonna follow through with it?
Speaker 0: Right. That's a good question. Saudi Arabia's infrastructure and investment in The United States as well and bringing money here. So I know we keep saying we're gonna see a manufacturing boom in The United States. I'm just still waiting to see it.
I'm you know, I hear some overtures from companies, but I really would love to see if that's gonna be the case where we'll actually start making made in America again, and how
Speaker 2: that great, but the cost of that is gonna be very expensive because you can go to overseas labor, and it's significantly cheaper because of the dollar. And Trump has been adamant about talking about weakening the dollar, and that could be one of the reasons so that we do bring more manufacturing here. However, if I'm a if I'm a business owner and I can make the same gene for a tenth of the price and still sell it and have that bigger markup, that's what most of the companies are gonna do, unfortunately. I'm a big proponent of made in America things. But when you look at it just from the corporate I'm gonna use the word corporate greed standpoint, and you're responsible to your shareholders of having the biggest best pricing, You this is why we've seen outsourcing happen.
Right. And so until until there is a reason to stop that, I don't see it really exploding and having this great birth that we've talked about in the past. Now you go to COVID, you go look at the pandemic, and all of our medicines are made overseas, and now we can't do that. That is a reason in and of itself to have your your supply chain local. That's a big reason to have a local supply chain of your food, of your manufacturing, of your your medical supplies.
But are companies taking that initiative, or were they saying, it's a one off?
Speaker 0: Right. Minerals production, all of it. We know that that has been a priority. It just I think we're I think we are in a major shift right now, and, you know, I know you watch it closely with all of these different companies. Where do you see we we talk we've just got these revised GDP numbers this past week, which were not good.
Correct. We also got revised jobs numbers, which were not good. So I know the president loves to say that we had, you know, have the strongest economy. Everything is great. But when you have these numbers coming out on the revised GDP down and jobs numbers down, is it as good as he says it is?
Speaker 2: It's not. And this this is this is one reason I like you, and I like watching your show is you catch these things because the average person doesn't. They just hear the headlines of mainstream media, and it's like, oh, jobs numbers came out, and they look great. They don't report typically on the revised numbers because every jobs report has been revised down for, like, the last six months or a year. That's not a good sign.
And so we don't have this booming economy. And as we're talking about with AI, as Musk is talking about bringing optimist robots who are going to make surgeons obsolete, how many other jobs are they going to make obsolete? In fact, I was in a QT the other day. We're on a road trip to go see some family out in Texas. I was I was stopped at a QT, and there was a robot cleaning the floor.
And it literally, when I walked by, it greeted me. And it's it was just this little cleaning robot, and it said, welcome to QT. Please excuse me while I clean the floor for your convenience. And so I asked the lady
Speaker 0: Go ahead, sir. At
Speaker 2: the counter, I said, I said, hey. How do you like having this robot? She goes, well, unfortunately, it's replaced three of our janitors, but it does make me feel like I'm not alone when I'm here on the night shift.
Speaker 0: Wow. My father-in-law owns a restaurant in the Bay Area. They have a full staff. They haven't had to replace somebody with this, but they have a robot that actually they put the, you know, food on it and brings it out to the table. Mhmm.
And Yeah. They haven't had to replace anybody, and the staff actually was fearful of it, but they actually like it because it frees them up now to be, you know, making sure that, like the line cook, like all of that is going the way that it needs to. But I think these jobs are absolutely gonna be replaced. And you mentioned like the outsourcing of jobs overseas. It's like for cheap labor in Philippines and other places.
But if all of that is now replaced by robotics and AI in The United States, then all of that outsourcing to $1 an hour labor in Vietnam and other places could be repatriated back home. It just won't mean American jobs. It'll be
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: You know, profit for these companies, but American jobs are gonna be shift dramatically.
Speaker 2: And if you look at a if you look at a robot like an optimist, for example, or something that has the meticulous skill set that a human currently has, your the cost average of that thing is only going to get better and better with use. Because if you pay a a $40,000 for a $40,000 robot, okay, so that's a $40,000 salary. But then the next year, you don't have to pay that same salary again because you still have the robot.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: And it just gets cut in half and cut in half, and and that just continues over so that your profit margin on the bottom line is actually gonna get significantly better at that point.
Speaker 0: I know Elon says that this by moving towards robotics and AI, we're gonna basically eliminate poverty. We're gonna level the playing field on, like, health care. He has very positive views of where this is gonna go. We're gonna eliminate poverty in The United States because things will just become so cheap. I I I I don't know.
I like to think that he's right, but I don't know. What do you think?
Speaker 2: When you're the man making the robot, you gotta spin it in a good way.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: Right. This is this is gonna be really good for society because of these ancillary benefits. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. How does the average person make money to buy it?
And that's where, you know, you've got talk of having the government pay for everything. Well, then if the government pays for everything, the government controls everything. And like you mentioned earlier, I want them as far out of my life as possible.
Speaker 0: Right. A move into a socialist society where they control everything and give us a a universal basic income. Everything tracked. Everything is monitored. It's Right.
You know, deeply the the control grid as Catherine Austin Fitz refers to it. I think it's coming. We've gotta be able to stand up and stop it, and protect our liberties. When you look at where, I mean, where you're investing right now. So every morning, you're on calls with, you know, the people, that you train and you're watching where the market is flowing right now.
Like, where are you putting your money? And if someone watching right now is, like, wanting to learn how they can protect their family, maybe make some investments that'll yield some great results, what are you doing right now? Where are you putting money?
Speaker 2: Great question. Currently, we have gone mainly to cash overall since the war has kicked off. And so what we were looking at doing is we started noticing some things, late January, and then it kicked off in March where we were actually taking a bearish bias on the market. Meaning, we were looking for the market to go down. We hit all of our downside targets, so we pulled some of our profits off the table from that.
And now we're waiting to see what actually does transpire mainly this weekend. Because if this weekend, these peace talks are productive, everything happens really well, and we continue to get this upside movement, that's where we will start putting money back into the overall markets. I do think there's some some big opportunities in tech, like an Amazon right now looks fantastic. It's just had a huge move up. But some of these moves are really parabolic.
And what scares me about a parabolic move, Clayton, is if you have it going up, you typically have one coming back down too. Right? So you've got companies like Amazon that's moved 20% in the last nine days. You may have a 15% correction before it actually starts that upward momentum and that upward trend. And that's what we teach people how to see and how to recognize and what we're gonna go through on this training.
So I always like to tell my students, being in cash is being in a position. Because if you could come in and put your money somewhere on the sidelines where you're not losing eight, ten, 20%, and the market does drop, you're beating the market. Even better, we show people how to position themselves so that if the market goes down, you can participate because there's there's a really cool tool called an inverse ETF that goes up if the market goes down. And so we teach people how to see these, structure these in your portfolio in a responsible way to protect against that downside movement, but then also potentially profit from it. Then when you see a shift in market sentiment and things start getting back bullish, which again, we might be there depending on how all of this goes, you know where to reenter the market with your finances so that you can profit back on the upside.
Speaker 0: Be able to take profits and wait sitting in cash right now. Smart. And so I should mention, yeah, you guys are doing this free live training for anybody watching right now on April 16 and April 18 at at what time?
Speaker 2: We're doing the sixteenth at 6PM and the eighteenth at 4PM eastern time.
Speaker 0: Eastern time. Okay. And if people wanna go there, totally free. Redactedtrading.com. We set up a special landing page for you guys to go there and check it out.
I know you had a lot of redacted viewers on your last free training. What did they say about it?
Speaker 2: Oh, we had some incredible comments. People said that their eyes were opened so that they could actually read a chart, understand price movement for the first time. A lot of first time people were there. First time traders, first time people who are just really interested in the market knowing where can I put my money? And so they came out understanding how to read a chart, how to understand when markets are moving for me or against me.
One of the biggest things that we focus on too, Clayton, is understanding your risk. If you get into a trade, where do I upset my risk tolerance so that if I'm wrong, I can get out and I won't be that I I don't lose that much money. But I also have the potential to make a significant amount of money. And we've had people who've implemented skills from this first webinar, and they actually are already making money. In fact, I got an email today from a lady who said that she's made over $1,200 in the last two weeks alone from that webinar.
Speaker 0: That's great. I love that. I love the educate you know, I'm all about financial education, so thank you. It's free. Again, redactedtrading.com.
People can sign up for this the April 16 and or the April 18, whatever their schedule allows. I guess before I let you go, Mark, I'm just curious when you look at, like, an Amazon, weird you know, you see, like, what Tesla's doing right now. Tesla I mean, it's incredible, And, obviously, the rollout of this robotaxi fleet is coming, and they just announced this past week of what that's gonna look like. These new gold Teslas, they will have a two seats in them, and they'll have a self cleaning service. You can add your own car to the robotaxi fleet.
Tesla's gonna make 25% of that. On top of that, they're rolling out the Optimus robots next year. Each of those will cost, like, $30,000. Multiple trillion dollars of revenue and company. I'd say I can't even wrap my head around Tesla.
So is Amazon anywhere close to, like, what Tesla is doing? Where do you see the biggest upsides and maybe movement for, for Amazon right now?
Speaker 2: So one of the things that I look at is I come from the market from a technical standpoint and a fundamental standpoint. So I would be what's called a technician and a fundamentalist. And the reason I say that is you have a company like a Tesla that has all of this huge potential, and yet they're down sitting around 340, $350 from a $500 high, and they're continuing to make lows. And so for a lot of people, that confuses them until you realize, oh, this this is getting driven down to a good opportunity to buy so that when it starts to move higher, you make significantly more profits.
Speaker 0: So on Tesla, where do you see, like, a good buy target right now? If someone's, hey. Should I invest in Tesla? What's your I'm looking
Speaker 2: I'm looking around $3.25 and then 300. I really like a 300 level on Tesla. And they have earnings coming up. They may be announcing some stuff on earnings that can change that early. But when we start getting into 3 hundreds, I'm looking for about another $45, we'll call it 11% drop from where we're currently seeing, that's where I'm going to start really getting in on a longer term buy, personally.
That's my personal plan.
Speaker 0: I mean, they just they're they're selling out of Model Xs. They just stopped production on the Model s, the Model x. And I know in the state of Colorado, they have one left. Like, they sold out. Once they announced they were stopping production, it went everyone it was like a mad buying rush to buy them at at the last second.
They have they had one left the other day. I think they're probably all sold out now. So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this earnings report is a bit shocking yeah. A bit shocking for people, I would think.
Speaker 2: Well, you when you limit supply and you drive up demand, people like to pay. Exactly. It's a really good business model and that you know, maybe that's what we're doing on oil. But as far as your Amazon question, you know, coming into it right now, it's I was starting to look for a buying opportunity, and it just kind of exploded through it. It's like I said, it's up 20% in the last nine days.
I was really wanting to start a position around $2.16 personally, and, you know, it's up at about $2.40 right now. I think that what I'm looking for on Amazon is a pullback somewhere into 02/25. Maybe we get back to that 02/16 level. And if we do, I'm gonna look for it to come back into $2.50 and then take out all time highs at $2.58, on that. So, again, as a technician, I like there are certain criteria that I like to look for.
And if I get the criteria, great. If I don't, great. One thing I've learned about stock market, Clayton, is there's gonna be another opportunity tomorrow. You'll always get that that next opportunity. And so I never one of the the cheesy comments that we say in our our room is we replace, we don't chase.
So I'm not gonna chase something. I'm just gonna replace it with a better opportunity.
Speaker 0: So we talked to Amazon, talk Tesla. Before I let you go, where are you seeing maybe the biggest opportunities right now, from an investing perspective?
Speaker 2: I like a lot of the mag seven companies that have dropped so dramatically. You know, for example, we we were actually bearish on Google going into March. We took a really nice bearish trade on Google. Depending on how people trade it, they made anywhere from 10% to a 100% if they used options, which is one of the techniques that we look at. But we're seeing a lot of these names go into a phase I call transition, which we'll cover that on the free webinar for everybody.
And that is one of my favorite places to start buying is in that area, that area of transition because it's really where we confirm where institutions are starting to turn the tide and have that upswing happen. So a lot of the max seven companies, I really like, chip manufacturers are going crazy on Friday. I mean, they're they're having huge days, on Friday. And so continuing to watch in those big tech areas, I think we're starting to see a turn and a bottoming. And if if that happens, we're gonna see the S and P and the Nasdaq itself do really, really well.
Again, everything happening in The Middle East with Iran, that could throw a curveball into it. Because one thing I have learned is if the market goes up a 130 points in a day, it can drop a 130 points in a day.
Speaker 0: Right. Well, that's why you need a financial education. You need what Mark teaches. Again, totally free. Join Mark and his team.
Go to redactedtrading.com. We set up a special lander there for people if they wanna learn more about. So, April 16 and April 18, two opportunities. Yeah. One at 6PM eastern and the other at 4PM eastern.
So any final thoughts, Mark?
Speaker 2: I'll just encourage everybody to kinda keep your head on swivel from a financial standpoint. Be prepared for either a great scenario and a wonderful outcome. That's what we hope for. That's what I hope for for everybody. But also get some education so that you know how to protect yourself or at least what questions to ask your financial adviser if things continue to drop.
And that's what we wanna provide for people.
Speaker 0: I love that. Financial education. My old my old friend, Robert Kiyosaki, the author of, rich dad, poor dad, said this is, you know, something they never teach you in high school. Financial education is the is is truly the key and truly and and so thank you for putting on this free free clinic for everybody who wants to take advantage of it in this un uncertain times. Mark, great to see you.
Thank you so much. Really appreciate it as always.
Speaker 2: Thank you, my friend.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Did you catch this earlier?! 💉 The Pfizer CEO was forced to testify and admit that he knew the shot was poison from day one! ...Nothing to see here... https://t.co/L5dvsj8Dxb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on a Dutch civil litigation in which Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, and Marc Rutemp (Marc Rutza) are named as individual defendants in cases linked to “Project COVID” and broad pandemic preparedness efforts years before the 2020 pandemic.
Key facts asserted:
- The defendants are plaintiffs in civil tort litigation filed in the Netherlands around 2023. Two cases exist: an older 2023 case and a second case involving additional plaintiffs. The Dutch approach allows individuals to be named as defendants in civil tort actions.
- Gates and Bourla (and Rutza) have appeared as defendants; Gates attempted to avoid jurisdiction, but the Amsterdam court ruled that Gates and Bourla, as individuals, respond to the case. They have not appeared in court personally, but their lawyers appear on their behalf.
- On March 9, an appeal hearing occurred in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeals, with extensive public attendance (about 60 journalists, podcasters, and plaintiffs). The hearing was described as explosive; a single attorney, Peter Stassen, presented a long argument as co-counsel had been imprisoned and disbarred, leaving one attorney on a tight budget. A video of the proceedings and a standout speech went viral.
- The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to create “Project COVID” and a “pandemic preparedness racket” years prior to 2020. The core claim is that Gates, Bourla, Rutza, along with others, collaborated with private NGOs, the military, NATO, and DOD through a DARPA-linked pandemic program to identify pandemic potential viruses and to develop vaccines and therapeutics within sixty days, with funding from the DOD.
- Evidence cited includes a 2017 AstraZeneca tape in which a key AstraZeneca executive states that DARPA approached them in 2017 to join a consortium to identify pandemic viruses and deliver vaccines within sixty days; the response was, “I thought it was science fiction.” The tape is part of an evidence package showing pre-2020 planning.
- February 4, 2020 is highlighted as a crucial date: a telephone call from DARPA indicating COVID was declared a national security threat, followed by retroactive emergency declarations around March 2020. A February 4, 2020 conference was scheduled, with widespread communications among government, military, HHS, and CDC; the aim was to secure liability protection for pharmaceutical countermeasures during a declared emergency.
- The defense includes the assertion that the public-private partnership extended to many companies (including 300 others) that joined the consortium, with U.S. and European regulatory synchronization through mutual recognition agreements.
- The alleged motives are primarily framed as profits and control, with references to a long-standing history of military involvement in vaccine development and public health measures, including the PREP Act in the U.S. and parallel European countermeasures frameworks that waive liability and regulatory requirements during declared emergencies. The PREP Act’s role — especially in the U.S. — is discussed as shielding manufacturers from liability, with European frameworks described as allowing similar protections through contracts and synchronized countermeasures legislation.
- Expert testimonies: five experts have provided evidence supporting foreknowledge and intentional deception by government health officials and the named defendants. Sasha Ladopova and Catherine Watt contributed written testimonies; Ladopova references foreknowledge by health regulators, and the broader regulatory harmonization across EMA and FDA.
- Francis Boyle, a professor known for work on bioweapons law, testified that the vaccines/metas could be viewed as bioweapons; he died three weeks after agreeing to testify.
- Injuries to plaintiffs: in the initial case, seven injured plaintiffs with one death; the second case added three more plaintiffs. Injuries cited include cardiovascular inflammation, autoimmune conditions, and cancer; plaintiffs contend their lives were destroyed by the countermeasures, while regulators and manufacturers allegedly denied injuries and deaths.
What happens next:
- An October 22 hearing in the lower court in Lewarden (The Netherlands) is planned, with a public in-person event and a press conference.
- The appeal on the second case seeks to have expert witnesses heard under oath; the prior lower court denied this, and the higher court’s decision is anticipated (with expectations of denial, according to the interview).
- The campaign invites public interest and financial support; the foundation in the Netherlands funds the case, and the English-language YouTube channel is available for updates and evidence.
Contact points for following the case include Sasha Ladopova’s Substack and the Dutch foundation’s YouTube channel and materials.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, this could be one of the biggest bombshell civil pieces of litigation. And what does Bill Gates, Albert Borla, Marc Ruta all have in common? Well, civil litigation related to COVID in The Netherlands. And what does this case mean moving forward to try to get answers for the rest of the world. And all of this is tied to maybe the COVID emergency measures, which did not begin in 2020 at all, but were actually put in place years earlier inside of a Pentagon backed pandemic program that was built for speed.
Like, we gotta get this thing rolled out here. It all appeared to the world as if this thing came out of nowhere, but it didn't. And that's the explosive question being raised by newly published material from Sasha Ladopova, who centered on leaked internal AstraZeneca audio that she says points back to a Pentagon planned DARPA linked pandemic program dating back to the year 2017. In other words, major players inside the government, big pharma, were already treating it as a national security operation years before most Americans or people living around the world even understood what was happening. Sasha Ladopova worked at the highest levels of big pharma as a medical device R and D executive, and now she spends her time exposing fraud and lies inside the pharmaceutical industry as a journalist and researcher.
And Sasha joins us now. Great to have you back on the show. It's been a number of years, but thank you for your latest work on this. Great to see you.
Speaker 1: Hi, Clayton. Thank you for inviting me again. And, yes, great to see you again. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So let's start with The Netherlands. Albert Borla, Bill Gates, Marc Ruta. Of course, I love how, like, people like Marc Ruta who fail in life get promoted to the head of NATO. That's how these things work.
Right? So what do the three of them have in common, and why are they being forced to appear before a court in Amsterdam related to COVID? Can you walk us through this?
Speaker 1: Right. So so they are all, defendants in this civil litigation procedure that started around 2023. And there are two cases, an older case was filed in 2023. These individuals, including several other high level Dutch state officials who all participated in project COVID, are named as defendants, as individuals. And that's a unique feature of Dutch law where individuals can be brought like this into the civil tort litigation.
And so, they all they tried to get out of this case. Bill Gates tried to claim that he is not subject to this jurisdiction, but the judge actually ruled that Bill Gates and Obi Berla as individuals respond to this case. They haven't appeared individually in court, but their lawyers are present and their lawyers are responding on their behalf, so they're part of the defendant group in this litigation. So, on March 9, yes, so we were in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeals. I was there in person.
So, was another expert witness, Johsson Song. And also about 60 journalists, podcasters and members of the public and plaintiffs showed up with us in the Court of Appeals. And in fact, there were so many people on the plaintiff's side that the court had to give us two rooms because one wasn't big enough. And so that proceeding was very explosive. There's a video of it.
We've subtitled it, translated it. I made the all the materials available where Peter Stassen, who is the only attorney prosecuting this case now, the the his co counsel was imprisoned and disbarred. So now we're we're down to one attorney on a shoestring budget. So he made an amazing speech. It went viral for a few days on Twitter.
And so it's available on YouTube. And and he laid out the case. He laid out that these these people all conspired to create project COVID, to create create this pandemic preparedness racket years ahead. Yes. Years years ahead of 2020.
And Bill Gates is a key participant in it. And, you know, they were all profiteers trying to set up this this fake pandemic and very real response by the governments, which they pulled off, and then profiteer off of it massively, which they did. And so, the plaintiffs are injured individuals by Pfizer vaccine, and they're seeking justice and compensation for their injuries. So, that's kind of in a nutshell. We're expecting the Court of Appeals decision on April 9, we also have now scheduled a court hearing on substantive matter finally on October 22 in lower court in The Netherlands in Lewawarden.
And I'm going to be there in person again, we're going to have a public event there again.
Speaker 0: So can you talk about how Bill Gates and Pfizer, Albert Borla conspired? Because that's the argument from the prosecution and from the plaintiffs that Bill Gates, Albert Borla, Mark Ruta, they got together and conspired to create what they're calling Project COVID. Maybe you can walk us through the machinery of that.
Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. So I had a lot of, I would say, indirect but documented very well documented evidence that private NGOs like Bill Gates, the military, NATO, and DOD. Obviously, this was all centered around DOD massively, DARPA, which is DOD's Advanced Research Project Agency. Pharmaceutical companies who were part of this consortium were approached by DARPA in around well, beginning as early as 2012, but I have very, very direct evidence, as you mentioned, the tape from AstraZeneca, that in 2017, DARPA specifically approached AstraZeneca and said that to these key executives and said that, oh, we can fund this project where and you can be part of this consortium.
The consortium is already conspiracy, essentially. You can be part of this consortium where we, the DOD, the military, identify pandemic potential viruses, not very clear how, and you, the pharma, will be making vaccines and therapeutics within sixty days of that, To which the response, and I have it on tape from key executive of AstraZeneca was I thought it was science fiction. And that's the truth. So he is admitting that he knew at the time this was fake and they were fraudulently being induced into this activity. But of course, you know, this is the US government, the DOD telling them that and waving a lot of dollars.
So they, you know, of course, they said yes. And of course, another 300 companies in this consortium said yes. And they all got together and they started working on these projects where DoD was funding these science exercise, no deliverables, lots of money, what's not to like. So they've been doing this for a few years prior to 2020. And in 2020, DoD made a phone call on February 4 to AstraZeneca and other participants of consortium telling them that COVID is declared national security threat.
Again, not clear why. We still don't know why. That hasn't been unclassified. Nobody has any evidence of what how the decision was made, who decided based on what data. And, they just all went live, live exercise, and, all over the world in synchronous in perfect synchronicity.
So while I thought that you know, I do have this evidence, but it's very you know, it's hard to prove that, you know, Bill Gates specifically was, you know, very, very key to this. Now, you know and I never expected Bill Gates would put this in writing that I would like to do this project COVID, but she did with in the emails with Epstein. So when the emails with Epstein files were released, it's evident that Bill Gates, Epstein, and JPMorgan, the bank, were setting up a financial structure to do exactly this to prepare for pandemics and profit off it and also utilize Bill Gates' or not not trigger the the for profit status of this activity by utilizing the charitable structures and how to avoid taxation and all that. So they were not only structuring pandemic project, they were also figuring out how to avoid taxes and how to profit of it massively.
Speaker 0: And this was really at the request of the DOD, the Pentagon. Yes. They were specifically asking to create this did they call it project COVID? Did they what kind of military they love to give military names and operations. What was the name?
Speaker 1: So the the name was a pandemic preparedness so PPP, pandemic preparedness program or something like that. And, you know, it was loosely called that. There were also other names given to other activities like, countermeasures. At some point within the Epstein exchange with Bill Gates, there are names like Project Molecule being thrown around. So they do give them different names.
But overall, this is all it's a public private partnership which is, again a conspiracy between corporations, banks, pharmaceutical companies, government, military, it's public private partnership, to create these pandemic preparedness planning activities, military countermeasures activities all over the world. And also, there's extensive documentation evidence and evidence in law how all of this was over these decades synchronized across the world, especially key military allies like, you know, NATO, the five eyes security allies, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, they all have the same analogous law, to The US law that enables all this activity and makes it all legal.
Speaker 0: Well, it's no secret Americans love sushi, my daughters included. And over the last two decades, raw fish consumption has exploded. Sushi bars everywhere, grocery stores selling it, gas stations selling. Millions of people now eat raw fish weekly, but here's a hidden risk most people never think about. Parasites.
Yeah. Salmon, one of the most popular fish worldwide, but it naturally contains more than 70 parasites. Most of them are tiny, nearly impossible to see them. I'm sure you've seen the videos where people have gone to, like, Costco and they come home and let their salmon sit out on the counter for a few hours and suddenly the little white parasites start popping out of the fish. But once inside the body, parasites can hide for years while frequently laying eggs before any symptoms appear at all in the body.
That's why many physicians are raising awareness about parasite exposure. Our friend of the show, Doctor. Peter McCullough, recommends doing a parasite cleanse at least once a year as a preventative measure. The wellness company offers a hard to access Rx Parasite Cleanse, USA compound with ivermectin and mebenzadol. Ivermectin paralyzes the parasite's nervous system, and then mebenzadol starves them.
Each capsule contains twenty five mg of ivermectin, two hundred and fifty milligrams of mebenzadol lab tested for quality. You can now get a more budget friendly forty five capsule option that costs $250 less, giving you two twenty one day parasite cleanse cycles. It's the same formula as the original, just a smaller quantity. So head right now to twc.health/redacted and use that code redacted to save $35 off plus free shipping. And so the I I guess I'm looking for the motive here.
Right?
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Is it purely money, or was it control? I mean, the way I see it now is it's all about control. It was a it was, you know, them telling us, you know, cash cash has COVID on it. You can't touch paper money, the lockdowns, control, all of it. So was it or in in these documents, in this research, did you find the clear motive from the DOD and Pentagon?
Speaker 1: So they never you know, they don't state the clear motive, but this is a very long, long running history. So it actually goes back about 100 years at least. There the you know, people need to understand that public health and especially vaccination mass vaccination programs are part of long running Eugenics Agenda, and they have always been a military activity. So, The US before mass vaccination programs, before they put on the books in the 80s the National Vaccine Injury Law, These activities from early nineteen hundreds and especially during the second world war and immediately after the second world war when The US had official bioweapons development program. It was covert, but it was legal, ran until Nixon stopped it in '69.
So, during that time especially, all vaccines were military owned and developed and co developed. Always. There was always military involvement in development of all vaccines. The polio vaccines, everything else that was developed at the time, all science and all pharmaceutical development is tightly linked with military. So they already had the public health military public private partnership.
In fact, there was an official pharmaceutical bioweapons consortium at the time. It was headed by Merck, by George Merck, Merck Pharmaceuticals. He was the civilian head of The US bioweapons development program. And their main activity was making vaccines. And there's even Merck report declassified describing this.
And also about 80 academic institutions were at the time participating in the same program. So, this is a very very long standing activity that simply evolved. And the key evolution is not what they were doing on the medical or vaccine making side, but what they were doing on the legislative side to remove liability. Because every time they would try to push their products into the public, there would be a lot of injuries and deaths, and there would be a huge scandal. And they would have to cover up the scandal and pay the liabilities and so forth.
And that evolved into the PREP Act. So, PREP Act is the final, I would say, you know, activity that you can say here's a very, very clear evidence of intent of them doing this and importantly getting away with this without any justice, accountability or liability. And people are saying, well, how can you say that? But, you know, lawmaking is highly intentional set of activities. So you can't say they didn't have intent somehow accidentally this law appeared on the books.
And in fact, there is a congressional debate when the PREP Act was being introduced in 2005 where Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both stood up in Congress and said this law is hugely unconstitutional. It should not be passed because it violates several amendments of the constitution, specifically people's right to sue in court and seek compensation for injuries and deaths caused by government activities. So how can you say that they didn't know, it wasn't intentional, that there was no nobody brought up any objections to it? And the Republicans in Congress at the time pushed it through. So now we have this high it is monstrous monstrous prep act law that says that the government can declare a pandemic unilateral HHS secretary, RFK junior, today.
It's in his opinion, his opinion that we have a COVID pandemic, that it will last until 2029 at least. So, a decade of emergency, military emergency. And once that declaration is out and HHS secretary signs off on it, then all these products, the COVID countermeasures can be shipped completely without any regulation, not following any good manufacturing practices, not following any safety efficacy assessments. FDA cannot even issue legally safe and efficacious labeling for these products. So, all these announcements are just marketing slogans.
And there's absolutely no liability whatsoever for any injuries or deaths caused by the countermeasures under this declaration. So that's what we have right now. And that's the law itself is the evidence of a massive conspiracy between the private sector and the government to do this, to hurt, to injure the population, and to cause all this damage that they have caused.
Speaker 0: When in this court hearing, and I guess we'll have to unpack like what was actually said, what evidence was presented that showed that the defendants, Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutza, knew that these vaccinations were not real, and if anything, they were causing pain, they were causing enormous problems, massive side effects, etcetera?
Speaker 1: Right. So the so to date so we have five expert witnesses to provide evidence that would support these these statements. And I'm one of the expert witnesses. Two of us, so myself and Catherine Watt, who's doing the law research, we already submitted our written testimonies as part of the court documents, as part of the appeal procedure. And my own testimony contains a lot of evidence of, yes, the foreknowledge and so the the government officials and and Albert Berlo and Bill Gates, so people people who are the defendants, they are under the status of they knew or should have known.
So these are the things that the government officials in health so, for example, when the the health regulators in The Netherlands are taking these shots and telling to the public in public advertisements, TV, media that these are safe and effective. These are life saving vaccines. You must take them. You must they will prevent transmission, and we will stop the pandemic and all that. These statements cannot be just made, you know, because, you know, they can't lie.
Speaker 0: Right. Like, is it like, what is that based in?
Speaker 1: Right. So it needs to be based on the legal standard for safety and efficacy. And the legal standard for safety and efficacy exists both in Europe under EMA standards and European Medicines Agency, and which is equivalent to the US FDA. Because they are now synchronized, they're all harmonized, The US and European regulators and Canadians and Japanese and all the Western world, they've also synchronized themselves through international conference on harmonization. So, the regulatory frameworks are largely the same.
So, they and they also have mutual recognition agreements. So, now they can take statements from the FDA as if it's EMA issued those statements because they believe they're both equivalent. And then EMA can turn around and tell the public, yes, this is safe and effective. So, my evidence that FDA, through PREPACT, cannot even legally issue those statements. Then EMA, with their high powered attorneys and researchers and regulatory experts, thousands of staff should have known this.
If I, like average person working in the pharmaceutical industry, was able to find this information very easily, Well, they should have known this. They should have known that FDA cannot say safe and effective and they're issuing them under Emergency Use Authorization Framework, which is a countermeasures framework, which absolves, which removes any regulatory requirements from pharma, removes informed consent, removes You can't even run a clinical trial on the EUA product. It's not possible legally to do. All of this is known. All of this is written into the law and the European regulators know it very well.
And the European health authorities, those individuals in charge, even if they didn't know, they should have known, they should have checked before they made those statements to the public. So, because none of this happened and it wasn't just like one instance or one example where they missed some information because they were in a hurry. No, we have a systematic evidence of all of them lying to the public in concert and denying all the injuries and deaths. So therefore, it's a very clear statement that they are actually guilty of conspiracy.
Speaker 0: So they knew of the event they knew of the adverse offense. They were actively lying about it. Mhmm. And then you also believe that they were covering it up. Right?
Did you see evidence?
Speaker 1: Of course. They they to date, they're all they're all covering it up. In in The US, they're covering it up, and in the Europe, they're covering it. They they are they're denying injuries. They're denying that these vaccines cause deaths and cancer and all those horrible things.
And they're just they're basically stonewalling. And they're not even responding on the substance. What was interesting in the in the appeal proceeding, we had one lawyer on the Schusteren budget for the plaintiffs, nine defense attorneys in the room on behalf of the defendants. And in this appeal in the court of appeals of Amsterdam, it was expected because, again, this is a civil procedure. It's not a criminal procedure.
It's expected that the defense will say something. So Peter Stassen talked for an hour about, presenting all this evidence. They sat there in the room. Their only response was one of the attorneys spoke and said, COVID was a real illness, and vaccines are safe and effective.
Speaker 0: That's all they said.
Speaker 1: Was it, yeah.
Speaker 0: You talk about these defendants who brought this civil case, can you maybe walk through some of their injuries, what they experienced?
Speaker 1: Well, have, so in the earlier case, were seven injured plaintiffs. One person already died from their injuries. And they have a variety of injuries from cardiovascular, you know, the cardiac inflammation, people get autoimmune conditions, some have cancer, I believe. And in the second case, we had two we had three additional plaintiffs. Two of them were in the room on March 9, and one was too sick to attend.
So all of these people are severely injured. They can't they're unable to work the government. Okay. In The Netherlands, maybe there's more social social welfare type of deal, but still, you know, people people's lives are destroyed by these things, and the government can continues to deny it. So that's that's monstrous.
Speaker 0: Did and Bill Gates has really shifted his position on this, which seems to me problematic. Mhmm. You know, when did he enough to make a lot of money off of it and then shift your position later in interviews. Mhmm. Is that an important piece for this this hearing, this trial?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, he shifts his constituents all the time.
Speaker 0: Right. So,
Speaker 1: yes, he's clearly getting in some sort of a pickle, especially after the Epstein files came out, clearly showing that he he was conspiring and showing other, you know, kind of sordid stuff that he did with with Epstein. Even I thought, recently, there was news that Warren Buffett is no longer investing into the his charitable scams. And so, that's a big that's a big ticket. It's something like $4,000,000,000. So, obviously, Bill Gates is getting into some sort of a situation.
And, yeah, he he will shift all the time, but he is always he's always behind the the vaccine push. Actually, in my recent article, I found that before even the COVID vaccines went on the market, these COVID countermeasures were pushed globally in December 2020. In November 2020, they very quietly pushed globally a new oral polio vaccine which is known and very well documented in scientific literature that it's the only source of polio today. So they have reformulated the polio vaccine including Bill Gates, Gavi and other, you know, usual usual usual players in this, they have reformulated it and pushed it under a countermeasure for under under WHO countermeasure framework, which is called emergency use listing, and they pushed it globally into 40 countries of the world.
Speaker 0: We have this immunity as you talked about here in The United States for these pharmaceutical companies going back to the 1980s, of course. There's been moves to try to get that removed in The US. I don't think there's any chance of it happening, but maybe that gives them, you know, gives them protection, gives them immunity so that no one can really sue them for that. What laws are in place in The Netherlands where this case was brought that they they're not offered that same protection or are they?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so in The US, we have the PREP Act, which is the most monstrous piece of legislation. And I had several discussions with RFK junior about this, and and he knows that he can just write a memo and remove that declaration, and this goes away. Liability goes away.
Speaker 0: By the way, he's talked about this. Mean, he's Talked about he ever became HHS.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Before before the HHS secretary, it was his you know, almost his campaign slogan. I mean, he was he was running on this agenda. After he became HHS secretary, he forgot. He forgot that he can write a a two sentence memo in the federal register.
So anyhow, so we have this prepacked monstrosity in The US. In other parts of parts of the world, including Europe, they don't have that. But in Europe, they've made a synthetic version of it. I've written how I've written articles about exactly how they're doing it. So in Europe, they have a lot of the legislation around countermeasures, as I said, synchronized over time in preparation for this.
And that legislation says if there is an emergency declaration, then we can arbitrarily we, the regulators, arbitrarily waive certain parts of compliance, good manufacturing practices, distribution practices, import export laws, and they just decided to waive it all summarily. But then also through the contracts that Pfizer and Ursula von der Leyen, remember Albert Berle and Ursula von der Leyen, by text messages negotiated for the entire EU. They these contracts had clauses, and they were redacted for a very long time, and I think they're still not unredacted completely. But there were clauses that forced all the national governments to waive their liability laws for manufacturers. So that part about the liability that's in the prep act automatically was just, contractually forced onto the, national governments, in Europe.
And that's and that's why Albert Burle is an important defendant because we also have emails, some emails showing that he was booing the FDA, lying to them, lying to the EMA, during the the the, you know, the last phase of approvals. And, of course, we know that he was negotiating with Ursula.
Speaker 0: Right, and to provide enough vaccines, I think was it two or three doses per EU resident, so the amount of money the boondoggle was substantial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, initially two to three, but they ultimately went with 10 or something like that. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So, yeah, every EU citizen needs 10 of these, and that's how much money was changed. So this was all, of course, a massive money laundering operation. Can you talk about walk us through 02/04/2020? Because in the beginning, I talked about this 2017 timeline, right, where they were actively participating in this idea of emergency use authorization, this pandemic preparedness program. So 02/04/2020, why is that date so important in your view?
How do you connect the alleged Defense Department call to the government's declarations that were made effective on that very same day?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Yeah. So first, you know, initially, I didn't know about the importance of February 4. I I I kind of flagged it in my mind because when the when the government first issued the declaration of emergency, it was issued, I believe, on March 03/13/2020, but it was re made retroactive to February 4. And so it was weird.
You know? Why making it retroactive? But then I received this tape from AstraZeneca. The tape is a Zoom, meeting, internal Zoom meeting in AstraZeneca. I have the video portion.
I just never released the video. It doesn't
Speaker 0: I should point out. I'll I'll link it up to your Substack page because you have it in the Substack article, if people wanna watch the video and you can listen to the audio of the AstraZeneca meeting, it's it's it's it's crazy. But go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the the meeting was so I have about six minutes clip of it. And the meeting was at the 2020 when they were celebrating approval of monoclonal antibody in The US. They didn't get the vaccine approved, but they got the monoclonal antibody approved. And that as part of the you know, them high fiving each other, there's a discussion between their CEO, Pascal Surot, and Mark Esser, VP of monoclonal antibodies. And he says Mark Esser, he says, well, we received a phone call on February 4 from DARPA.
And actually, the person who called, I believe, was colonel Matt Habburn. I've written about him extensively. He was very key player in the pandemic preparedness activities and all structuring this consortium. So market market assessors DARPA called us, and it wasn't a surprise to us because we've already been in this consortium since 2017. But they called us and said that COVID was declared national security threat.
So we also have emails, a massive email file. So with the list of email participants, two to three pages long. So hundreds, hundreds of people, internal government, military, HHS, CDC, all going out on February 4, scheduling a conference, but the the content of it is redacted. So we know there was a massive communication happening on February 4 because that's when DARPA decided to go ahead and engage the private sector in this activity to, you know, to declare, now we're going. This exercise is is going.
And with that declaration, they wanted to start the liability protection from that declaration because if they didn't, then pharma is exposed for a couple of weeks. Alright? So so when Trump was you know, it's not clear whether Trump was in in on the deal from the beginning or he was somehow, you know, managed to to be brought on board. We know Tucker Carlson went to Mar A Lago around the same time in March and probably was key to convincing Trump to to go ahead with this. So once they wrangled Trump to issue the declaration on March 13, they said, well, we need to cover pharma because they've been already, you know, deal deal already told them go.
We need to cover them for these few weeks, and so we will retroactively make it February 4. So February 4 is a very, very key date. It needs to be investigated.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. That's a great point. And I you know, we we hear about, I think, March 11, March 13, March 11. We just did a deep dive, on on March 11 and, of course, the, you know, the announcement of the pandemic, I believe.
I think it was 03/11, if I'm not mistaken. Mhmm. But also your story we talked about this, but covers you know, starts in 2017, Matt Hepburn, DARPA's pandemic prevention platform. So what do you believe was actually being built under that program? Like, how far along was it before the public ever heard the word COVID?
Because, you know, like, what sort of scaffolding was being built as far back as 2017?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so that whole activity was called pan they gave kind of a pan influenza name to it, and they said, well, generally speaking, it's gonna we're going to be, you know, dealing with respiratory pandemics. So they they gave kind of a vague target to the pharma companies and and said, we will be and and then started soliciting proposals expansion of biomanufacturing facilities in a particular for a particular platform, like this LNP and mRNA type of stuff. By the way, biomanufacturing is highly specialized, and it's very difficult. I I used to do modeling, you know, financial modeling for pharma companies in in this sector, like, you know, how do you decide to invest in the biomanufacturing while you're still in clinical trials?
It's very, very difficult because the investments are huge. You have to commit way before you know that you have a product and you don't have safety problems. So this is very complicated. You can't just say, oh, you know, it's totally fine. We can scale the manufacturing before we even complete clinical trials.
This is nonsense. But this is clearly written into DARPA and BARDA PowerPoints. So there's huge documentation around that they were making these these statements that this is totally okay to do. And, well, of course, if you have unlimited government budget, maybe that's okay to do, but scientifically not. And and if you're concerned with safety, absolutely not.
And so they so that's that's what they were doing. They were just soliciting proposals, engaging pharma and academia in building up many huge manufacturing base and being able to quickly brew these concoctions without any regard to safety. Because they knew they're they're poison, and they knew they're making poison, and they didn't care. They just wanted to scale it, make it huge, and be ready to go in a moment, which
Speaker 0: they Did they know did they know at the time and they know this was poison. But did they know then that they would have the protection, the umbrella protection of emergency use authorization, therefore they don't even have to worry about trials?
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: They were aware from the beginning that they could create this poison.
Speaker 1: Exactly. So, there is another set of documentation, which was called legal preparedness by the FDA. So, the FDA legal counsel themselves have made numerous presentations. I have a gigantic file of them going back, same PowerPoint they were presenting every year to this consortium of companies. They're just, you know, evolving it a bit, but it goes back to about 2012.
The most in the most recent versions, they have slides that say, this is the law, you know, explaining this whole framework of countermeasures to the consortium participants because pharmas are are like, well, I don't wanna do this if unless I have a full protection. So this is FDA going to pharma and telling them, don't worry. There's a whole new section of FDA Food and Drugs and Cosmetics Act which we put in. It's called section five six four, which deals this with medical countermeasures. And in fact, in the PowerPoint slide, they said, if we didn't have this section, we would have violated Food and Drugs and Cosmetics Act by doing this.
Speaker 0: So they just added that section and to give them this additional protection?
Speaker 1: Just to take so say, you know, this section specifically says, if HHS declares pandemic emergency, then food and drugs and cosmetics app does not apply.
Speaker 0: Does not apply.
Speaker 1: Literally what it says.
Speaker 0: So they, I mean, they were really pushing them in a big, big way. I mean, was, like, the government really pushing them. Like, hey. We're gonna and by the way, they even thought through the questions you might ask from a legal perspective. Like, we'll provide the framework.
I know you might come back and be worried about this. Don't worry, we've got you covered.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely. And I know how pharma companies executives think. So every executive always has a a crew of lawyers around them because they need to have a legal protection from from knowing something bad. Okay? From even knowing something bad.
He and and, of course, the pharma companies are always, you know, you want me to do this? Well, what's my protection? And that's the dialogue that went for about a decade to convince farmers that it's gonna be all okay.
Speaker 0: So these discussions, Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, etcetera, is that all part of this? So those early discussions, even back in 2017, is that part of this Netherlands case?
Speaker 1: The so I have in my testimony, I I do go back to the 2017. I have the AstraZeneca tape and evidence and on, you know, the law that I've discussed, removal of all the pharmaceutical regulations because, again, as I said, through the mutual recognition agreement, it's highly relevant for the for the European Union. And government officials should have known and of course they did know. And so that's that's yes. That's part of of the evidence package.
And that's why my testimony essentially boils down to the statement 60 pages long and 200 megabytes of attachments. But it boils down to to single single very simple statement that these injections are indistinguishable from biochemical weapons because they're poisons. They're poisons, technically poisons, scientifically poisons, medically poisons, legally and forensically. In any way you look at it, it's a poison.
Speaker 0: So there's no gray area. Like, these are like a biological weapon.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They are biological weapons. And and in fact, we had the sixth witness, Francis Boyle, professor, Francis Boyle, who was law professor who was who has written biological weapons convention law and related laws. And he was willing to testify that these products are bioweapons and that they fit the definition of the bioweapons under the convention. And three weeks after he agreed to testify, he suddenly died.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: So this was about a year ago.
Speaker 0: Of course. So where does this case go from here? I know we're waiting for this appeal now. Your testimony entered in, but where do things stand right now in The Netherlands with this case?
Speaker 1: So the appeal is for the second case with the three plaintiffs, and that was just to ask for us as witnesses expert witnesses to be heard in in court under oath, which was denied by the lower court. And so we went to the higher court. We expect it to be denied. But as I said, this is fine. We wanted to bring attention to the case and so that's why it was open.
We Peter Stassen was able to negotiate, you know, that the court would allow all the attendants that came in and the press event afterwards and to to publish to get attention to this case because we don't we want to send the message to the Dutch government and legal system, which is very, you know, I would say corrupt, just like everywhere in the world and beholden to the government. But we want to send a message that you can't just quietly squash it. Now we have a hearing date on October 22, and that's that's very important, and we will be making a lot of announcements. We'll be inviting press. Anybody is is welcome to come.
It's a it's a, again, public meeting, open to the public, and we will have a press conference after.
Speaker 0: Well, Sasha, thank you so much for your incredible work on this. Where can people learn more about your work and where this case goes from here?
Speaker 1: So my substack, I publish updates on it, and I publish several articles on it. You can find information on my Substack. There is a foundation. It's called Foundation in The Netherlands that's funding this case, and they have a YouTube channel. It's also available on my Substack.
I I'll send you the link to that channel for for the show, and that's in English. So that YouTube channel has a lot of material in English, and people are, you know, absolutely welcome to help support this case. As I said, our budget is tiny. All of the experts are working for free. I traveled to Netherlands for my own expense.
Everyone came on their own expense. And so we're just asking, you know, please follow this case. Please support this case. It's absolutely real. Bill Gates is a defendant, absolutely real, and Albert Burla.
And so help us bring some sort of justice. I mean, I'm not hoping for a 100% justice, but something. We need to to to get it somewhere to the public attention.
Speaker 0: Right. We need these cases more than ever because that's where we get the truth. In the court of law, we actually can see the discovery. We can see the documents. We can get them on the record.
And certainly not happening in The United States given their protection. So thank you for your incredible work on this. Thank you for your testimony on this, and we will continue to follow it. Sasha, great to see you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Clayton.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🫣 Who Killed Charlie Kirk? It probably wasn’t Tyler Robinson. A rifle with DNA but no match to the wound. A confession nobody can verify. @LionelNation joins @natalimorris & says this case collapses before it ever reaches a verdict. https://t.co/Sxf6biyga9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Lionel Nation (Speaker 1) says he has no knowledge of who Tyler Robinson is and is neutral, but the case sounded odd and is now “imploding” in his view. He outlines two key points: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with malice, premeditation, and by a rifle or some weapon, and the jury will weigh the evidence, including a confession to the parents and the gun. He questions the confession to the parents, suggesting it may be shaky because the police or others may have pressured a turn-in. He notes a Discord message confession from Tyler and a “gay lover” with a fuzzy hat, calling it the strangest confession ever, and he speculates about whether the confession was really an attempt to turn himself in due to fear of police action, rather than a true admission. He discusses how the indictment might describe the parents hearing the confession on TV or from a sheriff’s friend, calling that portion “sloppy” and speculating about whether it actually came from Tyler’s own mouth.
He then examines the physical evidence: the Mauser 98 rifle in 30-06, the bullet not matching, and a lint brush analogy to illustrate a mismatch. He says the bullet “doesn’t match,” and wonders how this connects to the rifle; he admits uncertainty about the connection. He references gunshot residue (GSR) testing and notes questions about whether any GSR test was conducted on Tyler, and whether the rifle was fired. He mentions the rifle being found after dogs searched and suggests it could have been planted, or that it wouldn’t show residue if not fired. He stresses that the defense argues the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that if the bullet, rifle, or DNA evidence is not connected or if there is suppression of evidence, it could undermine the case.
Speaker 0 asks about whether the confession is hearsay, and Speaker 1 responds that confessions can be an exception to the hearsay rule because they are admissions, though the indictment may not contain the exact confession. He notes the indictment is bare bones and later details would come out in discovery and deposition, including what the parents actually said. He considers whether the parents’ statements could be contested or reinterpreted, or whether they would claim they misunderstood what Tyler said or were influenced.
They discuss the possibility of suppressing the rifle and the confession and how that would impact the case, noting the jury’s potential reaction if the only evidence is a vague confession to parents and an unreliable weapon. Speaker 1 jests about bringing expert witnesses, including a Marine sniper, to replicate the shooting and challenge the narrative, and about medical examiner reports and the possibility that the case could be dismissed if key pieces are not admissible.
They contemplate the broader implications: if the government quits the case in the interest of justice, or if deeper investigations or disclosures reveal additional suspects or motivations. They reference Joe Kent’s claim that investigators were hindered, and speculate about the roles of public figures like Cash Patel and Erica Kirk, with Speaker 1 asserting that Erica Kirk’s testimony and role could be pivotal or contested. He contemplates that the case might extend beyond the courtroom into public discourse, including TPUSA involvement and community reactions, and emphasizes that the truth will come from a combination of courtroom proceedings and crowdsourced investigation.
Ultimately, Speaker 1 reiterates that the question is whether Tyler Robinson can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if any link in the chain—confession, rifle, GSR, or other evidence—is not solid, the case could fail. They plan to monitor developments, including the medical examiner’s report, which Speaker 0 notes will likely be released, and suggest that the coming revelations could shape the narrative, for better or worse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My next guest has been saying for months that Tyler Robinson will be acquitted of the murder of Charlie Kirk because the case has never made sense. Lionel Media Lionel Nation. I'm sorry. Lionel Nation from the Lionel Nation YouTube channel. Now he you've called this one all along.
This conspiracy has turned out to be panning out in your favor. So lay it out for us how this case is imploding.
Speaker 1: First of all, we'll see. We'll see. Number one, little provisos here. I have nothing I I don't know who this Tyler Robinson is. I don't know who he is.
I have nothing. I'm I'm not for him, against anybody because everybody thinks that, oh, there's some reason, you know, some conspiracy yourself. No. No. I'm just a a lawyer sworn to uphold the constitution, and this case sounded a little odd at first.
Here are the two the two best parts of this. I am not I don't care about YouTube talk. People are saying, was it Mossad? I don't that's not gonna come up. Was it was it could could it have been Erica?
I said, what are you talking about? Here is the thing. The state of Utah has to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed with malice of orthod premeditation, our friend miss mister Kirk, probably with a rifle or with a hand or something because they have to specify how. I I can't say, for example, that Natalie Morris killed somebody. How?
No. No. I gotta tell you how. Excuse me. And when.
Now when the jury goes back into the jury room, they're say, okay. Now what's the evidence? Two things. Confession to the parents and the gun. Okay.
Let's talk about the confession to the parents. Did he really confess? Well, maybe. What do you mean? Well, if you read his statement he made to his Discord pals and his gay lover, the guy with the fuzzy hat, it it's it's the most it's the strangest confession ever.
Like, well, I I was there. Hey, guys. It's me. You know, I don't even understand what he's trying to say. Okay.
That didn't really count. To the parents, they're gonna say that he basically confessed to the father. What may come out is that they can say, well, he didn't really confess. What he wanted to do was to turn himself in because somebody told him, look. You better turn yourself in because you're gonna get your head blown off by some cop who gonna was gonna serve a warrant in the middle of the night.
And if you scratch scratch your butt the wrong way, you're gonna get plugged, so turn yourself in. So who knows what this what this this confession was? It's a little it's a little shaky. I don't understand it. I don't I I heard there was individual folks who were saying in the courtroom that the parents are gonna contest it.
We don't know. That's really it's weird because here's the thing, Natalie. If the if the police say, oh, you confessed to the parents? Good. And you're gonna confess to us.
How many times have you seen YouTube videos where the person sitting in the in this in this blank empty police room with this metal table, and you sign this. And did you do this? And would you sign it? And you had the right to remain silent, and you're waiving that. Right?
And nobody threatened you in any way or promised you anything. You're not being coerced. Sign this. This. Sign this.
Ta da. Don't know where that is. And believe me, they would have told you this. The police wanna tell you, we got them. So that's weird.
So you know what? I'll say, okay. I'll go ahead and I'll say, I'll let you I'll let you allow that one. Because if if I get my way, they're going to suppress that confession or whatever that thing was or do emotion limiting, meaning, I don't want you to mention it. But let's assume it comes in.
Alright. Fine. Here's the best part. What do you shoot him with? The Mauser 98, the 30 odd six.
The Mauser 98 is the model. The 30 odd six is the is the round. Okay. How are you gonna connect this to anything? Well, don't know.
The bullet doesn't match. Now you see this? This is a lint brush. Yep. This doesn't match either.
You know why? It had nothing to do with it. So they can say, well, you see, Natalie, sometimes these bullets, they will flatten, and it's not it's not unnatural for the bullets not to match. Great. So you can't match it.
And if you can't match it, you can't bring up the rifle. Now another thing they're gonna do is they said he had his DNA on it.
Speaker 0: Liz, can I ask you a follow-up question about the bullet? Because what the defense is saying is that the government has refused to acknowledge the mismatch or has not properly tested or has not acknowledged this mismatch. So
Speaker 1: it's like acknowledged it. It's not connected.
Speaker 0: It's not connected. Sure that it's not. Because because we know this from the defense. We don't know this from the government. The government is still holding their case that we think it's this guy still, you know, the I mean, the confession is still hearsay because it's not in the indictment.
We haven't seen
Speaker 1: it Wait. Wait. Oh, no. No. Wait.
Wait. Wait. For for for first, number one, the the the state is going to say they have a duty, an absolute duty under a supreme court case called Brady against Maryland. They have to tell the defense. If it didn't match, if there's anything that is considered exculpatory, anything that you can use in your defense, oh, they have to tell you or the case gets thrown out.
So they're not gonna they're not holding back anything. No. No. They have to tell you. It's a match or it's not.
So, anyway, that's step number one. Going back to the first one, it's not hearsay because believe it not, let let me this. You're spot on. It would be hearsay except that it is an exception. The hearsay rule has 50,000 exceptions to it.
Think about this. What is a confession? It's hearsay. It's an out of court statement, meaning it's not under oath, made to somebody else that's being brought into court. I'm the police officer.
He admitted doing it. We hear about admissions all the time and confessions all the time. In fact, we want you to confess. In fact, if he did confess, theoretically, he would say, well, isn't that hearsay? No.
Because it's an exception, because it's an admission. Who in their right mind says that they committed a crime or killed somebody if they didn't do it? So because it's reliable, it's not it's not an it's not you.
Speaker 0: Sign a confession when he turned himself in. The indictment says that his family members and this sheriff family friend heard it, and so they talked him into it. So we actually have no proof that it ever came out of his own mouth.
Speaker 1: Right. Not in an indictment in an indictment or in a charging instrument. They don't go into detail. They don't tell you how this stuff happens. You get that later on.
Speaker 0: But it does say I mean, the the indictment reads like bad fiction. It's like the mom's watching TV, and she says, hey. That looks like our son on the TV, and the dad says, yeah. That does look like our son. And then they call a friend and, like, hey.
That guy looks like our son. What should we do about it's the dumbest thing. It's like bad fiction.
Speaker 1: So It's it's sloppy. But here's the thing. Let's assume later on that they if if if he were to say, mom, dad, I killed him. I killed Charlie Kirk. That could come in absolutely because it is an admission.
It's a confession, and that is an exception to the hearsay rule. But we don't know if
Speaker 0: the parents are telling the truth. We don't know if the if the sharer of food now has retired.
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's what the trial's for, and that's what deposition is for, and that's what discovery is for. And that's why you're gonna get a chance to talk to the parents and say, now tell us exactly what you said. They could say, I never said any of that. I was talking about him turning himself in. They misunderstood.
Who knows? So remember, the indictment is very bare bones. The it's just it's just to get you in. It's like anything else. Later on, you'll flush it out.
Speaker 0: It reads like a twilight novel.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. But that's okay. That that's But but here's the thing later. But but here's the best part. We have this rifle that they cannot connect.
I don't give a damn if it's because there's the the metal in the bullet or the lead was deformed. I don't get what the reason is. Can you connect this? No. Number one.
Number two. Here's the best part. They had the weapon, the the the rifle that was left out, And it was left out or somehow was found after they sent in these gun sniffing dogs that can smell a fish fart. Pardon my French. And they are so good at this.
So they're looking around and they said, where is it? They go, oh, here it is. So somebody suggested, ah, it's planted. Well, there's another theory of this. The reason why they didn't detect it was because it wasn't fired.
There's no there's no residue for it to pick up. So we've got a gun so we've got a gun, a rifle that doesn't match and wasn't fired. Next, did any of you do a GSR, a gunshot residue test on this guy? Now I don't know. Hours later, the next day, it might not have worked, but somebody would have said, I wonder if there's anything on his clothes.
If you fired this, you you have blowback. You have it on your clothes and your cheek, and we don't even know about this. So you have a rifle. Remember, you're in this jury room, and they say, what do we have? We have a rifle that cannot be connected to him that has his fingerprints on it or DNA.
It's his. That's no big deal. And five other people or so. I wonder who those people are. Anyway, it's not connected to the wound, not connected to Charlie, not connected to anything, and it probably wasn't even fired.
So most probably, there's a very good chance it may not even be introduced because it will be suppressed. So, therefore, the jury's gonna go back. And what did they have? Maybe they've got maybe they've got a confession. A confession to what?
They're gonna say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we want you to find Tyler Robinson guilty because he confessed to killing his Charlie Kirk to his parents. That's it. With what? We can't tell you. How did he do it?
We can't tell you. Why? Because there's no way we can't we can't talk about the gun or the rifle because the judge suppressed it. This is not guilty. They're gonna say, what are we talking about?
What are we talking about? Now then you're gonna get into the other things. Now we we get into the really good first of all, first, they always say, Natalie, never have your client testify. Never. Never.
Never. Never. Okay. You're right. And this time I say, listen, kid.
You're gonna testify because we got nothing to lose here. And first of all, why? I wanna show the jury how stupid you are. I want you to get up get up there, start talking about that, and say, listen, Tyler, did you do this? Yes or no?
If he says, no, I didn't. I was going to. I wanted to. I was mad at him. Is that your rifle?
I didn't bring a rifle. Who brought that rifle? I don't know. Where did he put Natalie, where did he have that rifle? Down his pants?
Did he take it apart? Put it together again?
Speaker 0: How did he do the narrative that that was initially the government narrative. Yes.
Speaker 1: This guy this guy is up there for the first time. Now then I'm gonna get let's let's say, for example, this is my dream. I'm gonna have a witness list you can't believe, 200 people. And the first one I'm gonna do is let's assume I've got some marine sniper, some guy retired, gunnery sergeant. He he was he's an expert in this.
And I'm gonna say, sergeant or retired, you try to replicate this shot? I sure did. How was it? Harder than you think, and I know what I'm doing. Could you use this rusty relic Mauser ninety eight thirty odd six to pull this shot off.
You know what it takes, he said, to to zero to zero in the the scope, and the scope's a piece of garbage. And he did this for the first time. His breathing, he got up there. He did the reconnaissance. You've gotta get and you before you do this to pull this off, you just can't pull a rifle and shoot.
He he's he's there to make sure he balances it. Nobody else was hit. Nobody was shot. How did he do this? I don't know.
Could you do it? Barely. And can you then take your gun, take a screwdriver after you're done, break this gun apart, take it down, and then put it back together again because they found it intact wrapped in something. How many times did he take it apart? Then he tells his his girlfriend, boyfriend, lover, gay, whatever it says, would you go get this for me?
That's granddaddy shooting iron. Now think about this. What if Clayton goes and he does this? He says, hey, hon. Do me a favor.
Would you go back to that murder scene where everybody's looking? Right. Where all the drones are there? When you go get, can you can you go get this rifle and walk out with it? Because and not be caught because you know what?
My grandfather's gonna kill me if we've if he I mean, the the story is crazy. Now then we're gonna get into this one. Then we're gonna find out, give me the medical examiner's report. What's in his neck? What did you find?
The official narrative is that this 30 odd six hit his, either his cervical c two, three, whatever it was.
Speaker 0: Right. And then And
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have I'm gonna have every witness, I'm gonna say, his head didn't blow him up? His head didn't vaporize? Yeah. What? No.
No. Don't you understand, Natalie? He lived so strong. And his lifestyle and his diet, he was that his bones were like titanium. It hit the bullet, and the bullet shattered, and it and it went down into his it's like, what?
And this little hole here, that little hole, it hit a gusher. Candice Owens had a I saw a video on her on her show where others had it, I guess, a a scene from behind him. There's no exit wound. Yes. Nothing.
So this so I'm gonna say, okay. Let me see the medical examiner's report. What what did you recover? Let me see this. What is it?
Is it metal? Is it plastic? Because there's a lot of other theories out there. I I don't know, but people have talked about exploding mics and a variety of other things. If this jury is gonna sit back and say, what am I doing here?
I've got a guy who confessed to something. I've got a he a guy who and by the way, all of this shooting, if there's no rifle, if it is suppressed, we don't talk about rifles. We don't talk about shooting. Do you know what it's like to hear a you're you're you're hearing this sniping this this murder case where you can't talk about the shooting? What are you talking about?
He's confessing to something. This case is a dog. I don't know. And it's turning more and more into it, but they're doubling down all these people.
Speaker 0: If you were the prosecutor, you now have no weapon. You have
Speaker 1: May may have no ambition or confession. Yeah. May.
Speaker 0: Right. And so are you gonna just keep with your case and be like, I hope for the best? What would you do? Or would you say, hey. We need some more research.
Now we have a government official on record from National Intelligence, Joe Kent, saying we were not allowed to continue to investigate when we had looming questions. So if you're the prosecutor, what do you do with those two major problems? I mean, they're kinda big. Yes.
Speaker 1: And and, first of all, to get past a motion to dismiss Yeah. Where before we do this, the judge is gonna say, prosecutor Morris, what are you doing? What are you wasting my time for? Now, of course, this is a case of of of of renown. Nobody nobody's gonna do this.
But most judges would say, what are you what why did you file this? What are you doing here? Now let's let's get really crazy. Mhmm. Let's assume that in my defense, part of it is that the police didn't do enough.
And I'm gonna call to the witness, Erica Kirk. Why? Because I wanna show that she never gave enough info. They didn't even came to her or and I'm gonna get the TPUSA people, and I want them to see this. Have you seen have you seen Erica Kirk?
Erica Kirk can't answer her name without incurring the wrath of 90% of America. She can't do it. I've never seen anybody who has the effect of Jesus not believed. It's the strain and she I don't think she's a bad person. I just don't think she exists.
I don't think she knows what she is. So, anyway, if I got if you had this list of luminaries and all of these people, one after another, that jury's gonna say, this is ridiculous. Then I'm gonna find that out. Who was the person who paved this over? Wouldn't it be great if we this is a crime scene.
Mhmm. How did this happen? And then we're gonna it now later on, Joe Kent said, why why can't we do this? Why can't we investigate? And they said, we can't or let we'll shut this down.
Can you imagine what Cash Patel taking this stand? Why was Cash Patel even there in the first place? Why was he talking about the hospital? What what was this the Parkland Hospital? Why is he there?
Yeah. I mean, mean, this is this was so this you're gonna sit there and look at this guy. Now I gotta know. Were you there? What were you doing there?
Is that you on the roof? Did you what if he said, for all we know because he doesn't look like much, but if he said, I never was on that roof. How do we know this? I never shot anything. I couldn't do it.
I didn't have a rifle. I was there. I don't like him, but I didn't do that. I and how do I know I wasn't there? Because they never fired it.
Because the the the dogs would have found it. That rifle, how did it get there? I don't know. I don't know how it was wrapped up. Mhmm.
So if he said or said, look. You you can dig, know, whatever you wanted me. I didn't do this. Well, then again, what about this? Well, did you confess?
I didn't confess. Then then I get one of my my I don't wanna say nerd, but let's say I get one of my tech guys who go to Discord and say, can you can you legitimize it? Not legitimize. Can you authenticate this this this strand or this stream? They said, no.
And I'm gonna get one of my tech folks, and I'm gonna say, look at these these text messages. How do I know where they're from? I could come up with anything. You know, there's a thing you might have heard. It's called chat GPT.
Hell, I can make anything I want.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Who who are these and who says, by the way, look underneath the keyboard. Oh, look at this. There's a note using words and phrases. I mean, it it the case
Speaker 0: That was destroyed. That was
Speaker 1: yes. Stinks. That
Speaker 0: That was case suspiciously destroyed.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Stinks. And and also, let me say this and let me be not in any way reckless and be very careful what I'm saying. If ever somebody really needed to be protected, it's Tyler Robinson. Because if he is Epstein or whatever you wanna call it, and he, one morning, to the chagrin and the dismay and the horror of everybody, if he doesn't wake up, this case is over, and all this is moot.
And we don't have to worry about this anymore. And we can go on doing what we did before and say, oh oh, well, he was crazy. It was a little weird, and nobody will ask any questions.
Speaker 0: Nobody will You're saying wait. Wait. Wait. You're saying the government would give up and be like, well, we thought that was the guy, so we're not gonna we're not gonna go look for anybody else. We're we were saying fine.
Speaker 1: That's I'm glad you brought that up. I'm glad you brought that up. Do you know how many people call up and confess to these? Did you know during the Lindbergh during the Lindbergh case that where where they said, we're gonna fry whoever does this. There were hundreds of people who said, I did it.
I did it. During the Boston strangler case, people admitted. So I would say to the detective or whatever it was, if did did you go forget anybody else who did this? Well, yeah. If I walked in to the to the Utah Police Department and said, I did it.
Here. Arrest me. Do you have any evidence of it? Well, you don't have any evidence of him either. Do you have a gun?
You don't have a gun with him either. Why didn't you listen to me? Why did you why didn't you follow-up on any of those others? What was about this man that was so important to you? Why?
And you think somebody would have said, this this case is too, but look how they're fighting. Look how the TP USA people are are going on the Charlie Kirk show, which which I think is a is a a blasphemy to always talk about this. They have he's got to be guilty. What about the fact that Erica immediately said, I forgive you. I forgive you.
Forgive and he said, forgive what? Don't forgive me. Don't don't I didn't do how do you know I didn't do anything? Oh, I forgive you. Then she files emotion in an advisory capacity.
Oh, and by the way, yeah, we'd like you to speed this up so we can get through with it. So she just wants this done, and anybody who has shows any kind of question as to his his guilt is somehow a conspiracy theorist. We're getting that routine again. So let's just wrap this thing up. There may be no confession.
And if there is a confession, there's sure as hell gonna be no rifle because it's not connected to anything. Whatever the reason whatever the reason, If I say, this is a sample, and I'm gonna do a urine test to see if somebody's pregnant. And if it comes out negative, I'm not gonna say, well, you know, sometimes these things are sometimes they get false positives. Well, so what? Well, I know.
But, no. It says negative. What are you talking about? Yeah. But, you know, it might have been no.
Excuse me. There's no such thing as might have. The test says negative. You know, an X-ray says the bone is not broken. Well, sometime no.
You don't understand. The gun the rifle is not connected. I've gotta be able to tell the jury something. You're asking me what? What what's the basis for it?
Just because maybe that would be an a nifty rifle that one would use had there be had there been evidence of it being shot? I mean, it's it's nuts. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So let I wanna ask what we may or may not ever know because if the prosecutor is gonna continue with this case having no confession and no reliable weapon, we could possibly see the medical report because that's been
Speaker 1: Oh, you're gonna see no matter oh, you're gonna see no matter what. Oh, that's that
Speaker 0: is We will
Speaker 1: see this. Every reason.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Now you know where the truth is gonna come from? From YouTube, from people like you and me, from others. By the way, some of the best some of the best investigators I have ever seen on various YouTube shows and platforms. Incredible. Yeah.
Because, Natalie, years ago, there are people who sit back. I don't know where these people have been. They are some of the most diabolically genius people who are able to just sit back and go through things. Let me tell you something. There's also individuals who took SD cards out and and there are other things.
And there's another group of people who are gonna be saying, listen. This case may have fallen or fallen apart in terms of the state prosecution, but we wanna go elsewhere. Remember, there's four issues here. Number one is a crime itself. Number two is the identity of the cop of of the of the assailant, whatever.
The third is the motivation, and people really wanna know that. And number four, there's this thing, the gift to all of us called Erica Kirk, who came out of nowhere, who is just I mean, I don't know what it is. Joey Souzou meets Tammy Faye Baker meets I don't know what this is.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's confusing.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's it's in it's incredible. This will keep going on because we've never seen remember, during OJ, we didn't have the Internet. We didn't have anything. We didn't have social media. This is gonna be crowdsourced.
This this enters a new level of this. And remember, I'm not saying he's innocent or anything. I'm just saying our goal is, can you prove that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And if you can, if anything in that chain falls, he is acquitted. He's not guilty.
Not innocent, not guilty. That's the difference.
Speaker 0: Have we ever had a case like this before where the government is giving such a terrible indictment? The person gets off, and then that person can do interviews and say, this is what happened to me. I you know, I'm innocent of this.
Speaker 1: You better believe well well, not so much if I let me tell you something. If this were any other case, it'd be a dog it would be pungent. It was a I gotta file. This is a joke. I can't I can't even I'm not gonna waste anybody's time because the judges get very upset.
You're gonna you
Speaker 0: put tells me again that the real killer is Yes. Under no pressure whatsoever
Speaker 1: for investigation. That's called a patsy. That's the way you do it. That's what Lee Harvey Aswold was. You get some schmo who's there, and we don't know why.
Maybe somebody who's gonna be there in the first place, and you do the real thing. Put it this way. Tyler Robinson may haven't been involved in a conspiracy with people he doesn't know, which by definition can't be a conspiracy because he can't conspire. Because somebody may have said, we'll take care of this. What if I found out?
What if we found out that, you know, you're not gonna believe this, but in this in this wound, we found shards of plastic. Oh, you mean, like, from a micro or something else?
Speaker 0: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But how do we know? And you need somebody who comes in there and says really goes through this and says, oh, no. We're we're not done with this. Just because you couldn't acquit him, don't think we're gonna go bye bye. Who did this?
Because the bottom line is this. Charlie Kirk was a very important person. And I don't remember anybody in my life, a young person who has done so much to change. He was the voice of a new either conservatism, evangelical conservatism, Republican Party, whatever it was. He was critical, and somebody wanted him off in person.
They wanted the message to be sent out. They could've just dispatched him easy. He wasn't under Poisonous. Could've just sure. It could've been it could've been a botched robbery or something.
But just like with the case of that that Jeffrey guy in Manhattan, they wanted it in front of everybody. They wanna teach you a lesson. This is what happens. But who is this person? Now we can go through the list of suspects, who is it, whatever that pick pick whatever you want.
Speaker 0: Not your that's not what you're saying here is the government's making a crap case. They know it, and they're not trying to investigate further. And that's
Speaker 1: And it still could end they still could say, you know what? Based in in the interest of justice, we'll just file a a noble prosecutor. We have a noble prosecutor. We'll just dismiss it because we just can't go forward. That's it.
End of discussion. And then
Speaker 0: then it's for us to say, well, then who really did it? And they're like, I don't know. We're not that worried, I guess. Precise. A guy yeah.
So that's where we are right now. Indeed. It's infuriating.
Speaker 1: No. It's fascinating because this is our system at work. It's not this is the greatest this is criminal justice meets meets crowdsourcing, meets us. And here's the thing. Listen.
If Tyler Robinson did it, fine. Get him. I don't care. I don't care who he is. Don't even tell me his name.
Just tell me what the evidence is. Maybe like a like a pilot whose instrument raided. I don't know where I'm going. I'm just this says I'm going south. I can't see anything.
This says you got some guy here, and there's a rifle that you can't connect. What? What does that mean? Every there's never a question. You always have see, this is this is weird.
This is this is not an like like an OJ case where you know OJ did it, but you don't know how he can prove it. Here, we really don't know what happened. In all of the other assassination tapes or cases, they get the guy like in Butler, they get him right away. We just there's no doubt. This is a different story, and this was done in front of so many people.
And by the way, the millions and perhaps billions of dollars in what happens Because this let me tell you something. Whoever thought they could remove him, whoever thought, hey. TP USA and the movement continues, uh-uh. Uh-uh. This is this is serious.
So that part of it will continue later on. Whereas independent sleuths like you and me and others will figure out who's who, the Joe Kens and others. But for but for purposes, the admission and the rifle, if either or both of those are are thrown out or held to be unreliable, that's it. There's no case. Period.
There's no eyewitness. And the confession, I'm dying to see. Tell me precisely, and I wanna hear that parent those parents on the stand. What did he tell you? And if per chance, Tyler would take the stand himself and say, I never said that.
Oh my god. I mean, just to have to see the defendant on the stand never happened, except in the in the criminal case, it doesn't in a civil case. So we will see.
Speaker 0: Right. Alright. Well, we'll talk about it more later when we get more. But, you know, again, conspiracy theorists are batting a thousand on this one because we knew all along that the gun story didn't match.
Speaker 1: So okay. And roll. Yeah. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Alright. The Lionel Nation YouTube channel. Make sure you're subscribed because you get more fun stuff like this. It's good to see you. Been a while.
Speaker 1: Good to see you. All the best.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Israel bombed Lebanon hours after the ceasefire was announced. 🚨 The Pakistani statement that included Lebanon was drafted by the US. Now the White House is pretending Lebanon was never part of the deal. @DeCampDave says this is what a fake ceasefire looks like. https://t.co/LEWoYc06nn
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the alleged failure of Trump’s ceasefire with Iran and the dramatic military moves around it. The hosts point to Reuters and other outlets reporting thousands of Marines being rapidly transferred from San Diego into the region, suggesting preparations for a potential ground invasion rather than a real ceasefire. They highlight that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are involved in the efforts, and question why American forces are being moved if a ceasefire is in place.
They argue that the U.S. and Israel show no intention of a genuine ceasefire or meeting Iran’s ten-point plan. After Trump’s administration celebrated a “ceasefire breakthrough” with Iran, Israel reportedly launched a series of attacks inside Lebanon, with Lebanese sources claiming hundreds of civilians were killed (more than 300) and millions displaced, undermining the ceasefire. They note Israel’s continued strikes on Lebanon, with Netanyahu’s side stating they would not stop and would continue to strike Hezbollah with full force, portraying Hezbollah as a target tied to Iran and Lebanon’s invasion.
The program raises questions about whether the ceasefire could be limited to the United States and Iran, excluding Israel, and whether Iran could exclude Israel. They wonder if the ceasefire is a mechanism to reset or rearm rather than to establish lasting peace. They reference a draft ceasefire approved by the U.S., which Lebanese Hezbollah and others argue should include an end to Israeli expansion in Lebanon. Trump spokespeople claimed Lebanon was not included, but the hosts and guests argue Lebanon was indeed part of the terms, noting that the U.S. supplied a draft to Pakistan’s prime minister that included Lebanon, which Pakistan reposted.
Dave DeCamp (antiwar.com) and Max Blumenthal (The Grey Zone) join to discuss. Dave notes that Iran’s ceasefire includes Lebanon, and Israel escalated with “operation eternal darkness,” killing hundreds. He questions JD Vance’s comments that Lebanon was never part of the terms and suggests the negotiations hint at a deal only between the U.S. and Iran, potentially allowing Iran and Israel to fight. He notes the involvement of Kushner and Witkoff in negotiations and observes that the day after the ceasefire was announced, the U.S. and Israel acted in ways inconsistent with a real ceasefire.
Max adds that the White House has rebranded operations to “Epic Fury” and suggests a ground invasion appears more likely as a response to a failed ceasefire. He argues the ceasefire has fallen apart within hours and asserts the broader geopolitical dynamics—where the Straits of Hormuz act as a choke point and Iran uses cryptocurrency-based tolls—shift leverage toward Iran. He contends the war strengthens Iran’s political position while weakening those advocating appeasement or renewal of the JCPOA, and asserts that the U.S. can only cause more death and destruction.
They discuss the international response to the Beirut bombing, noting tepid Western condemnation and arguing the U.S. and Israel depend on U.S. weapons and bombs to carry out the assault. They observe that Western officials have not condemned the attack vigorously, and that the Lebanese public is rallying around Hezbollah and seeking Iranian intervention in response to Israel’s actions.
They reference New York Times reporting about Israel “dragging the United States into war” and the backlash against that characterization. They discuss the Pentagon’s integration with Israeli/Israeli-linked operations, and suggest that senior Trump advisers may have disputed Netanyahu’s narrative, with Ratcliffe expressing doubts about Israeli intelligence. They note internal tensions and potential fall guys like Pete Hegseth, while acknowledging Trump’s central role and the possibility of accountability at the ballot box.
In closing, they emphasize the ongoing travel of Kushner, Vance, and other figures to broker a 10-point plan in Pakistan, while questioning trust in the process and urging scrutiny of who is driving the talks and under what terms. They promote Dave DeCamp’s antiwar.com coverage as a resource.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was Trump's big ceasefire all one big cover up, a fake ceasefire in order to build up missile stocks, troops in the region? It sure seems that way. Reports overnight from Reuters specifically and now other news outlets weighing in on this, the thousands of marines are being rapidly transferred from San Diego straight into the region preparing for a potential ground invasion, maybe take a Karg Island, Conorock, other spots. Why send all these American forces if we're ironing out a ceasefire? We're sending Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
They're on the case. Well, it doesn't seem like The US and Israel have any intentions at all of a real ceasefire, or meeting any of Iran's 10 plan. Yesterday, the Trump administration was already taking the big victory lap over what it called a ceasefire breakthrough with Iran, but that celebration didn't last long at all. Almost immediately, Israel launched a series of terror attacks inside of Lebanon. Lebanese now saying, remember April 8, the way that you remember October 7, the way that we remember 09/11, April 8, Israel bombing civilians, killing hundreds, reportedly more than 300 people killed, throwing in an you know, throwing the entire ceasefire agreement into doubt.
Speaker 1: That puts the total of Israel's destruction in Lebanon at reportedly fifth over 1,500, you guys, 1,500 people now. Millions are being displaced. Thousands are injured. They are still digging out of the rubble you saw for yourself. Entire buildings coming down on top of mean, that is not what you call a precision strike.
A precision strike is not a real thing. It's a paradox. It makes us think that you can just sort of pluck out Hezbollah. Well, they're saying now that the value of Hezbollah is entire neighborhoods. Okay.
And stopping this land grab was absolutely according to Pakistani negotiators and the Trump administration themselves part of the deal. The Iranian government demanded an end to the IDF's expansion in Lebanon, and they did not do that. Now today, both the IDF and prime minister Netanyahu have said, absolutely not. We are not gonna stop in Lebanon. That was never part of the deal, and we're not gonna do it.
Here is a a video that you can seek out for yourself from the prime minister saying they are going to continue to strike Hezbollah with full force and continue inside Lebanon. They're couching this as we are gonna secure the security of just Israelis because Hezbollah has been retaliating on behalf of Iran and on behalf of Lebanon itself, which is being invaded. And so Hezbollah now is attacking Israel in retaliation. Now I just wonder if Israel can exclude Lebanon from the ceasefire, can Iran exclude Israel? I'm just curious.
Can the ceasefire just be between The United States and Iran? Is that a thing? And is the Trump administration really going to blow up the ceasefire so that Israel can invade Lebanon and genocide them the way they did Gaza. Is that we're just gonna have to watch that now? Is that what's happening next?
What makes this even more revealing is that the Trump administration had been pushing hard for a ceasefire for days. Behind the scenes, officials were reportedly involved in shaping the message that Pakistani prime minister ultimately released, meaning they handed Pakistan a cheat sheet that did include withdrawal from Lebanon on behalf of Israel. Trump himself had signaled support for the Iranian proposal, which he called a workable basis from which to negotiate. Now why the Trump administration ever thought that they could ask Israel to withdraw when they have already locked their jaws on Lebanon, I don't know. Because the Biden administration could not get them to unlock their jaws on Gaza.
How did we think that we could do this? I'm so curious. Now joining us today to talk about this, this obvious scuttlebutt, is Dave DeCamp from antiwar.com and Max Blumenthal from the Grey Zone. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.
Speaker 0: Great to see you guys.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Good to be here.
Speaker 1: Alright. We'll start with you, Dave. What do you know about the peace negotiation and the obvious pee in the pool that Israel is doing in Lebanon?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I mean, what we know as a fact is that the ceasefire that Iran agreed to included a ceasefire in Lebanon. It was in the statement that was released by Pakistan's prime minister that looks like it was probably drawn up by The US. We know at least that it was approved by The US before it was issued. And not only did Israel not just they didn't just continue their bombing.
They escalated in, you know, the worst way imaginable and and launched operation eternal darkness, which I can't think of a more evil name for a military operation, and killed hundreds of people as as you were saying there. And then what does Trump say publicly? He says, oh, Lebanon wasn't included, and the White House says that. J. D.
Vance, you know, what you mentioned there that, okay, if the deal is only between The US and Iran, does that mean that Iran and Israel could still fight? Because J. D. Vance said that it would be dumb for Iran to let the negotiations fall apart over Lebanon. But at the same time, in the same breath, he said that the ceasefire includes an end to attacks on Israel and the Gulf Arab states.
So it's a really bad sign for these negotiations, and, apparently, Vance is flying into Pakistan with with Kushner and and Witkoff, who who they should not be anywhere near this if if the Trump administration was serious. So based on the behavior of both The US and Israel just in the day after this ceasefire was declared, things really really aren't looking good. And then the messaging from the Iranians is that they're they're not gonna back down on these core demands, that they've put out.
Speaker 0: Max, do you buy the idea? Well, first of all, I I find it very fascinating because this is right at the end of the sort of we're getting approaching the sort of sixty day window here for the authorization of, you know, use of force, which would then have to recalibrate inside the White House where they'd have to come up with another operational name. Today, reporting from the White House is that operation epic fury has now they're they're talking about it in the past tense. They're saying basically that that was a success. It's done.
Speaker 1: Oh, so they can
Speaker 0: reset the Now we'll reset the clock. That's why all these troops are moving into position. And you see multiple reports about that. So I'm just I'm not buying the ceasefire at all. May I I know I'm a pretty cynical person, but where do you fall on this?
Are you buying it? Is this just a reset moment in order for us to put more troops and weapons in place?
Speaker 3: Well, maybe they have to reset the name of the operation because we re rebranded it as operation Epstein Fury, and it just kinda fell flat. Branding. But I totally agree. And Dave presented a very succinct analysis of how the ceasefire has fallen apart in just a few hours with JD Vance's dishonest comments claiming that Lebanon was never involved when we could clear that Lebanon was never part of the terms, when we could clearly see because The US supplied a draft to Pakistani prime minister Shabazz Sharif, which he then proceeded to copy and paste onto his ex account, including the header to be posted by PM Shabazz Sharif, which he then edited, which included Lebanon. So they're lying.
JD Vance is lying. Everyone in the US administration is lying. Lebanon was always included. Israel called, decided, we're gonna massacre 250 people, bomb a funeral, bomb areas in Beirut we've never bombed before, and that will be it. We're gonna provoke Iran to respond, and then we're gonna blame Iran.
And they blew up the ceasefire because they know that Donald Trump will not stand up to them and that they control what Donald when Donald Trump starts a war and when Donald Trump ends a war. We know that Israel is not happy with the war ending here or being left alone because it cannot fight on its own on its own. We should also mention the ground operation that Israel's waging in Lebanon is not going very well. So resort resorted to a performative massacre in order to shatter the ceasefire while US troops, marines are being deployed to the region for what appears to be the next phase and that this ceasefire was exploited to allow rearmament, redeployment, and possibly send some new interceptors to Israel as it was running out. And it will not change the fundamental dynamics, which are determined by the choke point or determined at the choke point of the global economy in the Strait Of Hormuz.
20% of global commerce passes through there. Iran is now implementing a toll system using cryptocurrency to charge tolls for the passage of ships, and that means that countries that wish to have an economy have to avoid The US and deal directly with Iran, which means that Iran has become more powerful now than it was before the war. It means that Iran is getting real dividends from this war through the application of force and the demonstration of their successful military doctrine. And that means that the elements of Iranian leadership, the IRGC, and their popular base in the country that support the war are gaining strength, while those that have always advised negotiations with The US and reimplementing the JCPOA, was which never gave Iran any dividends because The US never gave them sanctions relief, are being weakened. And so we can clearly see if the dynamics continue to play out that there's very little The US can do alongside Israel except cause more death and destruction while Iran gains power politically.
Speaker 1: Dave, I wanna talk about the international response to the Beirut bombing because it's horrific. It should offend every conscious human soul, And yet, the political response has been tepid at best. I was thinking today about in 2015 when, you know, all my Facebook friends put a Eiffel Tower overlay over their bio because of 12 deaths at Charlie Hebdo. I don't see Lebanese flags. I don't see international outrage.
I don't understand it. Can you respond to anything that you might think of that is an actual flex of condemnation?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I got the same feeling from reading the statements from European officials. You know, we saw them say, you know, really tepid language as you said. No strong condemnation of what Israel has done here. And I think the most shameful as Americans is the fact that this isn't just Israel bombing Lebanon. You know, they wouldn't be able to do this without our bombs and and fighter jets that that our government maintains.
And as Max said there, they bombed a funeral. And I saw the pictures of the aftermath, and you could see there are coffins that were destroyed. I mean, how can you possibly justify that? And it does look like the purpose was to just kill as many people in Lebanon as they could, in the day to just inflict this terror. And I don't know how what you could call it other than than a terrorist attack.
And, you know, people like to speak in terms of nine elevens. I I I don't know if you remember after October 7, that was something Tony Blinken loved to say. It was like, oh, based on Israel's population, October 7 was, like, seven nine I forget the numbers. But Yeah. I mean, Lebanon is a tiny country.
The the population is, like, five and a half million, and more than a million I think the number now from the UN, and this is just people registered, is 1,200,000 people displaced. I mean, this is a total catastrophe and humanitarian disaster in the way and it certainly does not get spoken about properly from from these Western officials that we see putting out these statements.
Speaker 0: No. It's it's yeah. It's the equivalent of 89 elevens or 76 Pearl Harbors, Max. But this is all this is all part of the plan. And as you as Natalie mentioned earlier, you have finance minister of Israel Smotrich announcing that Israel will begin expanding its borders into Lebanon, specifically part of the greater Israel project, Syria, and specifically Gaza.
And he says this is the only viable solution to ensure Israel is well protected. Watch this.
Speaker 4: Pakistan in person peace talks, and this is what the table is
Speaker 0: So, yeah, they're, I mean, they're not hiding it. This is all part of that greater Israel project that Mike Huckabee talked about with Tucker Carlson. Take it all. Take it all. And that's exactly what's happening here.
But reports Armaxx that the Israeli military is in disarray. And to Dave's earlier point about a ground, you know, ground forces, I mean, there's a real problem of, like, a ground invasion into Lebanon with this Israeli military in sort of disarray. What do you make of that?
Speaker 3: Well, Bezalel Smotrich being one of the biggest psychopaths in the most fascistic government in Israeli history, which is saying a lot because these governments have been fascistic since the beginning, is speaking to a domestic audience there. This is not for our consumption. We're not supposed to see that. And that's because he comes from this party that used to be outlawed even in Israel called or Jewish power. They are the most extreme party on the spectrum, and they're polling very well among younger Jewish Israelis.
They're the number three most popular party among the Israelis who have served in these genocidal wars for greater Israel. And so he's just speaking to that constituency and promising them some gigantic reward for all their sacrifices as the military falls, as you said, into disarray. And this is something that isn't even being hidden. You hear this complaint from members of the Israeli army's general staff. Bezalel Smotrich's son is a perfect evidence of that.
He was nearly killed in the initial wave of the Israeli ground invasion into Lebanon, along with many of his fellow soldiers. And his life was saved by Arab doctors inside Israel, while his father has called for Arabs and Jews to be segregated in hospitals and for Arabs to be prevented from treating Jews because he is a segregationist. So that's how desperate he got, and it speaks to the desperate straits of the Israeli army. Greater Israel was the objective of Netanyahu in getting The US and Donald Trump to use the US military as an Israeli proxy against Iran. A month later or more, The United States has lost the war.
Okay? They've lost. And that means that the project of Israel as this regional hegemon that was going to shatter Iran and actually then install some kind of puppet government, which would have forced Russia and China to deal with Israel as the Greater Israel Project actually started to consume the US government itself. That is not happening right now. And Israel as a regional hegemon has been defeated by Iran to this point.
A New York Times the New York Times correspondent in Lebanon or one of them, whose name I'm forgetting right now, she tweeted after the Israeli massacre yesterday that Christians and Sunni Lebanese and Lebanese who never would have supported Hezbollah are now calling on Iran to intervene and attack Israel to save Lebanon. And she actually had to delete that tweet because she was getting attacked by Zionists. It was very cowardly of her to delete that, or maybe The New York Times made her delete it. But that's the truth. That's the reality is the Lebanese public is now rallying around Hezbollah and rallying for an Iranian response.
This is in direct response to the kind of savagery and extremism we're seeing from people like Bezalel Smotrich, and that is not the dynamic that Israel promised would play out when it launched this war.
Speaker 0: Dave, the Times of Israel, because now of that New York Times report that, well, that Max was talking about the correspondent there. But the New York Times, of course, this bombshell report about being dragged into this war into Israelis war back on February 11, and that Oval Office meeting where Netanyahu came to did a it went into the Situation Room and did a ninety minute presentation with Mossad up on the screen and not and all of this. So the Times of Israel, now saying that Israel dragged The United States into war isn't just wrong. Saying that is antisemitic, so you're not allowed to say it. But as Tucker revealed, I think we've we've talked about this in the past, but he succinctly summed it up about how the IDF literally has desks, permanent offices and desks inside the United States Pentagon, and where we sort of do the bidding of the IDF and Mossad inside the Pentagon.
Watch.
Speaker 4: We gotta stop it. But you could begin with, no. You can't serve in government if you've got two passports. Sorry. Period.
At any level. DMV up to DOD. No. And if you've served in a foreign military, come on now. Especially when The US is at war, you can't serve in the US government if you've worn a foreign uniform.
Of course not. You can't hold elective office if you fought for somebody else's country because by definition, you have fought for aims that are not the same as ours. In fact, they may be in opposition to ours. You may have fought against what's good for The United States. Certainly, if you served in the IDF, you fought against what's good for The United States knowingly or not.
You probably didn't mean to, but you did. You shouldn't go to jail for that, but you can't be allowed to work at, say, the Pentagon. But right now, you can. And by the way, there are IDF officers working out of the Pentagon because they have an office within the Pentagon as they do at CIA and Langley. A foreign government has offices in our critical executive branch headquarter buildings.
That's just not healthy.
Speaker 0: IDF soldiers who walk the halls and actually are kinda rude to, like, other people that work at the Pentagon and sort of, like, that they kinda run the place. How are we allowing the IDF Mossad, to have this infiltration inside of our government, inside of our department of the department of war, Dave?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, this goes back many years, of course. But with this current administration, I mean, it's almost they're so beholden to Israel. It's just just kind of to another level. And what was really interesting I thought about that New York Times report was that pretty much every senior Trump adviser was named as being kind of saying what Netanyahu was telling them was was BS. That was actually the quote from Marco Rubio.
And also, they had John Ratcliffe saying what Netanyahu was telling them was farcical. And I thought that was very significant because if you go back before the June twenty twenty five war, as I understand how things went down is that we knew that US intelligence was saying there was no evidence Iran was building a nuclear weapon, but the Mossad laundered intelligence through the CIA, through John Ratcliffe, claiming that they were. And and now we have Ratcliffe on not on the record, but in this report saying that he was doubting the Israeli intelligence. And I think that's potentially a good sign that they're that they know that this whole thing has been a disaster and that they're looking for a fall guy. And the fall guy is gonna be Pete Hegseth because he was the only one in that report who they said was totally on board with this.
And when it comes to kind of that control, like, you know, how have we has our government become this kind of subservient to to a foreign power? People like Hegseth and, you know, our our demonstration of that, they have this kind of ideological underpinning. You know, he he's a Christian Zionist who wants the the third temple to be rebuilt. He shares common goals of people like Bezalel Smotrich. And then, of course, you have also the the Jewish Zionists in the government and and Jared Kushner, whose family is friends with the Netanyahu's, and and somehow he's still involved in these negotiations.
And and during the previous negotiations, which were a total farce, he was him and Witkoff were apparently convening with Netanyahu every day, speaking to him every day about this.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Right.
Speaker 2: So they're in charge, and and, you know, Trump has been open about the fact that one of his biggest donors cares more about Israel than The US. So this stuff is just so in our face now. That's why that New York Times report, you know, probably didn't surprise anybody that Netanyahu gave this big briefing to convince The US to go to war. But the two people who look really bad from that report are, as I mentioned, Pete Hegseth and also President Trump because it just shows that he was doing this, going along with whatever Netanyahu and Israel was saying. And I think the only hope we have to kind of come out of this soon without another war and everything is is if Trump, you know, decides to take the step to actually put pressure on the Israelis.
But, unfortunately, we're just not seeing any sign of that after this so called ceasefire was announced.
Speaker 1: Right. Max, I know you have to go. You have another commitment, so thank you for being here. Do you have any final thoughts on Tucker and his reporting since, this, you know, week of possible new nuclear fallout?
Speaker 3: Well, I think, just, yeah, just to wrap it up, Dave hinted at, Pete Hegseth taking the fall, and now there's this internecine war, the civil war brewing inside the Pentagon between Hegseth and Dan Driscoll, who's the army secretary. Going up against Pete Hegseth, who was a mid level officer in the National Guard, I think Hegseth's at a clear disadvantage. He could be the fall guy. Remember, he was exposed during Signal Gate. He got exposed last week for somehow, he's the only one getting exposed for insider trading when, you know, everyone from the Trump kids down to Baron Trump, the Witkoff kids, I mean, they're all involved in it.
We know they're all involved in it. He's the only one who gets exposed. All these leaks are coming out about Hague, Seth. So, you know, it will be delicious to see his coup de grace, but at the same time, we never see the leader who's responsible for this face any consequences, as Tucker pointed out, and that's Donald Trump. It was Donald Trump in that February 11 meeting that we all now know about who made the decision almost alone to follow Netanyahu into this calamitous war which has sent the global economy into a crisis that will last years.
And, you know, what kind of accountability will he face? None from within his inner circle because as we can see, they all knew this was disastrous, would be disastrous, that Netanyahu was lying to Trump, and none of them faced Trump. They're all yes men and yes women like Susie Wiles who are afraid to tell Donald Trump the truth. And so here we are. Donald Trump will have to face accountability, I guess, at the ballot box in the midterms, and JD Vance will face consequences for standing by Trump and for lying about this ceasefire.
But there should be legal accountability for threatening the death of an entire civilization, for attacking civilian infrastructure, and we have to consider that the Democrats are doing nothing nothing to hold Donald Trump accountable, which is another reason why he's getting away with it. I believe that Chuck Schumer, in his heart of hearts, the Democratic majority leader, actually supported this war at its outset, and now he wants it to continue because it's harming Trump. So they're not going to do anything to stop it.
Speaker 1: Right. On the contrary oh.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to add. Yeah. The the DNC today refused to condemn APEC. So the UDA party is I mean, it's almost comical. Like, yes.
This is all terrible. There's this mass civilian casualties at the hands of this government that this political action committee supports, but we cannot condemn it. It's wild sauce. Thank you so much for being here with us, Max. Dave, will you stay a little bit longer?
We wanna ask you a few more questions.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just wanna remind Max. I know he was saying before he goes, Max, I just wanna put this back up on the screen to remind you that saying that The United States was dragged in by Netanyahu is antisemitic. Saying that Israel dragged The US to war isn't just wrong. It's antisemitic.
I want you to think about that as you go about the rest of your day. Okay?
Speaker 3: Yes. Wisdom from slo mo.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks, Max.
Speaker 3: Thanks, everybody.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Max. So, Dave, yeah, I wanted to ask you about the the players now who are flying to The Middle East, the envoy that's going to be meeting, over the ceasefire, putting this 10 plan in place. Here's a graphic where you can see Kushner. You can see the players, that are there they are. You got JD Vance, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Mohammad, Gallabaugh, Abbas, Eraguchi, from the Iranian side, and this will be, of course, in Pakistan.
Why should they trust us again?
Speaker 2: That's a good question. And, I mean, the fact that Steve Wittkoff and Jared Kushner are anywhere near these negotiations, I think, is a bad sign. I think they gotta stay home. You know, especially Wittkoff's performance this last round. You know, he went on Fox News, I think, in just, you know, this is during the negotiations when they supposedly want a deal, and he said, oh, they they can have enough nuclear material for a bomb within a week.
Just no evidence whatsoever backs that up. And then as I mentioned before, you had, you know, Kushner was conferring with Netanyahu during the the during the negotiations. And even though he's not technically a member of the administration, he's been deeply involved in all of these so called deals that we've seen in The Middle East. The the one in Gaza, he was very involved in. And just today, the IDF shot a nine year old girl in the head.
People have been getting killed there every day, which has been completely overshadowed by this war with Iran. You know, JD, it's interesting that Vance is gonna be there. Unfortunately, I mean, you know, we were just discussing that New York Times report. And as Max kinda said there, it says in that report that nobody opposed the war more than JD Vance, but he sure did not seem like it in all of his public comments. He he stood by and after The US bombed in elementary school and just, you know, supported it and and and played into a lot of the propaganda.
And, you know, the questions that he took, I think, he was in Hungary yesterday about this, he was he he made some remark like, oh, the parliament speaker, Golubov, he said something like, oh, I don't think his English is very well. It's very good, you know, that he didn't understand the points or something. I mean, that's not a good sign. That that doesn't sound very diplomatic. And he's also, you know, going along with this lie that the ceasefire didn't include Lebanon.
So those are all bad signs. And I think if they really wanna deal, you know, they're gonna have to be serious, and they're gonna have to, you know, respect Iran's positions here. And sending Jared Wick Jared Kushner and and Steve Wickoff doesn't seem very respectful to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Agree.
Speaker 0: I agree. And, let's not forget the stance. You know, people think, oh, this JD Vance is gonna be the savior when he runs eventually. They're all in cahoots, and they're all part of this, and they have fully supported this war. There's been really no daylight at all about it.
Dave DeCamp, antiwar.com is a must read website. Please check it out. And can you tell everyone the name of the podcast as well?
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's called anti war news with Dave DeCamp. It's on YouTube, or you could, you know, wherever you watch stuff, and you could listen to the podcast as well.
Speaker 0: Awesome. I
Speaker 1: watch it on X. I appreciate it very much.
Speaker 0: Dave doing amazing work covering this ceasefire. So follow his great work at antiwar.com. Cuts through the BS. Thank you, Dave. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
✅ Iran came out of this war controlling the Strait of Hormuz and proving that US force is not the deterrent it once was. @tparsi says Saudi Arabia now has no protector, no good options, and may be forced toward Israel whether they like it or not. https://t.co/cCmfXqd8AU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Trita Parsi, cofounder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, analyzes the current Gulf dynamics amid the ceasefire discussions and regional volatility.
- Israel–Saudi normalization’s core flaw: these arrangements were intended to secure U.S. commitment to regional security rather than enable the U.S. to disengage. The normalization linked U.S. security guarantees for Israel with those for several GCC states as a counterweight to Iran, but after October 7 the basis for that alignment began to erode amid Israel’s actions in Gaza.
- Post-Oct 7 shifts: Saudi officials increasingly said Iran is not the region’s problem; Israel is. This undercut the Abrams Accord, which was seen largely as an anti-Iran coalition. Iran has managed to survive and, in some ways, strengthen, controlling key leverage points like the straits, and conveying that threats of U.S. force against Iran are not highly effective.
- U.S. strategic trajectory: the current dynamics may push the United States to accelerate its exit from the Persian Gulf. This could leave Saudi Arabia in a position where it must recalibrate with Iran—potentially angrier but more powerful—while also considering how to respond to Iran’s actions in the war and its own security concerns.
- Saudi–Israel implications: without a reliable U.S. shield, Saudi Arabia might drift back toward closer ties with Israel, though domestically that would be difficult. The Saudis had hoped for continued U.S. backing until Iran was significantly checked; given there were no viable escalatory options for the U.S. in the war, staying in could have produced worse outcomes, whereas exiting poses risks of instability and reshaping alliances.
- Host’s interpretation of the ceasefire: the host questions whether the ceasefire is genuine or a lull to restock weapons, while Parsi emphasizes the timeline issue—interceptors and THAAD remnants take years to replenish, and two weeks is insufficient for a real reset. He suggests Trump’s possible aim might be to exit the region, not secure a deal, leaving Iran to control the Strait and Israel to decide its own path thereafter.
- Historical analogies: Parsi likens U.S. occupation decisions to Bremer’s post-2003 Iraq policies, arguing that exiting could have avoided amplifying regional instability and the rise of insurgent problems, even if the outcome would still be painful.
- Overall takeaway: the future may involve the United States stepping back, Iran consolidating strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz, and Saudi Arabia facing a choice between recalibrating its regional strategy with Iran and coordinating more closely with Israel, all amid unresolved tensions and limited U.S. military capacity for a quick rebuild.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joining us now is Doctor. Trita Parsi, co founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, an award winning author, one of the sharpest analysts in Washington on Iran, Israel, geopolitics in The Middle East. And we wanted to bring doctor Parsi on today specifically to talk about the Saudi Arabian angle because this current war has reminded everyone how vulnerable The Gulf really is. Saudi energy infrastructure teetering on the verge, wider regional instability. And doctor Parsey, I think back in March 2025, you argued that Saudi Arabia and Israel normalization was never enough by itself to really stabilize the Middle East, and that a bad deal would be one that really drags The United States into deeper military obligations here, which is clearly where we are right now.
So, doctor Parsey, welcome to the show. Great to see you again. And as you analyze where we are right now in the middle of this ceasefire, quote, unquote, ceasefire, and the broader Gulf implications, where do you see things at this hour?
Speaker 1: So thank you again for having me. And first on the, Israel Saudi normalization, the key problem with all of that was primarily one, that these arrangements were designed to get The United States to recommit to the security of the region. Instead of us actually managing to finally get out, this would loop us back into the Middle East. So, you know, you saw all of these different concessions The US were making during Trump won to get the the various GCC countries to normalize with Iran. A lot of it was, you know, more arms sales basis, all of this kind of stuff.
And and from the Israeli standpoint, it was also a way of making sure that The US's commitment to Israel was now, lumped together with a commitment to some of the GCC states all in order to balance against Iran. Now after October 7, the whole basis for this started to decay because Saudi Arabia had an increasingly difficult time to be able to get away with any normalization with Israel while the Israelis were committing a genocide against the people in Gaza. And now prior to this war, you had a moment in which, you know, several GCC state, officials, including one senior Saudi, was coming out and saying that Iran is not the problem in the region. Israel is the problem in the region, which is really took away the the whole basis for the Abrams Accord because that was, at the end of the day, just an anti Iran coalition that was being set up.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: We have a scenario in which the Iranians have managed to essentially survive, but perhaps even more than survive, win against The United States. They're coming out of this definitely weakened in some parts, but with new geopolitical cards because they're controlling the straits. And they've shown that any threat of US force against Iran is really not that particularly effective. And this will probably lead to a scenario in which The United States actually accelerates its exit out of the Persian Gulf. And it will leave a country like Saudi Arabia in a situation in which it will probably either have to try to find a new modus who've ended with Iran, but with an Iran that is angry, vengeful, but also in some ways more powerful, and the Saudi Arabia that is also very upset at Iran because of the matter that the Iranians have struck at Saudi Arabia in this war.
It can no longer rely on The US, the Saudi, so that may actually push the Saudis back towards the Israelis. It would be very unattractive for them. It would be very difficult for their own population to accept. But it is a scenario that I can see as a result of these very fast changes that are taking place in the region right now.
Speaker 0: I love this contrarian view because, you know, what you're seeing is a military buildup. You're seeing Reuters reporting over the past twenty four hours thousands of additional marines being sent to the region. I said at the top of the show that I think maybe we're in the midst of a fake ceasefire, that there's just a reset in order to restock missiles, that this is gonna fall apart, and then the United States military will be even more entrenched. But I like your take on it, which is no. That this is a move right now for Trump to really exit the Middle East, get out, and now Iran will be stronger.
And it'll really be up to Israel to have to deal with this on their own and other European countries. Is am I summarizing that?
Speaker 1: I I think so. And, again, you may very well be right. I'm just trying to put what I see, forward. And what I see is not a scenario in which two weeks in any way, shape, or form is enough for The United States to be able to restock, for instance, on interceptors. I mean, these take years to build, and US production is very slow when it comes to this.
Speaker 0: And we're pretty much out of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So, I mean, remember, during the twelve day war, just in those twelve days, The United States consumed 25% of its THAAD batteries and interceptors. So and, know, those takes years to rebuild.
Two weeks is not gonna be enough for that. I think this is, again, part of what Trump wants to do. He wants to kinda show the muscles and think that this is gonna actually add much value to his negotiations with Iranians. But I have to say, if he manages to get out of this war through the ceasefire, and I think the base case scenario is that there won't be a deal, but The US won't go back into the war and will just leave and let the Iranians control the straits and say, well, you know, now is the problem with Israel. Anyone else wants to continue this.
But if he actually goes back into this war, I I have to say it would be, you know, as dumb as the first mistake was going into the war, to go into it again forty days later is just absolutely mind blowingly stupid. I do not see any military analysis that shows that suddenly, The United States would be able to turn this around. So having managed to get himself out, I think Trump's instincts will be to stay out of this world even if there isn't an agreement. I think that's most likely scenario. There will not be an agreement, but there will be a non agreed status quo out of this in which the Iranians continue continue to control the Straits and The US pulls out of this war, and then the Israelis gonna have to make a decision.
Are they gonna go at Iran alone, or are they gonna also back off because they really cannot take on Iran alone?
Speaker 0: Of course, now the Strait Of Hormuz transactions will be settled in a, I think, a stable coin that is a part of the Trump Trump family business. So Iran will be making money off of this, but so will the Trumps basically through like the stablecoin transaction instead of using the US dollar to be backed by a US dollar stablecoin setup. I mean, it's absolutely crazy. So they'd make money. They'd be able to walk away.
I I I don't know if I have that correct or incorrect. You can let me know and correct me.
Speaker 1: I I mean, look. I don't think it's entirely clear. What they have done so far is that they're charging the ships in Yuan, and they are open to charging it in Yuan or in crypto. Which exact form of crypto it is? I don't know.
And you may be absolutely right. It might be one of the cryptos that Trump has some investments in.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we might be putting the cart before the horse on that. So we'll wait to get further clarification. I saw some reports about that. But what I'll get you out of here on this, doctor Parsi.
What does the future look like then for Saudi Arabia and Israel if they're brought more closely together? Are the as you mentioned, the Saudis aren't gonna be terribly happy about that, but will they have a choice?
Speaker 1: I don't think they will have a choice. I think, actually, the Saudis wanted The United States to continue until they felt that Iran had actually really been set back. But bottom line was there were no escalatory options for Trump out of this war. Iran had escalation control, dominance of this. And, as a result, the way I see it, I think, look, going in was a huge mistake.
By going out, even though it was on Iran's term, was the right decision because just staying in it would have been even more disastrous. Think about it this way. In 05/23/2003, Paul Bremer decided to dismantle the Iraqi army and send about half a million Iraqi soldiers home, And that was the beginning of the creation of the insurgency and everything. It was one of the most decisive mistakes The US committed in that war. Now imagine if on May 22, George W.
Bush would have come to the conclusion that he actually campaigned on no more nation building. And he would stick true to it and just say, you know what? This is Iraq. It's not our country. We're gonna leave.
A lot of people would criticize him. A lot of in problems would follow because there would be a vacuum, etcetera. But I can guarantee you, all of the other problems that were caused by The United States staying for that long would not have come, including the creation of ISIS. That's how I see this decision right now. Yes.
It is painful. You know, having made started a bad war, there are no good outcomes, but staying in would have made it even worse.
Speaker 0: Man, I hope you're right about this. I hope you're right. I hope I hope you're right, and I hope I'm wrong. So and I will I'd be happy to eat my shirt if I'm if I'm wrong on this. Doctor Parsey, great to see you again.
Thank you so much for your great work.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Really appreciate it. I know you gotta run. So thank you, and thanks to the great work of you guys over at the Quincy Quincy Institute. Thank you so much. Thanks, doctor Parsey.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🥸 The ceasefire lasted less than a day. Israel bombed Beirut. Iran closed the Strait. Trump is calling his own 10-point plan a victory. @RyanGrim joins us to explain what $42 billion actually bought. https://t.co/M9FGxNi965
Video Transcript AI Summary
The host notes the ceasefire appears to be over after Israel scuttled Trump’s plans for a two-week peace; the Wall Street Journal reports that Netanyahu was furious he wasn’t included in the peace plan discussions. The host says Israel wasn’t formally part of Iran negotiations and was unhappy it learned a deal was finalized late and wasn’t consulted, according to mediators and a promoter familiar with the matter.
Speaker 1 interjects apologetically, then remarks that online narrative suggests that if you say Israel led the US into this war, you’re antisemitic, which they call antisemitic, and speculate that they’re all antisemitic.
Speaker 0 describes Israel as throwing a tantrum “like a toddler” after the peace plan’s collapse and launching massive airstrikes on residential buildings in southern Lebanon, supposedly with no military purpose. Speaker 2 counters that civilians are involved and mentions tunnels under the area. Speaker 0 notes these attacks also targeted Iranian and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure, calling it a direct attack on China, and claims at least 250 people were killed in these attacks on civilian apartment complexes in southern Lebanon. Speaker 1 adds that bombs continue to hit Beirut, with images described as horrific; there are 256 confirmed deaths at that point. Israel is also ramping up attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, which some warned would happen once the ceasefire was announced.
Speaker 3 states that Netanyahu says the ceasefire with the US and Iran “is cute, but it doesn’t really have much to do with Israel,” and that Israel will keep fighting whenever they want, noting that two weeks were announced but not the end of the world. Acknowledgment follows that “we were not surprised in the last moment.” Calls for Netanyahu’s resignation in Israel rise. Iran announces it will close the Strait of Hormuz; the Trump administration says water will open but contradicts Fox News reporting that tankers have been stopped due to the ceasefire breach. Fox News reports raise concerns about whether the plan is credible.
Speaker 4 mentions that Iran’s parliament says the ceasefire is violated in three ways: noncompliance with the ceasefire in Lebanon (civilians being slaughtered), violation of Iranian airspace, and denial of Iran’s right to enrichment; Iran insists uranium enrichment remains part of the deal, while the Trump administration claims they will not enrich uranium.
Speaker 5 adds that Iran’s ability to fund and support proxies has been reduced, claiming Iran can no longer distribute weapons to proxies and will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons; prior to the operation, Iran was expanding its short-range ballistic missile arsenal and its navy, which posed an imminent threat to US assets and regional allies. The host counters that June had claimed “done enriching uranium,” but Iran says they will do whatever they want, having “won the war.”
Speaker 6 asks how one eliminates a proxy’s ability to distribute weapons if the weapons and proxy networks already exist. Speaker 1 notes the points are contentious and shifts to a discussion with Ryan Grimm from Dropside News. The host, Speaker 0, asks Grimm to weigh in on the 10-point plan circulated as Trump’s plan, which Grimm says is not a formal document and not necessarily accurate; a “collection of different proposals” from Iran that was “collected into a single proposal” and later claimed to be new when presented as a new 10-point plan. Grimm describes the process as inconsistent and says the administration’s narrative has become convoluted.
A segment follows about a centenarian, Maria Morea (born 1907, died 2024 at 117), whose gut microbiome showed diverse beneficial bacteria; studies of long-lived people show similar patterns, suggesting longevity relates to daily habits and gut health. The sponsor pitch for kimchi capsules is included, noting it provides gut-beneficial bacteria with Brightcore’s product, offering a discount.
Speaker 0 returns to the ceasefire discussions, arguing that Israel’s actions indicate it does not want peace. Grimm expands, saying Israel is in a worse position than before and aims to push north into Lebanon and perhaps target maritime resources; Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz would elevate its regional status, with Belt and Road targets implying a significant structural shift. The host questions whether Trump would abandon Netanyahu if necessary and whether Trump would throw Netanyahu under the bus to stop the war. Grimm suggests Trump may prefer an out to avoid broader conflict, while noting the political stakes in the US and international responses.
The discussion then revisits how Netanyahu allegedly sold the war to Trump and cabinet members, with New York Times reporting that the aim was to kill leaders, blunt Iran’s power, and potentially replace the Iranian government, while acknowledging that the initial strikes did not achieve regime change and that Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies have been affected by the conflict. The segment closes with a humorous analogy to a Broadway line about a fully armed battalion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, that didn't take long. The ceasefire appears to be over, after Israel scuttled Trump's plans, for a two week agreement of of peace. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bibby was furious that he wasn't able or he wasn't included in our peace plan discussions. So like a toddler like, it's like a toddler had his pacifier taken away. Here's the Wall Street Journal.
Israel wasn't formally part of Iran negotiations. Wasn't happy that it got word that a deal was finalized at a large late stage and wasn't consulted according to mediators and a promote person familiar with the matter.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: But Okay.
Speaker 1: The narrative online is that if you say that Israel led The US into this war, you're antisemitic. So now they're saying Israel did, in fact
Speaker 0: Oh, right.
Speaker 1: Have a role in determining the outcome of this war. That seems very antisemitic
Speaker 0: to me. That's antisemitic. I guess we're all antisemitic. Yeah. I'm just ugh, that phrase.
Anyway, so like a toddler who's had his pacifier taken away, Israel threw a tantrum and is upset about it and then launched massive attacks, airstrikes on residential homes in Southern Lebanon. Take a look at this. Here, these are these are apartment buildings. It doesn't seem to serve any military purpose whatsoever. But, of course,
Speaker 2: they love oh, I'm sure we'll civilians. Unless US Fox News.
Speaker 1: And they'll say they were all Hezbollah.
Speaker 0: All of it.
Speaker 1: Even the children.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And there's tunnels under there and, you know, tunnel networks and all that stuff.
Speaker 0: Of course. Right. So and they also, as I mentioned earlier, launched massive attacks on Iranian and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure, which was just completed late last summer. I'm sure China so that's a direct attack on China, by the way, and their infrastructure. Attacks on civilian apartment complexes in Southern Lebanon.
At least 250 people were killed in these attacks.
Speaker 1: And we continue to see bombs all throughout Beirut. These the images are horrific. They're just as horrific as what we've seen in Gaza. Entire families, entire storefronts, these are this what you're looking at is a horror. We have only two hundred and fifty six confirmed death at this point.
Clearly, that's gonna cause more. Israel has also ramped up attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, which is what many Zionists were warning last night when the ceasefire was announced that, hey. Okay. The war we wanted is not gonna go forward, so we're gonna continue, attacks. You know, we're just gonna focus on our own backyard, basically.
Eyes are on our own paper since we can't lead the war in Iran. Now prime minister Netanyahu says that this ceasefire bit that The US and Iran have, well, that's cute, but it doesn't really have much to do with Israel, and Israel's gonna keep fighting whenever the heck they want. Watch.
Speaker 3: And Israel is stronger than ever. This is the bottom line of this campaign up until now. Let me say, there are still additional objectives for us to achieve, and we will achieve them either by agreement or by resumption of the fighting. We and we are ready to resume the fighting at any moment. Our finger is on the trigger.
As you know, two weeks ceasefire has been announced between The US and Iran. No. We were not surprised in the last moment, and I want to emphasize. This is not the end of
Speaker 0: the world. Safe face. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So he's saying, oh, no. We knew about it. We our entire country's pissed, but we knew. We knew. And there are calls for the resignation of the Netanyahu government inside of Israel.
Now in response, Iran announced that they're back to closing down the Strait Of Hormuz. The Trump administration says, oh, no. No. That's it just takes a while to open up water. And so it is gonna be open, but here's Fox News saying it's not.
Speaker 4: Are saying that oil tankers passing through the strait have been stopped because of Israel's cease fire breach. So you got that going on, and there's a report out there that says that the president might not send J. D. Vance to Pakistan for the meeting in Islamabad on Friday.
Speaker 2: Might be a little soon for that.
Speaker 4: Yeah. We're just kinda like piecing this together right now. Some of this could play out the way we're saying it, and some of it may not. I think it's tenuous at the moment. Mhmm.
And we've said it
Speaker 1: many times that
Speaker 2: Let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and stop that. It's hard to listen to Fox News. So Iran's parliament has responded with this statement saying, actually, you already are violating the ceasefire agreement. So there are three points here that they point out. I know that's hard to read.
You can screenshot and, or you can find this online later. They're saying there's noncompliance with the first clause, which is a ceasefire in Lebanon. That's not happening. You're slaughtering civilians by the dozens. So that's kind of a problem because it was in our talks, in our points.
Number two, the violation of Iranian airspace. And number three, the denial of Iran's right to enrichment. They are saying, look. We're done with this uranium talk. We're not doing this anymore.
You're gonna stop bothering us about uranium, and we're gonna do whatever the heck we want. The Trump administration is saying, actually, no. They're not gonna have any bombs anymore. That was never the plan. So which is it?
The Iran is saying uranium enrichment is part of the deal. Leave us alone about that. Here's the Trump administration saying, oh, no. We got our way. Watch.
Speaker 5: Iran's ability to fund and support its terrorist proxies has been greatly reduced. At this point, Iran can no longer distribute weapons to its proxies in the region. And most importantly, Iran will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons. Prior to the start of this this successful operation, Iran was aggressively expanding its short range ballistic missile arsenal. Through these weapons and its navy, Iran was attempting to build a military buildup around their country that would pose an imminent and existential threat to The United States military assets in the Middle East, our allies in the region, and ultimately, the free world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In June that they were done enriching uranium. Now they're saying because of this deal and our war, they're done enriching uranium. Iran's saying, not at all. Actually, we're gonna do whatever the f we want because we won the war.
Now we're gonna talk to Ryan Graham from Dropside News in a second. Go ahead, Philip. What's your point, please?
Speaker 6: Well, I just my my my question is, like, on that Caroline Lovett clip, like, how do you eliminate somebody's ability to distribute weapons to proxies? Like, if they have the weapons, and the people the proxies exist, how can you eliminate the ability where they blow up all their trucks?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: Like, I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That was not in the points, but the points are contentious at this point. So let's at least discuss it. Now I wanna remind you, Ryan Grimm had a victory lap yesterday because on Tuesday, when we all thought we were gonna die because president Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilization and trigger a nuclear war, Ryan said that Trump was going to regress to the 10 plan that Iran had offered weeks ago and spin it as a win. And that is exactly what happened.
Now here's the plan that was published. Now president Trump and we'll talk about the details of it in a second. But president Trump is saying, hey. Anyone who distributes this plan who thinks they know what the plan is, they don't know what the plan is. Only I know what the plan is.
Look at his most recent truth social. Numerous agreements are being put out. Don't believe them. Everything's happening behind closed doors. So blah blah blah.
The problem is that we're seeing clear violations of what was proposed before, and Iran is saying at least these bits of the plan, stop attacking Lebanon and Gaza, and we will do what we want when it comes to uranium. Iran is confirming that those were parts of the plan, and The United States is saying, not really, actually. Not not it at all. Not really. Not it at all.
How do we know what's going on? Well, we know The United States is not gonna be able to hold the line. We know that Israel will not do what The United States wants. We have no way of guaranteeing that. Beyond that, what do we know?
So we're gonna bring in Ryan Grimm right now, from Dropside News. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 0: Hey, Ryan. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Good to be here. How are guys doing?
Speaker 0: Good. Good.
Speaker 1: Good. Well, we're trying to read the tea leaves like you. The 10 plan that you had talked about seemed like a reasonable plan. It seemed like a reasonable plan to me weeks ago. And now the Trump administration is saying, no.
No. Those things are not on it. It's just that we won. Just that's all you need to know is we won. What do you make of that?
Speaker 2: Right. 10 points. W e w o n. Yeah. There it is it is true that you should be very skeptical of any slop accounts that are, like, circulating, you know, 10 plans claiming that these are the the official ones.
And the way that the quote, unquote, 10 plan came together is was not a straight line either. You know, it it was kind of a collection of different, proposals that, Iran put forward to different intermediaries throughout the course of the the conflict. And it kinda got collected into into this, you know, single proposal, which the Trump administration had initially said was garbage and they didn't like and then said this is good enough to, you know, begin negotiations on. And then as, you know, it starts to you know, as Trump starts to take blowback for that, Now they're saying, he threw those in the garbage, but then they sent new proposals that made up a new 10 plan, and he accepted those, but those are secret. That part is just an obvious lie.
Like that that is just an attempt to justify or or explain the unexplainable, which is like, why was this thing that you said sucked three days ago? Why was it acceptable now, three days later? So you have to then make up a lie that they sent something new, but they, in fact, they did not.
Speaker 1: So when you look at So stupid. It's beyond stupid. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So listen to this little story here. Maria Morea was born in nineteen o seven when horses still shared the streets with cars. She lived through two world wars, the Spanish civil war, the rise of the Internet. And when she passed away in August 2024 at a 117 years old, she was the world's oldest person.
And after her death, researchers examined something remarkable. Her gut microbiome was remarkably diverse in beneficial bacteria, and scientists studied other similar people. They found similar patterns. People who lived to be over 100 years old, they had greater microbial diversity and stronger gut balance. So all of those centenarians out there had the same thing.
They had immune health, heart health, even brain health, which is all linked to that gut bacteria. And that's why Maria's story matters so much because longevity isn't just one miracle solution. It's about daily habits that nourish your internal environment, and consuming kimchi is the strongest and simplest way to replenish beneficial bacteria and maintain microbial balance. That's why Brightcur created kimchi one, because if you don't like the taste of kimchi, you know, lot of South Koreans love it, but maybe not a lot of Americans love that taste, then you can get it all, the benefits, in a single capsule, delivering the benefits of fermented kimchi in a convenient capsule to help restore your gut's natural balance every day. I take it twice a day.
It's part of my daily daily supplement stack, and you can grab it too, you get 25% off. Go to my brightcore.com/redacted or call 1884046312 to get 50% off and free shipping. (888) 404-6312. So when you look at this ceasefire seemingly falling apart now, Israel by the way, Joe Kent predicted this yesterday. Sent out a video predicting that this is exactly what would happen, that the Israelis would not want this to happen, and they would get in the way of it, try to create some sort of diversion, some sort of an attack.
They would, scuttle these plans, and that seems to be exactly what's happened here. Iran now blocking the Strait Of Hormuz again. Attacks on Iranian and Chinese infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. So that that's the first really direct hit against China now in this from the Israeli side. And then, of course, we're gonna talk a little bit later more deeply all about what's going on in in Southern Lebanon.
But all of that to say that Israel seems to not want a peace agreement.
Speaker 2: No. They they absolutely do not want a peace agreement. Certainly not at certainly not right now. They are in a substantially worse position materially and strategically than they were before they successfully got The US to launch this war. So no, now, you know, and Netanyahu's strategy, if you're gonna call it that has always been just to fight another day, and just see what happens.
You know, just take that take another step forward. So now they they wanna they wanna continue pushing north in Lebanon, bombing Beirut relentlessly. And, you know, there's a there's a gas field in the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel and Lebanon that I think is probably, you know, has something to do with them pushing northward here as well. It's not just the land. It's what's under the under the Mediterranean Sea as well.
But if Iran is, you know, successful in creating a permanent end to this war while in control of the Strait Of Hormuz, they become you know, that marks them as a as a major player in the region, a much bigger player in the region and in the world than they were before this war.
Speaker 0: And the amount of money that they'll be making from these transactions, hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions, they'll be part of the agreement, it seems, is that they'll be in control of it. So, you know, Mood of Alabama asked this question this morning, which is if Trump really wants to stop losing the war he had started on the the advice of Netanyahu, He will have to throw him under the bus. Do you think there's any chance that Trump throws Netanyahu under the bus?
Speaker 2: With Trump, there's always a chance of anything. I I don't see it as likely, but it looks like Trump I mean, it looks like Netanyahu doesn't wanna leave him any choice, that it's either he can have the ceasefire that he announced and that he said was bringing world peace and throw Netanyahu under the bus, or he can be dragged back into war again. So the last time we were dragged into war, it was because, you know, Iran has ballistic missiles that maybe could reach Europe. I'm like, well, how how how is that our problem again? Yeah.
Now it would be we're getting dragged back into war because of Lebanon. Okay. Hezbollah, the ninth you know, the marine barracks bombing in the eighties, but I like, I don't see how you sell the American people on continuing this war on Hezbollah.
Speaker 0: Well, you have people like
Speaker 2: Iran is one thing. Iran, you've they've been propagandizing Iran, death to America, great Satan, all this stuff for decades. Lebanon?
Speaker 0: Right. Which is a threat to Israel, and now we have to care what Lebanon does to Israel? I mean Right.
Speaker 2: And and they're a threat to Israel because Israel is invading them.
Speaker 1: Right. And that's we should
Speaker 2: You don't want like should rewind the clock. In your own country. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And remind everybody that Hezbollah exists because of the invasion of Lebanon by the IDF in, I believe, 1987.
Speaker 2: That is
Speaker 1: why they were created so that this could never happen again, and it's happening again. They are extremists for sure. They think there are no innocent Israelis, but at the same time, that's not the Lebanese government.
Speaker 2: They're basically the government of southern Lebanon. So they actually now they there's a diversity of political perspectives, you know, in inside of Hezbollah because they're all pretty hegemonic Mhmm. When it comes to that area of of Hezbollah. So whoever you are in politics, like, you're probably gonna you're interfacing or part of Hezbollah one way or the other. But yeah, you're right.
There's 82 invasion that lasted until 2000. And then they were expelled by Hezbollah. And but now that they're involved in everything, you know, from schools to student council elections to, you know, hospitals and so forth. It it's it's a social movement and a political party as well as a resistance force. But, yeah, they're like, if they if they leave, like, Hezbollah has agreed to the ceasefire.
If Israel just stops shooting, that'll be it. Like, Hezbollah showed, you know, throughout the last ceasefire that they were willing to respect it while Israel bombed Southern Lebanon during the last, quote, unquote, ceasefire almost every day.
Speaker 0: Well, you have Fox News doing the propaganda work. Mark Levin and and others, of course, doing the propaganda work because now they're shifting the narrative. It's all it is about Hezbollah suddenly. Like, that's the focus now. It's about Lebanon.
So you have the Fox News audience, which is now like, yeah. Now we have to care about Lebanon. You have Hezbollah coming to our children's, soccer games. But here's Mark Levin trying to, push this. Watch.
Speaker 7: People of Iran. What are we gonna just leave them there? There's nothing that we can do, and we're gonna wash our hands over that? That to me is is morally very difficult very difficult to accept. And then what about the proxies, Hezbollah?
I was reading these statements. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than Iran directly. Hezbollah is Iran. Hezbollah is firing missiles into Israel by the hundreds still, and here we have a ceasefire that they've already broken. And so, yes, the argument will be, well, they don't have control of this and control of that.
Well, if they don't have control of this and control of that, how do we even enter into an agreement? There's a lot of complicated issues.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A lot of complicated issues, Mark. So, yeah, the story is now about Hezbollah. As And someone in our chat pointed out just now, there's millions of Christians that live in Lebanon. Right?
This idea, you know, I think the arguably the most Christian of the Middle East countries as well, but we don't care about Christians at all. We're fine to just bomb them in those neighborhoods as well. But I love the Fox News sort of propaganda play of this, which is that that it was, you know, Iran through proxies that broke this ceasefire. Right.
Speaker 2: Well, there was never a ceasefire from Israel's side to Lebanon. Like, they that never for a second recognized rejected it. They said this does not include Lebanon. And it it's it's kind of crazy making because so at 07:50PM, Eastern, Shabazz Sharif, the Pakistani prime minister, put out a post on social media, you know, with he gives me the warmest, know, gratitude to with the warmest gratitude, I announced the ceasefire. And he said specifically in, like, the first or second paragraph of a very short item.
It's like, you don't have to read very far. It said it applies to The US and its allies and to Iran, and it includes all fronts, including Lebanon. Like and then Trump shared that post. You now have Trump, JD Vance, and Israel all saying it doesn't apply to Lebanon. JD Vance trying to be gracious in a there's a little clip of him going around now saying, well, I think this was a good faith misunderstanding on on Iran's part.
I was like, yo. They misunderstood the words including Lebanon to mean Right. Yeah. Including Lebanon. And it's an under that's an understandable mistake because you and I would probably make the same mistake, reading those words to think, oh, yeah.
Including Lebanon means including Lebanon.
Speaker 0: Lost in translations.
Speaker 1: No. Because I'm not trying to invade Lebanon, so I wouldn't mistake that I'd have to stop that. So you'd have to have nefarious I mean, can we just look again at the Iranian parliamentary statement that says, here are the three ways that already this ceasefire has been broken, which is noncompliance.
Speaker 2: Three fears. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Which is noncompliance with Lebanon, violation of their airspace, and denial of the uranium bit. So, again, we you know, when we look back to what was this all for? What do we do this for? What do we spend billions of dollars for to do this for?
Well, we did not affect regime change. We did not, in fact, stop their ability to enrich. They're saying right here, this was all always a part of the agreement. We are gonna have whatever the weapons, whatever we want. And we do want you to pull back from Gaza and from Lebanon.
So we will have less, far less than when we started.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's right. You know, we we now have that really good piece in the New York Times that that lays out precisely how Netanyahu sold the war to to Trump and his cabinet in the Situation Room on February 11. And he said, you know, we're we can kill the Ayatollah and a bunch of the top leadership. We can we can block their ability, blunt their ability to attack the Gulf countries and project power into the Strait Of Hormuz.
We won't be able to block the Strait Of Hormuz. We'll be able to overthrow the government, and we'll be able to replace them with a kind of secular, you know, pro American, pro Israeli, government. Like, that was that was what they sold. And so then they embarked on this mission with those with those things as the goals. Although, it seems like Trump, before he even launched, it kind of gave up on the regime change part, but still wanted to do the war.
But, you know, none of those yes, they killed the Ayatollah, and and a significant amount of the senior leadership on, you know, minute one. But beyond that, it's been just, yes, they have we have a lot of weapons, and we can, we can bomb a lot of military and civilian infrastructure, which, which we did. And yes, Iran's ballistic missile supplies are, are depleted, maybe down to 50% or so. But that's because a huge portion of them blew up in our bases in The Gulf and hitting targets in Israel and throughout The Gulf. So, yes, we reduced the number of ballistic missiles they have, but that's because they use them on us.
So I don't quite get the strategy there, but, know, I'm not a military expert.
Speaker 0: So I wanna dive deep into how we got here and go through that New York Times piece after a quick break. But before we do that, I wanna put up this, which is a tweet from Ethan Levins. And I wanna get your take on this, Ryan, which is so this was fully Trump's plan, he says. Sign a ceasefire, but allow Israel to keep bombing Lebanon. This makes Iran break the ceasefire to protect Lebanon, giving Trump no choice but to invade Iran.
This explains Trump accepting Iran's terms. He never intended to go through with it. Pretty cynical. Do
Speaker 2: you I don't think that don't think that's right. I think it's a little little bit too much forethought. If Trump wants to invade Iran, he'll just invade Iran. I think the reason he accepted his terms is that it was the only out for him once the entire kind of world was like, yo, you can't you can't end a civilization. Like, that's not that's not on the that's not on the table for you.
So he had and so he needed an out. And the only face saving out was to say, They've offered me this 10 plan. It's good enough. We're gonna work on this. I'd and I I think when it comes to them attacking Lebanon, I think that maybe that's a bit of a power play from the American side.
Let's let's see how far can push Iran. Like, is this the old Iran that it was doing, you know, calibrated retaliation and is and is much more cautious, or is this the new Iran which is responding, you know, to violence with violence? So I think they're kind of testing Iran at this moment.
Speaker 0: I see
Speaker 1: a lot of MAGA who are like, he didn't mean it. You know, he was it was just negotiating. It's the art of the war. And I find that deplorable because how can you tell that to kids? Kids don't understand that.
We're the adults in the room. You can't just go around waving a knife at daddy. Like, it scares them. And and I I can't accept that as like, oh, come on. You you took it seriously because it is he is the leader of the free world.
He did say it, and it's genocidal intent. And I I was doing everything I could to keep my kids from the Internet yesterday because I didn't want this to scare them.
Speaker 2: It's crazy. Yes. There's no there's no justifying it. Like and and and some are, of course, but, like, he lost so many people with that.
Speaker 1: You think?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, just, you know, you've got you had a Tucker saying check, please, Megan. Yeah. And that's, like, at the higher level.
Like, I think on the lower like, on the more grassroots level. That's you know, this was sold as liberating the Iranian people.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And we
Speaker 2: week ago.
Speaker 0: Right. We're gonna come save you. And how we do it is we blow up all of your bridges and infrastructure, and we kill your we we destroy your universities. Yeah. That's how I you know, that's like it reminds me of the Broadway show Hamilton, you know, when you have King George come out through that little intermission.
He says, you know, I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love. Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told Israel bombed 100+ locations in Beirut with no warning to civilians. Ben Swann says this story isn’t being covered because Iran was the curtain. The real goal, he says, was southern Lebanon and the greater Israel project—“they” used us to make it happen.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚀 Israel bombed over 100 locations in Beirut today with no warning to civilians. @BenSwann_ says this is the story nobody's been covering because Iran was the curtain. The real goal was always southern Lebanon & the greater Israel project. They used us to make it happen. https://t.co/hdvrBRq0rj
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ayman Ramel from Beirut sent in a super chat saying today was very tough as Southern Lebanon faced ongoing devastation, with the scene described as Israel’s continued bombing of Southern Lebanon in real time. The IRGC (Iran) characterized the attacks as an Israeli savage massacre, claiming hundreds killed in one of the biggest strikes on its capital, and pledged revenge. Tehran called the action a breach of the ceasefire with the United States and claimed it represented a historic and crushing defeat for the US, promising retaliation against Israel. Israel’s IDF spokesperson said they would continue operations against Hezbollah as long as Hezbollah threatened Israeli civilians, accusing Hezbollah of targeting civilian infrastructure and displaying video of attacks in a populated city center. An initial casualty figure cited before the broadcast was around 256, but the number was believed to be higher.
Ben Swan, an independent journalist, joined to provide on-the-ground context from Beirut. He reported that numbers of dead ranged from about 280 to 350, with injuries around 1,500. He noted more than 100 locations bombed that morning, highlighting the dynamic and fluid casualty count. He observed that Israel did not issue the usual warnings—no leaflets or cell-phone alerts indicating where strikes would occur—leading to civilians, including women and children, being killed with little or no forewarning. He emphasized that the affected areas in Southern Lebanon are historically Christian and home to long-standing communities, noting connections to biblical sites in the region (e.g., Cana’s wedding and Peter’s burial site) to illustrate the demographic being affected. He claimed Israel’s stated objective is to take Southern Lebanon up to the Litani River and to integrate it into a broader “Greater Israel” project, with Netanyahu’s office reportedly warning Lebanon’s army to move away from a bridge crossing the Litani River as a strategic target. This would geographically separate Northern and Southern Lebanon, according to the narrative aired.
The discussion touched on broader political themes including debates about whether Israel’s actions reflect a broader tactic to project power or to distract from other regional pressures. The conversation linked the conflict to perceptions of American influence and strategy, including whether the United States has leverage to influence Israel’s actions. Some participants argued that US influence exists and that global opinion has grown more critical of Israel, citing condemnation from European leaders and shifts in international sentiment. They argued that Israel’s messaging has been effective in focusing attention on Iran, potentially allowing actions in Lebanon to proceed with less scrutiny.
The speakers explored the idea that the conflict is part of a broader geopolitical strategy, including claims that the war serves to advance the so-called “Greater Israel” project, and discussed how Western powers, notably the United States, are perceived as entangled in regional dynamics. They contrasted perceived Israeli tactics with Russia’s more deliberate approach in Ukraine, suggesting Israel’s strategy aims to destroy civilian infrastructure to prevent return to the territory, whereas Russia has pursued more selective destruction.
The program suggested that if China and other nations condemn the actions, international pressure could intensify, potentially escalating beyond a regional conflict. The speakers referenced a report from Breaking the Silence about Israel’s past Gaza operations, describing it as a “construction project” of destruction, to illustrate a pattern of strategic demolition of civilian infrastructure.
In summary, the segment described an intensified conflict in Southern Lebanon with high casualties and widespread bombings, alleged lack of civilian warnings, and discussions about strategic objectives, US influence, and broader geopolitical implications, including potential global ramifications if international responses intensify.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We just got a comment here, super chat from Ayman Ramel, from Lebanon, who's watching us live right now in Beirut, Lebanon says today was very tough.
Speaker 1: It's awful.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course, was because devastation has rained down on Southern Lebanon. The problem, well, if you've seen the the it's continuing right now as we speak. So we're like in real time continuing to bomb Israel's continuing to bomb Southern Lebanon. And new reports from the IRGC on the Iranian side, they have called this an Israeli savage massacre, killing hundreds of people in one of the biggest series of attacks yet on its capital, killing hundreds according to the civil civilian defense.
The IRGC Aerospace Force has pledged revenge for this attack. According to Tehran, it's a breach of the ceasefire agreement with The United States. And they said this represents a historic and crushing defeat for The United States. And so they are going to respond to Israel.
Speaker 1: Now the IDF is saying as long as Hezbollah continues to threaten our civilians, we will continue to operate against them. So they have no remorse. They have no explanation for targeting civilian infrastructures. You've seen the videos. We're gonna show you a few here as I speak.
These are apartment buildings. Of course, every time they never have to prove. Nope. Hezbollah was there. We were targeting Hezbollah.
But you can see these are attacks across a populous city center. This is this is a capital city. You know, you're not just that's can we call that a precision strike? Is that what we'd call? The civilians going for Hezbollah there?
No. You know what the casualties are. Before we went to air, the number was about 256. I'm sure. Dead.
It's far higher than that. Now we've had condemnations from Qatar, from various foreign leaders. But, again, Israel is saying, it's our prerogative. We're gonna do it because Hezbollah is attacking us. And, again, I remind you that Hezbollah was created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon.
That was the impetus for this group saying we shall never have this happen to us again. Are they religious extremists? Yes. But did it have to be like this? Obviously not.
And, so now it's an entire civilization that's being attacked that I guess they're thinking we let Gaza slide. We watched dozens and dozens of children die every day on our screens before our very eyes. So we're gonna say some bad words. We're not gonna like it. But we'll abide it because we did already.
Speaker 0: Right? People will go along with this, but Iran is having enough of this. So, yeah, the international community has gone along with this for far enough.
Speaker 1: Why the heck not? I mean, you know, kill some Muslims. They'll just keep going. That's that's what they've done. They can just keep going, I suppose.
We're gonna talk to Ben Swan now about this. He's been following the situation in Lebanon and the international response. Thank you so much for joining us. Good to see you again.
Speaker 0: Independent journalist. Great to see you, So where do things stand right now as we come to air on what's what the response is and what you've been tracking inside of Lebanon?
Speaker 2: Yeah. We actually just finished, interviewing a crew that's on the ground in Lebanon right now in Beirut. So the numbers right now, anywhere from about 280 to 350 who were dead. Again, as you said, it's very dynamic because right now, you have over a 100 different locations that were bombed this morning. And so the the death toll is always changing.
Injuries are close to fifteen hundred now. So it's it's a very serious situation in that respect. Something that's very interesting, though. You know, normally, there's kind of a SOP, a standard operating procedure that Israel will use when they bomb any kind of area. And one of the things they'll do is they'll you know, they with their pager technology, with leaflets, with advertisements that start running across people's cell phones, they let people know this is the area we're going to strike.
This is when we're going to strike. If you're a civilian in this area, you need to get out. Israel does this all the time. They do it in Gaza. They do it in Lebanon.
They do it everywhere. Today, they did not. There was from everyone we've spoken to on the ground who was in Beirut, there was no warning ahead of time. There was no indication this was going to happen. There was no description of where these areas that were going to be hit.
Normally, they'll say, we're gonna hit, you know, this building because Ezbollah is there. In Gaza, we're gonna hit this building because Hamas is there. So if you're a civilian, get out. They did not do that today. And so you had people, women and children, who were killed as a result of these strikes.
People had no idea they were coming. And, you know, you you made the comment as we started, you know, we just kill some more Muslims. But actually, these aren't just Muslims who are dying. You know, Lebanon has the largest Christian population that remains in The Middle East. The areas in Southern Lebanon that are being hit aren't just Christian areas.
They are so historically Christian. The wedding in Cana where Jesus performs his very first miracle, where he turns water into wine, is in Southern Lebanon. Where Simon Peter is laid to rest is in Southern Lebanon. The Christian communities there are as old as Christianity itself, and these are the people who are being hit. These are the people that are being targeted.
Israel says, just like they said about Gaza, we're going in there because we're gonna take out the the Hezbollah fighters because they're attacking us. That's not what they're doing. They are taking Southern Lebanon, all the way up to I gotta get the name of the the river right, but it's the Lutani River. Mhmm. Up to the Lutani River, the goal is to take all of Southern Lebanon and to basically make it part of Greater Israel.
That is what they are doing. Today, Netanyahu's office put out a statement essentially telling the members of the Lebanese army to to get away from the final bridge that they have not yet blown that connects Northern And Southern Lebanon. There's one left that crosses the Litani River. And today, they they I don't know if they've hit it yet or not, but that was the warning that went out this morning. So the one place they warned about was they were gonna hit this bridge.
When they hit that bridge, they have now severed, geographically, physically severed Northern And Southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon is what Israel intends to essentially conquer and keep.
Speaker 0: And that's what ambassador Mike Huckabee told Tucker in that interview when he pressed him on it. The Greater Israel Project. Do you should Israel take this land as part of this this, what they believe they have a right to? And he said, yeah, take it all. Take it all.
He tried to walk it back later, but it was really an admission of, of course, exactly what this greater Israel project is.
Speaker 2: Mhmm. Yeah. It it absolutely is. And, again, I I guess I I struggle with the the Lebanon situation, as a Christian myself. You know, over Easter weekend, we just had our Easter.
The idea is you're you should be praying for and thinking of Christians around the world. We have a president who says he cares deeply about Christians in Nigeria. And again, as I as I mentioned, you know, one thing that the war on terror has done over the last twenty five years, and and virtually no Americans really recognize this or or acknowledge it, is we have decimated, Americans have decimated the Christian communities in The Middle East. We decimated the Iraqi Christian population, which was about 5,000,000 people. Many of them died.
Those who didn't die fled into Syria, into Lebanon. They fled into other areas. Syria became really the main country for that. They, with the war in Syria and and us trying to overthrow Assad and hand it over to ISIS and to Al Qaeda, we decimated the population there. There has been a a a systematic decimation of these these groups.
The Christians in Syria, right, are again, go back two thousand years. The very first churches ever planted by the apostles were in Syria. And those are the places that we've watched this happen. And now Lebanon almost feels to me like it's it's one of the last steps in this process to eradicate Christianity from this region of the world. And so, just from a a religious perspective, I think not only is it sad and is it a horrific thing to watch happening, but also to know that it's it's it's American evangelicals who are largely responsible for giving Israel the past to do this.
Speaker 0: Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you. Sorry. But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest.
It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Lear Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me.
It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it. They know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks?
Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them. So does Natalie. We both do.
And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice.
Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I've been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them.
1806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase.
Speaker 1: What is the corner that we've mopped ourselves into as Americans? Because is Trump really willing to restart the war so that Israel can take Lebanon? At the other end of the spectrum, does Trump have any influence whatsoever to make them stop? Because here's how it's gone as Israel has utterly destroyed Gaza. Here's the American response.
No. Stop. Stop. Don't do that.
Speaker 0: Please don't.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what what power do we have to stop them if they're gonna keep going? And yes, we can stop selling them weapons. But that's not gonna stop them at this point in time. They have enough to keep going.
So this is can you see the corner that I painted? What do you think of it?
Speaker 2: Well, I I think I think it's, first, I don't think it's a real corner. Do we have the ability to say you will stop? Yes. The president has that ability. The United States still has the leverage and the power over Israel, especially when you're watching so much of the world turn against Israel right now.
You mentioned the French have have condemned these actions. The Italians have condemned these actions. Maloney in in Italy, the prime minister there, is talking about wanting to bring up Netanyahu on on war crime charges. So I I think the world has turned against Israel in a lot of ways. They need The United States, and they need that support.
But there's the reality of it versus what's actually happening because I would have told you six weeks ago, there's no way Netanyahu can walk into the situation room and make Trump go to war. Now I don't think he made him go to war, but whatever influence he had was enough to be able to convince Trump and and the people within Trump's circle were able to convince him that this was a good idea. Having said that, Trump will not restart the war, I don't think, over this. I think he'll demand it ends because this war is a humiliation. It was The US has been so badly damaged in terms of our reputation as a global military power.
It's so bad that the president of The United States wants a $1,500,000,000,000 military budget going into next year and basically says, we'll cut every domestic program we can find in order to fund that. And it's not because he just loves war. It's because I think we've been exposed that we are so far behind the rest of the world. Iran, for all you can say about them, listen, they've surprised the world in the way they were able to stand up, I think, to these attacks and to this war. But having said that, they're still just a regional power.
They are not a global superpower as they're now flexing as if they are. But global superpowers like Russia and China, we're nowhere near. If if Iran can do to us what they've done and do to our military equipment what they've done and withstand us the way they have, we're in a very, very scary position when it comes to facing the, actual world powers like Russia and China.
Speaker 0: So you're reporting from Lebanon because I don't wanna discount what you you were saying at the beginning talking to the crews. They're on the ground as they're digging through the rubble looking for looking for survivors. What do they expect to happen next? Are they expecting Iran to come to their assistance? Are they expecting a more another savage massacre as Iran has called it another round of massive attacks?
Will we see ground forces? What are they what are the people they're expecting to happen next?
Speaker 2: Well, from the people we're talking to, they don't know. They don't know if anyone's coming to help. They believe that Iran will, continue to fire on Tel Aviv, but that hasn't slowed anything down. You know, if you look at what's happened over the last, you know, six weeks or so, the Iranians have bombarded Tel Aviv. They've bombarded all kinds of locations in Israel with missile strikes.
It has not slowed down Israel at all. It's so interesting as well. Americans are focused on The US and Us trying to bomb different locations. We have not really been paying attention at all to what's going in Lebanon. It's gotten very little coverage.
Really, I would say the last two days is the only time it's gotten any really serious coverage at all. And it's because Israel has made so much progress. It's almost as if, conspiracy theory here, almost as if Israel walked The US into this war because they believe they would decapitate the Iranian leadership. They would take care of that, but that wasn't the primary goal. The primary goal was to put up a huge curtain so that everyone's looking over here at what's happening with Iran that The US can deal with.
And Israel will fire missiles and fly over in bomb locations. But their real focus, their methodical focus was on Lebanon and on on taking, as I mentioned, everything in Southern Lebanon to add to that greater Israel project.
Speaker 1: I I don't at all think that is a stretch.
Speaker 0: It's not a stretch at
Speaker 1: think you're out on a limb at all. Like, you are on the base of the tree. That's not a limb. You're basically in the tree house. Okay.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: Because well, the other piece of this, right, is to to Natalie's point, like I mean, to drag The United States into this because as many astute observers have pointed out, one of the goals of Israel right now is to really hurt The United States because we are the ones with the yoke in some ways around their neck. We've prevented them in large part from tackling the West Bank, from fully going into Lebanon, right, from fully realizing this greater Israel project. It's really been The United States. So to eliminate The United States, have us bogged down in Iran, have us our empire crumble. Like, that's at the heart of the story, and I don't think most Americans even know that.
They're using us in such a nefarious way. I hope people wake the f up. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's also that that Israel was incredibly good at, propaganda. Right? And controlling media and controlling messaging. Maybe the best in the world at controlling messaging. And one of the things they were able to do by controlling the messaging is if if every single day, all we've talked about I know for our shows, all we've talked about for the last six weeks is Iran.
Like, it completely dominates every headline. It dominates the x feeds. It dominates cable news. That's what everyone's talking about. Right?
And and when you have something so dramatic happening, yeah, it's very easy to say, everyone pay attention over there. Look at what's going on. Look at those huge explosions. Look at what the Iranians are saying now. And then you just move as fast as you can.
And I and I do believe one of the reasons we saw the kind of hits that that Beirut took today now keep in mind, in the entire time that Israel's been engaged in this six week war and they've been attacking Lebanon, During that time, the most they have done in terms of bombings and hitting targets, the most they have done was today. This was the most aggressive day so far. I believe that's because Netanyahu and the Israeli government were left out of these negotiations. There's a lot of reporting that he was very angry about the fact that Trump went in there and had the this negotiation with Pakistan, and that's a whole thing too. Really, I I think The US handed the Pakistanis, here's what we want to wanna say, and let's get this, done because they needed a quick exit.
But while that's all happening, Netanyahu was left out of that. The Israelis were left out of that. They were not a part of that. Why? Because because the administration knew they'd blow it They're not gonna be able to be a part of that.
So because of that, I think it it changed and dramatically affected the Israeli timeline for being able to take Southern Lebanon, and that's why they've accelerated the way they have today.
Speaker 1: Oh. Yeah. That's That doesn't make sense.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, just a short time ago, heard from Pakistan at the United Nations saying that this US ceasefire did in fact include Lebanon specifically, and that Israel and The United States are lying, that it was actually part of this agreement. Any final thoughts?
Speaker 2: Both of guys. Good word. Lying is a good word. Yeah. This entire war has been a lie from day one.
But go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, right. I mean, I guess, originally, thought was, oh, they were mad that they were embarrassed by the ceasefire. So it's kind of a demonic thing. I'm gonna go take it out on these people who I can because I can't hit Iran that I've been wanting so badly. But what you're saying, if I may just summarize, is actually it's tactical.
Because if we're not gonna focus on Iran so much, we're gonna see what they've done in Lebanon. Now, something I've seen recently, and I haven't been able to see this for myself is that Israel's taken more territory in Lebanon than Russia has in Ukraine in the course of this four years of war. And that's I need to see that for myself. But that's wild to think that that has only happened since February 28 in five weeks. And so, yeah, if we are gonna turn our attention to this now, they're not gonna have the opportunity, maybe.
I say that, but they do what they want. So I don't know. What do you think?
Speaker 2: Well, they they do what they want, but I I will say there is, there is public ire that comes when you see the video, when you see I don't know if you guys have seen these. We we ran them yesterday in our show, but the the drone shots flying over Southern Lebanon, what's left behind, it looks like Gaza. You could put it up to an image of Gaza and say, which one is which? You couldn't tell the difference. I mean, they have flattened entire towns, cities, villages.
They're doing the exact same thing. It's we we use the term here in The US carpet bombing. Right? When we go in and we just we just bomb everything. It's not carpet bombing.
It's almost like a construction project where they flatten everything, and they flatten the land, and there's not gonna be anything left behind because you're not coming back here. And one of the reasons that Russia has been so slow in their war with Ukraine, you know, is that Putin has said repeatedly, there are homes and villages that are 300 years old that they're going through. He's like, we're not gonna destroy that. So they're moving very methodically. They're trying not to kill civilians.
So it's the entire opposite of what Israel is trying to do, which is Israel wants to make sure when this is over, you're not coming back here. We're we're taking this. It's ours. We're building here. And that's why, again, you sever the bridges because you're saying this land is ours, and we're taking it no matter what.
Speaker 1: Right. In fact, there's a what you mentioned is corroborated by a group called Breaking the Silence. It's a group of IDF soldiers, former IDF soldiers. And they have detailed their destruction of Gaza and how it was basically a construction project, a deconstruction project, where they took these massive bulldozers called the teddy bear, and they just destroyed factory, food, farmland on purpose so that nobody can go back there and actually live there. And it's a systematic destruction of civilian necessities, basically.
And so that happened. Look up go to breakingthesilence.org.il and look up the report called not you, but our audience, I assume you might have seen it. It's called The Perimeter, and it's horrific. So if this is what's happening right now, we gotta scream louder.
Speaker 2: We gotta scream louder, and the rest of the world needs to step in. And at this point, I think that, you know, the Chinese are condemning it. Other countries are condemning it. I think there is less tolerance at this moment for Israel continuing to do this because the world sat silent while Gaza was destroyed, and and so many people were just obliterated. It was a genocide.
It is a genocide, what happened in Gaza, and the world did nothing to stop it. I think many people globally did not realize what was happening until because Israel moves very fast when they do this. Right? They really are when you do a deconstruction project the way they have, the world hasn't really seen that before. It's a totally new concept.
And so I think it caught people by surprise. I think now that they know what it is, there will be less tolerance for it this time. And and I would say what's happening in Lebanon is more likely to actually spark a global war, a World War three, than the war between The United States and Iran, in actuality.
Speaker 0: Right. Because if you're hitting Chinese infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, China's brought in, the world will not sit by and allow this to happen. I hope. I hope. Fingers crossed.
And we should be clear. Yes. Iran violated the ceasefire in response to Israel violating the ceasefire. And there's confusion as to, you know, did Iran fire first on by Bahrain and UAE and Kuwait? Well, you know, Israel was hitting Lebanon simultaneously while this ceasefire that president Trump was promoting was suddenly taking effect.
So, yeah, the fog of war right now. And, course, there's lots of propaganda from both sides. But we'll be continuing to watch it. Great work, Ben, on what's going on in Lebanon. We'll be following you.
Thank you so much for joining us. Ben Swan, great investigative journalist. As always, great to see you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
⏰ Trump threatened to end an entire civilization by 8pm two nights ago. Captain @MatthewPHoh joined us before that deadline to explain why no nation in history has ever surrendered because its civilians were being killed. The deadline passed. Nothing changed. https://t.co/mqF4tOu75E
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on escalating tensions with Iran and the looming deadline for potential military action. The speakers reference visible signs of US military preparations, including deploying troops and families saying goodbye, and debate what might happen as the 8 PM deadline approaches. There is skepticism about a straightforward, “easy” operation, with criticism directed at White House assurances and a sense that the administration’s planning has been flawed. Captain Matthew Ho from the Eisenhower Media Institute is brought in to offer analysis and cut through the confusion.
Captain Ho describes the situation as dangerous and driven by what he calls “a madman,” arguing that rational, logical plans don’t apply in the current moment. He predicts that if the deadline is met and Trump orders an attack on Iranian civilization, this would likely involve attacks on infrastructure rather than nuclear weapons. He expects strikes against Iranian railroad junctions, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure, with petrochemical facilities and storage facilities already targeted in the preceding hours. Iran’s likely response, he suggests, would be severe and could disrupt global energy production, leading to a potential worldwide economic crisis. He cautions that the conflict could broaden and notes a historical pattern of American bombing campaigns that cause long-term humanitarian harm, including impacts on energy byproducts like plastics and fertilizers.
The discussion turns to the tools in the US arsenal, with speculation that hypersonic weapons or other advanced munitions could be deployed, possibly accelerated timelines for weapons that were not yet fielded. Ho also mentions the possibility of using the “mother of all bombs” and other heavy ordnance, but notes practical limitations, such as deployment from specific aircraft. He contends that the broader aim appears to be a large-scale bombing campaign targeting critical infrastructure, which could cripple Iran’s energy and water systems and cause cascading civilian suffering. He argues this would reflect a strategic objective of humiliating Iran rather than achieving a straightforward military victory.
There is extensive speculation about nuclear options. Ho discusses the hypothetical use of usable nuclear weapons and the debate around whether the United States or Israel might employ them. He explains different yield options (for example, dialing a B61 to smaller yields) and the potential for a smaller, targeted nuclear strike that could seal a facility. He notes that while nuclear use is not guaranteed, it remains a concerning possibility, particularly if the conflict escalates and Iran responds with substantial missile and drone attacks on regional targets, including potential Israeli infrastructure. He emphasizes the risk that Israel, facing Iranian leverage, might consider nuclear options, given its own doctrine and regional posture.
The hosts and guests also discuss the political dynamics behind the White House’s posture, with references to Donald Trump and J. D. Vance talking about newly available tools; Trump’s emphasis on a grand, demonstrative win; and the broader context of American policy toward Israel, including criticisms of longstanding US support for Israeli military actions. A guest notes that US policy has been shaped by a long succession of administration stances, with ongoing concern about the influence of the military-industrial complex and energy interests on decisions in the Middle East.
Toward the end, the conversation briefly shifts to propaganda concerns and the human cost of war, with a reflection on how many young service members—20-year-olds on aircraft carriers—could be contributing constructively at home instead of being drawn into prolonged conflict. The discussion closes with a note that more Russian assets are reportedly inbound to Iran, suggesting foreign involvement in the crisis. The segment ends with Captain Ho’s departure and a nod to continued close monitoring of the deadline’s outcome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, let's talk about the military piece of this now. You're seeing video and images of US soldiers sharing their deployment packing online, getting ready to be deployed as we were talking this morning. You know, mothers saying goodbye to their children.
Speaker 1: Ugh. It's awful to watch soldiers lined up, getting on a bus, saying goodbye to their families. This is what we're experiencing now. It's hard to reconcile why.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Heading into a war zone, preparing for a possible invasion, whether it's Karg Island or Conorak or another portion of the Persian Gulf and another portion of land invasion of Iran, ahead of this deadline and what comes next? Sort of a permanent occupation of parts of Iran or total devastation for these soldiers? We saw sort of the bravado of this Ishfaan operation. I don't know who in the White House is, like, telling the president, hey.
This is gonna be great. You're gonna go capture uranium in some underground tunnels. We got it all mapped out, mister president. No. Don't worry about it.
We got it all figured out. And then all these aircraft get shot down, and then SEAL team six has to be redirected to go rescue individuals. It was a total disaster. Who told him this? Who told him it would be an easy operation?
And then you have this you have this. Captain Matthew Ho from the Eisenhower Media Institute joins us now. Really one of the clearest, concise brains on this entire boondoggle that we've been witnessing and able to cut through a lot of the fog. Captain, great to see you again. Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for having me back on. It's good to be with you.
Speaker 0: So when you look ahead of this deadline this evening, 8PM, and you see the military, you know, you see the movements among the US military, right, what are you expecting? I'll just sort of put it in your lap right now. What do you expect to happen? And do you think that any kind of cooler heads are gonna prevail this evening?
Speaker 2: This is the problem we have. We're we're dealing with a madman. We're dealing with a mad emperor. And, the idea that, we can look at this through logical, rational, reasonable, chains of thought, is just not possible. But certainly, I think if this deadline is hit and Trump, orders the end of the Iranian civilization, as he's threatened to do today in his social media posts, I I don't think that means nuclear weapons.
I think that's he he's being hyperbolic as he usually is, but I think it means, though, the attacks on Iranian infrastructure that have been threatened, and that we've seen carried out already in the last twenty four hours. We've seen large scale strikes on Iranian railroad junctures as well as continuous strikes on bridges. That would continue. And then I think you'd also see the expansion into the promised attacks on power plants as well as other infrastructure. You've seen everything from, in the last couple days, petrochemical, facilities, to pistachio warehouses being hit.
And then the expectation is the Iranian response, that you all have been speaking about, very well for the last month, that many others have been warning of, that the people have been warning about this for years. I went back and looked at something I wrote back in 2024, warning about just this possibility that we would be standing on the edge of a regional Iranian war that would have global implications. And so, certainly, if the Iranian retaliation is what we should expect it to be, because if anything we could say about the Iranians, they are sincere. So they do strike all those targets or attempt to strike all those targets. Well, one, you're gonna have the stopping of production of energy like this world has never seen before as well as all the byproducts that you brought up before, plastics, fertilizer, helium.
And now the world is gonna be not concerned about a global recession, but about a global depression. And so we are standing on the edge of something here that the the lack of well, there's madness, but there's also too a a complete lack of humility, a a vainglory that has populated the American empire for so long, and that has brought us to this point now.
Speaker 1: I wanna ask about what vice president J. D. Vance said over the last twenty four hours that we have tools in our toolkit that we have never deployed, and we may do that. Now the White House says, he doesn't mean nuclear. What could he mean?
Speaker 2: There's a possibility if we wanna get a bit in the weeds on this. There's a possibility they could be considering to use the hypersonic weapons, that were scheduled to be fielded in the next year or two. Perhaps they've accelerated those timelines, and they're able to fire their own hypersonic missiles now. There is other weapons as well, such as the the mother of all bombs, which is the 30,000 pound bomb, what used to be called in previous wars, daisy cutters, which do nothing other than just destroy civilian infrastructure. That has an issue, though, because that can only be deployed from a c one thirty.
And as everyone saw this past weekend, we see what happens when The United States flies c one thirties into Iran. So we but, you know, aside from that, you've seen The United States more or less launch the full breadth and width of its weapons here, of its forces aside from nuclear weapons. Again, I don't think it'll be nuclear. I think this will be just a a mass bombing campaign reminiscent of bombing Hanoi in the nineteen seventies, reminiscent of bombing, Germany and Japan in 1944 and 1945. I mean, there certainly are precedents for the American military carrying out these mass bombings, these mass war crimes.
And so this is something that the American military has historical capacity to do. This is not anything new to them. But in terms of, you know, what type of weapon we can be brought in here, I think we've already seen it already. I think what you're you're gonna see, though, is just a greater application on it onto these high profile, highly visible infrastructure. I mean, one of the issues you have when you start striking the power plants is everything shuts down.
This is what happened in Iraq, in the nineteen ninety one Iraq War when The United States struck those power plants. And very soon, everything shut down, including your water treatment plans, your sewage treatment plans. And then what follows from that, your people start to get sick. Right? And then people start to die.
I mean, so the implications on this are are really diabolical in the sense that, yes, of course, striking these plants turns off the lights. You know, it makes hospitals unable to function. Babies, in the NICU are gonna die, because their incubators no longer have power. But then there's the longer term thing where as this drags on, as the months go on, people are now dying in the thousands upon the thousands because those things such as water treatment plants or sewage treatment plants aren't able to function. So there's an evil, and people who know me know I don't like using that word, but there's a real evil here, particularly when you're trying to figure out what the hell is the objective.
What is the purpose in all this? And now are we just at the point where we're gonna kill, we're gonna mass murder Iranians for the point of trying to escape humiliation? I mean, the absurdity, first of all, that the the the Iranians would throw their hands up and give up when no other nation in the history of warfare has ever done such a thing. No nation has ever thrown up in their hands and given up because their civilians are being killed. It just doesn't happen.
There's not an example of that. However, you know, we seem to think that we can do it better, that we can kill more savagely, more ruthlessly, that we can murder in such great numbers that the Iranians will shake and that they will give up. And that's just simply not possible. I mean, so then the idea then is that you're gonna deepen this war. The way out of this war is to deepen it.
The way out of this war is to get come further entangled in it. I mean, this is the mindset of the people we're we're dealing with here. So it's just not the the non compasmentis, the the mental incapacity of the president of The United States, but it's also too the half wits that surround him that think that this is structurally a good way to wage war, that strategically, this is the way to achieve our objectives, Again, whatever those objectives tend to be that day. I mean, so I was reminded today that 1965, George Ball, who was an undersecretary of state to Lyndon Johnson, warned Johnson of furthering the Vietnam War in 1965. And Ball's statement to Johnson was, like, was essentially, look.
You escalate this war, and you have two choices. You either or you have two possibilities, humiliation or victory. And the idea of you achieving your objectives without having such humiliation in the process is impossible. So essentially, Ball was telling Johnson, the only outcome of your escalation of the Vietnam War is gonna be humiliation. And I think along with the savagery, the war crimes, the suffering Iranian people, that's essentially what Donald Trump and his click and power are delivering is humiliation for The United States.
As well as in all the things that you all were just talking to professor Morani about, the stuff Clayton, you and I talked about last week, that this is, a transformative event and this is the end of the American empire.
Speaker 0: Well, no secret. Americans love sushi, my daughters included. And over the last two decades, raw fish consumption has exploded. Sushi bars everywhere, grocery stores selling it, gas stations selling it. Millions of people now eat raw fish weekly, but here's a hidden risk most people never think about: parasites.
Yeah, salmon, one of the most popular fish worldwide, but it naturally contains more than 70 parasites. Most of them are tiny, nearly impossible to see them. I'm sure you've seen the videos where people have gone to, like, Costco and they come home and they let their salmon sit down on the counter for a few hours and suddenly the little white parasites start popping out of the fish. Once inside the body, parasites can hide for years while frequently laying eggs before any symptoms appear at all in the body. That's why many physicians are raising awareness about parasite exposure.
Our friend of the show, Doctor. Peter McCullough, recommends doing a parasite cleanse at least once a year as a preventative measure. The wellness company offers a hard to access Rx Parasite Cleanse USA compound with Ivermectin and Membenzadol. Ivermectin paralyzes the parasite's nervous system, and then membenzadol starves them. Each capsule contains 25 of ivermectin, two fifty milligrams of membenzadol lab tested for quality.
You can now get a more budget friendly forty five capsule option that costs $250 less, giving you two twenty one day parasite cleanse cycles. It's the same formula as the original, just a smaller quantity. So head right now to twc.health/redacted and use that code redacted to save $35 off plus free shipping.
Speaker 1: It seems like every time the president speaks, he's like, we're almost there just a little bit more. He's looking for this big win he can frame for his own administration. And then, you know, like something big and then just but just hold on a little longer because we haven't gone as long as Vietnam. So, you know, in this case, it's a it's a war light. It's a diet war.
And yet it continues to escalate. Now something that colonel Dan Davis said on our show weeks ago that I'm just trying to figure out if that's true or not is that a nuclear attack on Iran would also affect Israel directly because of the massive blast radius and fallout. But, you know, Israel seems to continue to increase that rhetoric. We don't know, really. We're hoping that The United States doesn't mean nuclear.
But is there a more precise type of nuclear weapon that The United States would use on Iran that would not hurt the surrounding areas?
Speaker 2: Oh, I don't I don't know, Natalie, about the the Like, the blast radius. The the drift that would come from the radiation drift as well as the the the second and third order effects, what the prevailing winds in the region are.
Speaker 0: We're not even talking about this.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I know. K. Exactly. This is absolutely insane.
Right? But here's the problem, Clayton, is that since the Obama administration and maybe they were doing this in the Bush administration. Certainly, the Bush administration are the ones that that pulled us out of the anti ballistic missile treaty and that were the ones that created this nuclear arms race we've been in throughout this entire century. But the idea that really you see start and spoken out loud during the Obama administration is this idea of usable nuclear weapons, and that was coming from both outside the military and inside the military. And that certainly had popularity in the Trump administration, but I'll tell you, I also have heard that during the Biden administration, there were conversations within the Biden administration about usable nuclear weapons, particularly with regards to the war in Russia and Ukraine.
And so now you have a president who, again, is mad, who who the twenty fifth amendment should be invoked in, but he's also the most malleable president we've ever had. He he is incredibly, easy to pull your way as long as he thinks that the way that he's going is best for him. This is also someone to your point about him needing a a big show, Natalie. You know, this guy, he's a showman. You know?
How do you end the season? You have to have a a big you have to have a big spectacle on the season finale. That's what the people expect. And I think that's the way he reads this. But the idea of using nuclear weapons, why I think it's more much more likely the Israelis would use nuclear weapons here than the Americans, but we still have this reality that for more than a decade, the Americans have been talking out loud about using new usable nuclear weapons.
We have upgraded our weapons to do so, whether that be the b 61 bomb or the or or the the yoy yields that are available on some of our missiles now. So you do have the possibility of using a weapon that would be smaller than the Hiroshima bomb. I think the b 61 could be dialed to about five times smaller than the Hiroshima bomb, so you're talking about, roughly three or four kilotons. I think it can be dialed down to. There are there are ideas that with putting the nukes back onto the Tomahawk missile or on the newer air launched cruise missile, which will be coming into service, that that could be even less than that.
You're talking not even in the kiloton range, so substantially smaller than Hiroshima bomb. And just for people's reference, the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. On our submarines, we have two types of warheads. One are about a 150 kilotons, and the other is roughly 350, 400 kilotons. So to give you an idea in terms of our regular nuclear weapons, how big those warheads are compared to the 15 kiloton, Hiroshima bomb.
So just on the smaller, say, warhead on the the our nuclear submarines, you're talking about a weapon that's 10 times more powerful than Hiroshima. But we also have these weapons that can be dialed back, as you can call it, and that have smaller, explosive force than Hiroshima that leave these people in power, whether they be in the military or they be civilians, to think this is something that we could use, that we can manage this. There wouldn't be this fallout. Radiation wouldn't be blown by the wind. The the blast radius would be compact.
And so if we used it against Ishefan or Fordo or Natanz, right, I mean, the idea of, like, maybe we'll use a nuclear weapon to hit these nuclear sites to seal them forever. If we can't get Delta and our SEALs and Rangers in to rob the uranium from the the uranium from the Iranians, then we'll blast it with a nuke, and then it'll seal it forever. They'll never be able to go in there and get it. Maybe that's the thought that they're thinking about.
Speaker 0: I mean, what
Speaker 2: do mean? So The Russians have a lot of options to them, but, you know, to me, the Israelis remain the most dangerous in the sense, particularly if this war goes into this next phase where the Iranians, in no reason to believe they're not sincere, carry out on their attacks on infrastructure. And, certainly, they start hitting, say, Israeli desalination plants, Israeli power plants. I mean, Israelis are very reliant upon their desalination plants, and they are essentially, as they're called, an energy island. So they are isolated in terms of energy.
They certainly have natural gas and everything that they use to to provide their own power sources. They don't import much energy anymore. They do import oil and coal and such, but most of their power plants are fueled by natural gas. But say you knock all that offline. And now as we start to realize that, you know what, this storyline about the Americans and Israelis decimating, the Iranians' ability to carry out missile and drone attacks, Didn't we knock out 95% of their missile and drone launchers?
How come, they haven't run out of missiles and drones yet? All these storylines, right, that keep populating. Now all of a sudden, oh, shoot. Those storylines are false. And the Iranians actually have missile and drone dominance over the Israelis and the Americans.
The Israelis and the Israelis have lost their power plants or desalination plants. You could speculate on other things. I'm speculating here, of course. But now the Israelis have their back against the wall. And is this an aspect of their Samson doctrine that they then put into play to utilize nuclear weapons to cause that mass harm to their enemy, but also to to purview the nuclear weapons to ensure their dominance.
I mean, this is why the Israelis have nuclear weapons. They didn't start building nuclear weapons in the nineteen sixties because, they were afraid of the Soviets' nuclear weapons. They built these nuclear weapons to have dominance throughout the Middle East. That's why they have them. And if anyone thinks the Israelis won't use a nuclear weapon after we've seen their genocide in Gaza, after we've seen them put into place the Tahia doctrine and bomb Beirut level whole apartment blocks, you know, I don't know what to tell you if you don't think the Israelis are capable of using nuclear weapon.
And if you think anyone think there's any type of political opposition to The United States that's meaningful, I mean, you guys know this. If the Israelis use a nuclear weapon, the house of representatives would probably write write up a resolution congratulating them.
Speaker 0: Oh, of course. And, well, Tucker Carlson reporting, you know how plugged in Tucker Carlson is to the White House, very close with J. D. Vance, and others inside the White House. He flat out said that Trump is considering using nukes on Iran.
I just wanna play this quick sound bite. Take a listen.
Speaker 3: Making. It is the logic of escalation in this war because in some sense, Mark Levin is right. We are not going to open the straits with The United States Marine Corps, the eighty second airborne, or the tier one operators that everyone in cable knows news seems to know so much about. The tier one operators. Oh, tier one.
Guys, like, some of the best guys actually in America could be killed in this. That's a better way to put it. It's a more real way to put it. They are not gonna open the straight. And so unless somebody puts the brakes on right away, we're gonna wind up in a place that we can't even imagine, not just around us and the rest of the world.
And so that means, because this is obvious to anyone who's paying any attention, that if you work in the White House or in the US military, now it's time to say no. Absolutely not. And say it directly to the president, no. In case you're thinking about using some weapon of mass destruction, it's the population of Iran in whose name we liberated Iran. We killed their religious leader for their benefit.
Do you remember that? This was last month. Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say no. I'll resign. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this because this is insane.
And if given the order, I'm not carrying it out. Figure out the codes on the football yourself because everything hangs in the ballots right now. This is not his
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So do you see that happening? Members of the military saying, sorry, mister president. We're not gonna carry this out.
We're not doing this. This is madness.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think you might have that in ones or twos, you know, but I think the vast majority of the US military will will carry out the orders that they're given.
Speaker 0: From the country. Many of
Speaker 2: these men and women Yep. Are in a bubble. Right? They think what they're doing is the right thing. They think that they have the white hats on in all of this.
They're not watching programs like yours. Many of them, believe that the orders are lawful. And the way they Yeah.
Speaker 3: They think they're going in to actually save the 45,000 people that were supposedly killed. You know? They've they've been propagandized.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean Yeah. We had a test I point to
Speaker 0: had a test run-in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Yes. Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, the thing I point to all the time is that three years after the invasion of Iraq, so you're talking February 2006, Zagbe International did a poll of American marines and soldiers in Iraq. And it found that roughly three quarters of those marines and soldiers in Iraq, again, three years after the invasion, four and a half years after the nine eleven attacks, believed that they were in Iraq because of the nine eleven attacks.
They believed that they were in Iraq because Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in the nine eleven attacks, and that they were in Iraq to prevent another nine eleven. I mean, that's three quarters of the marines and soldiers in 2006 believe that. Wow. Right? I mean, by that time, that lie had been well established, well debunked.
Right? But that's what the forces there on the ground believed. And so I think you probably have a lot of men and women who believe they're doing the right thing. And Carlson's point is really poignant about these these guys who are in these men and women who are in our special operations community, these men and women who who pilot these aircraft in the support roles, these are people that can you imagine what they would be doing for their communities? I mean, you have 20 year olds right now on an aircraft carrier at sea who are working nonstop in night through all kinds of weather on the top of a ship, halfway around the world loading bombs onto planes.
20 year olds. What could we have those kids do here at home? Right? What could they be doing for the communities? I think that's the worst thing about all this.
You see the 13 dead Americans from this war already, the hundreds that are wounded, many of them who were wounded for life. What could they have done for their communities? You know, I think about the the guys I knew, my friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, you know, I think about them and how good of people they were. You know? And they believed in this war, they were wrong, and they were foolish for doing so.
But the reality was imagine what they could have done for their communities. And the same on the Iranian side. Of course, all these people were killing. What could they have done for their people, for their community, right, for for for their their their their families, their neighborhoods, their nation? So I mean, that that's what's so tragic about all this is just the waste of it all.
The absolute waste of this for men like Donald Trump and J. D. Vance. Right? For Marco Rubio and Carolyn Levitt and for then all, you know, for Israel, the military industrial complex, the fossil fuel industry, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, this great waste.
It is it it's it's revolting.
Speaker 1: At the very least, though, in the press conference that president Trump gave on Monday, he said he ripped up Obama's nuclear deal with Iran because it disfavored Israel. And he said, well, Obama chose Iran over Israel and indicating clearly that I always have to choose Israel, that we can't have that. We have to always choose Israel even though, like you just said, Israel is the country that's invading several others as we speak. Lebanon expansion is horrific. The Gaza genocide, the expansion in the West Bank.
But yet, the president said as if that's just completely reasonable that we all agree, you cannot you have to choose Israel every single time. What did you make of that? I found it at least honest, if not upsetting and shocking.
Speaker 2: It is honest. It it demonstrates how corrupted our our our view of national interests are, how much our system of legalized bribery has affected, this nation. I mean, the fact that whatever policy, you name it, is up to the highest bidder in The United States. Our agriculture policy or health care policy, whatever it be, it's up to the highest bidder. And that's the same for our Middle Eastern policy.
I mean, the the refreshing thing is when we have leaders that do actually, speak honestly about it. So Donald Trump saying whether it was, you know, Iran or in Venezuela, it's not about democracy. He doesn't care about the people. He cares about the oil. At least we don't have to cut through the BS.
Right? We can actually make arguments about why this war is wrong, why it's counterproductive. We don't have to spend our time rehashing the you know, and debunking the lies. And and that makes Trump different than his predecessors. But, you know, certainly, you look at the Biden administration, their favoritism to Israel, their ability to protect Israel, their willingness to protect Israel, do whatever it can.
You know, during the Biden administration, more than a thousand, large aircraft, c seventeen, seven forty sevens, and more than 250 cargo ships, arrived, in Israel providing bombs and weapons and munitions and vehicles to ensure the Israelites would carry out their genocide in Gaza. It's something like every 15 an American plane or an American ship during the Biden administration arrived in Israel providing supplies for the Israeli army. I mean, so you do have this degree of crassness, this this this grotesque reality we're living in right now with Donald Trump, but you also have to remember that this didn't appear out of nowhere. This is sequential. This is is built.
And even Barack Obama's treaty with Iran, which I'll give him all credit for, you saw how little though he, you know, he had a a tenuous relationship or a fractious relationship with the Israelis, Obama, but you still see how much they allowed them to get away with and how much they gave them. The current memorandum of understanding where we give Israel more than $3,000,000,000 a year for their military, aside from what we've given over the last few years during these wars, but just the run of the mill every year, we're giving you more than $3,000,000,000, that was Barack Obama's deal. I mean, so, you know, we have to realize that we are here, sequentially, that this is all the steps that have taken before, all the realities of the American empire, and then the the the the unfortunate placement of Donald Trump at this time. That this war on Iran was long wanted by Washington DC, certainly long wanted by Tel Aviv. It was attempted and not be able to pulled off by the George v Bush administration.
Barack Obama certainly had a lot of pressure to go to war against Iran, particularly go back and look at the news reporting back in 2011. He resisted. The Joe the Biden administration certainly went along with everything Israel wanted them to do. And happily, they saw, I think, many of the Biden administration saw the Israeli policies that got genocide of Gaza, the occupation of Lebanon, the, occupation of Syria as their policies too. But now then you have Donald Trump coming in for a second term, and the timing is right.
So you have someone who won't resist or who can't put together the consensus to go to war with Iran, who doesn't care about those things, and now you have this war that was long wanted.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And we just got word too well, last night, I got word from a source that more Russian assets are inbound to Iran. They were landing quite a quite a few of them last night. So Russians helping, Chinese helping. We are in the throes of it now.
Captain Matthew Ho, always great to see you. Thank you so much. I guess we'll be watching all closely tonight at this, deadline, as this unfolds. Thank you so much, captain, for your insights. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Alright. Thank you both, and and thank you for what you all are doing.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that before last night's deadline, Iranians formed human chains on bridges to protect their infrastructure. A professor with a bounty on his head joined me live from Tehran. @s_m_marandi's account of life inside Iran right now is the story you won't find on CNN.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 Before last night's deadline, Iranians formed human chains on bridges to protect their infrastructure. A professor with a bounty on his head joined us live from Tehran. @s_m_marandi's account of what life looks like inside Iran right now is the story you won't find on CNN. https://t.co/BKEFUDYib9
Video Transcript AI Summary
- President Trump has threatened an entire civilization with utter destruction if Iran does not meet an 8 PM deadline tonight for negotiations and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. He posted “A whole civilization will die tonight” on Truth Social, and the remark is circulating on X.
- Ahead of the deadline, Israel began striking civilian infrastructure in Iran, including railways, bridges, and critical transit routes. Officials say these are military targets, with ongoing debate about civilian damage.
- Vice President JD Vance says the United States is prepared to use tools not used before and that the U.S. will get a response from the Iranians by 08:00 tonight, positive or negative. He says the goal is a world where oil and gas is flowing freely, where people can heat and cool their homes and transport themselves, and that Iran must avoid “acts of economic terrorism.” He mentions tools in the toolkit that the President can decide to use if Iran does not change course.
- JD Vance’s stance is described as doubling down on this rhetoric and the 8 PM deadline.
- The discussion questions what “tools in our toolkit” refers to, noting the White House PR team’s denial that it referred to nuclear weapons; the host suggests the remark was ambiguous or open to interpretation.
- Civilians in Iran are forming human chains on bridges, placing themselves at risk in a display of defiance and self-sacrifice. The host and guest question whether this indicates a desire to be Bombed or a call for greater humanity from the U.S. and Israel.
- Professor Morandi from Iran discusses the threat as read inside Iran, noting that Trump has repeatedly spoken of “obliterating Iran.” He observes that Western media do not condemn Trump’s violent rhetoric, even as they oppose war generally.
- Targets cited by the IDF map include eight bridge segments near Tehran, Qaraj, Tabriz, Kasham, and Qom, described as military targets; Morandi notes that universities have been bombed in Tehran, as have other academic institutions, and questions how civilians and infrastructure are treated.
- Morandi explains that, from Iran’s perspective, a ceasefire is unacceptable because it would allow renewed attacks in six months and would require reparations; Arab Gulf regimes hosting bases must pay for the damage.
- The host and Morandi discuss the psychology of Iranians standing against the United States, highlighting civilian resilience, religious-cultural motivations, and the sense of dignity against imperialism.
- Morandi notes Iran’s alliances across the world, including Yemen’s Ansarullah/Houthis, Iraqi resistance groups, Hezbollah, and Palestinian groups; he warns that closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait would be catastrophic for global oil routes and could intensify energy prices.
- The program observes that Iran’s air defenses and missile capabilities are robust and that the U.S. may miscalculate Iran’s defense capabilities; Morandi asserts Iran can retaliate against U.S. and allied oil and gas assets in the region.
- Allegations of propaganda include “death to America” chants, which Morandi explains as anti-imperial, not literal calls to destroy the United States as a country.
- The segment ends with a call for cooler heads to prevail and a reminder of the 8 PM deadline, with Morandi thanking the host and urging safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, president Trump has threatened an entire civilization. That's not me being extreme. That's literally what he said. An entire civilization is threatened with utter destruction if Iran does not meet an 8PM deadline tonight for negotiations and reopening the Strait Of Hormuz.
Here's his ex post about it. A whole civilization will die tonight. He originally posted this on Truth Social where I assume the rules of violent rhetoric is looser, but it is widely being shared around x. I thought we weren't supposed to share threats of violence, but okay. Ahead of that deadline, Israel already began striking civilian infrastructure that includes railways, bridges, and critical transit routes.
Of course, they're saying that these are military targets. More on that in a minute. Now vice president J. D. Vance says The United States is prepared to use tools that it has not used before.
Watch this.
Speaker 1: But we feel confident that we can get a response whether it's positive or negative. We're gonna get a response from the Iranians by 08:00 tonight. I hope they make the right response because what we really want is we want a world where oil and gas is flowing freely, where people can afford to heat their homes and cool their homes, where people can afford to transport themselves to work. That's not gonna happen if the Iranians are engaged in acts of economic terrorism. So they've gotta know.
We've got tools in our toolkit that we so far haven't decided to use. The president The States can decide to use them, and he will decide to use them if the Iranians don't change their course of conduct.
Speaker 2: So JD Vance is basically doubling down. We thought he was the pro peace part of this administration, but he's doubling down on this rhetoric, sticking by that 8PM deadline.
Speaker 0: Right. And I just wanna ask a question. Who harmed the global economy now? He's saying he's dreaming of a world where oil and gas can flow freely. We did have that world before we bombed an Iranian school of young girls.
So okay. That's interesting. What does he mean, though, by tools in our toolkit? Well, the White House PR team is saying, no, silly. He wasn't referring to nuclear because here is a response to a news headline where, you know, he they're saying he implied nuclear weapons, and the PR team saying, literally nothing here implies this, you absolute buffoons.
Okay. Well, I guess I'm a buffoon too because that's kind of what I heard. On the ground now, though, the human reality is becoming impossible to ignore. Civilians in Iran began forming human chains on bridges, placing themselves directly in harm's way in what appears to be an act of deviant defiance and self sacrifice. Are they betting that The United States and Israel will see civilians and show some humanity?
I don't know that I would put my life on that bet. And, also, just a question, do oppressed people do this? People who want bombing of their country as president Trump said in a press conference on Monday. Iranians want this bombing to continue. Okay.
Does that look like people who want bombing to continue? Joining us now from Iran to help understand what this looks like on the ground and what may come next is professor Morandi. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much for having me. It's a great pleasure being on your show.
Speaker 2: And, professor, I should point out you have a bounty on your head at this point. Unbelievable. That there's a pro Israel, pro Ukraine group right now has put a $1,000,000 bounty on your head for the capture or your killing. Do I have that correct? And this is, by the way, being promoted openly on x, and it hasn't been taken down.
Speaker 3: That's right. It's it's the it's my capture. It's my kidnapping. They didn't say killing, but I assume that once you're captured, then comes the torture and the killing, I guess.
Speaker 2: And it's being openly promoted on x, and they haven't taken it down?
Speaker 3: They had it on for a couple of weeks, and, then they said, they, they made some excuse saying they removed the sponsor. I didn't quite understand what that was all about. But X, even though thousands of people complained from my understanding, X not only refused to delete the account, but it also refused to delete the tweet.
Speaker 2: Unbelievable. Well
Speaker 0: Why don't we talk about the the tweet that president Trump has put up? Because speaking of incenting violence, he literally is threatening your entire civilization, your entire nation. How was that received inside Iran?
Speaker 3: Well, he's been saying that sort of thing for a a while now. He's been saying obliterate Iran, and people do take notice. It is being it's all over social media in Iran, Persian social media. Everything he says is immediately read. What is, I think, most surprising, although maybe you won't be surprised, is that the Western media, even Trump's opponents, The Guardian, The New York Times, whether in Europe or North America, they don't condemn any of this language.
They they they oppose the war, and they criticize the policies. But he's basically threatening to carry out the the greatest holocaust in human history by far. And there is no moral outrage. There's no outrage at all among the elites, among journalists. Of course, I mean, mainstream or legacy media journalists.
Speaker 0: I want to ask about the targets that the IDF is starting to destroy. They put up this map and said, these are eight bridge segments, including Tehran, Qaraj, Tabriz, Kasham, and Qom. I don't know if that's the right pronunciation. They're saying these are military targets. We took them out.
Are they military targets?
Speaker 3: They're just as much to be considered as military targets as my university. And just yesterday, a university in Tehran was bombed three, four days earlier, another university in Tehran was bombed. And a week before that, a a third university in Tehran was bombed, and universities are being bombed across the country. So from the the Trump and Netanyahu regime perspective, everything is military. And I assume that those 168 little girls, they were all military targets too.
Speaker 2: Right. I guess, as they've now said, civilian targets are fair game. So when you see all of these people on these roads and bridges and surrounding different power plants, arm in arm like human chains right now trying to protect this infrastructure ahead of this deadline in a few hours, Do you, I guess, that they are legitimate targets according to the IDF and The United States?
Speaker 3: Well, when, the entire civilization is about to be destroyed, when we are about to be sent back to the stone age, when we are to be obliterated, that includes them, that includes all of us. Just a week ago, fifteen minutes away from where I am right now, at nights across the country people gather, millions on the streets every night, to support the armed forces, to support the state against US and Israel's oppression. And one local gathering near a square called Atar Tish Square, to the west of the square, They were gathering and they fired a missile at them, and the woman was murdered. So, and I was at another gathering on Friday, the last Friday of Ramadan, at a gathering called Qutz Day or Jerusalem Day in solidarity with the Palestinian people and also to support the armed forces. And they fired a missile at the at the crowd, and another woman was murdered there.
You didn't see, no one ever saw this in mainstream media in the West. And actually there was a young woman, and I retweeted this yesterday, or the day before, who was reporting in Iran, a PhD student at my university incidentally, and she was saying, she was talking about how people are steadfast, and as she was speaking, the missile, and she was speaking in English, the missile hit behind her, and people, no one, there was no stampede, people were steadfast, men, women, girls, boys, and she continued to report. And you would have imagined that this young woman would have been invited on all the mainstream media outlets to give her a story, but completely ignored because it's not it's not, doesn't fit the narrative.
Speaker 2: So looking at the Ishfaan operation and Moon of Alabama saying, you know, I find it no longer useful to attempt any interpretations of these threats from president Trump. It seems like it was a reaction to the failed Ishfaan uranium operation when you had the down f 15 and that whole boondoggle that ended up going up in flames, really a disaster. He says that after the above threat was posted, Iran froze all diplomatic and indirect communications with The United States. And is that the case? So it is Iran basically done communicating right now?
Speaker 3: Yes. That's what the Iranians have said. And the reason is obvious. Negotiating under the threat of mass slaughter, of genocide, of a holocaust is meaningless. And the Iranians are not going to kneel before the emperor simply because he threatens to massacre everyone in his everyone's family.
And, of course, they've been doing it in Gaza for two and a half years now, and it's totally believable that they can possibly do it against Iran. I'm not saying that this is what Trump will actually do, but people in Iran do take it seriously. But no one is going to change their stance. The the the the government the people expect the government to remain steadfast because there the the Iranian demands are very just. They're fair.
The Iranians are saying, we can't have a ceasefire because you'll just attack us again in six months' time. We already had a ceasefire, and all you did nine months ago, and all you did was regroup, rearm, and attack us with a much bigger force. And if we have a ceasefire like this, that's what you're going to do in three months or six months from now. So there has to be change on the ground. And also there has to be reparations.
And those Arab family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, which hosted all these bases and facilitated the strikes against Iran, they're going to have to pay. So all these dead Iranian, all this destroyed infrastructure, an unprovoked war, the Iranians feel that, the the solution does not lie and just, stop stopping the shooting so that the Israelis and Americans can just bring in more missiles.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you about the psychology of standing against The United States and what that takes as a collective. Because I have to think as a family, you think, let's get out of here. This is war. I need to protect my children. But at the same time, you see mostly young people lining up to protect the infrastructure of their country because the way they see it, I would assume, and I guess I'm asking, I shouldn't ascribe motivation, is we have to protect this for everybody else.
It's a collective mentality. And so I want to ask about that. And is there guidance from the Iranian government saying this is dangerous, actually, don't do this. We appreciate the spirit, but don't do it.
Speaker 3: Well, I do know that the government asked people to stay away from the nuclear power plant in Boucher, but people are going anyway. In fact, just to digress in a way, but sort of sticking to the topic, Trump says that people in Iran want us to bomb them. And a journalist in the BBC, some really sinister person, she claimed that Iranians inside Iran say nuke us. But that aside, his chief military adviser, the head of the Joint Chief of Staff, said when they landed in Esfant, he said everyone with a gun was shooting at us. And that meant people in those villages who had guns, that meant the local police officers.
So he's it's a complete contradiction from what Trump is saying. The reality is that people are united behind the armed forces, the state, and they these young people, some of them students of my own, they are doing this at their own initiative. At nights when people gather on the streets, that woman who was murdered last week, there's no one to encourage them to go or not to go. They're in front of the local mosque, gathering together. Over there, there were a few 100 people elsewhere, thousands elsewhere, tens of thousands in Tehran.
They're all over the city. But these people feel responsible. They feel responsible about for their country, for their dignity, for their honor, for their own children, because they know that submitting to Zionism and the the Netanyahu the regime and and Trump would only bring about great misery before the nation and great humility. And this is humiliation, and this is the Iran's guilt is basically for two things. One is that it is an independent country, and the second is that it opposes genocide in Gaza.
Whereas everyone else seems to either be complicit or supportive, Iran's against it, that's why it has to be punished. And it didn't have to be this way. There's a pretty good book in English written by two former White House officials, Flint and Hillary Leverett, called Going to Tehran. It was published about a decade ago, and they were explaining Iran's contemporary history and why The United States should move towards rapprochement. And if and they were in the White House.
He he Flint was in charge of the Middle East for under Condoleezza Rice, and she was in charge of the Persian Gulf, and that's where they met and married, apparently. They were attacked. They were demonized by Democrats and Republicans. There was a consensus to marginalize and humiliate these two people. He was a Catholic.
She was Jewish, but there was no mercy. But if they had listened to them instead of listening to the Netanyahu's of the world and the Zionists of the world, we wouldn't have this war. We probably have diplomatic relations, trades, exchanges, and life would be very different. But The US political establishment chose confrontation.
Speaker 2: This morning, The United States and Israel again struck, I think, about 50 targets, on Karg Island. And many people considering that preparation for an invasion. We see the the videos of American military members getting ready for deployment or having been deployed, packing up and ready to go. What is the sentiment inside of Iran about where The United States and, might land any sort of invasion? And how are you preparing?
Speaker 3: Well, the belief is that, as you alluded to this earlier, that The United States wanted to Trump wanted to carry out an operation in Isfahan and seek Iran's uranium. And that this because of the plane being shot down, they they had to change everything. And it was a it was you know, they've they lost planes and they lost helicopters and they had to leave, and now the Iranians are prepared for Isfahan. They probably were anyway, that's why, but this was like a very sparsely populated area, sort of desert that Central And Southern And Southeastern Iran is not very densely populated. So there are only locals confronting them, but Iranians are now more prepared.
So the belief is most probably The United States is going to carry out an attack on an island or a couple of islands or on the shore. And they're confident that they will ultimately defeat the invading force. Actually, Khark Island is is a I mean, they may not attack there, but it does seem to be the target because of, as you pointed out, the extensive air strikes. If they do that, they gain nothing because they're only going to lessen the oil on the oil market, and make prices go higher. But in addition to that, it's a very flat island, and it's very close to Iran's shore.
And the Iranians can just fire missiles and drones at the American occupiers. I think it's going to be end very poorly for The United States, but and I suppose that's why Trump's generals were were removed. They were probably saying the same thing.
Speaker 0: Right. I wanna ask you about allies of Iran. It seems there are too few. Iran has made a condition of ending this war that Israel withdraw from Lebanon. The United States doesn't control that.
The United States doesn't control Israel. It's the other way around. That's abundantly clear. But at least Iran is sort of bringing their new like, we need peace here and here and here, not just inside of Iran. Last week, I saw a statement condemning the new Israeli law that will allow them to execute Palestinians who are, convicted convicted of attacking Israelis, and the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia issued a condemnation.
That's so nice. It's about worth the paper it's printed on. Who are the real allies? Iran says that their allies will now close the Bab Al Mandab Strait if they are who who would do that? Who where are the battle lines drawn, please?
Speaker 3: Well, Iran's I I must say that Iran now has allies across the world, and I am stunned to see how much across the world and how popular Iran has become across the global majority. It's it's unbelievable how the tide has turned in Iran's favor and how all the narratives against Iran, western narratives are collapsing. But that would be Yemen and that would be Ansarullah or the Houthis as they're often called in the West. They are a part of this axis of resistance, which includes resistance groups in Iraq, which are resisting occupation, and, of course, Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups. So Yemen, they have the they have already entered the the the battle with a a few, missile strikes on the Israeli regime, but they are most probably going to, if this escalates, will close the Bab Al Mandap.
And that would be catastrophic because very little oil and LNG, and petrochemicals now come from the Persian Gulf, but the Saudis do export some of their oil from the Red Sea. They use a pipeline near the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and if the Bab El Mandeb Strait is closed, then supertankers can no longer use that area, and also the ships in the Red Sea would be a threat, and that would drive up the price of, of energy even further.
Speaker 2: Let's take a quick break, professor, and grab a cup of water here, but we wanna ask you after the break about Iran's air defense systems, missile capacity, and capacity to sustain all of this, and what you're hearing about what's been happening in Tel Aviv in Israel because that is a total media blackout as well. Some images and videos have been leaking out on Telegram and other places, entire neighborhoods being wiped out, but the western media is not reporting on that. So I wanna get your sense of that. And, actually, in the infrastructure inside of Iran and how devastated that has been. So all of that is on the table.
We'll get to that in a moment. But first, we wanna tell you about our friends over at Rumble Wallet. That's right. Because, you already know why people are moving to crypto. But here's the problem.
Most wallets still plug into the same system we are trying to escape in the first place. That's why Rumble built Rumble Wallet as a self custodial wallet that lives inside an ecosystem that actually defends free speech and financial freedom. No bank holding your balance, not even Rumble can touch your funds. This is your money on your keys, on your time. If you're already using Bitcoin or stablecoins, Rumble Wallet gives you even more power.
Direct fast tipping to support your favorite creators, all of that. Rumble Wallet connects your money to the marketplace of ideas that refuse to cave to censorship. So if you're serious about sovereignty, financial, and digital, this is where you level up. Go to wallet.rumble.com or search Rumble Wallet in your App Store. Again, download it, back up your recovery phrase, move your money where it belongs in your hands out of these governments, out of these big tech companies.
Rumble Wallet is a technology provider only, not a custodial service. See terms at wallet.rumble.com. So a short time ago, Israel's, channel thirteen set a countdown clock ahead of president Trump's 8PM eastern time deadline. Iran seems to be preparing for this in a large way. Maybe resolved is the right term.
Let's bring back professor Morandi who's joining us from Iran right now. Just, Natalie asked earlier about the psychology professor of just the the people in Iran right now. I just wanna take it a step further. You see this countdown to 8PM. I mean, I would be absolutely terrified knowing that we could be a you know, our civilian infrastructure could be bombed and a civilization could be wiped out.
How are you preparing? How are your students preparing at the university? What are you guy what are you doing right now ahead of this 8PM deadline?
Speaker 3: Well, there is some concern, obviously, among people. I mean, it's people are wondering if they're they're going to survive, their children aren't going to survive, where their their children will starve, if The United States wants to use nuclear weapons against the populations in major cities. These questions are raised. Okay, there we go. But science is still very much in place as as usual, people are going to gather on the streets tonight, and there's a there's an extraordinary resilience that you see among people.
A lot of it has to do, I think, with their particular religious belief as Shia, the grandson of the Prophet, he stood up against the despot of his time, Yazid, Hossein, the grandson of the Prophet, and in Karbala, the city of Karbala in Iraq, which is now the city, he was martyred. And this is something that is very deep in Iranian culture. It's very deep and very embedded in the Iranian psyche. Every year on the anniversary where he stands up against the despot in support of the oppressed, and then his sister alongside him makes those sacrifices. That is something that every year on the day of Ashura, people across Iran, religious, not so religious, secular, almost everyone participates in.
And so this creates a certain resilience among Iranians and resistance. And I think the name axis of resistance and resistance comes from this. And so there's a they're steadfast. They see the likes of Netanyahu and Trump as the despots of our era, they see the Palestinian people as the victims, the great victims of our time, or the Cubans or the Venezuelans, but the Palestinians in particular. And so they feel that they have to stand up for them come what may.
And they feel that they have to preserve their dignity and honor like the figures in Karbala on the day of Ashura, like they did too. So this is I think civilizational, I think it is religious, but also I think it's human dignity. Think throughout history in in Europe and North America, there have been many people who've said that I'd rather die standing than live on my knees.
Speaker 0: Right. Speak to us about the attacks on the mosque the I'm sorry. The Jewish mosques inside I'm sorry. The synagogues. Those that were didn't wanna come out.
The Jewish synagogues inside of Iran and how Iranian Jews are now responding to this, being attacked by the state of Israel.
Speaker 3: You know, I want to I want to go tomorrow to visit the synagogue. There are quite a few synagogues in Tehran, and there is a Jewish community in Tehran and also in Isfahan. You have kosher restaurants in Tehran and Isfahan as well. The community is not huge, but it does exist, and they have an MP in parliament. The constitution says that Jews in Iran must have an MP.
So there there is a Jewish MP, and it's quite stunning that they would bomb a synagogue. And I guess it's because if you're not Zionist, then you're like everyone else, inferior, or you're Amalek. I can't understand the logic why they would target this synagogue. And the images came out today, from what I saw in the footage and the pictures, it was totally destroyed, but I'll go and I'll try to visit them myself tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you. Bless them. Professor, I said before the break, wanted to ask you about the infrastructure the Iran's ability to strike back. We spoke yesterday with a couple of military analysts who said that The US is getting whipped, that we dramatically underestimated Iran's air defense systems. Obviously, you saw what happened in Ishfaan, but across across the country, and it's forcing American aircraft to go higher into the air, therefore, being readily available, identified by radar, and therefore, ease more easily struck.
We've dramatically underestimated Iranian air defenses. And the Iranian Guard Missile Command just posted this. We announced the end of the targeting restrictions. We will strike infrastructure in a manner that will deprive The United States and regional countries of oil and gas resources for years to come. So, you know, you hear from the White House, Iran's capacity has been totally obliterated, decimated, and then you hear from the Iranian Guard missile command saying that we're gonna strike, and it's gonna deprive The United States and regional countries of oil and gas for years to come.
Is that true? Can they do that?
Speaker 3: Yes. And, you know, Clayton, the problem is that The United States and the West miscalculates Iran on every level. They always like to believe their own propaganda, how unpopular Iran is, how it's about to implode, the people hate it. They repeat the propaganda. I don't know if you recall, I'm sure you do, Massah Amini, who was never beaten and she was never killed, but they ran with that narrative just to demonize Iran.
And then more recently, the the the the narrative of tens of thousands of Iranians, peaceful protesters slaughtered, all nonsense. And, of course, now we hear Trump himself admit that they were sending that he sent weapons to these people in Iran. And if they were if they were just spontaneous protesters, then how would he know who to send the weapons to? Obviously, they were sending weapons to their networks inside the country, those terrorists who carried out the slaughter a few months ago. So they believe their own nonsense about Iran being unpopular.
Well, now look at the young people on the streets every night or on bridges or protecting power plants. Is this an unpopular regime as they call it? And then, of course, the miscalculation about Iran's defense capabilities. This war was supposed to last a couple of days, then they said they're going to run out of missiles within a week. Well, now we're in our sixth week, and Iran is firing more missiles and drones than before and more advanced missiles and drones, and they're going to continue this.
And the Israelis are continue to be struck day and night, and those Arab family regimes in the Persian Gulf that host US bases and US forces and allow them to use their space to bomb Iran, their infrastructure is right in front of us. They're right alongside the Persian Gulf Coast. They only have oil and gas. So if Iran wants to retaliate for their role in this murderous war of aggression, Iran can easily destroy all of their oil and gas assets, their petrochemicals, and they can end those regimes. And there's nothing that The United States can do about it.
But it seems to me, and I don't know why, whether they have Durbin trouble, whatever the reason is, can't find an off ramp. I think he wants one. That's what I'm hearing from people in The United States, or I do myself, but pushed by the Zionists and the Israeli regime, basically a confirmation of what Joe Kent was saying that caused the launch of the the start of the war. I assume that the same people are pushing him towards towards greater confrontation and perhaps carrying out a holocaust. But it's not going well for The United States.
It's not going well for the global economy. I think as things can, at this pace, I think that we're going to have a global economic depression that will be significantly worse than 1929, especially with the increased population in the world and the different circumstances that we face in today's world, I think it's going to be catastrophic. I think the lives of everyone on this planet will be changed unless something drastic happens. Even if Trump backs down now, I think a lot of damage is already done. But if he doesn't, then I think it's going to be truly, truly catastrophic.
Speaker 0: I I wanna you mentioned propaganda, and I guess my last question to you is about the propaganda that is being used to sell this war to Americans. On CNN recently, the repetition of the line that Iranians like to chant death to America, that we had to do this because they want death to us because they say this. This was something the former Ayatollah had said in in gatherings. And yet, thinking people will know that the Iranian government has many times on social platforms addressed the American people with respect and said, we actually don't mean harm to your civilization, to your culture. It's your government that continues to attack us.
So can you address this death to America claim once and for all? Because I don't want to buy this utter bullshit in order to send innocence into war.
Speaker 3: Yeah. It's it's very simple. It's like saying it's like me telling you, you bit the dust. And then you say, no, I didn't eat the dirt. But that's not what was meant in the first place.
When they chant death to America, it's just like when they chant go home Yankee. It doesn't like, if you're traveling in that country and, you're in you know, they're they're not telling you to get out of my country, you American passport passport holder. They're saying that it's talking they're talking about the American imperialism. They're talking about the empire. They're talking about the US president who's saying they were going to send you back to the stone age, that we're going to wipe out your civilization.
That is what they're alluding to. But it's not literal, as in like they want the entire, like, North American continent. All they want is The United States to behave like Brazil, like, for The United States to behave like a normal country. And until that happens, then I think I think that chant is always going to continue. We used to have the same chants about the Soviet Union.
The same chants. And then after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russia's foreign policy evolved and it no longer became it was no longer trying to Yeah. Impose Exactly. It was no longer imperialist towards Iran. The chance against the Soviet Union and Russia ended.
Speaker 0: I didn't know that. And and, you know, if the chance is death to American imperialism, I will join you. I want that too.
Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. Focus on America.
Speaker 3: That's Then gonna be you may get some death threat. You may then you may get people advertising and fundraising to and put a bounty on your head.
Speaker 0: So careful. Okay. I will. Yeah. Imperialism, you guys.
Just the system.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Stop bombing other countries. This is supposed to be America first. This has nothing to do with being America first. Professor, thank you so much.
I know, you know, you're up against this deadline here at 8PM eastern time tonight. Thank you for taking time. Please be safe. We absolutely, want cooler heads to prevail here and nothing to happen. We hope that there's nothing that happens tonight, across the across the entire Middle East.
So, professor, thank you so much. God bless. Be safe.
Speaker 3: Thank you. God be with you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
☢️ URANIUM HEIST IN IRAN?! Navy SEALs from Team Six were sent to steal Iran's enriched uranium from Isfahan. The airfield collapsed under the weight of the MC-130s. 2 planes destroyed. The mission failed. @RealScottRitter has the full account. https://t.co/0La6qjfSQg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the recent F-15 incident, the rescue operation, and what the events reveal about U.S. plans and Iranian defenses. The hosts note a flood of misinformation but lay out what they consider to be known elements: several U.S. aircraft were downed or destroyed, and the situation includes a complex, high-stakes rescue of a downed pilot.
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is brought in to explain what happened and why. He suggests there was a larger mission at work behind the F-15E downing. He explains that the aircraft involved often place a colonel in the weapons systems seat as mission commander, implying this was part of a broader air component operation rather than a simple single-aircraft strike. He emphasizes that the F-15E’s ejection sequence could involve a rear-seat officer exiting first if the mission is large, and notes that a malfunction or timing could affect ejection sequences and distances from the crash site.
Ritter argues that Iran has reconstituted its air defenses after prior U.S. and Israeli operations and is relying more on electro-optical and infrared guidance rather than radar-guided missiles. This shift makes U.S. standoff weapons less effective and increases vulnerability to close-in air defenses. He notes that the Iranians were able to hit U.S. aircraft, including an F-35 and an A-10, and asserts that the downing of the F-15E was not just luck but a sign of Iran’s growing capability.
On the rescue, Ritter details the sequence after two HH-60 Pave Hawk CSAR helicopters were shot down or rendered nonflyable, necessitating a Plan B. He describes a standard CSAR package with two MC-130 aircraft and four AH-6/MH-6 Little Bird helicopters as a typical arrangement. He explains that, in this case, three additional aircraft configured to carry Little Birds were used because the original CSAR birds were compromised. He asserts that Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six flew on the mission and that Delta Force personnel were involved, with ground security roles for airfield protection. The aim was to extract the downed pilot and begin recovery operations despite Iranian interference.
A key element Ritter highlights is the decision to rely on an airfield survey to determine whether the improvised field could support the mission. He claims that the airfield survey was not possible in time and that intelligence from Israel had to suffice to deem the field usable for MC-130 operations. He alleges that the field’s front gear sank into wet sand, trapping one or both MC-130s during takeoff—forcing a rapid shift to lighter aircraft and offloading to three C-295-type aircraft, which allowed the rescue to proceed but resulted in the destruction of the heavy aircraft and many mission-critical assets to deny Iran access to sensitive equipment.
Ritter also contends that the mission had dual objectives: rescue of the pilot and a planned operation against Isfahan involving uranium hexafluoride feedstock, potentially a U.S. effort to seize nuclear material and declare a victory over Iran’s program. He suggests the media leak that the backseater was not rescued forced a retasking of the operation, undermining that broader plan and prompting a retreat from Isfahan-related aims. He asserts that the Iranians closing in on the retasked plan signaled the end of the uranium raid, framing the outcome as a mixed result: the pilot was saved, but significant assets were lost.
The discussion touches on CIA involvement and the trust between JSOC and the CIA, noting past tensions and the use of other intelligence channels. Ritter asserts that Israel provides valuable on-the-ground intelligence but cautions that overreliance on outside intelligence can be problematic. He questions why the president publicly framed the mission as a victory and raises questions about decision-making and potential political considerations driving the operation.
In closing, Ritter emphasizes remaining questions: why the operation proceeded in a way that exposed heavy aircraft to Iranian defenses, how long U.S. assets could have sustained a high-risk operation, and how the political narrative of victory aligns with the actual military risks and losses. He concludes that while the rescue succeeded, the broader Isfahan uranium plan appears to be off the table, and the overall mission reflects a complex, high-stakes balance of intelligence, timing, and strategic objectives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, let's talk about this f 15 and what has gone on over the past forty eight hours has been a just a bevy of misinformation that's being spread, from a lot of different people out there on the Internet. But what we do know is that there is a number of US aircraft that were downed, destroyed. And take a look at your screen. This is exactly what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: Well, the question is why is The US victory lapping this rescue mission when it is essentially an admission that we've been flying over Iranian airspace? We were shot down. The president says, well, sometimes they get lucky. They still have some stuff. We destroyed most of their stuff, but he this is this is the way he said it today.
We destroyed most of their stuff, but they shot down one of our planes because they still do have some stuff, and they sometimes get lucky. Okay. So let's ask some questions about why he was there, this this pilot. What actually happened, and what do we know? So is this a tall tale?
And then why would they tell us this? We're just these are questions. These are valid questions. The so the president gave a press conference with military leaders on Monday saying it was the most daring thing ever. Let's try to decipher what we actually know.
Here is wreckage of the craft, that was posted by Iranian media. It was an f 15. Now the president says the pilot was found over 100 miles away from the crash scene because he ejected so early. He says even a few seconds can mean hundreds of miles from the wreckage. I would like a military expert or a weapons expert to ring in on that.
I don't know. But he was found over a 100 miles away. He said he was bleeding. He administered self, first aid, and then was able to hike up 7,000 foot mountains in order to find his rescue. Okay.
So is that possible? We don't know the extent of his injuries yet. He hasn't said. Now he says that they brought in nearly a dozen Kraft to get him out over the weekend, but left behind several, at least two we know. He says, we blew him up ourselves because we didn't want Iran to have them.
We don't know if that's true or not either. Now we're gonna go through further details, but it's worth noting that during the same weekend, The US put a blackout on satellite imaging from Iran and The Middle East. One company, Planet Labs, says they will comply, and The US has threatened sanctions on other imaging companies that allows images of war zones. So that is typical information control during wartime. Obviously, it's alarming.
So we're gonna break this all down with Scott Ritter. He's a former UN weapons inspector, and he can tell us so first of all, I guess, you know, a general question. This story, as it was told by the president today, does it pass your sniff test, the smell test, and why or why not?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean, it's the real deal. Went down. There's aspects of this mission that are not being discussed. For instance, what the assets that eventually rescued this pilot were originally tasked with doing and why they were diverted from that task to this task.
The president hinted at it. But you know, the the bottom line is that it's not unheard of for an f 15 e Strike Eagle to have a colonel sitting in the weapon systems operations seat, the rear seat. This tends to happen when there's a larger mission unfolding and the colonel now serves not as the the the knob turner for the weapons delivery of this F-15E, but rather as mission commander of what the air component is doing in support. So the first hint is that there was something larger taking place that this F-15E was part of something larger. It got shot down.
You know, I can't speak. The ejection seats are designed to, you know, to eject automatically. You start with the rear, that would be the colonel going out first. And then the pilot will follow a very short span of time unless there was a malfunction in the aircraft. You know, this idea that, you know, hundreds of miles separation, who knows?
I mean, again, I don't know the details of the performance of the ejection seat. The fact that you could have a malfunction is possible that there would be a delay between the rear passenger or the colonel and the pilot being ejected further down. Unless you had access to the ejection seats and all that to do forensic analysis, it's impossible to say. But you know, the fact is an F-15E was shot down. You know, they didn't get lucky.
The Iranians have reconstituted their air defense. They have, you know, recognizing that The United States and Israel were using standoff weapons, very accurate weapons rather than sacrifice their air defense. They put most of it underground in storage. And now that The United States and Israel has expended the vast majority of their standoff weapons that are gonna have to come in closer, Iran has pulled its air defense out. And Iran has learned.
You know, the suppression of enemy air defense SIAD that The United States operates, you know, airborne SIAD is done primarily using anti radar capabilities. You have electronic warfare aircraft that will jam radars and and, know, target radar signals, and then you'll fire anti radar missiles, harm missiles at them. The Iranians now are using anything but radar. They're using electro optically guided missiles, and they're using missiles that are guided by infrared. We don't have the ability to, you know, interdict based upon IR, heat seeking warheads and electro optical, you know, guided by eye line of sight.
They and so when we bring our aircraft in, they're getting hit. We saw an F 35 get hit. We saw an A 10 get shot down. Now we see this F 15 E get shot down. You know, this isn't getting lucky.
This is being good. This is actually being better than The United States. But now this aircraft's down. We send in a standard combat search and rescue package that's already on standby. Anytime you're going to launch into hostile territory, you will have a combat search and rescue package standing by ready to go.
In this case, that was two, I believe HH 60 Pave Hawks, United States Air Force Special Operations helicopters on board would be search and rescue team, combat search and rescue team comprised of air force special tactics personnel, para rescue men. There might be a special forces contingent for ground security rangers. And they sent the two helicopters in and they're scanning. Now, you know, they have limited time on target. So at one point in time they brought in an HHC 130 or HC 130, a refueler and did a very dangerous risky, you know, high risk, low altitude refueling of these helicopters.
There was video showing that, but this is what's necessary to keep the mission going. You know, and the pre planners had already taken a look at Iranian air defense and found a stretch where we could execute this maneuver with a minimal chance of getting shot down. And apparently it succeeded. Now these helicopters found the pilot and went in and got him off the ground. On the way back they were hit by Iranian anti aircraft fire.
Both aircraft were damaged. One was shown trailing smoke, know, but both made it back but they're not flyable anymore. So now you have this second officer down. Now The United States originally suggested that both pilots had been recovered. You do this because you don't want the enemy to be looking for the other pilot.
The president made a point, you know, I'm all about freedom of speech, but sometimes you've got to be smart and, you know, The US media ran with the story that the colonel was still on the ground. Now this creates a problem because now the Iranians are going after this colonel. It'd be a huge PR nightmare for The United States to lose this colonel. Plus he was mission commander of a mission we haven't yet talked about. And you don't want him falling into the hands of the enemy because he would give away, you know, mission details that would compromise not just the mission that he was involved in, but confirmation major elements of American military planning related to the ongoing campaign against Iran.
So we need to get this guy before the Iranians do this creates a sense of urgency. We lost the original CSAR package. And so they brought in a plan B. Plan B consisted of two MC 130 special operations helicopters configured to carry Ah or MH six Little Bird helicopters. Now there's a lot of people out there saying this just doesn't make any sense.
Then those people wouldn't know what they're talking about. The twin MC130 Ah six combination is a standard combat search and rescue mission package put forward by air force special operations. In fact, you can go on the internet, 05/09/2023. You can see that there was an exercise in Wyoming where they exercise just this very scenario. They brought in two MC-130s onto an improvised airfield.
They offloaded four Ah-six MH-six little birds. And then they went out and found a downed and injured pilot. They put teams on the ground. They recovered the pilot, brought them back, flew them back to the aircraft, got them on the plane, got the helicopters on the plane and the plane took off. This is what they do.
So for all the people out there saying this doesn't make any sense, it makes perfect sense if you know what you're talking about. And I'm just here to tell you that the twin MC130 Ah six MH six combo is a standard combat search and rescue package flown by the air force under certain circumstances. And here it would make sense to use it when you're plan a, the two PAV Hawks have gone down. But now we get things get interesting because these guys are flying a mission profile that doesn't make any sense from a combat search and rescue standpoint. First of all, the president said there were three Ah six's or MH six's, so little bird helicopters in a configuration that should have four.
He also alluded to the package that might be on another aircraft with a lot of equipment, anti aircraft equipment, other equipment he said, equipment used to scale mountains, etcetera. This implies that this this MC one thirty was configured to support a different mission, not a combat search and rescue mission. Now why would they dispatch it? Because the media leaked, the Iranians are going after this guy. Actually, shows the Iranians are getting close to this guy.
There isn't time to offload the MC one thirties, reconfigure them for this new CSAR mission. They were going with MC one thirties configured for a different mission profile. What was that mission profile? Well, other hints have come out. The men flying on the little birds were Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six.
This is tier one. This is the best of the best. This isn't combat search and rescue. These guys don't fly combat search and rescue missions. We have people specially trained for that.
These guys are there for something else. And why Navy SEALs? Well, because the Navy SEALs have a standing mission of nuclear recovery. This was a team configured to fly into Iraq, Iran and assault the Isfahan Nuclear Facility Tunnels where containers were are suspected of being stored that contain uranium hexafluoride feedstock for Iran centrifuge program that's been enriched to 60% over four forty kilograms of this stuff. You know, they're stored in 50 kilogram containers and there's about 26 of these containers out there someplace.
And, you know, Tulsi Gabbard implied in her statement to Congress that The United States knew where these were. And these Navy SEALs were gonna go in and they were gonna get them. But they got retasked because somebody in the media leaked that the colonel was alive and the Iranians were closing in and we had no choice. This was the only option available at the time. The two other helicopters have been shot.
We had to go in with this. And so they launched. Now the other issue comes in. Another aspect to this is that there were Delta Force guys on this aircraft. The president talks about over a 100 men on the ground.
You know, this implies that Delta had at least a half squadron, thirty, forty men there to do something. Delta doesn't secure airfields. That's a ranger mission. You know, Delta goes out and does assaults. But in this case, Delta secured an airfield, which means that they were retasked, that they had a different task.
The task is based upon what we would assume is in the package. These guys were the assaulters. There might've also been EOD, Special Operations Explosive Ordinance and Disposal people who were experts in, you know, blowing their way into tunnels and breaching secure facilities. But these guys were retasked to provide airfield security. And so the aircraft land.
Now here's the other issue before aircraft land on an improvised airfield, there needs to be an airfield survey done. Clayton, I'm saying this because I've been there, done that, got the t shirt. I've planned these missions. I've carried out these missions. I know what I'm talking about.
You don't land aircraft on an airfield where you haven't done a survey. That's it's an invitation to disaster. So normally what would happen if you had the time available twenty four, forty eight hours in advance, you would put a team in. They could be delivered either through free fall parachuting or they could be delivered using special operations aircraft, you know, small twin or single engine aircraft that would drop a team off. They would do the survey then remove the team and they would come back and say the airfield is capable or is not capable of handling the load.
We didn't have time to do that. So we were apparently relied upon intelligence provided by the Israelis. You see in June, Israel carried out a twelve day war against Iran. And during that war, they had special operations forces operating inside Iran. They were also planning an operation similar to the one that The United States was just prepared to execute, a special operations attack on Isfahan to get the the nuclear material.
In preparation of that, a unit called Shaldag, a air force special operations unit with Israel, did an airfield survey of this site. And they had reported that this airfield was usable by m c one thirty type aircraft. And this was the intelligence that we relied upon. You've heard that Israel provided critical intelligence. This is the intelligence that the airfield was usable.
The problem is the Israeli survey was done in June. Very hot, dry conditions. It's the April.
Speaker 0: Like quick The sand, it's like quick sand.
Speaker 2: It's wet sandy material. So now these MC-130s land on the field. They were successful in landing. We know this because there's a photograph of two intact MC-130s on the ground. They were able to discharge their aircraft, three Ah sixes.
The seals went out and they got this guy. They grabbed him and they brought him back. So far so good. They load the helicopters back up on and they load all the people on board back on. And the MC one thirties are now gonna taxi the end.
They are heavy, so they're gonna need as much runway as possible to take off. So they go all the way to the end of the runway and begin to make that turnaround. But because the survey was incomplete, the front nose landing gear sinks into the sand, trapping it. Because the first one started to make a turn. You can see that airfield.
He's already made his turn, and he's down. The other one's behind him, and it's down too. So now you have a choice. You have to offload the the aircraft to reduce the weight to see if you can get the aircraft jockey back in position and then reload the aircraft. The president alluded that this could take up to four hours.
This is time they didn't have. While they were rescuing the pilot, they were engaged in a firefight with militia members closing in on the pilot. Local villagers had recorded them landing. The word was out. Bombers were already dropping bombs to stop airplanes.
And again, we can talk about the b one bombers specifically loaded for this mission. You know, this was supposed to be the Isfahan mission that got retasked. And so they have a lot of assets out there. M q nine reapers that are out there they're getting involved. A tens are out there.
F 30 fives are out there. This is the air operation that the backseater was supposed to be controlling when he got shot down. But so that now the decision is made that they can't come out with these aircraft. So they bring in three air force special operations covert aircraft. These are C, I think two ninety fives.
They're twin engine turbo jets that the air force uses. A squadron uses it. I think it's the four seventy third. I may be wrong on this. Nobody talks about because it's not supposed to exist.
They don't the air force doesn't talk about it. Does not have this because it's a covert unit. It's designed to covertly insert and extract, you know, special operations, CIA assets, things of this nature. They are brought in these three aircraft and they are able to make the landing because they're lighter and they don't need as much runway. They're able to turn around without bogging down.
They're able to transfer the 100 plus people that were on these two MC130s onto these three aircraft. And they were able to take off and get out of there. Meanwhile, they had configured these aircraft with explosives that blew them up and destroyed them, denying the Iranians access to the equipment that was on board and to the aircraft themselves, which contained a lot of classified material. And that's where we're at. You know, two MC one thirties and three little birds were blown up on the ground because we couldn't get them out.
But the pilot was rescued and the rescue force was able to be successfully extracted.
Speaker 0: So two things can exist then. Right? There is this, there was a uranium heist, and there was also this failed extraction plan that coincided.
Speaker 2: There was going to be, I mean, JSOC planned a uranium raid in Isfahan. And that uranium raid was supposed to take place in this timeframe. This was Donald Trump's war winning moment. This is why he's so mad because he was this team was supposed to go in and grab this uranium so he could declare victory. Mhmm.
And say, we've shut the door on Iran's nuclear program. They can never have one now. We own the material. We beat them. The war is over.
But instead, because the media leaked that this second, this backseater was not rescued, that he was out there waiting rescue, that mission had to be retest. And it's operating in a similar area. Who knows if they were gonna use that airfield or another airfield? We don't know. But what we do know is that it's been compromised.
The Iranians now are, you know, if they weren't already, they're fully locked and loaded. There's nothing going to get close to these tunnels. So that mission's gone. We're not going to get the uranium if we ever were. I actually think this is a blessing in disguise because we got the pilot out or we got the backseater out.
We lost two MC one thirties. We lost three little birds and we lost a whole bunch of special mission equipment. That pallet had a lot of unique type equipment, but we didn't lose, you know, a 100 American military, which we very well could have lost had we done this raid on Isfan because it would have gone bad. It would have gone south. It wouldn't have succeeded.
And we would have dead Americans. We would have Americans captured and probably would have lost a lot more aircraft than we did. So in many ways, I view this as a blessing in disguise even though the president's angry from the perspective of look. The Iranians aren't lucky. They're good.
And we would have flown into a trap if we'd gone into Isfahan and we would have lost everybody. So this way, at least we got the pilot out. We left behind some aircraft. But there will be no Isfahan uranium extraction mission. That's over.
Speaker 1: There's no going back. You you you can only feel once. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 2: Oh. Remember, it's top secret mission. You're not supposed to know about it. Right. The fact that we're talking about it means everybody knows about it.
Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I guess, you know, I I'm not a combat expert, but I I was wondering why the head of the CIA got so much time at the press conference. Why was the CIA there? Why admit to the CIA? I mean, obviously, a mission like this would require the CIA, the mission you're suggesting that it was.
Right?
Speaker 2: Well, the CIA would obviously be it gets more complicated than this because the JSAAC doesn't trust the CIA, even though they have a good working relationship today better than they did during Eagle Claw. But Eagle Claw was the original Iran rescue mission. And, you know, the CIA had assets on the ground, even assets in the embassy that were reporting back details about, you know, the embassy configuration that Charlie Beckwith and the original Delta Force were using to plan the operation. But they wanted, they don't trust the CIA because the CIA isn't geared towards combat. It's geared towards intelligence collection and they don't share everything.
And so that's why they brought Dick Meadows, retired Special Forces Officer out of retirement. And they brought in two Green Berets from a top secret unit in Berlin. Scottie and Klemy in the clinic. And then they brought in, you know, an air force, Fred, an air force airman who was Persian, who spoke Persian. He came in as a linguist and these guys covertly infiltrated into Iran as a businessman.
And they rented a house and they set up a they got a warehouse, they rented trucks and they were doing the intelligence. They were doing the rehearsals because JSOC believes its own people. Its own people are geared to the mission. So JSOC runs something called Advanced Force Operations, AFO. And you know, even though the CIA was there, I will bet a dime to a dollar that there were advanced force operations also in place.
People ask yourself why these C295s were flying around because they've been infiltrating and exfiltrating AFO personnel throughout Iran who were collecting intelligence in support of potential operations. So, you know, we had a month here, but you know, nobody wants to talk about AFOs. The CIA comes in. The CIA also plays a role back in Desert Storm. The CIA had recruited a network of Iraqi Bedouin in Western Iraq, who would support downed pilots.
So if a pilot was down, these people, their job was to find the pilots and get them into a safe house, similar to what happened in France during World War II. And then have a, you know, an underground railroad type situation where you can move the pilots to a point where they could be rescued by helicopters. And the CIA was involved in that as well. Why the CIA is talking about their involvement? I don't know.
You know, talk about a deception, you know, but you don't need to talk about a deception. There's something weird going on about the CIA's role in this because normally again, the CIA played a big role in Desert Storm and nobody's ever talked about that. Nobody talks about it. The CIA doesn't talk about it. They haven't publicized any of this information.
I only know it because I worked with the guy who ran it, you know, in Iraq. But the you know, so nobody talks about this. So why suddenly Ratcliffe is there. You know, there's aspects of this thing going on that, you know, The United States isn't talking about the total picture. You haven't heard the president acknowledge that this was actually a uranium, you know, assault mission.
Nobody's talked about that yet. People are speculating about that. The president come out and said it yet. He's dropped hints though about the nature of the package. The CIA's involvement may be to disguise other capabilities in play that the deception isn't being played against the Iranians, but being played against us.
Who knows?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We got a question here from our audience. Firefly girl in Christ says, Scott, what is the conbobulator that Trump keeps babbling on about, at, at his press conference? I'll get you to to comment on that. And then also speaking to a source last night about this, one of the concerns was that we've been relying so much on Israeli intelligence, which has basically gotten us into so much trouble to our detriment, this source said, source formerly at CENTCOM.
And so that this was a big concern. We've used Israel's intel almost exclusively to our detriment, and that didn't happen on this mission. What I wanna confirm and my suspicion is that I think we were being set up. Is that do you have any concerns about that as far as Isfahan being in Isfahan and there that that the uranium would have been there and that the Israelis may have been using us to to try to set us up for something nefarious?
Speaker 2: Well, what we can, you know, what we can say is this, that we know that on two occasions since the 1980s, the CIA has lost the totality of their agent networks in Iran. The first was in the mid to late 1980s when Steve Richter was the head of Near East operations and Near East division. And he they were using at that time a letter drop communication system, basically writing plain letters going through the open mail to a Munich post office box. And if you if you run write only a few of these letters, they go to secret writing. They've they've been trained in the course.
They do their secret writing. They put the letter in there and the letter looks to, even if you open up and look at it, it looks like a normal letter and off it goes. You know, and that's how they were communicating to the CIA station in Munich that was running Iran operations. Richter was told that you have to increase the reporting. And so instead of being smart, he issued the order to double or triple the reporting.
And so suddenly you have a whole bunch of letters coming out of Iran to a Munich post office box and the Iranian counterintelligence guys are going, what's going on? It's a spike to this box. And so then they started taking a closer look at the letters and they discovered it was secret writing. And then they went back and they rolled up the entire network and CI lost everybody. We rebuilt, we being The United States, rebuilt this capability.
But in the early 2000s we started again putting pressure on them. We said we have to have more reporting. And so they opened up a mechanism of communication to use a Gmail account. You know, the details of that we don't need to get into here. But you know, basically you would communicate by Gmail.
And again, I can say this because we know for instance, in when the CIA asset agent was or officer was rolled up in Moscow trying to recruit a FSB officer expert on the Northern Caucasus that the instruction letter that he was giving to this guy talks about this Gmail account and how to open up this account. So, you know, there it is. It's the CIA's own wording. But this thing, either the Iranians or the Chinese or the Russians, I can't know who can't remember who came up with this first, but basically this system was broken. It was compromised.
And whoever did it first shared it with the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese were able to roll up the CIA's network in China very successfully. The Iranians rolled everything up. On the Russians, I think The United States was able to get in there and and and and and and salvage the situation somewhat. But, again, we don't have good eyes on Russian target either.
But the point I'm trying to make is we're blind in Iran, totally blind. The Israelis aren't. The Israelis still maintain, you know, very credible network through the Kurds, through the MEK, the Mujahideen Al Tulk, through the monarchists, through Baluch. The Israelis have a lot of eyes on the ground. And so we are over reliant upon the Israelis.
We haven't been able to reconstitute our human networks. And so the Israelis are able to influence because they say, well, we know something you don't. Our asset says this, etcetera, etcetera. The Israelis also from a military standpoint, you know, have the example of June where they actually had special operations forces on the ground operating. And again, you know, the details of infiltration, exfiltration, you know, how to, you know, remain overnight, you know, your hide site, how to operate, they have that.
So they're able to share this information and therefore drive things. But again, when you're putting American forces on the ground, especially joint special operations elements, we don't rely on anybody. We go in and do our own thing. And so we will have our own eyes on the ground, you know, and we were successful in some things. For instance, we were able to, our JSOC guys were able to put certain sensors on the ground near sensitive installations to monitor traffic in and out.
So we have resources. I would say this, that politically we're very reliant upon the Israelis. But when it comes to tactical operations on the ground, normally we would do our own thing. On this operation, the fatal mistake, the fatal error was that we needed to move so fast that we didn't have a chance to do an airfield survey. And as a result, we put airplanes that were too heavy for the airfield and they got bogged down.
Speaker 0: I guess final question, Scott, I just had. Are there any in your brain right now, any lingering questions that you have? You have such a depth of knowledge of this entire rescue mission. Is there anything standing out to you that you want answers on?
Speaker 2: Why they thought they could get away with the, I mean, this is a sign of desperation. Why did they think that they could execute? Because this isn't a mission that was still in the planning stages to pull off something like this. This mission has been planned for a long time. I, you know, we just, the one thing about joint special operations is that they pass patterns repeat themselves.
You know, we know for instance to do the rate on Maduro, we had reconstructed his, you know, his residence. And so we had already trained everybody that went in there had already run this on a full scale mockup training going in the doors, the handles turn the right way. Everything opens the right way. Boom, Bin Laden, we built the Bin Laden compound. People trained on that compound, flew into that compound.
When you do this kind of operation, there's airfields outside of Las Vegas, there's airfields down in Arizona and Yuma that we use to rehearse every aspect of this. So these planes with that configuration have already landed in an airfield in The United States. They've already pulled the equipment off. They've already flown out to a target that is designed to replicate the Isfahan Tunnels. They have already used their explosives, their torches, they've everything to get in there.
So they've rehearsed everything. And so this package that was deployed was there with a full rehearsal under its belt, and they were getting ready to launch. This f 15 e, I believe, was the initial element of this this raid. They were getting ready to launch. I wanna know what make because I I think that we don't we didn't know any for instance, we made assumptions about Iranian air defense that were fundamentally flawed.
That's why an F 15 e got shot down. What made us think that we weren't gonna lose these aircraft? Yes, we were able to get to that airfield, but we were detected. We have people moving in. How long could the B-1s provide a wall of fire?
You know, how long would it take to bring this stuff out? Were we gonna be there for days, hours? You know, I wanna know why the president, you know, because this is a political decision now. This means that military operations are being influenced based upon the president's political prerogatives that he needs to be seen as having a victory. How many Americans would have to die for this?
These are questions that need to be asked because this raid would not have been successful. There's no doubt in my mind that had we been, instead of picking up a pilot, which is a one time in and out boom operation, had we actually tried to seize and hold an airfield for sustained period of time, while we're flying in special operations teams to try and blow their way into tunnels, while the Iranians responding. This would have been the disaster. So I'd like to know what was the decision tree on this one? Who was involved?
Is this why JD Vance had to fire a bunch of people? Because people were saying this is crazy. This is insane. This isn't worthy. And now the next question is, if that's the case now that they failed, are we starting to is the president gonna start to reconsider the yes men saying, wait a minute, you said yes to something wasn't gonna work.
Should I trust you again? You know, and then what's J. D. Vance? You know, know he was against the war.
Apparently he's leading the American effort with the Pakistanis to broker a deal to bring this war to an end. Does this failed mission give him more credibility? I mean, the Warhawks diminished? There's there's a lot of questions out there right now. Not so much about the rescue, but about this bigger plan.
What are we doing in Iran? What are we trying to do? You know, things of that nature.
Speaker 1: Those are good questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I guess one last thought is that just speaking to some different sources, air force and otherwise, and f fifteen pilots adjacent, that these these air defenses were with the help of the Russians. And what do you know about that?
Speaker 2: I mean, if it is, then that's good for The United States because we train on this. I mean, again, we, you know, all of these pilots fly, you know, what used to be called red flag. I don't know what they call it nowadays, but out at Nellis Air Force Base, they go out there and they they fly realistic combat missions against opposition forces that are designed to mimic, you know, Russian threats. They are schooled on the radar capabilities of the S 300, S 400 systems. They're jamming in their self defense, you know, systems and their aircraft are designed to operate in a radar environment, which is what we're talking about here.
What shot this airplane down, some people are saying that it was a Russian missile fired from long range. Maybe, I mean, again, intelligence wise, we'll know that because we'll know if there was a radar emitting, we'll have the launch sequence and we'll have tracked the missile. But what's causing us problems right now isn't, you know, Russian missiles. What's causing us problems are the Iranian missiles. You see, Iran's reconstituted its anti air capabilities, but they're not using exclusively radar guided systems because that's playing into America's strength.
You know, we have an entire airborne suppression of enemy air defense, you know, program in place designed to suppress the radars. We have jamming aircraft, you know, EA6s. We have EF18s that go in there and they have special equipment specifically designed to counter these Russian and Chinese radars. What the Iranians have done is they're deploying electro optically guided missiles and missiles using infrared heat, a whole different thing. And you know, we're, we don't have, we haven't planned for that environment.
So this means now in order to avoid that, we have to fly higher. When you fly higher, you're not flying better, especially when you don't when you've run out of precision guided missiles. The higher you fly, the more vulnerable it become to radar guided missiles. So the Iranians are whipping us. I mean, yes, we can go in and drop bombs, but this isn't anybody who thinks that we have air supremacy over Iran, you don't know what you're talking The Iranians laid low while we were using standoff weapons.
But now that we've exhausted our supply of standoff weapons, we have to go deeper into Iranian territory. This f 15 e mission was one of the first ones to go in deep and it got shot down. And what we're seeing also is that Israelis, while they're not getting shot down, they are terminating their attack profiles because they're being locked on earlier by air defense systems that shouldn't exist because we apparently thought we had killed them all, but we haven't. The the Iranians are much more prepared for this war than we are. They've anticipated just about everything, and they're beating us across the board.
Wow.
Speaker 0: Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, US marine, thank you so much. I just was I wasn't I wasn't about to interrupt you at all. I I think you really answered a huge huge swaths of this story and hopefully put to bed a lot of misinformation out there. Scott, great to see you as always. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I read “Total Obliteration”: Trump says Iran can be taken out in one night, possibly tomorrow. Col. Doug Macgregor warns it won’t end the war—Iran would retaliate by destroying Gulf coast power and desalination plants, and Arab states might not survive it.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
☠️ Total Obliteration. 🤯 Trump says Iran can be taken out in one night, & that night might be tomorrow. Col. @DougAMacgregor says it won't end the war, Iran will respond by destroying every power plant & desalination plant on the Gulf coast, & the Arab states won't survive it. https://t.co/Xi3ebJmt4S
Video Transcript AI Summary
Colonel Douglas MacGregor discusses the escalating tensions over Iran and the possibility of drastic military action. He notes that President Trump says the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and negotiate a ceasefire is tomorrow, and that if they don’t, “the entire country will be taken out in one night,” raising questions about whether a nuclear weapon is at the ready. The discussion suggests that Trump’s line may be hyperbolic, with Speaker 1 positing that a nuclear weapon is unlikely and that conventional methods or power-grid disruption could be used to “take out the entire country” without permanently ending the war. He invokes George Kennan’s view on nuclear weapons and argues the goal is not to wage a nuclear exchange but to disrupt Iran’s energy infrastructure; he questions whether such measures would be permanent or decisive.
The conversation shifts to censorship and satellite imagery. Speaker 2 reports that Planet Labs received a U.S. request to blackout images in and around Iran dating back to March 6, possibly earlier, with threats of sanctions if companies don’t comply. The panel discusses how to verify reality amid conflicting signals.
The panel turns to a tactical assessment of potential actions around the Strait of Hormuz. Speaker 1 predicts Trump would pursue a coordinated air force and naval air strikes aimed at destroying petrochemical plants and energy infrastructure to deprive the government of power, though he doubts this would alter the strategic outcome given Iran’s continental capacity and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities. He explains Iran’s ability to use satellites and strike systems to counter, and notes Iran’s large force structure within the country. He warns that even if power is disrupted, Iran can respond and that the Gulf states would be affected due to a loss of energy and desalination capacity, potentially threatening regional stability and the Gulf’s populations.
The discussion broadens to regional dynamics and Israel. Speaker 2 cites Trump’s remark about scrapping the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal to prioritize Israel, suggesting this shift contributed to the current conflict. Speaker 1 argues the global economy could enter a depression, highlighting how energy, plastics, fertilizer, and feedstock shortages would ripple through the Global South, Japan, Korea, and Europe as energy prices rise and supply chains falter. He asserts that oil is a global commodity and that a price rise worldwide is likely; he predicts a stock market crash and a long-term energy system rebuild.
The hosts pivot to financial consequences and media appeals, with Speaker 0 promoting gold and silver investments through Lear Capital, citing Ed Dowd’s view on panic buying and shortages of fertilizer and energy, and predicting higher prices. The discussion notes a claim that about $42 billion has been spent on the conflict so far, with spending accelerating.
On leadership and assessment of U.S. strategy, Speaker 1 raises concerns about President Trump’s current mental acuity and notes that some U.S. leaders are calling for a 60-day limit on hostilities without a formal declaration of war. He argues that Israel’s aims dominate the U.S. stance, complicating potential compromises with Iran and wider regional settlements. He asserts Israel seeks to expand its influence and dominance in the region, which undermines potential settlements and constrains U.S. options.
In Israel, Speaker 1 explains that Hezbollah is not out of action and has launched rockets into Northern Israel; Israeli public unrest and evacuation patterns hint at severe internal strain. He contends that Israel relies heavily on U.S. support, which could be leveraged for broader regional aims, but may be unsustainable given regional opposition to Israel’s expansion. He suggests Arab populations and governing elites in the Gulf and Egypt grow discontent with Western-backed leadership.
Finally, the panel probes the potential use of ground forces and the plausibility of a doomsday scenario, with Speaker 1 arguing that a large, sustained ground operation in the Gulf is unlikely to change the outcome without comprehensive disruption of Iranian strike systems and satellite networks. He emphasizes that a nuclear option would be catastrophic, and expresses concern about Israeli actions and regional reactions, including possible involvement by Russia, China, and other powers.
Colonel MacGregor closes by pointing readers to his Substack for ongoing strategic analysis and reiterates the anticipated economic and geopolitical upheaval from the conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, president Trump says that the deadline for Iran to open the Strait Of Hormuz and negotiate a ceasefire is tomorrow. And if they don't, basically, the entire country will be taken out in one night. Does this mean a nuclear weapon is at the ready? Watch what the president just said.
Speaker 1: The entire country could be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So while we try to decipher what is real, what is rhetoric right now, The US has put a blackout on satellite images?
Speaker 2: That's right. This Planet Lab says that they have received a request from The US to blackout all images in and around Iran and surrounding regions dating back to March 6, at least, and possibly before the war. They're saying they have to comply, And other satellite companies are reporting that The US is threatening sanctions if they don't. Why would they do that? Why would they not want us to access satellite imagery?
Do you think? So how can we know what to believe? Joining us to discuss is Colonel Douglas MacGregor. He can tell us what he thinks of all of this. So first, let's let's start with the nuke.
Do you think that's what that means? Is that the only way to wipe out an entire country in one day? Doesn't does that horrify you?
Speaker 1: Well, the possibility of a nuclear weapon always horrifies me. I think there are some other ways that can, be employed that could certainly disrupt power inside the country. Quote unquote taking out the entire country sounds to me to be a little hyperbolic. And, you know, Trump is famous for hyperbolic statements. He he's the born marketer.
He stands up and grossly exaggerates everything out of proportion to reality. So my my assumption is that he's not talking about a nuclear weapon. If he does, well, I think George Kennan said it best. He He said that a nuclear weapon was a suicidal device because there was no rational application for it. Even Stalin said that it had no real military utility because it destroyed everything.
It was only useful insofar as you could protect your territorial integrity with it. So I I hope that that's not what he's talking about. I think it's probably conventional, and there are some innovative ways to disrupt power and essentially black out the entire country. Is that a permanent condition? No.
Is it gonna win the war? No. Absolutely not. And I think that's the problem. And you were talking about censorship.
Well, if you're winning, and things are going well, you don't usually need censorship, do you?
Speaker 0: No. Exactly. Well, the president released a a, I think, pretty nice, jovial Easter message on Truth Social.
Speaker 2: It was inspiring, really.
Speaker 0: It was really inspiring. Like, when the kids were, you know, doing their Easter egg hunt. Like, let's gather around and read the president's message because it was really inspiring. He said Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing like it.
Open the effing straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch. Praise be to Allah, president Donald j Trump. So obviously, I'm joking about that being a warm Easter message, but open the straight, then Iran responds that they've lost the keys. We're not gonna be able to open the Strait Of Hormuz.
Sorry. We've lost the keys to that, in response. What do you think happens militarily next about the Strait Of Hormuz?
Speaker 1: Militarily, I think he's going to do exactly what he says. And the Air Force will go in, along with the naval air, and they will deliver a punishing series of strikes designed to destroy petrochemical plants, energy infrastructure, and anything that provides power and support to the government. There's no question about that. Again, will it be successful? I don't think it's gonna make much difference.
You're talking about a continental power. We're a maritime and aerospace power. That's why we don't maintain a large army. We don't need to. We have oceans around us.
Iran is a continental power. That's why it has a million men under arms inside the country. That's why it's invested heavily in this ISR strike paradigm, which is to link satellites and space based intelligence and surveillance collection to strike systems. What they will do after Trump completes his mission on Tuesday night, or whenever he decides to start it, you know, you gotta take these deadlines with a grain of salt. He's not always completely honest about that, and what you may get is something earlier, who knows.
But if it happens, the Iranians are gonna respond, and they've already said what they will do. And I find that far more upsetting than anything we're going to do, because they're going to destroy everything of a similar quality in terms of energy infrastructure and power plants. And potentially, I don't know if we hit the desalination plants or not, but if we rob the country of power, I suppose desalination won't work anyway. But the Iranians can turn around and do that to the entire western, coast of, the Persian Gulf. And I think that will finish off the Gulf States.
They have almost 67,000,000 people living in that region that runs from Oman all the way up to Kuwait and Southern Iraq, they won't be able to sustain themselves. They won't be able to drink water. They won't have any power. Now, don't know how many are still there, but I think that's kind of a death sentence for those Gulf States and probably also Saudi Arabia, which is why I think, they have been pleading with president Trump to do something else, to begin thinking differently. But this is something I wanted to add today that I think is very important.
We need to understand that Israel's demand for this thing called greater Israel, for more territory in Lebanon and Syria, ultimately Iraq, even at the expense of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Sinai and part of Egypt beyond the Nile. All of this forbids a Palestinian state, and it makes compromise with Iran, with any of the Muslim countries in the region impossible. And, ultimately, that's what we're fighting for, because the whole purpose of our war is to essentially achieve Israeli goals. We have no territorial aims in the region. Our only interest historically was really in the oil and the 47 products around the world that oil produces, that petroleum is part of.
But we have no interest in the territory there. But we're we're being asked to underwrite that expansion. And at the same time, we're being asked to make the region submissive to Israel. In other words, to subordinate everyone there to whatever Israel wants. I don't see that happening.
I don't think the populations of the region will go along with that. I don't think they ever will go along with it. And I don't think the military is the right instrument to help Israel improve its position in the region. So everything that you're hearing right now is essentially a verdict on Israel and its destruction. It makes Israel's failure inevitable.
There is no chance for them to achieve what they want. We can't make it happen. We don't have the military power to do it. We can't open that straight. That's the whole problem.
Can't be done.
Speaker 2: Something the president said in his press conference today was, I tore up Barack Obama's Iranian nuclear deal because it disfavored Israel. Obama was choosing Iran over Israel. And why would you do that? I mean, I would do that at this point because Iran has not instigated a genocide before our very eyes in the last so, you know, that curries favorably. Your point
Speaker 1: your point is is accurate. They've killed an awful lot of human beings. They've driven them from their homes.
Speaker 2: And so what he said is, I had to choose Israel. This I had to rejigger all of my politics, which led to this major conflict in The Middle East because I needed to center Israel as a priority. I don't think there's any other way to see it, is there?
Speaker 1: No. And I think we he's put the global, economic community on the road to a depression. It's only a matter of time until this depression strikes. Everybody thinks in exclusively in terms of gasoline, but it's gasoline, it's diesel, it's plastics, it's fertilizer, it's feedstock. I mean, we just go down the list.
All of these things are missing in the Global South, and the Global South is in enormous trouble. So is Japan. Japan is trying to put all of its nuclear reactors back online. They have a lot of work ahead of them, but they're doing it. And at the same time, they're burning whatever coil coal they can buy from wherever they can get it.
The same thing is happening in Korea. These all of these states that we're talking about, whether it's Korea, Japan, India, most of Southeast Asia, most of Africa. These states are not our enemies. Most of these states have good relations with us. We are harming our friends, and we're sending them all simultaneously to the poorhouse.
Now that also affects us. I mean, president Trump doesn't seem to understand that oil is a global commodity. So when the price rises in one place, it rises in other places. We're seeing it rise here. Right now in Germany, they're paying the equivalent of about $11 per gallon for gasoline.
That's actually gonna go up. The situation in Europe is dire, and people are now bidding for oil. So the tankers that might otherwise go to Europe that would ameliorate these conditions, they're not arriving because the Japanese, the Koreans, Indians, others can offer more money than the Europeans can for the energy. So the whole energy system in the in the in the world is being disrupted, and ultimately is gonna have to be rebuilt, and it's gonna take a decade or more. None of this seems to sink in.
I I think until the stock market crashes, and I think that it will, I don't know if it'll happen in three weeks or three months, but it's definitely going to tank.
Speaker 0: Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you. Sorry. But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest.
It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Lear Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me.
It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it. They know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks?
Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them. So does Natalie. We both do.
And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice.
Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I have been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them.
1806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Because we just heard from Ed Dowd. Ed Dowd just made a message about from, you know, former BlackRock guy, and he he basically said, hey, right now, we're entering a phase where panic buying is gonna become a reality. You're going to see, to to to your point about fertilizer shortages, all of these things, it's not just about gasoline prices. It's the wider spread.
What you're seeing across the board, all through Southeast Asia right now. So how long until that starts trickling into Europe and into The United States?
Speaker 1: Well, I think Europe is already crumbling. Germany in particular is just in the worst imaginable possible position. They've already been through this long process of deindustrialization because Biden decided to destroy the the pipeline that brought them cheap energy from Russia. They can't do business anymore with Russia. Now they're dependent on external sources, and the pipelines that are reaching north are going to be cut off by by the Iranians.
What do you think happens when the Houthis finally cut off access to the Red Sea? All of this is going to combine to essentially bring the global economy to a halt. And as that begins to develop in a dramatic way and hits us here at home as well, I think president Trump's war is going to be ended involuntarily, ultimately. But he he is going to he's gonna be in a lot of trouble. If he continues on this route, I think he's gonna be a potential victim of the twenty fifth amendment.
Speaker 0: Well, questions swirling about whether or not he's even in his right frame of mind. Obviously, you served with you served under him. I've interviewed him, I mean, dozens and dozens of times. He seems like a completely different person than the person that I used to interview on a regular basis. There's concerns that that he has dementia.
I mean, I'd he's been you know, rumors about him being rushed to the hospital the other day. Alex Jones talking about his swelled up ankles, meaning that he's got some sort of a heart failure. Who knows? This kind of stuff spirals out of control, but you agree that something seems off?
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is not the man that I knew in 2020 when I had the opportunity to sit and talk with him. He was a very different person. He was much more relaxed. I would, I would describe him as being very much in control of his faculties.
And when I listen to him now, it's not the same person. So I think there are serious problems. I'm not a doctor, I can't diagnose it. But my point is that he's on a very dangerous glide path into hell. Let's put it that way.
These statements that come out in the middle of the night, like the last one, on Easter, signal that there's a certain unbalanced quality about the man that has to be addressed. People on the hill are are noticing it. We just had senator Curtis, a Republican, who finally said, we should not continue with this war beyond sixty days unless we get a declaration of war. Well, hallelujah. He's absolutely right.
It's a little late, I would argue, but thank god somebody's brought it up. Instead of attacking president Trump personally, which I think is a waste of time, people should stand up with Curtis, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, and make the same point. We're spending a lot of money over there. We're not getting much for our investment, in my judgment. So I I think we need to bring this to a close somehow.
Unfortunately, as I said before, we're committed to Israel's aims, and the Israelis have proven very resistant to any form of compromise.
Speaker 0: I wanna take your pulse of this. We see these stories about, like, the doomsday planes. You see it with, with Netanyahu, and then nothing comes of it. Then you see this story here from the Daily Mail just posted a few moments ago. Trump's doomsday plane spotted circling US War command center as Iran rejects ceasefire.
His emergency command aircraft currently circling above a US base home to America's nuclear command center. The night watch Boeing e four b, made several loops above the, Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska today. What do you make of this? Anything to make of this or nothing?
Speaker 1: I hope not much. But it could be that the decision was made to do it at this point in order to send signals that they think are somehow or another going to intimidate the Iranians or anybody else. I you know, this sort of thing doesn't work. It never has. You know, we have threatened so many people so often under president Trump.
Every time he opens his mouth, he insults someone, somewhere in a position of authority around the world. We've gotten to the point now where I I think the answer to president Trump is going to be more resistance, more hostility, a greater readiness to fight. So I think, you know, in in addition to what I mentioned earlier on Tuesday, I think you will see the use of some ground forces in the Persian Gulf. And I think that will be done on the assumption that this is somehow or another gonna pry loose the gulf, but it can't. Because you don't have to sit right in the middle of the Strait Of Hormuz in order to stop things from moving through it.
All you have to do is make it abundantly clear that you have tactical ballistic missiles and drones that can destroy anything that tries to move it, move through it. And that can be done. And unless you can root out all of the strike systems within a few 100 miles inside Iran, unless you can stop the or disrupt the communication between the satellites, provide the targeting data for the strike systems, nothing is going to change. And no one in their right mind is gonna underwrite the shipping with insurance. So I I don't know why I don't know why he thinks that this can be done militarily, because I just don't see it working.
Speaker 2: Something that Dan Davis has said on our show is that a nuclear weapon in Iran will be a nuclear weapon that affects Israel too. What do you think of that? Is there a precision nuke that I don't know about?
Speaker 1: Well, nuclear warheads can be just as precise as conventional warheads, only at the detonation end, infinitely more destructive with long term effects. And we know what those are. You can poison the atmosphere, poison the ground. You can set up people to die from all sorts of cancer for years afterwards. So that's the difference, and that's why we don't want anything to do with nuclear weapons.
You end up destroying everything. There's no real strategic benefit to it, unless your goal is to murder. And you see, this is why, frankly, I don't believe that president Trump would employ such a weapon, or anybody in The United States would do so, because I don't think our aim is to murder a million people in Iran. On the other hand, I do worry about Israel. All we have to do is listen to the things that they've said and see what they have done in various places.
And they have unhesitate unhesitantly murdered large numbers of people that they wanted to be rid of. So I do worry about the Israelis, and I don't see any evidence that we have any real influence over them. I only see influence going in one direction, from them to president Trump and his advisers.
Speaker 0: I just wanna come back to your military depth of knowledge, and what this when we look at ground troops, we look at seems like the massive mobilization across the board here, multiple aircraft carriers now in this space. Maybe you could sort of game out what we're seeing and how you think this might unfold, maybe over the next few days, colonel.
Speaker 1: Well, if you have, as they do right now in The Gulf, persistent surveillance, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year, anywhere from 600 to 1,200 miles from Iran. In other words, just draw us you draw us a circle, and you you go out from Iran's borders six six hundred to a thousand miles. That means that you can see everything that is there. Potentially, given the weapons they have, their missile technology, that means that if your American forces, whether you are at sea, in the air, on the ground, at an airstrip or an airfield, or you are soldiers or marines trying to move into the Persian Gulf, whether you fly in or however they manage to insert them, you are operating in a killing zone. That's what has to be understood.
It's it's one giant killing zone.
Speaker 0: And can you all
Speaker 1: they have to do is look at the screen and find you, and you're done.
Speaker 0: And can before you go on, in that killing zone, what type of weapons does Iran still have access to? Are we talking hypersonics and others that they would be in that killing zone?
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. You have you have a tactical and you have theater ballistic missiles. An intercontinental ballistic missile does not exist in the Iranian inventory, contrary to what people are saying, nor do I think we're going to see one anytime soon. But certainly theater ballistic missiles that can fly a thousand to 1,500 miles, yes, they exist, and they are precise, and they can be hypersonic. They can be unstoppable.
But they can do the same thing with drones, albeit the drones will be slower, cheaper, but in far greater numbers, which is what we've seen repeatedly. And we have turned out to be very, very ineffective in our aim in our efforts to shoot these things down or stop them. That's the problem. And increasingly, Israel is almost defenseless. I don't know what their missile status is with regard to our weapons, the THAAD missiles, or theater high altitude air defense missiles, PAC threes, JEMTs, or whatever they've got.
But I don't think they have enough to cope with the Iranian threat. And the Iranians have proven and demonstrated repeatedly they'll penetrate, they'll get through, and they'll kill you. So my point is, how many marines and how many soldiers can you airlift into the Persian Gulf area? Say you try to put them into UAE, you try to put them into Kuwait, you try to put them into Qatar, wherever you try to go. They're going to be identified.
And then you have to move them from wherever you stage them to the islands that you're trying to seize in the Gulf. Now I hope that somebody somewhere, and I'm sure somebody has, in the military has pointed this out. And you can't guarantee that they'll get through without being killed before they even arrive at their target destination. That's the problem.
Speaker 2: I wanna ask you. In a minute, we're gonna talk to Scott Ritter about the rescue mission over the weekend. The White House held an hour long press conference today with Trump and other military leaders, including the CIA. I was confused why they were there. I want to ask you, what is the use value of doing something like that?
A victory lapping a mission such as this? Because this may seem abundantly obvious, but you don't have to rescue people if you don't start wars. Why do you think they're doing this?
Speaker 1: Well, remember, we go after pilots with a vengeance because you're asking pilots to potentially fly into enemy airspace. And if you expect them to do that, they have to have some assurance that if they're shot down, you will try to rescue them. In other words, we don't send pilots on suicide missions. Say, good luck. May never see you again.
Hope you get through. No. We tell them, look, well, you do the best you can. We'll give you all the support we possibly can. And if we were able to do so, we will definitely extricate you.
And we don't leave people behind unless we could absolutely not avoid it. So I think that's important. On the other hand, Scott may be able to tell you more than I can about the details of the special operations mission on the ground in Iran, which I think was aimed at trying to secure enriched uranium. Now that would involve the CIA. You can't do any of that without the Central Intelligence Agency.
The expertise for that sort of thing is there, And their ability to identify it, contain it, and remove it would have to be part of the mission. Yeah. Obviously, it does not seem to have worked. Now, how many people were injured or killed, I have no idea. And again, we're back to what you were talking about at the beginning.
We're not gonna broadcast that from the from the wreckage that we have been able to see. And I don't know if that's all the wreckage or just some of it. I haven't seen very many remains or corpses or anything. Thank God. Were they removed by the Iranians?
I don't know. But, obviously, it didn't work. And I think there were a lot of people in the Pentagon who made the point that this was the proverbial needle in the haystack. And the chances for success of that mission were always very low. So I think the president is probably gonna turn his attention now to the other kinds of missions we discussed earlier.
But we'll see.
Speaker 0: Doug, before we let you go, I wanna just get an assessment of what's happening inside of Tel Aviv, what's happening inside of Israel, and the attacks we see videos that then have been later confirmed. And, yes, we see neighborhoods on fire. But it's very difficult, as you know, to get information out of Israel. And those sources who are sort of speaking, well, it's almost like it reminds me of the Leslie Nielsen from Naked Gun. He's standing there literally on the phone with I could you can hear you can hear missiles going off in the background.
It's all fine. Nothing to see here. And you can hear explosions in the background. First on the Israel side, how are things looking there? What is Iran's ability to penetrate the Iron Dome, the other systems, and then also the Lebanon piece of this and the destruction of neighborhoods across, Southern Lebanon.
So maybe you could just unpack both of those pieces and where things stand there.
Speaker 1: Well, starting with Southern Lebanon, it's pretty obvious that the effort in Southern Lebanon is to Gaza fy it. Mhmm. To essentially repeat in Southern Lebanon what they've done in Gaza. There's also evidence that, there's an interest in doing some of that on the West Bank, although it's it's not as, intensive. The bottom line is that, they thought, or at least they insisted that Hezbollah had been put out of action.
Hezbollah is absolutely not out of action. And Hezbollah has managed to launch a lot of rockets into Northern Israel. Especially the people in Northern Israel are very unhappy. They've made that abundantly clear politically. Many of them have been evacuated.
Lots of Israelis have left. Now where have they gone? I'm told Cyprus, Greek islands, even all the way to Serbia in some cases and elsewhere. I think Israel is on the knife edge of serious internal disruption. Their government is suppressing dissent.
It has to, right now. I think mister Netanyahu, if and I don't know where he is. I have absolutely no idea where he is. But I think he and his government are hard pressed to hold things together. I don't think the Iron Dome is very effective anymore.
I don't know how effective it was to begin with. It was never as advertised. And as we were talking earlier, how many missiles have they got? Anti anti missile missiles. I don't think there are very many left.
As I've watched a number of these strikes that have been filmed and then disseminated to the West, you don't see much response to incoming missiles anymore. If there is any, it's very modest. In many cases, none at all. I think Israel's in a lot of trouble. But remember, Israel has an opportunity in the minds of mister Netanyahu and his government that they may not have a gain, and that is absolute unconditional support from The United States.
They have real control over the decision makers in Washington, and they want to exploit that to achieve their larger aims, which are not just to subdue Iran, but to establish their supremacy across the region and to dominate the region to the point where they can expand their borders as they see fit or will. This makes any sort of compromise impossible. It makes an end to this conflict impossible. It it gives the United States Armed Forces mission impossible, because we're there to beat everyone else into submission. We can't do that.
It's beyond our resources and our capabilities.
Speaker 0: And finally, Doug, how how devastated is Iran right now?
Speaker 1: Well, I think, they've they've certainly suffered some serious civilian casualties. Thousands of people are being killed. How many thousands? We don't know. Now Alastair Crook, who has better access to the Iranian, government and people in Iran than I do, seems to think that the Iranians thus far have actually sustained fewer casualties than they did during the twelve day war, that they evacuated promptly into shelters.
They got people away. They had alternatives to existing hospitals because the Israelis had destroyed a lot of hospitals and aid stations. That was done early on. They seemed to have expected that, so they were prepared for it. They seemed to have weathered it pretty well.
Now I don't know what president Trump has up his sleeve, but based upon what he's saying, I guess we should expect the worst. And, I think the Iranians are preparing for that. And, again, the key point is this is a continental power half the size of India with 93,000,000 people. They will take the damage. They will absorb the punishment, just as the Soviets absorbed enormous punishment in the past during World War two and during the invasion of, Russia by Napoleon.
They they are a large area, a large population. They can't protect everything, so they don't try. They accept the fact that they're they're going to sustain damage. Think the Israelis have done that. But they also know how to mobilize their population and get them out there.
And that's what happened with our special ops mission. My impression is that most of the people that did the fighting, and many of those who were probably killed, were actually local militia, as opposed to part of a regular military force. So they're prepared. And I think they'll take whatever punishment is dished out, and they will counterstrike. They will counterattack.
Now the final thing, and nobody mentions this. We have to keep this in mind. The Russians, the Chinese, the Turks, the the Pakistanis, others are on the sidelines. They are watching this unfold. They are prepared to act at some point.
They will not let this go on in perpetuity. And the pressure from the rest of the world to do something to stop us is going to become overwhelming. The Egyptians, that's they have the largest army in the region. They're the largest Muslim Arab state in the region. They are on a knife edge there.
Sisi is in an unfortunate position. He doesn't want to attack right now, but he's under tremendous pressure from his population to act against the Israelis. He's got a 100,000,000 people there who are ready to fight. They're angry as hell. He might not last.
I don't think most of the Arab governments that we see today will be there in a few months.
Speaker 2: The entire region is gonna
Speaker 1: go through dramatic tear turnover.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 2: Because you think the will of the Arabic population is to stop another Gaza from happening and has I been all mean, it's a source of great frustration that that was allowed to happen. Well, so many powerful leaders sat on their hands.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right.
Speaker 0: Well, and so many corrupt Egyptians who are making millions of dollars off of building concentration camps in Rafah, you know, and and who are really cleaning up on the black market and making so much money off of what will become this massive refugee crisis pouring into these concentration camps that they made all this money off of. So And
Speaker 1: the ruling classes in the Gulf States, many of them are living in Egypt right now. Mhmm. They fled the area. They're sitting in Egypt. The Egyptian population is not oblivious to this.
They're well aware of it. Remember, we were instrumental in preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from seizing power. But the reason the Muslim Brotherhood came to power initially in Egypt was very simply because of the corruption that you're discussing. They're aware of it. They're sick of it.
They're angry about it. That's why most of the Arabs in the in the Muslim Arab world don't have much use for the ruling elites in the Arabian Peninsula. They are seen as, quote, unquote, the fat and the corrupt. We have been backing all of these people for years, So you can imagine how popular we are.
Speaker 2: Right. And so I don't wanna extrapolate too much here, but it's very possible that in The United States, anyone who does not support Israel will become a desirable candidate for future elections because we see it because there's a there's a national frustration at APAC co opted politicians. And that could also happen in the Gulf regions, you say, which would be international, which would be an implosion of Israel's global support.
Speaker 1: Yes. I I think that's true. And I think you also have to extend some of this to Europe. Mhmm. Because you have European leaders who are co conspirators in the war that we are waging, but more important, they've utterly failed to protect their own populations.
Remember, when you're the leader of a country, you're supposed to shelter, feed, and protect your people. What has happened in Europe? They're not being sheltered. They're not gonna have enough to eat. They're not gonna be able to power their systems, heat their homes, protect themselves, run hospitals.
All hell is gonna break loose in Europe too. We've been waiting this, you know, waiting for this. You and I and others, we've talked about the problems in Europe. Well, I think all of this is going to suddenly come to fruition.
Speaker 0: Colonel Douglas MacGregor, host of the National Conversation, can read his great works over at the American Conservative as well. Anywhere else people can find your work lately, colonel?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You might look on the substack. I've got a a great substack now. I've been writing one major essay every seven days or so. And I've also posted some older things that I've added.
We've got tens of thousands of subscribers coming in. It's very successful. I urge people to go to that. I think they'll find what's there of great interest. Because I'm trying I'm trying to stay on the strategic level.
The tactical situation isn't gonna change a lot. We're gonna continue to struggle. Strategically, what happens is key. And it's back to what we said at the very beginning. This economic catastrophe that is being created by the loss of 20% of the world's resources, it's more than that.
Somebody said to me, well, it's about $15,000,000, 15,000,000 barrels of oil a day off the market in The Gulf. Once you close off the Red Sea and the the Hooties begin to operate, add another 11,000,000. You're looking at a global catastrophe economically.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And we should point out just, here's an update, colonel. $42,000,000,000, has been spent so far on this war, Israel's war in Iran, just over about a month now in length, about $1,000,000,000 a day. So upward 42,000,000,000, almost, nearing 43. Maybe by the end of today's show, we'll hit that number. Doug, great to see you as always.
Thank you for your insights. Everyone should read his Substack and subscribe. Colonel, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks a lot. Bye bye.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 Watch before this is taken down: Dr. @RWMaloneMD just named names. Pediatric COVID vax death data is being blocked from the public by @DrMakaryFDA & @HeidiOverton inside the Trump admin. The MAHA movement has been told to put a cork in it before the midterms. https://t.co/kklij73tH9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Malone, who resigned as vice chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices under the Trump administration, is introduced as an early mRNA vaccine researcher who warned about the COVID vaccine, was deplatformed, censored, and later sued the Biden administration for censorship. The hosts note that his joining the Trump administration gave some in the MAHA community hope that the government would listen to evidence-based doctors and experts, but his resignation raises questions about why the MAHA movement seems stalled.
Malone is asked to grade the MAHA movement’s progress inside the Trump administration. He responds: the grade would have to be a C. It’s not failing and is succeeding in many things, particularly relating to nutrition—nutrition agenda, food safety, food integrity, improving SNAP benefits, children's food in schools, and food for military personnel. However, there was a major setback on glyphosate policies, and there is frustration about the administration’s willingness to shut down any discussions about vaccine policy in advance of the midterms, based on polling and opinions within the West Wing.
The conversation shifts to naming individuals who allegedly torpedo MAHA inside the White House. The hosts name Susie Wiles, and Malone hedges about naming others, but indicates Overton—Marty Makary’s former postdoc, a Hopkins MD—has been a major factor in influencing policy to shut down vaccine discussions and to realign vaccine policy with Western peers, while cutting back on mandated vaccines. The hosts discuss polling suggesting MAHA represents only about two to five percent of the electorate and that this group is expendable if it risks broader vaccine controversy.
The discussion emphasizes that the media misrepresents vaccine policy changes. Malone and a host insist that vaccines were not taken away, access was not removed, subsidies were not removed, and indemnification programs were not withdrawn. They describe a realignment toward “shared decision making,” which requires active informed consent with a pediatrician about whether to accept a vaccine product. They cite the American Academy of Pediatrics lawsuit against Bobby Kennedy, arguing that the cost to pediatricians to engage in informed consent is a core issue for those opposing this approach, with corporate pediatrics and time-pressure in clinics also involved.
They discuss the possibility of withdrawing PrEP Act coverage for mRNA products, a policy supported by the secretary but not allowed to proceed. Malone notes internal discussions around visible data on pediatric deaths related to COVID vaccines, and mentions VAERS cases identified by Tracey Beth Hogue (now acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research) that were later downplayed; he claims there was a cover-up through the crisis and references data on DNA adulteration as another example.
The dialogue touches on internal White House dynamics, including Heidi Overton’s role and the anti-vaccine-mandate stance, and suggests that the administration’s moderation of vaccine controversy before the midterms reflects strategic polling rather than a shift in belief about vaccines. Malone asserts the secretary supports withdrawing PrEP Act coverage, though he can’t confirm for certain.
They discuss media sensationalism around measles vaccines and vaccines in general, noting that headlines claim RFK Jr. is removing vaccines, but the speakers argue vaccines remain accessible and subsidized. Malone emphasizes the broader problem of public health policy being weaponized and politicized, rather than rationally examined to help the public make informed decisions, and contrasts U.S. policy with Scandinavian approaches where vaccine uptake remains high without mandates.
The host asks about chemtrails and weather manipulation; Malone traces it to historical interests, governance, and current political priorities, concluding that the administration does not prioritize this issue and that MAHA must mobilize voters to press it if they want action. The interview ends with encouragement to subscribe to Malone’s Substack, Malone News, and a reflection on fragmentation and the influence of AI on public discourse, with Malone recommending a simpler, steadier life and a homestead.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor. Well, Doctor. Robert Malone resigned as vice chair of the advisory committee on immunization practices with the Trump administration. Now, if you don't know who Doctor. Malone is, let me tell you, he is someone the MAHA community really trusted, because he was an early mRNA vaccine researcher who warned about the COVID vaccine.
He was deplatformed. He was censored. He later sued the Biden administration where we've covered that case for censorship. So when he joined the Trump administration, the make America healthy again community, people like me who may have supported the Trump administration who may not have otherwise, but this was an important tenet of our vote took this as a good sign that the government was listening to evidence based doctors and experts. Now though, Doctor.
Malone has left the government, so maybe he can give us some insight on why the MAHA movement seems, I don't know, stalled or deflated. Doctor. Malone joins us today. He's the author of the book, Cy War, Exploring the New World Order. So Doctor.
Malone, thank you so much for joining us. I want to ask you, how much progress do you think the MAHA movement has made inside the Trump administration if you were to give it a grade on what our expectations were in early twenty five when Trump took office?
Speaker 1: I guess the grade would have to be a C.
Speaker 0: A C.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's not failing. And it's succeeding in many things. Having particularly relating to nutrition. The nutrition agenda and food safety, food integrity, improving the various SNAP benefits programs, the children's food in schools, etc.
Food for military personnel. But for instance, it had a major setback on the glyphosate policies. And, of course, the thing that has a lot of people upset about is the willingness of the Trump administration to shut down any discussions about vaccine policy in advance of the midterms consequent to some polling and some key figures in the West Wing that apparently find this discussion to be uncomfortable.
Speaker 2: So would you say I'm sorry. Would you say the the the the those voices inside of the White House, if you're able to name names or not, but I will. And you can just shake your head yes or no or blink twice if you're okay with that. Susie Wiles, and these individuals who are actively trying to torpedo we've covered this on our show, so this is not flying off the handle here. But Susie Wiles specifically trying to torpedo the MAHA movement inside the White House.
And should independents feel hurt by this that they voted for Trump?
Speaker 1: No. I'm not I I haven't heard specifically that Suzy is the problem. And I was in pretty close communication with Bobby and his top leadership. Overton is a problem. Overton is Marty Makary's former postdoc.
She's a Hopkins MD, Miles per hour. And the way I hear the storyline is that she is a major factor in influencing policy relating to this decision to shut down the secretary from discussing anything about vaccines and shut down any moves or discussions that will cause the populace to become alerted to more vaccine controversy. Apparently the decision to make major change in the vaccine policy by realigning it with Western nations, kind of our peer nations, and cutting way back on the mandated vaccines didn't play so well with the general electorate according to the polling. But that's those polls are disputed. There's been a number of others that have come out since then that suggest that's not the case.
But the general position has been that the MAHA voter only represents something to the in the range of two to 5% of the overall electorate that would potentially vote favor in the midterm for the Republican Party candidates, particularly in the House. And that those people are expendable in the face of the risks of blowback from further vaccine controversy among the other slice of the Trump electorate?
Speaker 0: Well, I blame very much. I indite the media on that because the headlines around the new vaccine guidelines, which still very much allow you to take vaccines that are not on the mandated list, you still can go get them.
Speaker 1: Fully subsidized just
Speaker 0: like
Speaker 1: they were before.
Speaker 0: And the media treats it as is.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. It's been stunning, watching the media hysteria around this. And you thank you for posting my Cy War book, which foreshadows all of this and kind of gives you a window into the mechanics of how things work these days. And, of course, it's even worse now with the advent of artificial intelligence, it's like everything is on a hyperdrive.
But the position that was taken, and it was very carefully nuanced by lawyers, etcetera, was that nobody's vaccines were taken away. Nobody's access to vaccines were taken away. None of the subsidies were taken away. None of the indemnification programs were taken away. Matter of fact, that was a hot button with the White House was that the ACIP was going to probably vote in favor of withdrawal of the PrEP Act support for the mRNA products.
But what was done was to place many of those vaccines in a category called shared decision making. And what was so radical about shared decision making was that it takes the position that you should have active informed consent with your pediatrician or your physician about whether or not to accept a vaccine product. And somehow that's radical.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, the headlines are that RFK Jr. Is taking away these vaccines when that wasn't. And so the media is actively trying to discourage you from researching each one for yourself and making your own decision because it's no longer forced.
Speaker 1: Or even just having a conversation with your physician and expecting your physician to be informed. The the one of the cores of the American Academy of Pediatrics lawsuit against Bobby that was what has shut down all of this now because of this, fifth Circuit Court judge in Boston is that it's gonna cost pediatricians too much time and money to engage in informed consent with their patients. They object to this. Okay. The real thing behind that is they think that, you know, they're on these schedules where they have to see a new kid every fifteen minutes or less.
That's the demand that's being placed on them because they've all gone corporate. And furthermore, most of them don't really understand vaccine science. It's quite complicated and they don't understand the nuances of risk benefit. And they just, default back to, you know, some version of it's safe and effective. Take it.
It's your time.
Speaker 2: When you look at the COVID vaccine, doctor Mullen, I'm curious about this. Obviously, you're there in the White House. You're there in the Trump administration under a leader who, of course, championed Operation Warp Speed. Right? Pushed for the acceleration of getting this horrible
Speaker 1: And he's still he's still dug in on these products being one of his great achievements.
Speaker 2: That is gonna ask you. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around it. I mean, what's
Speaker 1: It is a it is a fact. And it's a reality here. And will the secretary be allowed to pursue the truth? Will people within the FDA that know what actually happened be allowed to pursue the truth. One senior FDA leader was down on my farm just a couple of days ago sharing stories about what was observed by this person over she this person, I shouldn't say she.
This person joined the Trump administration and Trump won about halfway through, was in the agency all the way through the Biden years, remains in the agency now, and has detailed understanding of what transpired. The stories are amazing. I'll just say it's gonna make a great book one day, I hope. But beyond that, the the the moral transgressions, the corruption, the distortion of data, the falsification of data, the suppression of key findings such as the pediatric deaths that are not being allowed to be released to the public. Who's blocking that?
Speaker 2: So children deaths because of COVID nineteen shots that's being suppressed?
Speaker 1: The answer the answer, the name is Marty.
Speaker 2: Marty Makari. Yeah. So you've named a few names now. Heidi Overton, Marty Makari.
Speaker 0: Testified to congress about against, you know, mandates, vaccine mandates.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I I really there's a lot of dynamics that are going on. There is a huge amount of rumor mill going on about the reorg. As you know, there was just a major reorg at HHS with promotion of some key leaders from within the CMS group that's been so effective under Doctor. Oz's leadership to positions where they're functionally chief operating officer for HHS.
There's just been a major amount of change within the overall 6th Floor operation. And, of course, now we have a case where the nominated Surgeon General is not going to clear Senate approval. And so that's another issue.
Speaker 2: I just wanna put up. So just to be clear, Heidi Overton here, one of the really one of the the big blockers of the MAHA movement. You mentioned Marty Makari, and you mentioned these pediatric childhood deaths from COVID shots, COVID nineteen adverse effects. Have you seen that data? Can you tell us?
You've seen the data. Can you tell us how many children childhood deaths in The United States that they're blocking and hiding?
Speaker 1: We know that answer. We don't know that number. What we do know is that there was a number of deaths reported in VAERS that were identified by Tracy Beth Hogue when she first came in as the FDA CDC ACIP liaison person. She's now the acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CEDAR. Tracey So Beth Hogue, went through, found a number of cases, drilled in on those cases, and found a half dozen that were incontrovertible.
Those passed through re review, I think twice at FDA. There was Vinay, you'll recall, disclosed that this existed. But then suddenly there was silence about all of this because it was a decision not to disclose because those cases are extremely troubling in terms of how they were handled within the CDC. Frankly, there there has been significant cover up all the way through the COVID crisis of a series of issues, not the least of which is the DNA adulteration. But, that's that is that is what the record shows, and, I this the leadership right now is not willing to allow that information to become public.
Speaker 2: Wow. I mean, my jaw is dropping I mean, can you you I'm sorry. You mentioned I wanna go back to this. Heidi Overton. What exactly specifically is she doing to block this at the White House?
Is she or Marty Makari specifically responsible from hiding this data?
Speaker 1: My understanding is that she's the one that is advocating the policy. But she's one of the America First appointees. Right? And so she specifically is the one that has been spearheading the interpretation of this internal poll that suggested that there is significant risk for raising issues about vaccine, controversial issues around vaccines during the midterm, particularly for House members. Wow.
And advocated that there be a complete cessation of any further discussion about vaccine policy and associated controversies, like for instance, taking a position to withdraw coverage from the PrEP Act because we no longer have an emergency. Clearly, that's that's been over for a couple of years now. But withdrawing PrEP Act coverage, liability coverage for these mRNA products, that that is absolutely something that the secretary could do at a moment's notice with a stroke of a pen.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Two sentences. He could remove the prep back.
Speaker 1: My understanding is the secretary supports that. I can't speak for him, but that's my understanding. But that that is not a policy that will be allowed to proceed at this point.
Speaker 0: I'm so confused. We we play videos here of doctor Marty's, I thought it was Macri, but whatever, of his testimony to congress against vaccine mandates and criticizing the vaccine, the COVID vaccine rollouts, talking about infection and acquired immunity. Why would he do that if he's in curious of the effects, the harmful effects of something he you know, so my mind goes
Speaker 1: to Mandates. So there's there's a lot of nuance going on within this domain of what happened. Yeah. And what the transgressions were. And you so for instance, one of the topics that's allowed to be discussed is the lab leak theory.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And so you've seen an explosion of information about the lab leak theory and various decisions and policy positions taken regarding that. The decision the policies about mandating products that occurred during the Biden administration, and by the way, the censorship policies. You know, I was just one of many. And I wasn't part of that lawsuit, by the way. My colleagues were.
But in any case, those things are allowed to be criticized now. So but the what transpired within the government having to do with data, information, disclosure about adverse events, that is concerning the mRNA products. That's still a third rail. That's not really allowed to be discussed publicly. It's not even really discussed much internally.
We discussed it at length within the ACIP COVID working group, and by having resigned and by the way, I haven't left the government. I'm just switching over to working with the state department and under secretary Donano on issues relating to the Biowarfare Convention. And in particular, I'm very intrigued by advancing the use of artificial intelligence to support com compliance and detection of of transgressions relating to the Biowarfare Convention, which is something that the president supports. Though I'm not out, but in in terms of the the issues you're talking about and the I'm trying to be a little diplomatic here. The failure to aggressively advance MAHA agendas beyond these very easy and and politically acceptable things like nutrition.
Right. Those those so so you can you can make the case that the easy easy things, the low hanging fruit are being picked. And things that aren't very controversial and do play well with the public Mhmm. Are are being advanced. But the harder things, which the secretary has been pursuing frankly for decades, vaccine transparency.
He's not anti vaccine. He's anti propaganda. He's anti this religion. Vaccines, which is where as a now 40, I guess, vaccine developer, a lot of a lot of the, you know, CHD kind of crowd hate me because I have a history of being a vaccine developer. And there are those who think I should be tried and hung because of what I did when I was 28 in establishing the foundations for the mRNA technology.
But, I'm I'm not anti vaccine. I'm anti propaganda. I'm anti mandate. I'm anti, I'm I'm against this, what Aaron Siri calls the religion of vaccines. This this, mantra, this this religious mantra that all of these products are safe and effective, and it's acceptable to mandate them on the American public.
It's it's not acceptable, and it's not necessary. What it does is well demonstrated. It absolutely drives distrust on the part of the American people. And you can compare that with the policies in Northern Europe in particularly Scandinavian states where they don't have mandates and they have very high vaccine uptake for those vaccines that make sense.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But we have this bizarre perverse incentive structure that's been created with the vaccines for children program and the indemnification in which you have an industry that has run rampant, and it has to stop. And I absolutely support the secretary's position on that. But at this point, the secretary has been told to put a cork in it.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you just one last question because, again, the propaganda you're up against is happily disseminated by the mainstream media. They love it. Every time they can take a hit at Bobby Kennedy,
Speaker 1: they It's their bread and butter.
Speaker 0: And so now they're hot and bothered about the measles that not mandated new measles vaccines. Yeah, you write about this a lot on your newsletter, which I want to
Speaker 1: Terry has repeatedly said measles vaccines are effective. They they you know, it's and and early on, they came out with this, oh, two children died in West Texas. Okay? But both of those cases, if you review the case files, are clearly documented to be medical, frankly, malpractice, misdiagnosis, and failure to treat with appropriate antibiotics secondary infections. They're not measles deaths.
But the the media, you know, this is a convenient trope, and we're now in an age in which infectious disease sells. This has become the new, if it bleeds, it leads. Well, if it has anything to do with infectious disease, by God, it's right in the forefront because it sells clicks, likes, follows, and all the controversy around it gets amazing attention. I mean, come on. I I resign from this dysfunctional committee that has been shut down by a activist judge in Boston, and it becomes international news.
And there must be 30 or 40 articles out about it. You know, it's not that big a deal, guys. And and so it it just illustrates that this is something that sells media, and and it's become part of the ecosystem. And it it you know, we've we've weaponized, we've politicized public health policy instead of examining it rationally and helping the public to make informed decisions, which is the position we should be in, instead of making it yet another partisan battle line.
Speaker 2: With with one minute left, people in the chat room are saying you gotta ask him about chemtrails and the administrator. I know Bobby Kennedy Bobby Kennedy was pushing big
Speaker 1: on this. On chemtrails. I've been I've been riding like chemtrails ever since I was eight years old.
Speaker 2: So so why is there not a greater push from this administration to end this chemical spraying in our skies? It's enough already.
Speaker 1: Okay. So for the from my idiosyncratic outsider perspective, this goes way back to the sixties. Lyndon Johnson was an advocate of weather change. We have deep investment from the intelligence community in the technology for manipulating weather. Manipulation of weather is perceived as having great, benefit in all kinds of parameters, both domestically and internationally.
And we still are dealing with the residue of the whole climate change propaganda. So, I why this this administration clearly doesn't see this as a priority as opposed to Ron DeSantis to his credit. Mhmm. And and I I all I can speculate is that the influencers that have the ear of the president right now do not see this as a priority. And if people want it to be a priority, like with everything in this MAHA movement, They've gotta get out there and make it quite clear that they care about this, and I don't see enough momentum.
We can't even get enough momentum to push back against the administration's bottling up the secretary over vaccine policy. If MAHA or others want to make a dent in the use of these chemicals to manipulate weather, they've gotta make it, you know, really, really clear that this is an issue that a significant fraction of the electorate will vote for. And and that, you know, it you can make that case. This material is raining down on our land. It's raining down in our air.
It's, another form of pollution. There's a lot of ways that this could be pursued politically, but it doesn't seem to have a, advocacy, electorate, advocacy group that is sufficiently powerful and focused to make this a compelling argument within this administration, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: Well, I want to suggest that everybody subscribe to your Substack because I learn a lot there. It's malone. News. Please do subscribe. Because a lot of times you do take this hysteria and you give us the medical data and it's a pleasure to talk to you.
I really appreciate it. The only thing I can say about this MAHA movement is that a lot of it overlaps overlaps with with the the anti war movement, and we're pretty tired. We're busy screaming about things, you know, at this point, but you're right. We have to, you know, be the leaders.
Speaker 1: Well, you gotta you're gonna have to pick your battles, my friends.
Speaker 0: I don't know how to do that.
Speaker 1: You're getting too fragmented. Yeah, that's that's that's what's happened in a case can be made that a lot of that fragmentation is intentional. Yes. And it's being driven by these kinds of technologies. And frankly, from what I know at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, it's going to get far, far worse.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you for that.
Speaker 2: Doctor, we need to work on your bedside manner. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Then later we'll talk about the medical effects of all the stress from all of it on me. So on all of us collectively.
Speaker 1: You know, go go get yourself a homestead like I did and enjoy life and smell the flowers and watch the fruit trees bloom.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you
Speaker 2: very Robert Malone, great to see you as always. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Bye bye. Thanks, doc.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The DEATH of the Petro Dollar is here. 🤯@ProfessorWerner says the Iran war is not an accident. It is an intentional dismantling of the current world order to usher in control grids for digital currency. Gas at $4 a gallon is just the beginning. https://t.co/rczEWVT4Ro
Video Transcript AI Summary
Over the past few days, the conversation covered rising U.S. gas prices, with average prices surpassing $4 per gallon on Tuesday, the highest in nearly four years. The discussion then shifted to geopolitical tensions around Iran, Israel, and the United States. It was noted that Donald Trump is reportedly seeking an off ramp from the war against Iran, but every time there are negotiations toward ceasefires or frameworks for talks, Israel allegedly bombs to scuttle those plans. Joe Kent was cited as saying that there is significant frustration inside the Trump administration because Israeli actions derail negotiations.
Further comments stated that whenever Trump attempts to move toward negotiation, Israelis “come in and they kill negotiators,” “kill members of the government,” and “bomb the infrastructure” to show that the U.S. is not negotiating in good faith, with the implication that U.S. verbal assurances are hollow while Israel acts unrestrained. It was suggested that only when the U.S. actually restrains Israel’s support will their behavior change, despite reports of high-level admonitions from the Vice President or others.
Trump published a note on Truth Social addressed to Europe and the UK, criticizing their inability to obtain jet fuel due to the Strait of Hormuz and urging the United Kingdom to buy oil from the United States, build up courage, and take control of Hormuz, implying the U.S. would no longer assist them.
The program then brought in economist Professor Richard Werner to analyze global economic directions amid oil and gas price concerns, food stocks, fertilizer, helium, and related supply chains. Werner, based in Europe, emphasized Europe’s dependence on energy, fertilizer, and other raw materials from abroad, noting that Europe has thrived on an international trade model that moved up value-added production. He described the current situation as a policy-induced crisis or potential catastrophe, with energy supply already restricted by past policy choices (e.g., cutting ties with Russia for energy, decommissioning nuclear and coal plants). He warned of a possible major shock to the economy, comparing the risk to the 2020 experience of policy-induced throttling.
The discussion touched on financial vulnerability, including concerns about how embargos or disruptions could affect food supply chains and economic stability. Werner described the situation as intentional policy shifts and indicated a broader realignment of the global order, with institutions like BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the New Development Bank fostering greater influence for China and other non-U.S. actors. He asserted that there is a push for a new international order that gives more power to alternative players, criticizing U.S. dominance in the IMF and World Bank.
Werner argued that the “petrodollar system” established after the 1970s allowed continued U.S. economic supremacy, and suggested the world is witnessing a shift away from the dollar’s dominance toward alternative systems, potentially including digital currencies. He claimed Western countries are moving toward digital control measures, including strict currency surveillance and restrictions, while BRICS countries show more interest in gold as a store of value. He also described increasing censorship and sanctions in the EU regarding dissenting opinions, tying this to the rollout of digital currencies and the potential for controllable spending if governments “switch off” money.
The exchange concluded with gratitude for Werner’s analysis and a hope for cooler heads to prevail to minimize impact, while acknowledging the likelihood of a new world order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, over the past few days, we've seen gas prices now hit their highest level since 2022 in The United States, respectfully. Average US prices skyrocketed now past $4 per gallon on Tuesday, reaching their highest level in nearly four years. Donald Trump is reportedly looking for some kind of off ramp, if you can actually believe that, from this war against Iran, Israel's war against Iran. But, of course, every time we move close to negotiations to try to end this war, Israel bombs something to basically scuttle those plans. We spoke with Joe Kent earlier this week who said that this is a big frustration inside of the Trump administration that every time we get close to some sort of ceasefire agreement or some sort of framework for negotiations, the Israeli step in and bomb and scuttle those plans.
Watch.
Speaker 1: And then also in terms of every time that president Trump attempts to move us to a place where we can negotiate, the Israelis come in and they they kill negotiators. They kill members of the government. They, like, specifically bomb the infrastructure that president Trump tell says that we're not going to bomb anymore, basically to show the Iranians that, like, we're not negotiating in in good faith or that it really doesn't matter what we say because the Israelis are just gonna jump in and and do whatever they want. And as much as the Israelis have gone against us publicly, we still have yet to restrain them in any meaningful way. I know there's been some reports here and there that, you know, the vice president or somebody else called and, like, yelled at Bebe.
But until we actually take away some of the support that we're giving to the Israelis, their behavior will not change because they basically think that any, you know, kind of, talking to that we give them is just hollow because it because it truly is.
Speaker 0: Ouch. And then president Trump on Tuesday morning published this note on Truth Social. It's really a big FU to Europe and The UK. All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait Of Hormuz. And, of course, I just read this to, Captain Ho a few minutes ago.
But he said, like The United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you. Number one, buy the buy your oil from The United States. We have plenty. Number two, build up some delayed courage and go to the Strait Of Hormuz and just take it. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself.
The USA won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your oil, president Trump. So we wanna bring in one of the most respected economists in the world, and that is professor Richard Werner, now to analyze where we are heading with this economy because there are all sorts of very troubling signs, just in oil and gas prices, but, of course, from food stocks and stores and, fertilizer, helium.
You heard captain Ho just talk about that a few moments ago. So, professor, great to see you. I guess, I just wanna ask maybe at the top level here before we get into some of the nuance. What are the biggest concerns for me for you economically worldwide with this war right now?
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me on your show. A great fan of your show. It's a pleasure to be here. It is very concerning. I'm based in Europe and Europe is very much dependent on energy from a number of outside sources, including from The Middle East.
It's dependent on fertilizer, it's dependent on other raw materials that are important for either food or industrial production, specialized you know raw materials. So Europe of course has thrived in the past on this international business model where you import raw materials, you add value and you produce high quality, high value added final output. And while international trade is working, this delivers prosperity. And of course, developing countries can do the same. Often they were told by the IMF and the World Bank not to move up the value added ladder.
But that's been the model certainly in Europe. And other successful countries in East Asia have done the same. So we are facing now yet another policy induced crisis, if not catastrophe. If raw material inputs are cut off further because already the energy situation in Europe has been quite dire frankly for the last four years with prices rising significantly and also very much policy induced artificial reduction in the supply of necessary inputs and imports. For example, Europe saying, okay, we won't deal with Russia because they've just delivered for decades very reliably and very cheaply energy to us.
We're going to stop importing that now. We're going to blow up some more nuclear power plants in Germany and some even the traditional coal power plants that blew them up. So we've had these policy induced restrictions already on energy supply. And now we're coming to a point where there could be a real well, what they all call a choke point being utilized on Europe, in particular. It looks better to me looking from the outside in The U.
S. I think the risk is far far more moderate in The U. S, although we do also have strange things happen in The U. S, various food supply chain node points being blown up and having some strange fires in various strange places. But overall, Europe is much more vulnerable.
Asia is also quite vulnerable really. So we could see a major shock to the economy, similar to what happened in 2020, which was another policy induced throttling of the economy.
Speaker 0: Many of our friends, our journalists have been debanked because these banks don't like their politics. Well, that's where Rumble Wallet comes in. No bank holding your money, not even they don't even Rumble doesn't even have access to it. It's a self custodial wallet that lives inside of an ecosystem that actually defends free speech and financial freedom. If you're already using Bitcoin or stablecoins, Rumble Wallet gives you even more power.
Direct fast tipping, you can support your creators right here on Rumble without waiting weeks for payouts or anything like that. It also has on chain payments in assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, USAT. So you can move, you know, value globally without asking anyone permission. Hey. Hey, Wells Fargo.
Hey, Bank of America. Can I do this? Most wallets stop at storage, but Rumble Wallet connects your money to a marketplace of ideas that refuses to cave to censorship. So go to wallet.rumble.com or search RumbleWallet in your App Store. It's on you it's on Android and iOS, of course.
Download it, back up your recovery phase and, phrase, and then move your money where it belongs in your hands. Rumble Wallet is a technology provider only and not a custodial service. See terms at wallet.rumble.com. I think that that's the most important piece. Right?
That this is a destruction of our own making, of our own policy by these globalists. And so when you see that intentional destruction of this world order right now, we heard from Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday from Russia saying that we are seeing a major recalibration of the world order right now. That the fighting is fierce, but there is going to be a recalibration massively, I think in the next couple of years. That is what we are seeing right now. So, I mean, professor, this sounds like it's intentional.
This is an intentional reordering of the world order in order to either consolidate power. It'll I I don't know exactly. Maybe you can sort of unpack what you see if this is in fact intentional.
Speaker 2: It is intentional. It's policy induced. The policies have been intentionally taken. And of course, there is the usual gap between what they say they're doing and what they're actually doing. And one shouldn't be confused by that.
Basically, there's a lot of lying going on as usual. And what they tell us is their motivation and their reason and what's their goal is not necessarily what the real goal is because some of these people are very well aware that if they spoke plainly, it wouldn't be very popular. So, yes, it's a realignment in the major geopolitical system and it is intentional. The intentionality can also be seen apart from all the events early on, which were also very much intentional in 2022, leading Russia really to, at that time was from a Russian perspective, the only step left for them to make sure that there could perhaps be peace for the ethnic Russian speakers, citizens formerly of Ukraine, but they were subjected to already eight years of war by civil war by the Kyiv government. So that was the next step.
There was no other option left. And then, of course, the way Europe reacted to this was further exacerbating the situation and these choke points were utilized against the West European population, it's quite clear in Europe and similar in some other parts of the world. What's happening now with Iran and the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz, I mean, you wonder really about, for example, the decision by the insurance companies, many leading names of which are based in the city of London in The United Kingdom, to not ensure shipping going through the Hormuz Strait Of Hormuz before the various reactions from Iran and statements from Iran were made. So that seemed to be an indication that already these things have been planned very much in advance. And it was clear that a disruption to international shipping, international trade was really part and parcel of certainly the planning exercises that have been going on in London.
So where is this leading us? Well, from a Russian perspective, and you quoted the Foreign Minister Lavrov, of course, what countries like Russia, China, the BRICS member countries and Iran is one of those BRICS member countries are wanting to see is a new rebalancing of the international order that gives more power to alternative places, not just The U. S. I mean, this is a process that really started quite a while ago. Around 02/2930, China made several very official formal efforts to apply to all the stakeholders in The U.
S. Concerning the IMF World Bank and UN related UN setup in order to get a bigger vote. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are dominated by The U. S. Vote and there seem to be no sort of legal real justification anymore why this should be in this way.
And so China basically said, give us a bigger voice and we're happy to work through these organizations and with you continue the international collaboration as it's panned out. But the other countries' rising powers such as China should also have a bit of a say. They were rebuffed. And that's when China then around 2010 launched under the current president launched his landmark Belt and Road Initiative, which perhaps initially was a little bit hard to understand from a Western viewpoint. But from a Chinese viewpoint, it was essentially the Chinese attempt at creating an international structure with China having a larger role commensurate with its economic capacity and also ability and willingness to play a bigger political role and help other countries develop.
So it was centered on corporation, trade and also help for developing countries in various forms, while at the same time securing supply lines, international trade for China. And at the core of this were alternative institutions of the IMF and the World Bank, it's like the Chinese IMF and the Chinese World Bank were created, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing and the New Development Bank in Shanghai. Now while these banks have not really received many headlines, They are just really a part of this structure. At the same time, we've got the Shanghai Corporation Organization and we've got the various initiatives by both Belt and Road membership countries and also the BRICS countries. They all are aimed at other countries having a bit more of a voice in what's going on in the world and not just America dictating things.
Speaker 0: Alright. Do you see this professor is is this just an oil shock, or now are we crossing into a much bigger credit shock for the global economy with the Strait Of Hormuz closed, disrupted Brent crude near, you know, $118 a barrel? What do you think breaks first in this financial system?
Speaker 2: Well, of course, when you say oil shock, I mean, the first thing most people think of is historical comparisons. The big oil shock was just more than fifty years ago in the 1970s. And that seemed to be and that's certainly the story that's written about it, Something that's like a bad event happened. There was this oil supply shock, it couldn't be avoided. Then there was inflation.
But really, that's just the cover story. That was also a completely orchestrated event. The inflation was not even due to oil prices. That's the irony of it. There was significant inflation, of course, 1970s, but that was entirely created by the central banks massive money printing and monetary expansion.
Why were they doing that? Because in 1971, The United States defaulted on its international gold obligations. And this default triggered The United States also abandoning the fixed exchange rates that became untenable, the dollar fell. And that was the real problem, the fall of the dollar. This is, of course, currently the same problem when we talk about what we just discussed, know, alternative system, other countries trying to have a bit of a say.
What about the dollar? And that's really the answer. The short answer to your question is, well, the dollar is the central focus of what's going on and we have to watch what this means. It doesn't mean that the dollar necessarily will be the first to fall and crash. Actually, it's the vassal's currencies that are being debauched first, Japan being a case in point.
The yen is ridiculously cheap. It's artificially done to suit America because by artificially weakening major industrialized countries' currencies against the dollar, that's one way of maintaining strength in the dollar. See, mean, currency is always relative, it's always currency pairs. So Japan is made to have this weak currency so that dollar looks stronger basically. And in terms of the economy, of course, Japan has been suppressed for several decades and they've had lost decades.
This is, of course, what's been happening to Europe more recently. Germany in particular, Europe, another group of vassal countries that are made to suffer for the benefit of the U. S. Dollar and The U. S.
Economy and strategic relationship. So really what happened behind the scenes while in the early 70s, the central banks, starting with the Federal Reserve, were reflating, creating money in vast amounts and at vast speed, therefore creating the inflation was to hide the realignment of the international monetary system and really the dollar and the dollars roll from previously being fixed exchange rate and gold linked dollar to a dollar that was no longer linked well, was no longer in fixed exchange rates and was not linked to gold, but was now going to be underpinned because it has to be underpinned by real economic resources to underpinned by oil. And that was being arranged at that time, at the same time. So from 1972, 'seventy March, essentially becoming effectively only in 'seventy four, the petrodollar system then was erected. And that allowed The U.
S. To enjoy another half century of economic supremacy. So I think this is what we're witnessing. We're witnessing the shift at the end of the petrodollar and the shift to a new system, which in the Western countries, the countries that are really part of the U. S.
Empire, if you want to call it that, seems to be aimed at having digital currencies as the next step. So no link to gold or other real resources, but digital and you see this will only work if they step up controls. And that's what we see in the West. I mean, in Europe, it's astonishing in The UK, the European Union, how the media being censored, people are getting censored, sanctioned for just uttering their opinion or what they believe to be professionally sound analyses. And you get sanctions, you can't buy anything, you become an outlaw.
This is the latest they're doing in the EU to some people speaking up and having different opinions from the European Commission. Because basically when you adopt this digital currency system, it is a system of control and it works while you step up all the controls. And then you can control inflation because, well, if you think that people are spending too much, hey, we just switch off your spending power. Your money won't work anymore. And you can fine tune this, you can use AI to run this digital gulag.
So that seems to be happening in the West. This whole digital infrastructure and surveillance and control system is being put in place while we speak. And you see this works by having scarcity as an excuse because if you're going to roll out more measures as we saw in 2020, you need an excuse. And the war against Iran seems to be as good as any excuse, cutting off energy supplies and trade, sorry, we're out of energy, we need some lockdowns now, we need energy lockdowns, you can't use your car, you're maybe not allowed to travel. So that's where things seem to be heading in the West.
While in the BRICS countries, there seems to be a preference for gold. Acquiring gold, shoring up gold reserves. Although to some extent that's true globally, gold is quite popular. You wonder whether in Europe and the Western countries they will allow gold to remain free. I mean, the EU, they're restricting cash payments.
The amount of money that is allowed to be used in the form of cash for transactions is restricted by EU regulation, by the commission. And of course, they're going to constantly bring down those limits. So I think these are the trends. And of course, we have to watch what the currencies are going to do. The currencies are one way to reflect this and the other one is how they're going to deal with our freedoms and restrict our freedoms.
Speaker 0: I think you're spot on with that. Again, very intelligent analysis of this. And I think this is the intentional destruction of the US dollar moving us towards this system of control. Absolutely. Professor, great to see you.
Thank you so much. We'd love to have you back on here. I hope that cooler heads prevail, and we can actually get out of this thing with minimal impact, but it doesn't seem to be the case. But I think we are entering a new world order for sure. Professor, great to see you as always.
Thank you.
Speaker 2: Great to see you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thanks, professor.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🌉 Bombing civilian bridges. Threatening desalination plants. Bragging about it online. Col. @DanielLDavis1 says there is no military solution here, @realDonaldTrump may face war crimes charges, & Iran just hit Amazon and @Oracle to prove it. https://t.co/gTDdYl509k
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 begins by noting a new escalation in the war: after the president's Easter-weekend speech, the United States struck a massive bridge in Tehran, described as part of Tehran’s pride because it would cut about an hour from Iranians’ commutes. Trump posts, “the biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again,” and says, “Make a deal before it’s too late.” He warns that nothing is left of what could still become a great country.
Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the administration, mocking the idea of “the Nord Stream pipeline” being blown up as a lie by the prior administration.
Speaker 0 notes that Trump boasted about the bridge strike on Truth Social and questions the strategic value of targeting civilian infrastructure, comparing it to striking the Golden Gate Bridge and asking whether that would be labeled a war crime.
Iranian retaliation follows: a strike at the center of Tehran (clarified as Tel Aviv in error in the transcript) with a ballistic missile, causing a neighborhood to burn, as shown on Fox News and circulating on social media. Reports also emerge that an Amazon data center was struck in Bahrain, Oracle in the UAE, and that Iran had claimed it would strike Microsoft, Google, Amazon and other large American companies. The United States is not protecting them.
Speaker 2 engages Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, to assess the latest moves alongside the president’s speech.
Speaker 2 argues that the president’s remarks about “bomb you back into the stone age” indicate punishing the civilian population, not just military targets, which could unite Iranians against the United States and Israel. The bridge strike appears to align with that stance, making a regional outcome that contradicts any stated aims. He calls it nearly a war crime, since civilian infrastructure has no military utility in this context. He suggests the action undermines any potential peace path and could prompt stronger resistance within Iran. He warns that, politically, Trump could face war-crimes scrutiny, especially under a Democratic-controlled House, and that it damages the United States’ reputation by appearing to disregard the rule of law and morality.
Speaker 1 asks whether such tactics are ever effective, noting a lack of evidence that inflicting civilian suffering yields political concession. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 reference historical examples (Nazis, British during the Battle of Britain, Hiroshima-era considerations) to suggest such tactics have not succeeded in breaking civilian resolve, arguing this approach would harden Iranian resistance.
Speaker 2 cites broader historical or regional patterns: torture or collective punishment has failed against Germans, Japanese, Palestinians in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. He contends the appeal of using such power is seductive but dangerous, likening it to “war porn.” He notes that the number of Iranian fatalities floated by Trump has fluctuated (3,000, 10,000, 30,000, then 45,000), describing them as not credible, yet the administration seems unconcerned with accuracy.
Speaker 3 adds that the rhetoric justifies escalating violence with humanitarian consequences, including potential energy-system disruption.
Speaker 0 asks about the discrepancy between Trump’s claim of decimating Iran and subsequent attacks on multiple targets in the Gulf and the firepower Iran still holds, including underground facilities and missile capabilities. Speaker 2 explains that Iran can absorb punishment and still strike back, suggesting that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be opened by force and that escalation could involve considerations of a larger false-flag scenario. He mentions a warning about a potential nine-eleven-level attack and potential media complicity, implying fears of a false-flag operation blamed on Iran.
Speaker 0 notes the possibility of Israeli involvement undermining negotiations and cites JD Vance’s planned meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, noting Kharazi’s injury and his wife’s death, implying an assassination attempt.
Speaker 2 critiques U.S. reliance on allies, arguing that Israel’s actions threaten U.S. interests and that the White House should constrain Israel. He asserts there is no military solution to the conflict, warns of long-term costs to the United States and its European and Asian relations, and predicts economic consequences if the conflict continues.
Speaker 1 remarks that Iranian leaders’ letter to the American people shows civilian intent not to surrender, while Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 emphasize the risk of ongoing conflict, with Colonel Davis concluding that there is no feasible open-strand resolution. The discussion ends with thanks to Colonel Davis for his analysis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. So let's get to this latest escalation in this war. Maybe you thought, oh, heading into the Easter weekend, that things would be calming down after the president's speech, but that is not the case. After the president's speech, The United States struck a massive bridge inside of Tehran. And by the way, this bridge was part of a new documentary as really the pride of Tehran because it was gonna cut down commute times for the the people that live there, shave about an hour off of commute times for the Iranians, who go to work in that city.
Trump posting this, the biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again. Much more to follow. It's time for Iran to make a deal before it's too late. There's nothing left of what could still become a great country, president Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The cruelty of it really gets me. At least president Biden had the manners to pretend he didn't blow up the Nord Stream pipeline.
Speaker 0: Right. At least at least he lied. Like, at he lied about lying to us about lied about blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, which has descended Europe into an energy chaos and crisis. But okay. So Trump is gloating about it on Truth Social posting videos about a bridge come tumbling down again so the Iranians, can't go to work.
And what sort of strategic target is this? Is this a war crime striking civilian targets? Imagine if the Golden Gate Bridge in California were suddenly struck. I mean, that's what people are comparing it to today. Would we label that a war crime?
Most assuredly. But, yeah, I guess war crimes, who cares anymore. Right? I guess that's the way we're going with things. But meanwhile, Iran has struck back.
So here is a strike at the center of, Tehran or excuse me, the center of, Tel Aviv just a short time ago as confirmed on Fox News. Watch as this missile strikes, this ballistic missile strikes into the heart of that scene. Feeling the impact there as that camera is then jarred apart. Entire neighborhood, on fire as again featured on Fox News. So not AI, but also being shared across social media as well.
And you can see rescue crews, attempting to get there and put out this fire in this neighborhood where, this ballistic missile has struck. We're also learning today that an Amazon data center was struck in Bahrain. Oracle was struck in The UAE. And that's exactly what Iran said they were gonna do, which is strike Microsoft, Google, Amazon, all of these large American corporations, and that's exactly what they're doing. And by the way, The United States is not protecting them at all because, well, we can't.
And that that is one of the big revelations out of all of this. So we got more to talk about. I wanna talk about the president's speech, but, of course, these latest developments are worth, bringing in colonel Daniel Davis, host of the deep dive with Dan Davis to get his latest assessment on all of these latest moves over the last hour or so. Colonel, great to see you as always.
Speaker 2: Always great to be here, Clayton. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 0: So we watched your show this morning and then, of course, your assessment of what the president was saying yesterday and, of course, a lot of lies and inconsistencies. But now we see this latest escalation, and it seems like all of that has been, like, thrown out the window. Like, what we heard last night in the president's speech seems to just be tossed out. So I guess any sort of ceasefire agreements, talk of peace, maybe all of that has been scuttled. Anyway, what's your assessment of this latest escalation this past hour or two?
Speaker 2: Well, listen. I I think it's just a continuation of really what he said last night because he was talking about bomb you back into the stone age where you belong. I mean, that that was kind of alarming to me on the surface of it because he was clearly talking about punishing the civilian population, the entire population, not just going after the IRGC or or some of the political leaders or so but I mean, literally, just putting in the cross here is the entire Iranian population which can only have the effect that we're seeing which is it's going to solidify across the political spectrum. Everybody in in Iran together against The United States and Israel. I mean, if anybody thought that well, if you just hit them enough and cause enough pain and hardship to the civilian population, then, they'll start putting pressure on their political government or whatever.
I don't know what the logic was, what they think. It it's never out that way and in fact, it virtually always works out as we're seeing here and so then now here today with this bridge situation especially given that he literally bragged on it and posted it on his social media on Truth Social. It seems like that he's making good on that. He's said all of it. Said it on that true social right there that you know that this is you know he's using this whole all caps thing.
Make a deal before it's too late and all that. And and listen I mean this is as close to a cut and dried war crime as you can get. Because the the only time you can hit civilian infrastructure whether that's a bridge, whether that's electricity, power generation is if it has a direct correlation to a military target and at least from what I can gather so far, that is I think your analogy to the Golden Gate Bridge is probably the best. It's just a civilian population there and that has no military utility at all. Certainly has definitely has no military utility to anything we're trying to get done because we're trying to just coerce the country through the destruction of its infrastructure to come to comply with what we want to do.
It's not like, well, they need that bridge in order to get to a position here that we're trying to isolate them from and that that armored division goes across it. You know, something like that. That could potentially be a legitimate military target, not this. And this just seems so pernicious and it it seems more like, I'm going to do this because I can and what are you going to do about it? But but it's it's going to work contradictory to anything President Trump wants.
It will just make all of the people in the region certainly in Iran say, listen, the only path we have is to continue to resist and not give up no matter what because nothing is off targets and nothing is off limits. So, I I think that this is especially things go south here. You know, he may be brought up. President Trump may be brought up on war crimes charges himself or so and you and you may think, well, it doesn't matter what anybody internationally does. We'll just ignore that anyway.
True enough, that's probably how it's going to work out but that's not to say that if there comes a Democrat Democratic led House of Representatives that may say, hey, you represent our country here and we're you could be impeached on something that is most assuredly a high crime and misdemeanor and this may have a lot more relevance than even some of the stuff of the past. Some of which was definitely politically motivated but this one this one would have some substance to it. So, it won't be something easily dismissed. I I just worry about what's going to happen to our reputation quite aside from that too because this is tarring all of us around the world as people say the Americans are now just this gangster top country that's doing all these things to other people that just obliterating the rule of law, obliterating their own constitution, and now obliterating morality. What they used to want to be under the Reagan administration.
The city on the hill, an a model to be mimicked and and standards to be trying to live up to. And now then we're saying, it's all about power. You do what I want or I kill you. And that is reprehensible to me, it's deeply wounding to, I know, a lot of people in The United States.
Speaker 1: But is it effective? Have we ever seen that work? So it seems to be this torture philosophy that if I hurt you and your people enough, you will bend the knee. And I'm searching my brain for when militarily that has ever worked. The Mongols?
Like, what what are we dealing with?
Speaker 0: It didn't happen when we bombed when, you know, the Nazis bombed Britain and hoped that it would break the resolve of the British people.
Speaker 1: But is there any other way to see it? Is that we are just going to inflict as much suffering on your civilian population until it hurts you, and it will eventually hurt. Even though we don't see evidence of this, that they will rise up against you because we're hurting them so badly. That seems to be the philosophy. Right?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think, Natalie, I think you got it right on spot on. I mean, whether you're talking about like a a torture situation against an individual or a collective punishment against the population. I mean, the Nazis tried it World War two. We tried it in World War two against the Germans, against the Japanese. We tried it against the North Korean population during that war.
It never worked. The Nazis tried it against the British at the Battle of Britain in trying to bring London to its knees. It never, never, never worked. It didn't work against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It didn't work against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It it didn't work against Iran in the Iran Iraq war. I mean, anywhere you wanna look at it, regionally, recently, older, you know, back and further in history, it's never succeeded. I I I guess it just has this allure because it's it it frankly it's it's almost a a little like war porn if I can use that term because it's it's like people lusting to use power that inflicts pain on somebody who's powerless. I think that some people get off on that. I mean, it sounds horrible to even say out loud, but, I mean, the evidence, I think, is pretty strong.
That's something that needs to be taken.
Speaker 3: And and one of the whole justifications for going over in the first place was that, oh, Iran killed 30,000 of their people. It's like, well, let's kill more to make it, you know, better.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're we're liberating the people of Iran by bombing their infrastructure.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's of course, it's it was always a fraud to say that from the beginning. And, of course, that's why we went from the 3,000 people that the Iranian government itself acknowledges were killed in all these protests, then it went up to 10,000, then 30,000, and then last night, Trump jammed jacked it up to 45,000. So it's just a number and it it's not even real, but it doesn't matter. They don't care if it's real or not.
And obviously, you know, President Trump saying back in January, you know, you protesters were, well, it just hurts me to see all these people being killed by this terrible regime, this theocratic Nazi top regime. We're going to come in to help you. Help is on the way. Just keep going and then now then he's like saying, yeah, we're just going to kill everybody and we don't care. We're going to and if you distill, don't do it, then we're going to take all of your energy systems offline.
We're going to destroy your your oil infrastructure. Everything that literally could put the in water desalinization plants, which Trump also specified, which also is a war crime. He's literally putting the entire population at risk and and is now making good on some of those threats.
Speaker 1: So Can I just before we move on? Can I just say two things that give me some cold comfort here is, one, the letter to the American people from the Iranian leaders yesterday shows that they know that this is not the will of actual civilians? We don't want to be doing this by and large. And the fact that these civilian populations will not be broken because there is still a human spirit underneath it that does not submit to evil. We see that that people in Gaza are still alive, are still kicking.
So anyway, that's I just wanted to share a bit bit from what you had to say.
Speaker 0: So, colonel, I wanna ask you on the I'm confused. Because last night, president Trump told us that they've been decimated. This is all wrapping up. And then this afternoon, we see this rather large escalation and Iran saying they're firing back and hitting, again, multiple targets throughout the Gulf countries that we are not protecting and helping. And at the heart of it, so we're hitting Amazon, Oracle, data centers, American company targets throughout The Middle East.
The Strait Of Hormuz is closed, and no ships are going through there. We're seeing oil prices spiking and skyrocketing at this point after the the president's speech. So I'm just confused when we say that they've been decimated. Their ability really to fight back has been incredibly incapacitated. How are we able to see ballistic missiles striking at the heart of Tel Aviv this afternoon or this evening and all of these American companies being destroyed?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, this is just more of that just disconnected from reality claim that that president Trump is saying what he wants to be true, even though it's grossly contradicted by the physical evidence that it's been from the beginning. And, I mean, he's been saying since right at the beginning. Remember, I want to say it was on the fifth or sixth day of the war. He said, oh, we've all but won.
It's basically over and he's repeated that in different versions several times after that and you keep seeing scenes like what you're seeing on the screen right now and even though we are given a tremendous pounding to the Iranian side and the Israel is too. They are definitely getting hit and hit hard and there's lots of stuff that's been destroyed. Lots of people have been killed but that doesn't get into the system system that Iran set up where they have foreseen this in the decades past where they had these significant underground facilities and and missile cities and the ability to have missiles fire from under the ground so you don't even have to have a visible silo, much less a mobile launcher. You know, they still have a lot of those left. There's lots of firepower that they have left and and it it was it was discussed openly many times before and yet, president Trump just keeps saying what he wants to be true and and but he just isn't and they're going to continue to just to do.
They they kind of shrug their shoulders and say, well, we can absorb this for a long time. We we've done it for eight years. Yeah. During the Iran Iraq war when you were supporting our then enemy Iraq and we can do it again if we need to. We can spread this out over a long time and they have the resources stored up in a protected location and they almost certainly can make good on this no matter how many times president Trump, you know, says something to the contrary.
Now, I'll tell you there's one thing I want to bring up here though. Didn't get a lot of notice last week and it's something that I'm worried about when we talk start talking about this war because there's there's clearly no military solution to it. You cannot cannot force open the Strait Of Hormuz and you can say, it's somebody else's job or get mad at Nato for not sending in their navy. They're they're not stupid. They're not going to send their navy to go to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
They would be fools to do that and they aren't fools but that means that the strait is going to stay closed and President Trump can't just walk away from this one. So, then, you have to worry if he tries to escalate, can he even do that? Because there's, you know, the ground troops, there's only like twenty, zero that are either there or on the way there which is a pinprick on a on a map. I mean, you can't even hardly see it. It's not going to do anything but last week, Laura Loomer put out this expost that says, I I just have a sense that there's a big nine eleven top RR attack coming that would be 10 times worse than the than than the actual nine eleven and and I bet that a lot of these podcasters will be exposed that they have been actually helping some of these people.
I don't know. I just have a feeling and I thought that's weirdly specific and I and I worry about somebody maybe thinking about doing some sort of a false flag kind of a situation here in a big way and then they would immediately blame it on Iran and then, you know, the people like Tucker, people like Megan Kelly, maybe even your show, something like that were like you're given the truth about the situation. They say, oh, he was given aid and comfort or something like that. Right. It's like they already have the villains marked And so if anything happens, I mean, I'm really worried about it if it does, but I don't think we can dismiss that just out of hand.
Speaker 0: No. I think an absolute I I we've been saying on for weeks that we think a false flag is gonna be used. I mean, you just talked to former CIA agent Michael Scheuer on our show who, you know, who says that that's his big concern that they would use some sort of a deranged Muslim as a false flag planting operation inside The United States in order to sow this type of discord. So I think you're spot on about it. And then, you know, is Israel involved in it directly?
We had on, the other day who well, Joe Kent was on our show last week. And one of the things he said specifically is that every time we start to negotiate or have some sort of a move towards an off ramp, the Israelis come in and bomb the people where the we're negotiating with. We need to constrain the Israelis. And I know he said that this morning on your show, we can't make any progress unless we constrain the Israelis. And then, of course, we just learned that JD Fance was basically going to be setting up this meeting with, through through Pakistan with the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi, who was seriously wounded as a result of these strikes.
Speaker 2: And his wife killed.
Speaker 0: And his wife was killed. So literally, JD Vance is gonna be meeting with this guy, and then suddenly his wife is killed and he is injured. They tried to kill him. Of course, I I think we could point directly at the Israelis. President Trump was asked about this, like, about these negotiations, and here's what he had to say about Trump taking credit for this.
You can roll that one.
Speaker 4: He's working on the the deal. Right? How's that moving? Is it okay? The big deal?
Speaker 2: It's going good, sir. I watched it now.
Speaker 4: You see it happening?
Speaker 0: What? We're gonna bring it to
Speaker 4: So if it doesn't happen, I'm blaming JD Vince. If it it does happen, I'm taking full credit.
Speaker 0: Or you could literally or you could blame the Israelis for trying to kill the negotiating team on that. Colonel, we'll get you out of here on this. We know you're up against a heartbreak. What do you make of that?
Speaker 2: Listen. I I I'm just kind of sick and tired of the I mean, I'm just gonna be blunt about it. The White House letting another country call all the shots here. I mean, that that this isn't the first time that, somebody who's been assassinated that we went after. President Trump admitted in the opening rounds that there were some other people that we want to reach out to, at least in their theory, was that they would take out the Ayatollah, and then they would have some other people that might be amenable to our position.
And they were amazingly killed in the process, and it certainly wasn't by our side. And then the Israeli side keeps undermining everything that, that we're trying to get to an end. And at some point, doesn't the president of The United States have to say to Israel, shut the hell up. Get back in your box or something to that effect because if they're harming our national interests and and and undermining any attempt to get out of this already unwinnable war and I'll just tell you that. There's no military solution here, not to get the straight open, not to defeat Iran, etcetera.
We have handed them because president Trump listened to the Israeli side, we have handed them this opportunity now to hold a chokehold over 20% of the world's, petro petrocarbons, and and there's no way we can force it out of them. And now that the only way they're gonna do it is if we give into some pretty significant concessions to them, which I can't see the pride of president Trump ever willing to do, but the alternative is that then we just keep fighting and they keep holding on to the control of that and that price of oil will keep going up and the cost of everything will keep going up and then when you have the literal possibility of either recession or god forbid, a depression if it goes down that path all because we're not telling Israel to just get into your lane. He should tell him, listen, do you want to go and do something that they're wrong? I think it's a dumb idea but have at it. You're going to do it.
You're going to do it without us. You're going do it without our weapons but you can do what you want. I'm going to do what is best for our country and is not continue down a militarily unattainable path that will harm our country long term. It has already and some things that the cost of a lot of this won't come out until later but I think we've already baked in some real long term costs, both with our allies in the region, our allies in Asia, and our allies in Europe. I think this is going be a very costly affair.
Speaker 1: Well, Dan Davis, one of our favorite analysts. Basically, I'm going to you every day to make sense of what are the what are the truth and what are the lies and what do we know. So thank you for your expertise. Yeah. It's great to have you on Redacted.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Colonel. Great to see you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 THE US HAS LOST CONTROL of this war. Iran controls the initiative. Trump told Britain to get their own oil. Captain @MatthewPHoh says this war will be the historical marker for when the American century ended, and the multipolar world began. https://t.co/RQ53MFaNYP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the rapid escalations in the Iran-Israel-US-Russia dynamic over the last 48 hours, with each side framing the situation differently. The hosts contrast the Trump administration’s claims of control and progress toward a ceasefire with Iranian statements about targeting Middle East bases and oil infrastructure. They also reference Sergei Lavrov’s assertion of a “new era” and a realignment of global actors as the conflict unfolds, asking who is in control: Iran, Israel, the United States, or Russia.
Captain Matthew Ho, an Iraq war veteran and former state department officer, is brought on to analyze the situation. He is framed as anti-war and thoughtful about these issues. The hosts ask for a high-level assessment of the past 48 hours and the likely trajectory.
Captain Ho argues that the conflict is proceeding as many had anticipated: after an initial American-Israeli shock-and-awe campaign, the Iranians demonstrated they can execute a strategy to achieve clear political objectives, both immediate (deterrence and protecting sovereignty) and long-term. He notes that while the Americans and Israelis can continue bombing, there is no clear pathway to success for them, whereas Iran has built a durable capability through missiles, drones, and naval forces, and has shown strategic patience. He points to economic signals, such as West Texas Intermediate crude around $105 per barrel, as evidence of Iranian deterrence taking shape.
Ho emphasizes that the Americans are increasingly perceived as desperate and lacking initiative, with Iran in control of the war’s momentum. He cites examples of countries pushing back on American basing plans and airspace access (Spain, Italy), suggesting a broader erosion of Western unity and credibility as the conflict persists. He also notes the entrance of the Houthis (Ansar Allah) into the war, arguing that Iran’s axis of resistance—now including Yemen, Iraq, and Hezbollah—has captured the initiative and constrained American options, potentially making ground invasions a consideration rather than a plan that is likely to succeed. He warns that the idea of an imminent American ground invasion is driven by public-relations calculations to claim a victory and exit, rather than a coherent strategic objective.
The conversation then turns to the potential ground campaign, including landings on islands like Karg Island and other objectives tied to controlling oil exports routed through Iranian territory. Ho argues that a credible administration would not reveal specific invasion plots, suggesting such disclosures are distractions or misstatements aimed at shaping perception. He questions whether Washington’s real aim is regime change or something else, but asserts that the United States lacks a clear, controllable narrative and initiative.
Beyond the immediate battlefield, the discussion touches on how Iran’s strategy extends to economic and geopolitical disruption: deterring future conflicts by making them costly, leveraging energy routes through the Strait of Hormuz, and enabling a shift toward a multipolar world. Ho argues that Iran’s long-range vision may transform global power structures, potentially involving tolled passage in the strait and dedollarization implications, with economic consequences for the United States and its allies.
The European response is analyzed as fracturing from the United States: countries like Italy and Spain resist unilateral American actions or airspace usage, and even Germany’s stance has cooled. The hosts explore how Europe’s alliance with the United States is fraying, with NATO’s future in question as European leadership grapples with economic and political hollowing and a rethinking of strategic dependencies.
Ho concludes that the war’s trajectory could redefine the post-World War II order if it continues, marking a potential shift toward a multipolar world and altering US dominance. He emphasizes the importance of understanding Iran’s preparation, patience, and coordination with allied forces in the region, which together shape a war where US objectives—beyond regime change—are not clearly defined or likely to be achieved through traditional means.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So over the past forty eight hours, we've seen escalations in multiple directions. But if you listen to the Trump administration, this is all under control, and enormous progress has been made towards a ceasefire that the Strait Of Hormuz will be open, that American forces and boots on the ground will not have to become a reality, that we won't have to destroy your desalinization plants, war crimes. So we won't have to commit war crimes in order to liberate the Iranian people. Meanwhile, on the Iranian side, they're probably not being drawn into this back and forth round of lies anymore. The last time they were involved in it, of course, they were bombed when they tried to be a part of these negotiations.
For the Iranian part, they're, of course, saying that they will target multiple bases and oil infrastructure throughout The Middle East in response. Then you hear from the Russian side. You heard from Sergei Lavrov, who just said that we are entering a new era in this world, that the fighting is fierce, and that basically all of the chairs right now are being rearranged, and you're watching this happening in real time. So who is in control here? Is it Iran?
Is it Israel? Is it The United States? Is it Russia? All of these pieces we wanna analyze today with captain Matthew Ho. He is an Iraq war veteran, Afghanistan state department officer.
We always love having, Captain Ho on because we think he is, one of the most critical and brilliant thinkers on these subjects. So, Captain and Oluk comes, to it from a frame of being anti war, which I really appreciate. So, captain, great to see you. Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: No. Thank you for having me back on.
Speaker 0: So over the past forty eight hours, we've seen all sorts of striations that are sort of playing out here in the the mainstream media. You get the the CNN narrative, which is The US has boots on the ground ready to for this invasion. All of the pieces are in place as they're telling us. You hear from the Iranian side sort of come a little closer because we're not just gonna go quietly into the ninth. And you hear the Russian side who looks like they are making out really, really well in this situation right now.
Maybe just give me your high level assessment over the past sort of forty eight hours and where you see this going.
Speaker 1: Well, I I think, Clayton, we continue to see this play out in the way many of us had suggested it might. But I think particularly the way that we have understood this conflict to be managed by Iran, particularly, you know, over the last three weeks. Once past the initial, first week of the war by the Americans and the Israelis, the the shock and awe, if you will, the intensity of that campaign, as the smoke cleared, the realization that, that's it. That's all. What else is there for the Americans and the Israelis to do?
They can continue to bomb and bomb and bomb without a a pathway to achieving whatever objectives it is they're saying they're trying to achieve. And then you compare that to the Iranians who have demonstrated that they can put together and execute a strategy to achieve their clear political objectives, and they have immediate political objectives here as well as long term. The immediate objectives are establishing deterrents, making this war so costly that a war like this cannot happen again in the future, as well as then that deterrents establishes or protects Iranian sovereignty. And you see in their strategy that they've done this. And now today, as West Texas Intermediate, crude, which is the American benchmark, is about $1.00 5, $105 a barrel.
You know? You see that strategy really coming into play, and you see the desperation, of the Americans here. The Israelis, I think, are just committed to their, violence for the sake of violence type of policies, but the Americans are really starting to, become, worried. You know, you see this, we've seen we saw I I guess, Clayton, at the beginning of this this war, we saw, an administration that was unprepared for the war. Their their messaging wasn't together.
They they couldn't articulate what they want to accomplish or how they're gonna accomplish it without stepping on each other. And now a month later, the problem is not so much that they can't get their messengers together, is that they can't get control of the initiative, that the Iranians are in control of this war. And so now as you start to see the consequences of Iran's economic warfare really start to take hold, you have these economic pressures, but then you also have political pressures. You have Spain saying The United States can't utilize Spain's airspace. You had the Italians saying today, the Americans can't land their planes at our airfields.
So you're really starting to see at this point, a month into the war, the results of a well crafted, well articulated, well resourced Iranian strategy. And the thing I think that should worry those who are in favor of this war is that we just saw, the Omenis, Ansar Allah, the Houthis in Yemen enter the war this past weekend. And if anyone thinks that the Houthis entered this war at exactly the fourth week of the war, that that's just some coincidence that it ended up on that date, I don't know what to tell you because they are they are carrying out a plan here, not just Iran, but the entire axis of resistance that seems to be able to not just exercise a great degree of strategic patience, but also has captured the initiative, won't let the initiative go, and it continues to make the Americans, have to consider options that they don't wanna consider or they shouldn't wanna consider unless they're incredibly foolish and reckless and ahistoric, such as putting ground troops into Iran.
Speaker 0: So ground troops seem inevitable at this point. The Pentagon reporting on Monday, or excuse me, the Washington Post reporting on Monday that the Pentagon is preparing for, you know, maybe a week long ground campaign. I mean, I I find that hilarious that that that that's a week long. We are we were told this was gonna last hours. This whole conflict would last hours.
And then we we were told it would last four days. And then, of course, now we're into the the fourth week entering the full month of this now. So the Pentagon is speaking about this in terms of a new phase with ground troops here. And then I wanna circle back to your Iran is in control point because I wanna go through some of the various pieces of that, how they exactly they are in control. But can you talk about the ground forces piece of this, Karg Island, Conorak, wherever they're going to land, and what a potential disaster this could be?
Speaker 1: So, you know, one thing we we should know is that, Clayton, if this was a a a competent administration, if you had any confidence in the Pentagon, we would say, you know what? All this talk out loud about taking these specific islands. You know, no military gives away the plot. No one gives away the plan like this. And so this obviously must be a distraction or a faint, and they will do something different.
And there's a possibility still of that, but I don't think most of us have that type of confidence as administration to believe that they're not so foolish, not so reckless. And, because they don't have the initiative, because the headlines, they are they don't have their the the headlines and their control, they are constantly having to come up with things that will try and make it seem like not simply is The United States enjoying success in this war, but that we have control of this war. And so this idea of fulfilling the headlines with the possibility of imminent American ground invasion, but then also too, what would the purposes of that be? And, you know, I come back to this idea that any purpose in putting American marines or paratroopers or special operations forces on the ground would be for public relations, would be to get a video of American marines on a on an Iranian beach someplace planting the American flag, and that then allows for, the administration to say, this is it. We won.
This is our grand finale. This now we're able to exit. So I I think so much of this conversation that we're hearing out loud about upcoming ground, invasions, you know, see taking islands, putting marines on the coastline, whatever it is, has to come back to this idea that the administration realizes it's not in control, and it needs a way to address what you just said so well. This was supposed to be hours, and then it was supposed to be days, and then it was supposed to be two weeks, and then it was supposed to be four weeks. And so they need to find a way to get themselves out of this.
I mean, that's a very real possibility here. But there is also this very real possibility that they are serious about putting forces on the ground that they believe that, say, taking Karg Island where about 90% of Iranian oil exports are put onto ships, you know, loaded up and sent out, that that would be a way to to get leverage. That taking this island will mean that we are now in command at the negotiations table. But, you know, the eye it seems if we go went back a month ago, and I think what I was on your show the day the attacks happened. Know, a lot of the conversation was about this idea that the Americans were gonna achieve regime change in Iran, through a Kurdish uprising.
At first, it was all these different sects in Iran were gonna, uprise and overthrow the Iranian government, the Azeris, the Baluks, the Arabs, etcetera. But then it seemed to be settled upon this idea that it will be the Kurds. So there'll be this Kurdish uprising in the West Of Iran, and what we'll need to do is we'll need to put American special forces, teams to help the Kurds, and we've not heard anything about that. Now, again, if I had confidence in administration and say we haven't heard anything about that because that's what they're trying to do. That's what they wanna get done, so they're not talking about it.
And they're distracting us with all this stuff about Carg Island and and seizing, you know, Bond or Abbas or whatever. Right. You know? But I don't have confidence in administration, so I'm not really too sure. You know?
But but the reality is is that this administration is does not have control of this war. They don't have control of the initiative. They don't have control of the narrative. And I feel they need to do something whether it's just to get the headlines back, whether it's to try and get some leverage to use in negotiations, or because they are so, hubristic. They are so embodied with their own belief in themselves, their own myth mythology.
Right? They're high on their own gaslighting, as you say. Right. That they believe a ground invasion would actually have some type of effect.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, we spoke to earlier this week, we spoke to Joe Kent, who obviously resigned the administration because of this war. And, you know, he says basically any sort of anti war voices in this were really boxed out, really weren't invited to the meetings at all. So he is, I think, in many ways surrounded by a lot of sycophants and yes men who are giving him, you know, a lot of BS. So when they're telling him that they're dropping these 5,000 pound buster bunking buster Bunker busting bombs.
Yeah. Sorry. Bunker busting bombs, 2,005 pounds. And the assessments that we're seeing is that they're not effective at all to destroy these tunnel systems that are housing these sort of missile cities that they've been building for decades. So I guess I wanted to kind of come back to your point about Iran being in control here.
Maybe you could walk through the different pieces that you're seeing that shows from a military perspective, even from a propaganda perspective, that Iran maybe is in control.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, the first thing is their their preparation and their planning. And you just alluded to some of this, Clayton, understanding who their adversaries were gonna be, their vulnerabilities, these large American bases out in the open, the fact that the same things that might make Iran vulnerable such as energy infrastructure makes America and its allies vulnerable as well, but around the whole world is vulnerable. The understanding that they're not gonna defeat the American Navy or Air Force in a fist fight, and the Iranian Air Force and Navy don't really truly exist, not in a sense that we understand an Air Force or a Navy as. So they built missile forces. They built drone forces.
They built, naval forces that are composed of machine guns mounted on speedboats. You're an understanding that to fight the Americans in this war that they knew was coming because this was always a war that was gonna be Iran's fate. Any nation that stands up against the hegemon, that stands up against an empire, at some point, this will be their fate, a war like this. They knew they had to take on The United States asymmetrically. And they also, I think, understood that the Israelis would fight similarly to the way the Americans fight in terms of depending upon high volumes of of of, you know, missiles and bombs, high technology, things like that.
So the Iranians understood who they were up against, and they prepared for that. They prepared for the way they would be attacked, and they prepared for the way they would fight, and they understood the vulnerabilities in the region, and then they exercised patience. And I think this is the most dangerous thing about the Iranians, The idea that they went through two iterations of conflict with the Israelis in 2024, then they went through the twelve day war with the Israelis and the Americans in 2025, and they didn't give away their hand. They didn't use their best missiles. They didn't demonstrate how they were grown to use their drones against us.
Right? As well as they didn't give away that they understood the American footprint in the region, that they understood exactly where American radar and command and control facilities were, and that they understood how best to attack them and take them out immediately. I mean, so you saw this this this this country with this patience hold back, essentially fight in 2024 and 2025 with one hand while clearly articulating that the next round of war, that a war in 2026 was going to be a total war that would have a determinative outcome, and that is the war that they would fight to achieve their objectives in the region. Again, those objectives being deterrence and a defense of their or or protection of their sovereignty. And so what you've seen then is you've seen an Iran that was prepared, an Iran that has strategic patience, and an Iran that filed out that by following their strategy and by using the resources they had as well as using what's left of the axis of resistance.
So the Palestinian resistance and Syrian government are no longer part of the axis of resistance, at least in a way, for the Palestinians, a way that they could bring mass or bearing or force upon the Americans and the Israelis. But certainly the Yemenis, the Iraqi resistance, and Hezbollah are. And so the patience as well to hold the for the Yemenis, for the Iraqis, for for Hezbollah to hold back over these last few years, preserve their forces, not give away their strengths even as they were being attacked is something that's very, very dangerous. And then when you're able to exercise that degree of caution, you're able to exercise that degree of execution of your plan, then taking the initiative comes naturally. And that's what we've seen.
We've seen the the Iranians carry out their plans, their their allies carry out their plans, and now the Americans are on the back foot. The question to the American president and to the secretary of defense every day is, what are you doing about this? What are we gonna do about this thing? What about that thing? Right?
It's never about what the Americans are doing except maybe to to answer a question about an atrocity or about what, you know, the next round of tit for tat you just initiated by hitting, Iranian industrial facilities or Iranian education facilities. So, I mean, this understanding of the the Iranians of how they wanted to fight this war, what they wanted to get out of it, very quickly and easily expanding the war throughout the region as well as too by simply shutting down the Strait Of Hormuz by nothing more than firing a few drones off at a few ships. Now the world is facing economic recession. If this war continues, we're facing a depression, I think, globally because the by the time it takes to get these energy facilities back online, particularly ones that are damaged, that will take year years. You're talking about an energy crisis as well as all the other things that come out of byproducts of energy production such as helium and fertilizer and all these other things that we're all learning about now if we didn't know it already.
Right. Well, you know, this is this is this is the the culmination of a well put together plan by Iran to achieve what it needed to achieve, again, to create deterrence and to protect its sovereignty. And then there's also to the other aspect of this that the Iranians did didn't just have immediate, political goals here, immediate objectives, but they're thinking long term. And this is the idea that this war, I don't know if the Iranians would phrase it this way, the way I see it though, this war is likely to be a radically transforming historical event. I believe that this war will be the war that historians if it continues, if if we're able to end it sooner, maybe it won't.
But if it continues, this war will be the event that historians will put, as the marker for where the twentieth century, when the American century, when the American empire ended, and when the twenty first century, the multipolar world began. Now I think a lot of us believe we're already in a multipolar world, but just to make things clean and establish a start date in history, I think this will be the war. Because I I think that the the shakeup in the world order that is coming from this war, some of it because of the economic consequences, others because of The United States' own actions and the lack of trust, dependability, the fear that is aspiring throughout the world, or is gonna force, those who are hedging on creating new alliances, creating new, mechanisms, creating a new world order. So leaving the post World War two American world order behind and creating something new or not it's already there. I mean, talk about things like bricks.
But building it out, developing it, establishing it firmly, I think that's this that this is something that the war is gonna bring. And we could see the Iranians doing their part to do that, you know, through something as simple as saying, yes, your ships can come through the Straits Of Hormuz as long as they're not associated with Israel or The United States and as long as they pay them one. So you see just in this very simple aspect of the Iranians, establishing this tollbooth mechanism in Straits Of Hormuz, a dedollarization event, that rapidly brings about, the end of the American empire and, continues the growth of the multipolar world.
Speaker 0: Wow. I think what you just said is incredibly smart. I people should rewind this when we're done and and rewatch that because I couldn't agree with you more. And you're seeing, of course, even the Financial Times admitting how this is really the solidification now for China as, you know, as, as a superpower in all of this. And the beneficiaries, Russia, China.
And it's almost as if The United States wasn't aware of how detrimental this would be. That they would shut down the Strait Of Hormuz. We've heard repeatedly from, like, the Trump administration over the past few weeks since this has happened that they're sort of shocked by the fact that our American bases were attacked, that energy infrastructure was attacked, that the Strait was closed, all of which they told us would happen if we, in fact, initiated this war. And it's just they seem sort of shocked by it. And you're right.
Settling dollar settling transactions now in the yuan in order to pass through the Strait Of Hormuz, de dollarization in full effect. We're gonna talk with professor Richard Werner, in a few minutes here about what this means for the economy more broadly. But just from a military perspective, if the UF if The US objective is not regime change anymore, if they really cannot accomplish that, then what is the actual, like, measurable endpoint here? And you talked about some of maybe the propaganda that would be used by US having US marines on a beach to get some photo ops, Iwo Jima style. But at the end of the day, like, what is their endpoint objective?
If they're telling us, you know, Iraqi style occupation is not the goal, then what do you make out as the endpoint from from the higher ups of the Pentagon? What's your sense of it?
Speaker 1: You know, this is something I think that empires do, Clayton. They are pushed by emotions. They're pushed by the responsibilities of of of of being an imperial government, the requirement to maintain hegemony, the requirement to maintain order, and then the inertia that builds over that for decades. And then you have the most malleable president we've ever had in Donald Trump and the Iran war that was wanted, for, again, for decades that George Bush, George w Bush didn't partake in, that Barack Obama was able to avoid. Joe Biden, I think, got close to it.
But here you had a president who was now able to deliver this war for the empire and all the manifestations of the empire. So Israel, the military industrial complex, the fossil fuel industry, the tech industry that sees 92,000,000 people who aren't on Instagram or x or or whatever, and can be if the country's opened up. You know, all those things, you know, make it so that this war becomes something that is not done, as a matter of necessity, but as a matter of choice. I guess you could say necessity because the empire feels it has to do this. But all that means is that you you put that next to you you add that to this understanding of who's in power right now.
And you just brought up this aspect of the straits are Hamus, and that, why didn't, you know, essentially, they see this coming? It's even worse than I think a lot of us understand it because we just went through the experience in the Biden administration and Trump administration of Ansar Allah, the Houthis shutting down the Red Sea. And both the Biden administration and the Trump administration sent naval task force and expeditionary forces into the Red Sea to open the Red Sea back up, and they couldn't do it. So this idea then of that you know, just just a couple thousand kilometers, however far it is from the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, thousand miles, I guess, you know, that the same thing wasn't gonna occur again. You mean, that's the type of leadership we're dealing with.
Speaker 0: Bigger army. I mean, we're talking about the With a
Speaker 1: I mean, with a exactly. Everything about it. Right? So that that's all my kind of my way of getting this idea of, like, I don't think they have any objectives. You know?
I don't think there is any measure thing measurable to to work off of. They aren't thinking in these terms. They are they are operating off of the pressures that come, again, either from the fact of the inertia of of an imperial system that they sit on top of or because of specific, constituencies. Again, Israel, the military industrial complex, you know, whoever, or the fantasies of of men like Pete Hegseth. Right?
Pete Hegseth, a man who thinks who keeps saying this phrase, we're gonna negotiate with bombs. This is somebody who thinks that phrase actually makes sense. He keeps saying it over and over and over again.
Speaker 0: Has that ever worked? I mean, that we're gonna negotiate with bombs. We're gonna destroy you.
Speaker 1: Right. How ludicrous it sounds. Right? How silly it sounds. And he thinks it sounds good.
So that's what we're up against here. I mean, you're right. The the do you take regime change off the table? How then do you achieve the objective of making Iran compliant to your wishes of order and control and dominance in the region? So then it becomes, okay.
How do we make it so that Iran can't threaten the order, can't threaten Israel, can't threaten our hegemony here? Okay. We've gotta take away its missile and drone forces. We gotta take away its ability to fight back. It's gotta take away its ability to hurt us or, again, to wage in this economic warfare.
Oh, how do you do that? I mean, without occupying this country that's four times the size of California. I mean, how do you keep them from building $20,000 drones that basically, at this point, a half decent machine shop can put together for you? Right. You know?
I mean, so what we're starting to see now too is a softening in the language of the American administration. Marco Rubio just gave an interview to Al Jazeera yesterday or two days ago, and he brought up his four points. One being the destruction of the Iranian navy, destruction of the Iranian air force. Those things really didn't matter much. Again, not in a way that we think of them in the West of air forces and navies.
And then it was an ability to stop Iranian missile and drone attacks as well as as stop the production of the missiles and drones. And the key thing is they've stopped using the language of destroy, and they're saying diminish. We wanna diminish Iran's ability to fire missiles and drones. We wanna diminish their ability to produce missiles and drones. You know, the using diminish versus destroy changes everything, and it makes it very easy to say, okay.
We've reached a point, particularly if your metric is gonna be something that can't be quantified or it's just basically along the lines of, you know, take up you know, trust us. We're the Pentagon. We're telling you we've destroyed 90% of their launchers for their missiles and drones even though their missiles and launches have remained constantly about a 100 or a 110 every day for the last three or four weeks. Trust us. We've destroyed 90% of their capacity.
I mean, that's what you're looking at here. I mean, we're not dealing with anybody that we can take we're we're dealing with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. I don't know why I'm elaborating on any more than that. That's somewhat we're dealing with here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I guess I'll get you out of here on this, Captain, which is about the future of NATO. Is NATO dead? And I'll ask it this way. President Trump, on Tuesday morning on through social posted this.
All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait Of Hormuz, like The United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you. Number one, buy from The US. We have plenty. Number two, build up some delayed courage and go to the straight and just take it. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself.
The USA won't be there to help you anymore. Just like you weren't there for us, Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil. Basically, we're done.
And then Tuesday afternoon, Italy time, of course, I think you mentioned this off the top, We saw Italy saying US is not, privy to our airspace for carrying out, a war. We've already seen that with Spain as well. So we're seeing a real fracturing here, between The United States and Europe. Is this the end of NATO, and what do you think this means for the future of our relationship with Europe? Is Europe in real trouble?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Europe is in great trouble, and it's their own fault. You know, following the end of the Cold War, they could have gone their own way, but they thought that they could be partners in the American empire. Albeit junior partners, they thought they would be partners in the American empire, and they went along with our wars, throughout The Middle East, our wars in the Muslim world. They followed our neoliberal economic fantasies, and now they have countries collectively that are dealing with housing crisis, health care crisis, quality of life crisis, immigration crisis.
I mean, essentially, a society, economies, political spears that have been hollowed out, because they have chosen, the last thirty, forty years to remain vassals within a dying empire. And so the Europeans clutch or they cling to the idea of NATO. And I think they're clinging to the idea of the Democrats coming back into power in 2028, to revive, the European American, relationship as they see it. And, you know, this is this is a vision, this is a view, this is a hope of those who are empowered now in Europe, the same men and women who represent the institutions that have put their populations into this place, who who have made Europe vapid and hollow and superficial, who deindustrialized it, again, who committed the Europeans to these wars throughout the Muslim world, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You know?
So I I I think the Europeans, while they're willing to exercise some degree of autonomy from The US in this war, and it goes country by country, some like Spain and Italy certainly doing more than those like The UK that are allowing b ones and b 50 twos to fly off from their airfields. But you see other countries too like Germany, Friedrich Mertz, who was originally enthusiastic about, this war, who last year in 2025 during the twelve day war, it's you know, the change of German Germany stated that the Israel was doing the dirty work for the Europeans with regards to Iran. You know, you've seen him even back off, in his enthusiasm in the last week. So you would think that this escapade, combined with what the Europeans went through just a couple months ago with, the American administration's circus around Greenland, plus all the other avenues of American foreign policy, over the decades, you would think that this would be where the Europeans say, we're doing our own thing. We are branching off.
That they would act as Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, advised them to do at the Davos Forum a few months ago, you know, to create their own block essentially. Essentially, to detach the European Union from the American empire. And you just don't see that happening with those in power right now because they believe their best way to hang into power, to stay in the power, is to hang on to the American alliance, to stay as what they see as junior partners into the empire when they're really just vassals like everybody else. But the idea that maybe the Democrats will come in the back to power, and everything will go back to being the way that was good for us. And meanwhile, their populations continue to suffer from lack of investment, from, you know, interests and desires that don't matter to them.
But most especially, you see how Europe is struggling and will continue to struggle, by their embracer of militarism. And, you know, the idea that, for many European leaders, they view getting Europe out of its current situation is through military Keynesianism. And whether that's political by the, you know, continuing this war, with Russia and Ukraine, to provide for some type of foreign enemy to distract their populations or to give them some form of political identity, or by the actual economic aspects of of of a military in Keynesian, and that by building tanks and ships and drones and missiles, etcetera, they're gonna get their economies out of the slump, if you can call it that is, that they're gonna reindustrialize, that they're gonna, reinvigorate, that they're gonna regrow their economies by building their own military industrial complex. And I think many of us understand where that's gonna put them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Very smart. Mean, we lived in Portugal for five years, and it was sad to watch that destruction happening in real time. And, you know, what what Brussels is doing is not to the benefit of the European people at all. And this military boondoggle against Russia is absolutely soul crushing and really destroying those countries.
And then shutting down your nuclear power plants and really getting walked on by having your Nord Stream pipeline destroyed. I mean, it's it's so sad. It's it's so sad to watch. Really, really is. Captain, great to see you.
Really, really thoughtful analysis. I really appreciate this. And, I encourage everyone to rewind what you just said because it's I think it's absolutely brilliant. So, Captain, great to see you as always. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Clayton. Have a good day.
Speaker 0: You as well. Well, before we go, I want to tell you about Resolve AI. Here is their ticker symbol on your screen. It's RZLV. Resolve AI is a commerce technology company that's using generative AI to help consumers search, shop, and actually check out online more easily.
They work with retailers, marketplaces, payment providers, and they've actually built partnerships with both Microsoft and Google to help scale that vision globally, not just in The United States. And now we've got fresh news from just this past Monday. That's right. New quarterly results. The company reported 46,800,000.0 in 2025 revenue, and second half growth came in at 543%.
And it raised its 2026 revenue guidance to 360,000,000 while reiterating a 500,000,000 ARR exit target for next year. So this is a company, guys, telling the market that it expects a very big step up from here where we are right now. They've also been expanding through acquisition. Resolve recently announced its acquisition of Reward Loyalty UK, which is a deal company that says adds about 90,000,000 in EBITDA accretive revenue, gives them more scale across banks, retailers, and payment networks. And Wall Street has definitely taken notice.
Six analysts now have price targets of $7 or higher on the stock, including targets of $15.12 dollars and 50¢, $11, and $10. By the way, one of the bigger arguments that bulls are making is that while some private AI companies trade at much richer recurring revenue multiples, Resolve is still trading well below those kinds of levels. So if you wanna learn more about Resolve AI and do your own homework on this, check them out on the Nasdaq. It's r z l v. And go to the website investor.resolve.com.
And as always, do your own homework. Do your own due diligence. We'll have links in the description below. So our thanks to them for supporting our show and sponsoring this episode. And we'll see you next time, everyone.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🛢️The oil from before the Strait closed runs out by April 15th. Iran just threatened @Apple, @Google & @Boeing. Soldiers at Fort Bragg are spending money like they're not coming back. @wethebrandon connects the dots. https://t.co/GQmabaqQRG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion opens with a provocative Iran-related development. Iran announces that as of April 1, any execution of its government staff will trigger a massive response, with threats to attack worldwide facilities of major tech and defense companies, listing Microsoft, Google, Apple, Cisco, HP, Oracle, Meta, IBM, Dell, Palantir, Nvidia, JPMorgan, Spire, GE, Tesla, Boeing, and others. The speakers urge employees of these institutions to leave their workplaces and residents near these “terrorist” companies to relocate within a kilometer to safe areas. They say the companies should expect the destruction of related units from 8 PM Tehran time on April 1 for every assassination in Iran, framing the move as direct pressure on Western power structures, including the Trump administration. The conversation notes the potential leverage over American tech assets given heavy investments in U.S. manufacturing and technology.
Speaker 1 joins to discuss implications of the threat. The panel views the Iranian response as a serious, professional escalation, describing Iran as a capable force that counteres U.S. moves with reciprocal actions. They note a pattern of tit-for-tat escalation: the U.S. has targeted Iranian leaders and economic levers (oil, gas, tourism, helium for semiconductors), and Iran appears to be shifting focus to tech companies operating in the region. They connect Iran’s targeting to concerns that Western tech could enable regime change in Iran, citing the discovery of thousands of Starlink terminals during protests in Iran as an example of Western tech enabling internal opposition.
Speaker 2 (Brandon Weichert) provides context on the broader strategic scene. He argues Iran has demonstrated professional military capability and escalates in response to Western actions. He suggests that the war has moved beyond a limited conflict, with Iran pursuing economic and regional disruption of Arab states to undermine regimes pro-American and pro-Israel. He links this to a broader narrative about the 2017-2020 era where security and tech development tied into U.S. and allied interests, including a prior Trump diplomacy tour that promoted joint tech development. Weichert asserts Iran aims at Middle Eastern tech sectors as a strategic front, and notes proxy usage of social media and intelligence infrastructure tied to Western tech firms. He points to a translation/editing challenge in Iran’s communications and stresses the Iranians’ potential to strike regionally rather than domestically, arguing that provoking American home-front action would risk alienating Western publics.
Speaker 0 presses on whether the threat is regionally contained or could affect the U.S. home front, noting the discrepancy between Iran’s capacity and the claim of “decimation” of Iran by U.S. officials. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the U.S. has faced a sustained escalation and that public messaging sometimes underplays the ongoing threats, including the operational reality of airspace and force posture in the region.
The conversation shifts toward troop deployments and potential ground operations. They debate whether American boots on the ground are imminent or merely a bluff, and whether any invasion would align with targets like Konark or Kalghar Island. Weichert warns of a potential escalation trap, questioning the feasibility of a major ground campaign given Iran’s terrain and air defenses, and suggests any decision would hinge on political calculations in Washington.
A subthread examines U.S. and Israeli military coordination. The panel discusses whether Israel has participated in past operations and the limits of Israeli involvement in ground campaigns, noting Israeli airpower relies on U.S. refueling assets, which are currently constrained, and that Israel has not historically deployed ground forces alongside the U.S.
The group returns to battlefield developments, referencing alleged damage to U.S. assets such as AWACS and fighter aircraft, and claims that Iranian actions have degraded early warning radar networks, prompting the use of mobile radar planes. They also speculate about strategic moves like relocating the USS Gerald R. Ford to mitigate Iranian targeting risks and allude to Iranian intelligence networks operating in Arab states.
Toward the end, the panel contemplates the domestic economic ramifications for Americans, including oil supply, prices, and inflation, forecasting higher prices and potential economic downturns as the conflict persists. They discuss the political consequences in the U.S., including potential shifts in party fortunes tied to the war's trajectory, and reference public tax implications and the potential for policy shifts as the conflict unfolds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we are starting today with some critical, updates on the Iranian war. This morning, Iran issued a bombshell statement, essentially drawing a line in the sand. They announced that as of April 1, any execution of their government staff will trigger a massive response. They specifically threatened to attack Microsoft, Google, Apple facilities worldwide. Just Cisco, HP, Oracle, Meta, IBM, Dell.
I think that's Palantir, Nvidia, JPMorgan, Spire Solutions, GE, Tesla, g forty two, Boeing. I mean, this is just a short list. We advise the employees of these institutions to immediately leave their workplaces to preserve their lives. Residents around these terrorist companies in all countries of the region should also leave their area within one kilometer radius and move to a safe place. Companies that are actively participating in terrorist designs will face countermeasures for every assassination target,
Speaker 1: and then
Speaker 0: the list there. These companies should expect the destruction of their related units from 8PM Tehran time on Wednesday, April 1 for every assassination in Iran. So, wow. This is a direct pressure move aimed at the Trump administration whose key supporters have massive stakes in these tech giants, of course. Apple alone, that $500,000,000,000 US investment in manufacturing in The United States.
So this is a, I mean, this is a massive response and escalation. You continue to execute through assassinations of, you know, members of our military leadership, IRGC, head of our heads of our government, which Trump openly jokes about, then we will destroy your American companies. What kind of pressure will he receive from the tech oligarchs, which basically run the White House anyway? Right?
Speaker 2: Well, which is a terrifying tit for tat because over the weekend, Israel targeted steel factories inside of Iran, which were not owned by the Iranian government, perhaps supplemented. But then that means private companies that boost your economy are fair game. That's the
Speaker 0: That's the message.
Speaker 2: That's what we we did this first. That's what our side did.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Next, we wanna talk about US boots on the ground. There's a question of whether this is just bluffing to, you know, like a show force for Iran to buckle. Special forces sources claim they are locked and loaded for something much bigger, a much bigger invasion, something that could last eight days or eighty days.
And lastly, president Trump posted on Truth Social this morning telling Britain and Europe that they're on their own for oil, and they should man up and send ships to the Strait Of Hormuz to get involved. I'll read that quote here in just a moment. So with all of this unfolding, someone closely watching the situation doing a stellar job at it on X is Brandon Weichert. He is the host of the NatSet podcast. Former Hill insider knows Washington, inner workings, and has to take a shower on a regular basis because of the inner workings of Washington.
Speaker 2: The swamp.
Speaker 0: The swamp. And Brandon is back with us. Great to see you again, Brandon. Welcome back
Speaker 2: to Yeah.
Speaker 1: And it's ironic because I live in Florida, Ennis. I actually have a swamp right here in my backyard. So, I have both literal and metaphorical swamp experience. So
Speaker 0: Well, hey. By the way, check out 1945.com. Well, he's one of the chief bottle washers over there, a senior security editor at 1945.com. Great job. Love reading what you guys write of.
Speaker 1: It's a great job. Nat sec guy at emerald.tv where I'm getting ready to drop a big report on the satellite issue that you want we want you wanna talk to me about.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. So we're gonna talk about the satellite stuff. We'll talk about the latest developments with ground troops and all of that. So let's let's start with that that response from Iran and this Yeah. April 1 sort of deadline.
If you hit one of ours, we're going we're gonna destroy Apple. We'll go after Google. We're gonna hit all of these major tech companies as a response. What do you make of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the Iranians I think I said this last time I was on with you. The Iranians have demonstrated they are a professional force. They are not Arabs, you know, that are poorly fed and poorly prepared for war. This is a very serious force, and they are moving. They are countering us every time we go up the escalation ladder.
They go right up there with us, and so it's, you know, as they said, it's tit for tat. You kill our leaders. We've killed. We've killed a lot of their leaders for over the last three weeks. Okay, we're going to go after the next economic strut.
We've gone after the oil, the natural gas, we've gone out of the tourism of the region that support the Arab states and Israel. We've gone after helium supplies, are vital for semiconductor creation. So goodbye AI bubble. Now we're gonna target the tech sector in the region. Remember last year, president Trump, this was really a coup de grace for him.
It's been undone now by this war. But last year, Trump went to Riyadh. He went to Qatar. He went to The UAE, and he had that whirlwind diplomatic tour where he made hundreds of billions of dollars of deals for America. And a lot of it was predicated on joint tech development, for the AI sector.
David Sachs was there, the former AI czar for Trump. And so now the Iranians are saying, okay, we're going after this these these tech companies in the region. And it's partly because or largely because they assume in Iran, and I think they're not wrong to assume this, that at least some of those tech companies are being used by the West to create, the conditions in Iran electronically for regime change. Remember, 40,000 Starlink terminals were discovered in the Islamic Republic Of Iran during those protests that kind of sparked this whole conflict in many respects from December until about February. A 40,000 terminals.
That means that, somebody had the money to purchase and procure and deliver high end Starlink terminals to the people who were trying to overthrow the Iranian regime. So it's not surprising to me that the Islamic Republic would target these tech companies, in The Middle East. Well Well
Speaker 0: Trump says we're just well, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Can I just point out that's fact based? In fact, we've reported on this for years. We have Mhmm. Two things we can refer to. One is the Stanford report, the Graphika report that The United States conducts psyops in specifically Iran and Afghanistan using social media like Meta.
So we know that that's true. Also, we had the Google walkout about two years ago when Google employees were protesting that the technology was being used to track and target Palestinians. So those those are fact based type that's not it's real. So I don't know exactly how to how do we, you know, think about that as Americans knowing that we use those things. They're American companies, but they're used for nefarious purposes.
Speaker 1: Well, have to remember that if we're talking about social media, a lot of these social media companies can find their origins in In Q Tel, which is a CIA venture capital arm of the CIA. The reason that Facebook one of the reasons Facebook got the early investments it got from certain parties was because our intelligence services wanted the facial recognition. They were trying to train software. They were going to gain access to the database of faces in the Facebook in the early 2000s, they were going to learn facial recognition. And they were going to use that as part of their data aggregation systems.
That is now at a very complex level. But back then, was relatively rudimentary. So you've had intelligence services, the Israeli intelligence services, all over the development of these social media platforms. And that's just one aspect of the tech sector. I mean, the tech sector is itself sort of an unofficial arm of the military industrial complex.
I mean, go back to 1947, Silicon Valley, the first groups that were out there were the early Bell Labs, which were military funded innovation hubs. Then eventually, it evolved into this kind of quasi private sector endeavor. But it all began in the '40s, mid to late '40s, with the initial telecommunications investments, the initial investments into what we call technology development today. That all started with the US military, with the National Security Agency. So all this tech sector, the social media, all of it is derived, at least in part, from our military industrial complex.
Speaker 2: May I just correct myself? It was a Google sit in. It wasn't a walkout. The walkout was over sexual harassment. And in fact, all of those employees
Speaker 1: go hand in hand.
Speaker 2: Right. You're sitting place, you're leaving a place. All of those employees were fired. So those people are safe from being bombed right now. So they they were at least protected.
Speaker 0: So I was gonna ask. I mean, my my point in in jumping in there was just to say president Trump today in a truth social post said they're decimated. Iran is decimated all but gone. So how you know? I can't square that.
I don't understand how they're able to pull this off. They'd be able to target all of America's major tech companies. Are they decimated?
Speaker 1: The the the president and Pollyanna Pete have the ability to, time travel apparently into the past, and the end is the beginning and the be I feel like I'm in a Smashing Pumpkins song. You know, the end is the beginning. The beginning is the end. Ultimately, the fact is they've been saying that they were smashed and defeated on day one. Right.
And, I just spoke for my show. I just did a prerecorded interview with the great Andre Marchinov, who is a Russian military expert, but he works in America. He's a he's a he's a technological guy for the military. He does defense contracting. He told me point blank because the Iranians won the war on day one.
And, part of that is because we do not understand what we're up against. Part of that is because we weren't serious in what we were trying to achieve. We we still don't know what the objectives are. I was watching a clip from Sunday, the Sunday shows, Marco Rubio, the secretary of everything, was, you know, claiming that, you know, the the Iranian navy and the air force are destroyed, which is how we know we can end this war. Well, it's like, dude, that's like the Iraqi navy.
Like, that was never even a real threat. What are we talking about? Well, it's because they're changing the goalposts. And so, you know, we don't even know if we're winning anymore. I don't think we are.
And I'm sorry. I lost in in that in that diatribe. I lost your question. But
Speaker 0: Well, just the idea that they've been decimated. And so then if they're decimated, boots on the ground.
Speaker 1: Been degraded. Right. Exactly. So that if if they've been if this everything's so successful, why is the 80 deploying from the Fort Bragg, you know, where they're located in Fort Bragg? Why are they going to strippers and basically giving away all their money to strippers?
And why are they selling all of their possessions before they leave? This to me does not sound like a war is over. This sounds like a major escalation. And it's very scary because, you know, I have family members, I have friends in the armed services. They're gonna be going, over there.
I have somebody I know who's already deploying and, it's nobody sounds really jazzed about this. Nobody's really excited. And if you're selling your possessions and spending all your money on, you know, strippers and booze before you leave, the probability is you don't think you're coming back, which is definitely not a good mindset for the force to be in before they deploy on whatever crazy mission Trump has planned for them or Trump wants them to go on. Because I don't believe planning in this administration should go together at all.
Speaker 0: So one of these strippers has gone viral in Yeah. In a different kind of way, for for saying this. We'll play this here to to to put a point on what you're saying here. Listen to this listen to this stripper.
Speaker 3: Sorry.
Speaker 0: We'll come back out. Let me figure out where where that sound is coming from there, Philip.
Speaker 2: In the meantime
Speaker 3: I was gonna say that was pretty epic. Yeah. I don't know where that
Speaker 0: actually sounds coming from. Go ahead, Philip.
Speaker 3: While we're while we're waiting, can I ask a question? Because something I'm not really clear on. So this threat from Iran on on these American companies, is this specifically in the in The Middle East region? I mean, or this isn't an actual threat on like, you know, like Seattle. Right?
Speaker 1: It sounds like it's just in the region. That's what it sounds like. And I I wasn't very clear on that either. But you have to remember, there's also a translation problem here because I read it that the little post that they made, it did sound kinda choppy. I I don't think and I think I said this to you before.
It's not that they lack the capability, the Iranians, to attack us on the home front. They absolutely have that capability. I think they've already got people infiltrated here. The question is, if they're doing this well, as I suspect they're doing by doing what they've been doing in the region, not going beyond the region, why would they want to risk alienating Americans who are already on the fence about supporting this war? So I am very doubtful that they're going to try to attack the home front yet.
I think what they're going to do is target the region. They're trying to basically break the economic underpinning of the Arab world. They made a very calculated decision at the start of the war to put all their might and pressure on the Arab states believing, I think rightly, that the Arab states were the weak link of the three, The US, Israel, and the Arab states. The Iranians assessed, I think correctly, that those Arab states are the weak link, and if they go after their economies consistently like they've been, those Arab states will buckle. And I actually think this is part of a covert strategy by Iran.
It's actually a brilliant strategy again. They're trying to create so much chaos in these Arab states that a few of them end up the regimes there that are pro American and pro Israeli. Those regimes end up being overthrown by more Islamist, elements, which is already starting to see the sort of out the the outgrowth of that happening on the periphery. And I think it's only gonna get worse as the situation in those countries get worse.
Speaker 2: Right. In 2007, I was assigned an article to write for Wired about the tech bubble in Dubai. There's there's a lot of presence there for American tech companies, a lot, a lot more than you would think. We're ready for the stripper, I believe.
Speaker 0: Well, we'll see if we can get the stripper audio here, but I just wanted this has been viewed millions of times. Do you know what that was, Philip? Let's see
Speaker 3: if I can still see it happening.
Speaker 0: Whatever it was. Where is that sound coming from? Don't I know where that's coming from. I don't know.
Speaker 3: Never heard your laptop. Yeah. I don't know what's going on.
Speaker 2: I don't Maybe we're being protected from something.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't know. Anyway, this this video of this trip or just take the screenshot at least, Philip. I won't play it. But this is like she went viral.
Again, millions of views for admitting that, like, these soldiers are coming in and and just giving their money, basically saying they're being deployed. And and people say, oh, well, we're gonna toss to a stripper to get some factual information. I I trust her over any politician,
Speaker 1: quite honestly. You know, during the '2 thousand eight recession, the reason that Michael Burry and and this was documented in that movie, The Big Short. It is a true story. The the the reason those guys that successfully shorted the market in 2008 and made all that money when everybody else got, you know, lost everything was one of the things they did was they talked to strippers in Florida. And they they were figuring out from talking to strippers why why would you know, the economy was getting ready to go off a cliff.
And it was very interesting to this. It was called the stripper index. And I think there's a stripper index for Fort Bragg now as well. And I think that we should probably be paying more attention to what they're seeing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're saying we're gonna be deployed. We might you know, I I what do I have to live for? I might not come I'm not yeah. I might not be coming back.
Speaker 2: That's literally a plot in Memphis Belle. Have you ever seen that movie?
Speaker 1: No. I have not.
Speaker 2: Where he goes what? Memphis Belle.
Speaker 0: Classic World War two movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And where Isn't
Speaker 1: that a yeah. That was a wasn't a Barry Levinson movie? I I never heard of
Speaker 0: a song.
Speaker 3: I
Speaker 1: think was way
Speaker 0: he directed it.
Speaker 2: Sarah Jessica Parker's husband, Matthew Broderick. Yeah. Goes to a stripper thinking he might die. Yeah. Yeah.
It's watch that movie. It's a
Speaker 1: But this is happening on such a I'm sure that happens before every conflict, but it's happening on such a large scale. You start to think maybe these guys know something that we don't, which is, you know, they're going into a hardened environment. I mean, this is not Iraq. You know, again, I was talking to Martinoff just now and he was talking about the fortuitous geography of Iraq. I mean, it was perfect for the kind of armor advance and the kind of airpower that we enjoy that allows us to have overwhelming dominance.
That is not the case. It's the exact opposite in neighboring Iran. It's basically like trying to invade Switzerland, and not even the Nazis tried to invade Switzerland at the height of their power in World War two because of all the mountains. It's the same thing in Iran.
Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about some of your targets you mentioned for possible landing sites. We talked, Konark, Karg Island here on the show. And some suggestions that why would the Pentagon, why would The United States be sort of telegraphing a potential invasion spot? Is it all just bluster? Is it all just this fake buildup of forces as bluster as fakery in order to drive an off ramp for president Trump and that no American forces are gonna actually have boots on the ground?
What do make of that?
Speaker 1: I pray pray every day that we get Taco Tuesday, and, I pray every day that he's somehow gonna wake up out of this torpor that he's in, and realize that this is the end, not just of his presidency, but likely of the Republican Party, as well as probably the end of American power projection in the region if he goes through with this. And we're seeing hints where he's saying that supposedly he's open to quitting right now, and we're seeing the Iranian president apparently is floating a counterproposal that I don't think the Americans are gonna take, though, because it's pretty it's pretty serious in terms of the Iranians keep the Strait Of Hormuz as a tollbooth and they get paid in the Petro Yuan instead of the Petro dollar. So it's pretty much the end of America's dollar as the primary reserve currency, at least in that part of the world. So I I don't know if we're gonna get taco and failing that, then that gets us into what does he do? Because he's stuck.
Like I said last time, we're in an escalation trap. It's called that for a reason. You can't get out. So he next is either going to quit and be humiliated and just deal with the the blowback from that. Probably the best option.
But given the people around him and given who he's listening to one Mark Levin, for instance, it seems like he's gonna be reaching for the next rung on that escalation ladder, and that's when you get into what's next. It's ground forces, and it could be one of those targets we discussed last time, or that could be a trick. And it could be, really, he wants to do this Tom Clancy like, you know, uranium hunt in the heart of, of Iran by rotating eighty second Airborne Marine Corps expeditionary units and the, large number of special forces and CIA paramilitary guys to go hunt for these these lost or missing uranium deposits or the barrels of uranium like it's some kind of, you know, Raiders of the Lost Ark episode or something. But ultimately, that's even crazier in some ways than landing on Karg coastal areas because you have to penetrate deep inside Iranian airspace, which remains contested contrary to what Pollyanna Pete says. It's very much a contested environment.
Then you have to get our troops into position. They've got to be able to jump in there. And then when they get down there, they have to actually spend the time, you know, identifying where this uranium is and either taking it or destroying it. And good luck with all of that. I mean, in the meanwhile, the Iranians are not just gonna be sitting around, you know, dozing off.
Speaker 2: Right. Yesterday on our show, Clayton said that the IDF has never accompanied US forces for any boots on the ground operation. And I guess I'd never thought of that, and I was shocked. Why? Wait.
Is that in can you is there any reason that they should, that they would provide any use value? I mean, it's clearly a war that was put on order by Israel. Do they not have the capability?
Speaker 3: Like, I'm my mind's blown by this.
Speaker 1: Piggyback. I mean, first is with the air power. Right? They piggyback on our on our capabilities. So, yes, they're striking hard in Iran, and they've got the air corridor over Syria.
But ultimately, their planes need to be refueled. They don't have the refueling infrastructure to do that. They rely on American refuelers. And now you're seeing our refuelers get shot down. It's very hard to replace these.
We're already having a refueler crisis irrespective of what was going on with this war. Now this war is just exacerbating that, which is going to have real implications if we ever, God forbid, have to go to war with China because those refuelers are even more important for us in the Indo Pacific because of the geography of the region than they are in the Middle East. So the Israelis are piggybacking on us, and of course they take our money, they take our stockpiles, and they use them. But have they ever accompanied us into war? They have not.
There was an attempt initially or suggestion in 1991 that they assist us going against Saddam, but that was ultimately shot down by, I believe, the president George H. W. Bush because he was worried it would offend the Arab sensibilities that were in that coalition. But in subsequent wars, the Israelis never even volunteered to help us. You know, they never got involved with Afghanistan or Iraq.
I mean, the even Romanians sent those bomb sniffing monkeys to Iraq in 2003. Mean, they couldn't have even in fact, I have it on good authority that in the initial days of our operations in what's known as the Sunni Triangle of Iraq, after we invaded and after Al Qaeda in Iraq got going, the insurgency, I was told by multiple intelligence, now retired people, that in fact, Mossad was on the ground in the Sunni Triangle, but they were working against our intelligence guys, who were trying to go after the insurgency that was attacking our troops. And who knows why, but there are incidents where Israeli intelligence supposedly was complicating our efforts to pursue certain jihadists in the Sunni Triangle in 02/2005.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you about these aircraft because this number is being held close to the vest, but we did see that this key e three, AWACS were damaged Yeah. In these Iranian attacks at Saudi air
Speaker 1: base. Destroyed. I mean, let's be clear. Yeah. It was destroyed.
They're saying it's damaged, but that's part of the censorship.
Speaker 3: Right. It was totally destroyed. You can
Speaker 0: see the the images of it's totally destroyed. But, nevertheless, this is just one of many f 30 fives that are supposed to be unhittable also attacked and hit. But the list seems to be now into the dozens according to reports I've been reading upwards of or close to 30, maybe 27 US aircraft that have now been shot down. What are what what numbers are you hearing? Maybe that number is
Speaker 1: low or high. It it it ranges. I mean, you're not gonna get any accurate information. We've taken on, a lot of the Israeli sort of media doctrine, which is basically just lie about everything, which you okay. You understand in war, it has to be bodyguarded by a veil of lies, but ultimately, at some point, it becomes obscene.
And I would say we're at the obscene level now with the amount of lies and misdirections. So it has been dozens of aircraft destroyed or damaged. The key thing is with those, e three spy planes that came in, the reason they were pulled in at all, and sent to Saudi Arabia was because in the early days of this war, the Iranians destroyed key US expensive radar networks that were on the ground in the Middle East. And those radar networks were essential because they allowed us early warning if the Iranians were sending missiles or drones or hypersonic weapons at our bases or Israel in the region. And those were completely destroyed and damaged and taken offline at the beginning of the war, which means we had a lot of gaps in what we could see, which is why another reason the Iranian missiles have been getting through and doing so much damage.
So to plug those gaps, we brought in the mobile radar in on those planes. But the Iranians have such good intelligence in the region, which indicates to me they have really good access to not just Russian and Chinese intelligence, signals intelligence, but they probably also have a very vast and growing now network of people on the ground in these Arab countries who are keeping tabs on all of our forces and sending their locations to the Iranian military, they were able to knock out those spy planes that we sent the day that they arrived. We didn't even have time to refuel them and send them up to do a mission. They landed, the guys got out to take a break, and then all of a sudden the Iranians opened up. So they tracked these planes from the beginning of their entry into the Middle East to the point that they landed, and then they took them out once they were on the tarmac.
And in fact, I was told the reason that the USS Gerald R. Ford, the carrier that was supposedly taken out by a laundry fire, the reason that it was moved a few days ago from Souda Bay, Greece to Croatia was likely because the Greeks rolled up a, Iranian spy ring right before the arrival of the carrier, and there was concern among our people that the Greeks didn't get all the Iranians and that the Iranians there were gonna range the target of the parked Gerald R. Ford so that a Iranian long range missile or hypersonic weapon could easily destroy, the Gerald R. Ford in port. So we moved it out of the range of those Iranian system into this, I'm forgetting the name of it, this facility in Croatia that is supposedly just beyond what the Iranians can reach.
That should show you guys how serious, of capabilities the Iranians to this day just for being defeated on day one. They still possess these capabilities that are keeping our navy away. Just one other thing I'll just add. You know, Pete and Raisin Kane keep going on about how we destroyed the navy of Iran. I actually think that if they keep saying that, it makes us look even worse because the way I look at it, the Iranians are still keeping the Strait Of Hormuz closed.
They're keeping our navy, which is still very much active in the region, away while they supposedly don't have a navy at all. I mean, how embarrassing for us. Right.
Speaker 3: Great point. I just can't help but, like, make like, the analogy I see is, like, we started the fight by sucker punching the person, then we turned around and lifted our hands in victory. They, like, lifted our hands in victory, we can't figure out how they got on our back and are punching us in the back of the head. Like, you're gonna sucker punch somebody, you gotta follow it up with another punch or two.
Speaker 1: Or it's like yeah. Exactly right. Or it's like somebody who's probably very much in shape, who shouldn't be starting a fight, getting a lucky blow in the beginning, and then finding out the other guy, he's actually built for this, and he's able to sustain the hit and then hit back twice as hard. That is what we are seeing here. The American way of war is all about short termism.
Everything is about we've got to go in hard, big and fast and get the heck out. And we gotta just we gotta completely shock in all of them. Well, ultimately, our adversaries have figured out that's our way of war. And how do you beat that kind of warfare? You beat it with time and space.
And that is exactly what the Iranians have done. They have embraced the insurgency model. They've buried it to high end missile, hypersonic weapons, and drone systems. And they've they've used the geography of their country, which is very difficult to attack. And they've really used it to to as an advantage to drag us through what was supposed to be at most a ninety six hour war.
We're now going into month one or month two rather, and, there's no end in sight. Not really. Not really. And the Iranians keep escalating every time we do indicating they're not done. They've got plenty of time and space left, and they've expanded the war.
I don't even call it the Iran war anymore. I call it the Middle East war because it's now affecting the entire region.
Speaker 0: We're gonna talk about the Chinese piece of this in a moment here. Jill, Jill be nice or I'll be nice says at two one two says, how is Trump gonna get us out of this war? Like, what is the There
Speaker 1: is no. No. This is why I mean, only thing you can do is just say basically, I'm out. I'm quitting. Tag your it Europe and Middle East, and I'm gonna bring everybody home.
And, you know, we're gonna have to focus on here's the problem, though, with that. And I was I was on with Megan Kelly this afternoon, and, you know, I I walked her through this. The the problem that most Americans, and I think Trump himself, don't fully understand is that it's not a question of do we have all the resources we need to survive this kind of, you know, global conflagration here in The United States and in the Western Hemisphere? We have them. The problem is in the case of oil, for instance, our oil companies, they are private companies that are interested in making money.
They're not interested in the public good. No company is. They're interested in maximizing shareholder value. Has never been in their economic interest to go to 100% or beyond full production of oil and natural gas in The United States because then they lose, you know, oversupply means the price goes down too much. They have to keep oil, the international price of oil in a range.
Usually it's between, I think, 62 and $88 it might be $72 But it's in this sweet spot that the oil companies like to have it. That's where it's profitable, and yet it doesn't kill their consumers, doesn't kill their consumer base. So that is why The United States has never fully developed its own domestic industries, its own domestic capabilities, because they don't want to have this thing go down too much because then they don't make a return on investment. So when we talk about, well, you know, why don't we just abandon the Strait Of Hormuz? It doesn't really matter for the oil.
We have our own here. It's because we're not fully producing oil here. We're still bringing in some from overseas. We're sort of doing it tepidly because we want to keep the prices at a certain range. And now what you're seeing is we're being hoist by our own petard because we can't just now say, okay, we're old tag, you're it.
We've got our own stuff here. That's not how it works. It takes time to max out the production. You've got to get the companies to do it. The companies still are saying, Ah, we don't really want to do it.
It's a lot of money we have to invest to expand production, to enhance our to modernize our systems and our equipment, to handle that new load. And so a lot of inputs that have to go in for us to no longer be affected by things like the Strait Of Hormuz closure. And that's not even talking about the fertilizer. That's not talking about the helium that's been cut off because Qatar is no longer producing. We don't have we're not fully contained.
Had we listened and done what Trump said to do in 2016, where we re industrialized America over the course of his first term, we might be in a better position now. Unfortunately, Wall Street and the Democrats and the Republican establishment stopped that from happening. And so here we are. We're still exposed.
Speaker 2: Right. I wanna talk about how this will affect Americans specifically. There's someone in the chat says, is this a leftist channel? We are not a leftist channel. And if you're still
Speaker 1: Trump voter.
Speaker 2: Okay. I mean, if you're still thinking in terms of partisan politics and you don't realize that both sides are aligned on the war, then you're asking the wrong question. That's a dumb question.
Speaker 1: There my buddy Michael Jan is convinced that actually what we're seeing is part of a larger plan. And if you look at the groups that are being empowered by higher oil rates, if you look at the way I mean, the elites are benefiting one way or the other from this. So there's an argument to be made. And I think Jan is, you know, he's one of my friends. He's one of the greats.
I I you know, he he's Well, he's the yesterday.
Speaker 0: I was in the middle of something. He called me yesterday, and he said, Clayton, I I've heard no one talking about this. We're gonna have Michael on later this week. But he he said, I think that they want the destruction of Israel as well. That
Speaker 1: Yes. He said that to me on my podcast two weeks ago. Yeah. He that's his big thing. He thinks that the Israelis are problematic for the globalists, so they have no problem sacrificing Israel, if it means that it destroys The United States.
And let's face it. What we're witnessing now is the end of the unipolar world order that we built at the end of the Cold War. And in that destruction, it isn't just going to affect the outer parts of the world. It's going to have really devastating impacts here in The United States. And as you look at what's going on already, where we were already having affordability crises, we were already teetering on the brink of civil unrest across the country.
We're already more divided than we've been. Now you add in high oil prices and what's going to happen as a result, Goldman Sachs says that
Speaker 2: interest Well, before you go into this, I want to put up your own infographic that you talked about how this is going to affect Americans in the April. I mean, it's gonna feel really great. April 15 filing my taxes to pay for this torture on myself. So can you please, as you continue your thought, explain what we're seeing here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I would just say also because somebody was like, you used AI for that? I said, Yes, I used AI Yeah, to create a
Speaker 0: you didn't hire
Speaker 3: a graphic artist to make your I mean, give me a break.
Speaker 1: Took me two seconds.
Speaker 0: I'm leaving. I'm out of here. I'm out of here. Will too.
Speaker 1: I did use ChatGPT for that and I gave all the information and there you go. So yeah, you're seeing basically, know, we're not going to run out of oil. It's just going to get more expensive by the middle of next, well, middle of this month, really, April 15. And that's because The US is not like I just said, The US is not gonna change the production value at home because the companies are still trying to figure out, is this war going to be really long term? And you have a lot of people on Wall Street and the commodities market going, there's no way Trump's going to continue this.
And then of course you have Trump every time the market is about to open saying, Oh, I got a deal. He's goosing the markets that way. So you have the manipulation of the market. So as long as that's going on, what that does is that denies the ability of corporate stakeholders in these oil industries from saying, maybe we should start putting money into creating more domestic output. Maybe we're going to feel a pinch in the short term, but the sooner we start putting that money into permanent expansion, we'll be able to then, in the medium and long run, be able to equalize those prices for the American people.
But you don't have that conversation because the commodities guys, the Wall Street guys are still saying there's no way this is going to last. There's going to be a correction. Trump's going to back out. He's going to taco. So that's part of the issue here.
But by April 15, basically all the oil that we had harvested from around the world before prices started increasing, before the Strait Of Hormuz was closed, that runs out. And then what we're left with is the stuff that we're getting from our own backyard, the stuff that we're getting from the Western Hemisphere in general. And yeah, it'll be there. You're not going to see the kinds of what what my friend Elizabeth Buchanan, down in Australia is experiencing right now, which are gas lines shortages. You're not going to be seeing that really going on here.
You're going be seeing though is really significant spikes in the oil price for average people, and well, for everybody. And what that's going to do is it's going to over time cause, and I mean like by the summer, cause intro inflation to go back up. So it's at around, I think, two point some odd percent now. It's okay. Inflation rate is better than it was under Biden.
That is set according to Goldman Sachs as these prices go up over the next few weeks and months, that will trigger a rise in inflation to around 4.5%, which will then, of course, prompt the the the Fed to come in under Jerome Powell, especially to then spike interest rates, which of course is just going to kill the economy. I mean, that's it pretty much for The US economy. And then we're talking about this going into August and September, where you're probably at the height of this recession or whatever you wanna call. I don't know if you wanna say the r word, but it's economic downturn. And then that's going into November and goodbye Republican Party.
Hello, Democrats. And hello, impeachment. And likely removal of by the Democrats if they get the numbers, I think they're gonna get of president Trump if this persists, like, going on now.
Speaker 2: Can I, you know, we can't file our taxes anymore with the check because they've shut that down? Now you have to file online. I wanted to just put a middle finger in the memo as I file my taxes this April.
Speaker 0: Middle finger emoji.
Speaker 2: Anyway, spirit is there. That's the spirit with which I
Speaker 1: will
Speaker 2: file my taxes.
reSee.it AI Summary
WTF: American scientists are VANISHING. Six researchers in plasma tech & advanced materials are missing, and five of China's top defense scientists as well. @wethebrandon says this is shadow boxing between the US & China in the run-up to something much bigger.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨WTF: American scientists are VANISHING. 6 researchers working on plasma technology & advanced materials have gone missing. So have 5 of China's top defense scientists. @wethebrandon says this is shadow boxing between the US & China in the run-up to something much bigger. https://t.co/xgqmrkJXki
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on six American scientists working on advanced materials and plasma technology who have suddenly disappeared, with a parallel pattern of missing Chinese scientists. The speakers debate where the technology originated (with sources suggesting it came from downed UAPs/UFOs) and why these individuals are vanishing, including both U.S. and Chinese scientists who worked on similar high-end military applications.
Brandon Weichert outlines a sequence of events and connections:
- In mid-March 2026, three Chinese defense scientists — Zhao Jingkang (nuclear weapons expert), Wu Manching (radar and metamaterials expert), and Wei Yiyan (missile systems expert) — were quietly erased from the Chinese Academy of Engineering’s website, signaling they are no longer among the living.
- A few days later, hypersonics expert Yan Hong (a key figure in plasma aerodynamics) died suddenly at 56.
- Weichert pairs these five Chinese scientists with the six American scientists who were working on related technologies, noting massive overlap in their work and suggesting that the Americans’ and Chinese’ programs mirror each other in advanced plasma and weapon systems.
- He concludes that there is shadowboxing between the United States and China, describing it as a shaping operation in the run-up to a potential major conflict, with both sides attempting to eliminate the other’s brainpower—the human capital essential to sustaining high-end warfare.
- He recalls historical precedents where nations targeted each other’s scientists (the Americans reportedly killing Soviet scientists and vice versa; Israelis targeting Iranian scientists) and argues this is not unprecedented.
- Weichert cautions that the topic is not necessarily about aliens; he suggests that the systems discussed may be advanced technologies developed in the U.S., Russia, and China for years, potentially including non-alien sources and even Nazi-era technologies that were inherited, while acknowledging that alien explanations exist in public discourse.
- He notes that there is a broader geopolitical dynamic at play, including the possibility that the timing of alien-related talk may be designed to distract from conventional advances in technology and the fact that China may have caught up to or surpassed the U.S. in some conventional technologies.
The conversation also addresses satellites and space warfare:
- There are reports on meteors or fireballs in the sky, but the speakers believe some debris could be from satellites shot down in low Earth orbit.
- SpaceX Starlinks have suffered “an explosive fragmentary event,” potentially from being hit by anti-satellite weapons; Starlinks have previously been used for protests (in Iran) and supplied to Ukraine, and the Russians have developed systems like Klinka and TOBAL to knock down Starlinks.
- There is a longstanding concern that electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons on satellites could disrupt or destroy the U.S. electric grid, with a claim that one EMP detonated 50 miles above the continental United States could knock out 90–95% of the grid and take at least two years to restore, especially given reliance on Chinese-made restoring equipment.
- The discussion returns to the importance of human capital and education, with a provocative claim that the Department of Education may be the single greatest national security threat due to its impact on human capital, alongside the national debt.
The speakers acknowledge disagreement about whether the origin of the advanced plasma technology is extraterrestrial or terrestrial, emphasizing instead the strategic implications of missing scientists on both sides and the ongoing modernization and counterspace dimensions of the conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why have six American scientists that were working on advanced materials technology, including plasma technology, suddenly gone missing? Now, we can disagree about where this technology initially came from. According to sources sources we've spoken to, it came from downed UAPs, downed UFOs. And The United States got their hands on this actually accidentally, and these scientists have been working on this technology for years. But why have they all suddenly gone missing?
And why are Chinese scientists also going missing? So we sat down and had a discussion with Joe Kent, of course, who just left the Trump administration. We wanted to ask him this question. But we also sat down with Brandon Weichert from the NatSec podcast, who's been writing about this and actually has a brand new report that he's about to publish on this very question. So here are two interviews back to back.
First, let's start with Brandon. I wanna ask you Hi, Brandon. I wanna ask you about the Chinese piece of all of this and maybe even the Russian piece of all of this. So this I wanted to talk to you specifically about this because over the past couple of weeks, a number of American scientists have gone missing Yeah. That have worked on really advanced plasma technology, I think reverse engineering of advanced weaponry that may have been may have come from UFO craft downed, downed aircraft and the reverse engineering.
Yeah. And you posted something interesting, which I think because, you know, people get, like, bogged down. Oh, it's aliens. It's aliens. And you said, well, no.
It's not it's not aliens that are disappearing these American scientists all of a sudden. Maybe you can walk us through what you believe is actually happening.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'm just gonna and the reason I have to put these these god awful, readers is because I'm blind as a bat now. But, so I you you mentioned the six American scientists, and this is where it gets really wild. This is the article that I'm getting ready to drop at NatSecGuy on emerald.tv. I went in and I found that in mid March twenty twenty six, three of China's top defense scientists, Zhao Jingkang, who's a nuclear weapons expert, Wu Manching, who's a radar and metamaterials expert, Wei Yiyan, is a missile systems expert, they were all quietly erased from the Chinese Academy of Engineering's website, which means they're no longer among the living.
Then just a few days after that, hypersonics expert Yan Hong, who's one of the key figures working on plasma aerodynamics, died suddenly at just 56 years old. So now what I did is I took that list of five Chinese scientists and I paired it with what those six scientists, American scientists, were working on, and they have massive overlap. So what these scientists for the Americans were doing for our military, these five or four or five Chinese scientists were doing for their military. So what that tells me is that this is the conclusion of my spoiler alert, this is the conclusion of my essay what this tells me is that there's shadowboxing going on between The United States and China. I think that this is a shaping operation in the run up to the big war between The United States and China, and we're trying to take out each other's brainpower.
Because the modern warfare map is not just about geography, it's not just about bullets and bombs and technology, it's about the people who make the technology and the bullets and the bombs work. And if you knock out the brainpower, you've knocked out the ability to sustain high end warfare, at least for a period of time. We saw, by the way, this is not the first time something this has happened. There's a great show called The Americans, a large storyline on that show, and it was based on true stories. Yeah,
Speaker 0: we lived down the street from that house. In Montclair. New Jersey.
Speaker 1: That's right. So they were killing Soviet scientists, they were trying to We were trying to kill or I'm sorry. We were trying to kill Soviet scientists. They were trying to kill our scientists. The Iranians and the Israelis do it all the time.
The Israelis whack Iranian scientists all the time. So this is not unprecedented in the annals of modern warfare. But what's what I find fascinating are the systems they were working on. I don't believe they were alien systems. I know we disagree on that.
I think The United States and now Russia and China have for years been playing with very advanced systems in the desert, or in our case in the desert, and I think that they're actually many years ahead of what we have off the shelf. And I think all this talk about aliens and stuff, it's all very conveniently timed for a moment in which we know the Chinese have caught up to us conventionally, technologically. And so now suddenly we're saying, Oh, we're bringing out, you know, plasma and anti gravity. Well, maybe it is real, but, and I think it is probably real, but I don't know if it's from aliens. It might just be from, you know, Nazi scientists that we inherited at the end of the Second World I mean, who knows?
But the point is, I think there's shadow boxing going on here between our intelligence service and likely the Chinese service killing each other's scientists in this next generation technology arena before we even really get to World War III.
Speaker 0: Philip, you were gonna say something?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm just I'm just sitting here. I'm listening to you like, like, just letting my mind wander. But like, what it seems like there's such a, like an aggravated attack on The US education system from within. Like, they're going after universities, like some of these top universities.
Like, then it just all all an adversary would have to do is wait about five years. Yeah. And then there won't be there there we won't have the education to even they won't even need to kill our scientists.
Speaker 1: This is the basis of that hilarious meme of, you know, it shows Xi Jinping with an accentuated jaw looking very muscular, and the the the tagline is Xi does nothing, still wins. And that's basically the Chinese mindset is just wait them out. Right? 5,000 year old civilization, we can wait out the Americans. This is the same mentality of the Persians, by the way.
Just stretch out the war, make them bleed a little bit, and they'll quit because they don't have the patience. We're thousands of years old, so there you go.
Speaker 0: The art of doing nothing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so that is the mentality in China, and really they benefit quite significantly. I would just say I was sitting, I gave a briefing to a group of Air Force generals back in 2021, and one of the generals there was assigned to Silicon Valley. And I thought those guys were assigned to Silicon Valley. He said, Yeah, I'm a liaison for certain projects we're doing, the Pentagon, the Air Force, and Silicon Valley.
Said, That's very cool. And he said, Yeah. He goes, You know, I'm really troubled, though. I go, Why? He goes, Well, a lot of brilliant young people work at Google.
I said, Yeah. He said, But a lot of them hate America. And I said, Well, it's the education system. And he said, I'm realizing this now. And I said, General, the single greatest threat, and I still maintain this, the single greatest national security threat to The United States, it's not China, it's not Russia, Iran, Al Qaeda, or anything like that, it's the Department of Education.
And it's the stuff that they're teaching our kids. And then if you want to throw in the national debt, you can do that too. But the human capital is what makes a country competitive, is what makes a country dominant. And we have had declining, significantly declining human capital for many, many years. It's become almost, terminal now, the decline.
Speaker 0: Let's talk about the satellites because this is the another big piece of this. Right? And what's kind of going on behind the scenes right now with maybe the sort of satellite warfare? You you've been tweeting about this. You wanna talk about the satellites?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know if you've been seeing, but on Twitter, people are filming. They're getting wigged out by it. There are all these meteors supposedly fireballs in the sky in places like Texas.
I think Ohio's another one that's been seeing a lot of them. Yeah. And, ultimately, I do not believe maybe some of them are, but I don't believe these are all meteors. I think what you're seeing are the debris from satellites that are being shot down in low Earth orbit. I posted this morning, it looks like I wish I had it up.
There was it was a very funny way that they framed it. I think they called it an explosive fragmentary event. SpaceX claims two of their Starlinks suffered an explosive fragmentary event. What it means is they were hit by something, and then they exploded. And what were they hit by?
Well, it could have been space debris. There's a lot of it up there. But given the context of what's going on on the ground on Earth, I would argue it was probably an anti satellite weapon of some kind. And we know, for instance, that the, the The United States or somebody gave the protesters in Iran 40,000 Starlinks, part of their protest movement. We know that in 2023, Elon Musk gave all those Starlink terminals to Ukraine, and the Russians have now been using Starlink in their conflict.
So what we're seeing now is Starlink, which was not originally meant to be a combat system of any kind, is now being used in some capacity. It's it's it's being used in some capacity for offensive capabilities and ultimately ultimately they're being they're being I think taken out. We know the Russians have developed, we know the Russians have developed, the Klinka system, and I think the TOBAL system as well, which are specifically designed to knock down Starlink satellites. And also, by the way, I'll just add one other thing, another input here. We have long suspected, I say we, I say people I know in the Missile Defense Agency and people like the now deceased doctor Peter Pry, my friend David Pine, who worked with Peter.
All these people have long said for about a decade that the Iranians placed electromagnetic pulse weapons on satellites in orbit, and that Space Force, what is now Space Force, has been tracking it for years. And we might be witnessing also preemptive shootdowns of these suspected EMP bomb satellites, as part of our escalation against Iran.
Speaker 0: That's been a big concern from a number of our guests who've said, you know, EMP attacks on our infrastructure, it wouldn't take much for entire electric grid to be wiped out.
Speaker 1: One EMP detonated 50 miles above the Continental United States will knock out 90 to 95% of the, electric grid, and there is no restoring it for a minimum of two years. And I guarantee you, it ain't coming back online in two years, especially when you consider the physical gear needed to restore the electrical grid comes from China. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Right. And we don't have it. Well, Brandon, we thank you so much. We look forward to reading your piece. I want to dive more deeply into these missing
Speaker 1: I'll send it to you guys.
Speaker 0: It's a great piece. It's fascinating that these Chinese scientists are, there's this massive overlap here with these United States scientists who've gone missing. It's remarkable. Yeah. You and I can disagree on where they got this tech from.
I've heard from special special forces, and in in involvement of the secret space program specifically that this was accidentally discovered as part of crash retrieval from UAPs, you know, long time ago.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't have any special knowledge on that. I just I find I just I think that we have a lot of extraordinary people and I think we have a lot of extraordinary I mean go back to Tesla, he was playing with technology that was hidden. And go back to the Nazis, I mean we know at Pina Munda the Nazis were playing with really advanced systems that they developed that we inherited. And so that's why I think it's I I think the alien thing might be a cover story, but I don't have any, you know, I I don't have anybody on the inside that could tell me one way or the other. This is just my opinion.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think the cover story well, I would just say this because I could talk about this all day, and my wife will give me a a side eye. But, I think the cover story piece of it is, well, every time you look up in the sky, oh, that's definitely an alien craft. No. No.
That's US military. That's definitely these advanced technologies. But I think at the at the core of it, a core, a lot of this technology, the Nazi technology came from from these crash retrieval programs in Russia, China, and we we all have it. And we we all have it. Different striations and Yeah.
Yeah. Anyway, I wanna ask you sort of a UFO related question. And we've seen now six scientists that have gone missing. Several scientists, military personnel working in plasma physics, advanced heat resistant materials, magnetism, doctors, director of MIT's plasma science fusion center. I know from sources that in special forces that this plasma technology was found accidentally after a downed UAP.
That's how we obtained this advanced plasma technology. China has also scientists that have gone missing. Brandon Weichert reported earlier today, he said this isn't about aliens. I mean, that's where the tech came from initially. It's not about aliens.
But China and The United States are playing this very dangerous game right now of basically missing each other's scientists. Can you talk about that on The US side specifically? I know it sounds a little out there, but they're missing. They're gone, and they were working on this advanced technology. And China has now missing scientists as well who are also working on this advanced technology.
Speaker 3: I don't have any insider knowledge about that. I mean, I think I was I was kept pretty nearly focused on The Middle East terrorism and those types of things. I what I think Brandon's what I think Brandon said, though, is the most likely, to be honest. And it's pretty well documented that countries will take out each other's key leaders. We'll try and take out the brains.
Again, you saw the Israelis do this really effectively in Iran, you know, about ten years ago when they killed off a lot of the nuclear scientists. So I I think what what Brandon is talking about is probably closer to the truth than than than anything else. But honestly, I unfortunately, I can't give you too much good insight on, on that case.
Speaker 0: No. Not even presidents of The United States are apparently on a need to know basis with this. It's unbelievable.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
US TROOPS WILL BE DECIMATED. 🏴☠️ Those aren't our words. That's @joekent16jan19, former director of National Counterterrorism, who resigned from the Trump administration over this war. He says Israel is in the driver's seat. Trump's hands are tied. https://t.co/Y8xINkPy5P
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript centers on a loud, multi-voiced discussion about the prospect of war with Iran, U.S. policy dynamics, and the influence of allied actors—especially Israel—on Washington’s decisions.
- The opening segment features sharp, provocative claims about President Trump’s stance toward Iran. One speaker asserts that Trump gave Iran seven days to comply or “we will unleash hell on that country,” including strikes on desalinization plants and energy infrastructure. This is framed as part of a broader, catastrophic escalation in Iran under heavy pressure on Trump to commit U.S. forces to Israel’s war.
- Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the administration, presents the central prognosis. He warns that Trump will face immense pressure to commit ground troops in Iran, calling such a move a “catastrophic escalation” that would increase bloodshed. Kent urges the public to contact the White House and members of Congress to oppose boots on the ground in Iran, advocating for peaceful resolution and public pressure for peace.
- The discussion shifts to Israeli involvement. The panel notes that Israeli media report Israel will not commit ground troops if the U.S. invades Iran, and some assert Israel has never, in any conflict, committed troops to support the U.S. The conversation questions this claim, noting counterpoints from analyst Brandon Weichert that Israel has undermined American forces in certain areas.
- The debate then returns to Trump’s diplomacy and strategy. The host asks whether Trump’s stated approach toward Iran—potentially including a peace plan—is credible or “fake news.” Kent responds that Iran will not take diplomacy seriously unless U.S. actions demonstrate credibility, such as restraining Israel. He suggests that a more restrained Israeli posture would signal to Iran that the U.S. is serious about negotiations.
- The program examines whether the MAGA movement has shifted on the issue. There is testimony that figures like Mark Levin have advocated for some form of ground action, though Levin reportedly denies calls for large-scale deployment. Kent explains that while he believes certain special operations capabilities exist—units trained to seize enriched uranium—the broader question is whether boots on the ground are necessary or wise. He emphasizes that a successful, limited operation could paradoxically encourage further action by Israel if it appears easy, potentially dragging the U.S. deeper into conflict.
- A recurring theme is the perceived dominance of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy. Several participants contend that Israeli influence drives the war timeline, with Israeli action sometimes undermining U.S. diplomacy. They argue that despite public differences, the United States has not meaningfully restrained Israel, and that Israeli strategic goals could be pushing Washington toward conflict.
- The conversation also covers domestic political dynamics and civil liberties. Kent argues that the intelligence community’s influence—infused with foreign policy aims—risks eroding civil liberties, including discussions around domestic terrorism and surveillance. The group notes pushback within the administration and among some members of the intelligence community about surveillance proposals tied to Palantir and broader counterterrorism practices.
- Kent addresses questions about the internal decision-making process that led to the Iran policy shift, denying he was offered a central role in any pre-crime or AI-driven surveillance agenda. He acknowledges pushback within the administration against aggressive domestic surveillance measures while noting that the debate over civil liberties remains contentious.
- The program touches on broader conspiracy-like theories and questions about whether individuals such as Kent are “controlled opposition” or pawns in a larger plan involving tech elites like Peter Thiel and Palantir. Kent insists his campaign funding was modest and transparent, and he stresses the need for accountability and oversight to prevent misuse of powerful tools.
- In closing, the speakers converge on a common refrain: no U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. They stress that the priority should be preventing another ground war, avoiding American casualties, and pressing for diplomacy rather than expansion of hostilities. The show highlights public involvement—urging viewers to contact representatives, stay vigilant about foreign influence, and oppose a march toward war.
- Across the exchange, the underlying tension is clear: competing visions of American sovereignty, the balance between counterterrorism and civil liberties, and the extent to which foreign actors (notably Israel) shape U.S. policy toward Iran. The participants repeatedly return to the need for accountability, restraint, and a peaceful path forward, even as they recognize the high stakes and the intense political pressure surrounding any potential intervention.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, according to president Trump, Iran has seven days to comply with US demands, or we will unleash hell on that country, including massive strikes on their desalinization plants, energy infrastructure, which I guess is the way that you help the Iranians by destroying their energy infrastructure. We're we wanna help liberate the Iranians, so we'll destroy their way of living and their ability to get clean water. Okay. So we're watching a catastrophic escalation in Iran with president Trump under enormous pressure to commit US forces to Israel's war. Those aren't my words.
Those are the this morning's words from Joe Kent, the former director of national counterterrorism, who resigned from this administration just a few weeks ago. This was his message this morning. Watch.
Speaker 1: This week, president Trump will be under immense pressure to commit ground troops to the war in Iran. This would be a catastrophic escalation that will only result in more bloodshed and further escalate this disastrous war. It is critical that we, the people, have our voices heard. Contact the White House comment line. Contact the congressional switchboard.
Ask for your representative. Ask for your senators. Respectfully tell them that we do not support putting any boots on the ground in Iran. This is how we, the people, can have our voices heard. It's critical that we pray for peace, but it's also critical that we work towards peace.
Respectfully contact your elected officials and let them know, we, the people, do not support this war. Thank you. God bless.
Speaker 0: Israeli media including channel twelve in Israel, is reporting Israel will not commit ground troops if The US launches a ground invasion of Iran. They'll let Americans fight and die for Israel, of course. And just like by the way, side note, Israel has never, in any conflict, ever committed troops to assist The United States, FYI.
Speaker 2: Is that a Yeah. That's shocking when you think about that.
Speaker 0: In fact, as Brandon Weichert reported, in fact, they actually have worked to undermine our forces in certain areas, but that's a whole separate animal, that we can talk about. But Joe Kent is the former former director of National Counterterrorism Center, who you, of course, saw there in the woods delivering that message. People in the chat room, Joe, were saying, why is he in the woods? Is that the only way he can go to be private right now and not have to have people lurking around you? Good to see you, Joe.
Welcome back to the show. So your assessment, a catastrophic escalation. It seems that this message from president Trump this morning was delivered early enough right before the markets opened because it was set to be another disastrous day in the markets. President Trump loves to watch the stock market like it's a, you know, a referendum on his personality in some capacity. But do you do you get the sense that that's true?
His his statement that we are working with the Iranians, that there is, you know, maybe a peace plan in place that we're that we're working towards? Do you think that that's fake news?
Speaker 1: Winning by not losing. So I think the Iranians right now, unless we we change tactics, they're not gonna take our diplomacy very seriously, especially when we put out massive threats like do this or else we'll start bombing civilian infrastructure. If we're if we were serious about getting them to the table, we would restrain the Israelis. And that would show the Iranians that we are actually serious until we do that. I hope for the best.
I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think our diplomatic efforts will succeed. I think Trump would like to be able to to get a peace deal. I I truly believe that he believes that, but I know he is under a lot of pressure to commit ground forces. We saw Mark Levin and the guys from, you know, the different think tanks, American Enterprise Institute, go on Mark Levin's program this weekend and really pitch the case for a special operations style raid where we go in and we seize whatever's left of the uranium from Iran.
And this is the problem, I think, with with boots on the ground operations. If they go well, you're tempted to do more. If they go really badly and you lose people, then you have to double down and you have to stay to avenge the fallen, etcetera. And then you fall into this this cycle. So I think we're in a very critical week here.
That's why I put out that call to action, this morning.
Speaker 2: I wanna ask you about the MAGA movement because conservatives were screaming all last summer that a bombing campaign would be one done, and it would be over. And anyone saying there would be boots on the ground is being paranoid. Now watch Mark Levin Levin over the weekend on Fox News making the case for boots on the ground.
Speaker 3: Troops on the ground. He said no troops on the ground. I don't remember that in any campaign speech either. But why would we need troops on the ground? Well, there's a lot of reasons, and we wouldn't need 300,000 of them.
It's this this uranium too. We've got to get the uranium. If it cannot be destroyed, if it cannot be altered, we got to get it for the reason I just said. You can make dirty bombs, and over time, you can still make sophisticated missiles. So you need to get to the uranium.
That's why I I'm reading in the paper. We're talking about the eighty second airborne. We're talking about these various special forces and the various military services and so forth. He's not talking about sending regular army and infantry in by the hundreds of thousands. The men he's talking about, the units he's talking about, they are specialized.
And you know what else? I remember from my days in the Reagan administration. Many of them are trained for a moment like this to try and secure enriched uranium. Many have been trained for moments like this. I guess what I'm trying to say is we are in good hands.
No. Not with Allstate, but with president Trump because he's a man with enormous intelligence, enormous common sense. He's not an ideologue. He doesn't run around.
Speaker 2: Alright. I don't wanna hear
Speaker 0: any more
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 1: Enough of day.
Speaker 0: Brown dozing.
Speaker 2: What does he pretend to know, and can you address the claims exactly that there are these specialty forces who know exactly how to do this type of janissary move? Where are these? What is what does he mean? Is this all fluff?
Speaker 1: This is not fluff. What Levin means is, exactly what the Israeli lobby is telling him. Levin is very much a part of that ecosystem that I pointed out in my resignation letter where he's getting talking points directly from the pro Israel lobby in America and probably in his case directly from the Israelis themselves. And so if Levin is saying something this specific on his television program that the president has said that he's watching, the president is telling America to tune into. This is not Mark Levin coming up with this on his own.
He's not falling back on his, you know, time in the Reagan White House or whatever. He's getting talking points because these talking points behind closed doors are being briefed to the president with great detail and specificity. So that's this is why I say this week, the President is going to be under immense pressure for an operation like this. You do a, you know, a cursory search of what the capabilities of our Special Operations Forces are, we do have the counter weapon, the mass destruction mission, which does involve going and seizing, you know, uranium or nuclear weapons. So yeah, there's guys who are trained and have this well within their portfolio.
The question is, is it necessary here in Iran after midnight hammer, we completely destroyed their capability. And so now the Israelis are playing this game, just like they did pre midnight hammer where they said, you know, it's not just a nuclear weapon. That's not President Trump's red line, even though Trump had said his red line was Iran can have a nuclear weapon. They moved the red line and made it enrichment. Now that we bombed the enriched uranium, and it's gone.
Now the the Israelis are saying, well, that actually wasn't good enough. If they can even get any trace amount of this uranium, we have to go in and get it. Again, the Israelis could care less about the uranium itself. They want us committed with boots on the ground. Because if we go in there with a very successful special operations mission, and you know, no one gets hurt, which would be my hope if we end up doing it, then they're going to tell President Trump look how easy it was.
You're so good at this. This is just like Venezuela. Let's just keep doing it until we can make the regime fall because that's Israel's goal. But if we take losses, and I believe that we would because Iran has shown a great deal of competency at defending their own borders, then the message would be, hey, we have to stay, we have to fight because we've lost troops. This is a trap that I really want to ensure that President Trump does not walk us into.
Speaker 0: Do you believe that President Trump is fully in control? Or is he acting as a puppet? That is to say, these people, these people that surround him that are feeding him this information, the people that are being then marginalized and pushed out of the White House inner circle, is he the one really running the show? I know there's people certainly, I I tend to agree with some of the guests that we've had on our show that he is not in control. Even Tucker Carlson flew there multiple times, as you know, and was trying to convince him of stopping this.
And he Tucker suggested that Trump was really his hands were tied. His hands were tied. By whom? It's pretty remarkable that his hands are tied. Do you get the sense that his hands are tied?
Speaker 1: I understand where where that mentality that that idea comes from. I mean, I I've been around president Trump enough, and and I've have supported the man for long enough that, everything he's doing right now with regards to this this war in Iran seems very much out of characteristic. A big reason why I had to resign is because a lot of us who were against these types of actions or at least wanted to offer him alternative courses of action, we we were boxed out, and we weren't allowed to really express our dissent. And now the administration comes
Speaker 0: Can just can you just say clarify that? Because I've we've many of us have speculated as to who was boxing you out. How do you get boxed out of telling the president of The United States that we shouldn't go to war? Like you, Tulsi Gabbard, and others, we should not do this. Who is boxing you out?
Was it can you name names?
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, there just wasn't a lot of discussion in this last iteration. In in the twelve day war and then in Midnight Hammer, there was a very deliberate national security process. There was a deputy's committee process. There was there was robust debate. As we move closer and closer to this one, the key meetings just didn't happen.
So it really wasn't a matter of like, no, you guys can't come in the room. It was a matter of next thing you know, we literally are moving forces towards Iran. And then the attack is launched. I I think some of the the pictures that were released the night of the actual operation where you had a small circle down there, president Trump and Mar a Lago and kinda everybody else back at the White House. I I think those those paint actually a pretty accurate picture.
So Wow. The president should have in I I I believe that president Trump is still intelligent enough to make deliberate decisions. Now the question is, who does he have around him? I have found everything that's taken place basically since midnight hammer on to be out of characteristic for him. And I'm hoping the pushback that he's seeing from the from the MAGA base, the people who elected him, who he has a very personal connection with.
I'm hoping that he sees and feels that that we are against this war and here reflects on why we're against the war and where we're at right now because he knows we're not in a good spot. He knows what's taking place in the Straits Of Hormuz, the effects that's happening on the the world energy market, the effect that's having here, the price of the pump. He knows that that is that is a very bad thing. And and so I I think he needs to show all of us that he still very much is in control, and he can do a very Trumpian move, and he can flip the script. He can flip the table.
He can restrain the Israelis. He can get the Iranians to the negotiating table. If I didn't think he still had that much agency, I'd be be saying so, and I wouldn't be lobbying so hard. I still think he has the agency. I I think he's gotten very, very bad advice, and this speaks to the amount of influence from the Israel the Israel lobby and how much influence they have over ecosystem, and just the amount of access, frankly, that we've to Israel Israeli officials over the years.
Speaker 2: Right. But it's really hard. I can understand it as an excuse for why President Trump would be the negative copy of what he promised on the campaign trail, which was the answer to the neocons. So maybe that's understandable, but I can accept it as an excuse when he has human lives in his control. And given how often Israeli fed intelligence has been ill motivated and wrong, we can no longer offer that excuse.
So what do we do with that intellectually? We have to draw the conclusion that he's either a puppet or he's a clone or he's I mean, I'm going to all kinds of crazy places because this is exactly what he said on inauguration day. I will be remembered for the wars that we never get into.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's maddening, actually. If you think about it too much, you can you can kinda try I definitely had a lot of time to to think, and you you sort of end up in this cycle of, like, why is he doing this? For me right now, I'm focused on trying to get you snap him out of this, however however you wanna you put it for so that he takes a hard look at where we're at, and and he realizes that he has the agency and and whatever pressure that he may feel that he's under internally in in inside the White House or in, the political world, there's still 77,000,000 people who voted for him in this country that gave him the popular vote in the Electoral College. And if he flips the script right now, they're all gonna have his back.
The donors will be mad. The Israel lobby will be mad. But I think him understanding that, he wanted an overwhelming landslide. He had the greatest comeback story ever. He can flip the script on this.
As to why he's he's done this drastic one eighty. I don't fully know. Was there for a lot of it. And I I think that the the level of access and comfort we have, we've given the Israelis. I think that that is probably the the driving factor behind why we're in this situation.
Speaker 0: So are you saying kinda categorically that Israel is running the show here?
Speaker 1: They're at least in the lead. I mean, really, even if you listen to Marco Rubio's initial statements, and it took him several days to kind of walk this one back. And then, you know, you heard the president basically say mean, the president said it several times. We had to attack Iran because the Israelis are going to attack, and then then we'd get attacked. So really, the Israelis drove this entire timeline.
And I don't think that's even debatable, just based on what the key decision makers have said. And then also, terms of every time that President Trump attempts to move us to a place where we can negotiate, the Israelis come in and they they kill negotiators, they kill members of the government. They, like, specifically bomb the infrastructure that president Trump tell says that we're not going to bomb anymore, basically to show the Iranians that, like, we're not negotiating in in good faith or that it really doesn't matter what we say because the Israelis are just gonna jump in and and do whatever they want. And as much as the Israelis have gone against us publicly, we still have yet to restrain them in any meaningful way. I know there's been some reports here and there that, you know, the vice president or somebody else called and, like, yelled at BB.
But until we actually take away some of the support that we're giving to the Israelis, their behavior will not change because they basically think that any, you know, kind of talking to that we give them is just hollow because it because it truly is. So, you know, it sounds bombastic when you say, the Israelis are completely in control of this. But when you take a just a step back and you look at the facts, how we got in the war and then the pace of the war so far, the Israelis are really in the driver's seat. They're they're not our co equal. They're they're not our ally.
They are driving this entire war, unfortunately, and we're the ones that are paying for it, which is even a bigger slap in the face.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's a good cop, bad cop play, though? Like, The US is we we know that this is gonna happen. We know that they're gonna bomb the infrastructure, the negotiators that we're trying to meet with, and we're just playing good cop while they play bad cop.
Speaker 1: I think sometimes we tell ourselves that to make ourselves feel better. But I know for a fact that, like, in general, I've been in the military. I was in the military for for twenty plus years. Americans, we we try we do everything we can not to bomb civilian infrastructure. And when we do, you know, there's a process for it.
We make sure that people are held accountable. We make sure that we don't do it again. So us going to war with a partner like the Israelis and not knowing how they're going to fight, I I just think is is ridiculous. We know how they're gonna fight. The problem is we don't we lack the will, to actually restrain them.
And so we might tell ourselves like, Yeah. We'll let the Israelis play a little bit rough because we won't play a little bit rough. But at the end of the day, when the Israelis playing a little bit rough or conducting war, how they conduct it, if that stands in the way of our strategic objectives, then again, I'm back to like, what what are we even doing here? And this was some of my frustrations. I can kinda care less about, what religion the government of Israel is or any of that type of stuff.
The foreign government driving the way that we fight our war and how we fight our war and being the deciding factor in whether or not we go to war. You know, that's my major issue.
Speaker 2: Given your title as counterterrorism, if there is a foreign nation using any influence against our leaders to exact a means to an end. Right. That's kinda terrorism. Right? And so it would seem to me that our war is being led by terrorists, and we are the least out guns for them.
Has anyone ever have you ever seen someone say, this blackmail is terrorism or this influence is terrorism?
Speaker 1: Many of us have definitely pointed out that it's a counterintelligence issue, that the Israelis just have way too much access to our innermost secrets. They are able to influence our decision makers way more than they should be able to. The how the the political world bleeds over into the intelligence world and how much access the Israelis have bought, that that is brought up quite a bit within the intelligence community. Now, usually, you're told to be quiet and don't talk about that. And you can you can talk about it with like the guys, know, that feel the same way you do.
It's one of those like almost open secrets where like most people won't say it. But if you say it most people, most people in the intelligence community like, yeah, we Yeah, we got it. This is a we're kind of getting hosed here by the Israelis. And this is a ridiculous relationship.
Speaker 2: So then let's pretend that we're really worried about Assad, when really it's Netanyahu. That's maddening because I am far less worried about what's happening in, say, Yemen than I am about the influence of the Israeli government given where we are right now. And so clearly, there colleagues amongst you who felt that way too, and were constrained despite the best intentions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for decades. I mean, really, I I had a mentor probably twenty plus years ago who told me like, trust the Israelis. And I was like, oh, that's weird. Why? I thought the Israelis were like our best friends.
So this has been well known for a very long time. Again, the Israelis just the way that they've been able to entrench themselves obviously through through through money, through the media, and then just the amount of influence that we we give them because they are a competent intelligence service. That's another part of it. The Middle East is hard. It's hard for Americans to operate in the Middle East.
And the Israelis in many ways became almost the easy button for intelligence collection because they're from the region, they speak the languages, they will feed us intelligence. A lot of us who spent a lot of time in The Middle East, we would eventually start looking at some of this intelligence and say like, quite got half of this is good. The other half of it is definitely trying to influence our decision making. We should be wary of it. But it takes a long time to to kinda come to those conclusions.
And so, again, just the amount of influence the Israelis have, I mean, that is that is a major issue that we have to address to get the sovereignty of our nation back.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, we've spoken to CIA whistleblowers who said that it was well known within the CIA that you never meet with the Israelis in CIA headquarters or a CIA building. It always has to be an off-site because we can't trust them at all. That those aren't my words. That's from the CIA.
Joe, wanna ask you about president Trump and the the rumors or the the suggestion that, you know, the the Iranians were trying to assassinate him. According to sources we've spoken to, there's no evidence of that. He has been fed that information. And I guess, where did that information come from? Did it come from Israel?
And did you see at your time looking at this intelligence that there was any Iranian cell that was trying to assassinate president Trump? He seems to believe that.
Speaker 1: This was a bit complicated because after Trump ordered the the the assassination of Qasem Somani, we killed Somani, The Iranians publicly said, hey. We're gonna avenge for we're gonna we're gonna get revenge for Qasem Soleimani. So they basically put out a a hit on a series of US officials who were in power at the time to include president Trump. And and the Iranians did lots of, I I would say, threatening online about going after president Trump. There was one individual so far that we we've caught who was in communication with the Israelis, a guy named Asaf Mershant.
He was just sentenced recently. He came to America. He was, as far as I know, he was indeed, contacted in some way, shape or form by the Iranians. He came here with the intention of killing President Trump. He obviously we heard that he was coming here.
So the FBI was all over the sky. They threw a confidential source at him. And together, the two of them planned a sniper assassination against President Trump. They arrest Mershant, and then two days later, Crooks tries to shoot president Trump. So my my question has always been, do we find any linkage between Mershant and between Crooks?
The FBI was very guarded about that and didn't want, in my my view, did not want to run down all the possible links between crooks and between Mershant, which is odd because Trump has been led to believe that Iran took a shot at him in Butler. And so far, there's there's actually no proof of that. And I think we should we should we should answer that question once and for all. Was anyone that merchant was dealing with? Were they at all linked to to crooks or to Butler because everything around crooks has been kind of an enigma.
Initially, he got killed and he had no online presence. We couldn't find out anything about him. But then almost a year or two years later, Tucker's Tucker Carlson's investigative journalist finds Thomas Crooks's online persona. He's communicating with people overseas. There's obviously a lot more investigative research that needs to be done there.
Speaker 0: Right. And where did you get any pushback on trying to get the answers to that? Or
Speaker 1: Yeah. Quite a bit. I mean, there there it was basically just like no case closures. There's nothing to see here. Crooks is dead.
We we talked about getting into his devices. At first, we heard his devices were locked. And then obviously, Tucker found what he found. So there was obviously a lot online for us to look at. And again, if if if we've I mean, president Trump has been led to believe that Iran tried to kill him.
At some point, I'm assuming it's there in in Butler, we should see if there's any linkage between Mershant that that plot that the FBI seemed to have under pretty tight lock and key that we do believe came from, the Iranians, and what took place in Butler.
Speaker 2: I've watched a lot of your interviews in the last few days. And it seems to me like you have very legitimate questions aligned with the questions we've been asking for about a year now. And the government treats you like a toddler like, No, honey, you can't put the key in the outlet come over here and play with these blocks instead. So there's got to be something in what they did let you do. Because there's definitely something in what you weren't allowed to do.
What were they encouraging you to do then?
Speaker 1: I mean, really, just basic counterterrorism work, which is fine. We need to do counterterrorism work. We have a lot of counterterrorism threats. Obviously, what's taking place in Syria has made quite the opportunity for ISIS or some version of ISIS to reconstitute. Same thing Yemen, in the Eastern part of Yemen, Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula is back and active southern border.
We had a lot of threats there as well. The Biden administration had four years of open borders. So one of the biggest lifts that we had was trying to figure out who came into our country over the last four years. I publicly testified that we had identified around 18,000 known suspected terrorists who had potentially gained access to America under the previous administration. And so we were working diligently with DHS and ICE to attempt to run down all those people.
But the more we dug into the information, about what took place in the previous four years, the more I realized that almost all the the bookkeeping was pretty incomplete, and we just simply didn't have any idea who was who was in our country. So I think we're we kind of have the perfect storm. There's a lot of potential right now for chaos within our own borders because of the open borders policy of the previous administration.
Speaker 2: So I want to say if that came off condescending at all, I didn't mean it. I I meant you were asking legitimate questions and being shut down. I I didn't mean to infantilize infantilize your work at all.
Speaker 1: I I certainly felt that way some days, so I totally get ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. I don't mean to condescend sometimes.
Speaker 0: No. It's a
Speaker 1: great question.
Speaker 0: I mean, I was thinking that same thing when you have you're not invited to certain meetings or meetings are taking place and they don't want you there because you you you're the you know, you guys are the dissenting voice and all of that. It seems appropriate that they would say, hey, just focus on domestic terrorism. That's why you're here. Don't ask questions about Iran. Don't ask questions about Israel.
When you left, did you get, did you, you know, talk to I mean, you know, tell about personal conversations, but Tulsi Gabbard, there was quite a call online for her to resign in protest as well. I don't know if you've spoken about that. Have you spoken to her about that? But what's your sense of the the Internet's response to Tulsi Gabbard still being in that position?
Speaker 1: Tulsi is a friend, and I and I think people who've supported Tulsi in the past, she's still attempting to do all the right things. She she is. She's doing the best that she can. She's not she's and it's a hard job that she has overseeing all the intelligence community does not make you popular any day in Washington DC. The very role of the director of national intelligence, you're kind of looking over everyone's shoulder and checking their homework.
And frequently, leads to just a lot of what I think is healthy tension, there should be these these healthy debates. So, you know, look, DNI Gabbard, I think, working hard behind the scenes. And if if people knew what she was what she was attempting to accomplish, I think they'd be proud to support her still.
Speaker 0: Seems like though they weren't listening to her. I mean, she's testified before congress that Iran was not constituting, you know, nuclear weapons, that the assessment of the intelligence agencies, and that just fell on deaf ears by not only congress, but it seems like the administration that she works for know.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, at the end the day, the president has the prerogative. He can make whatever decision he wants to make. And this is this is a big reason why I I had to leave because, as I said in my my resignation letter, like Iran did not pose an imminent threat to us. Iran has has done bad things in the past.
I've I've fought Iranian proxies, spent a lot of time doing it. I have no problem doing that. However, in terms of, like, us getting involved in another regime change war when Iran was actively negotiating table when President Trump and the Iranians agreed on the starting point and the Iranians had really strictly observed an escalatory ladder to not attack us for the first basically, you know, over a year of the President's administration, or right around a year of the president's administration, I thought we're in a good spot to do that. But the fact that we had this agenda come in, which wasn't based on intelligence, it was based on what the Israelis wanted. That's where I had to part ways because I didn't want to I did not want to be a part of that anymore.
Speaker 0: Well, you've been a big focus. You're certainly a big focus in our chat room right now. Many people say, I love this guy. Others saying, is a psyop. So we're gonna get to the we're gonna get to the bottom of all of that.
Whitney Webb, clarifying her comments about you today. So I wanna let's just be an open book here. We're gonna get to all of that. We're not afraid to ask questions here. Is Joe Kent controlled opposition?
Is his resignation part of a deeper state plan to basically have Peter Thiel, his Palantir buddies running the show install J. D. Vance as president of The United States under the auspices that we are anti war, but then we get to usher in a surveillance state, which controls all of us. It's what Catherine Austin Fitz believes, not the Joe Kent piece of the story, but she believes that that is the goal. That is the multistage goal, and that president Trump is merely a puppet in this entire game.
So Joe Kent is back with us now to talk all about that. So let's just take these piece by piece, Joe. And obviously, you've been a lot of people, I think, when you popped up and offered your resignation letter, there are a lot of people who've watched the intelligence community for years, people who've been former, you know, members of the military, who've said this is a SIOP. Because suddenly, when someone comes riding in on a white horse pops up out of nowhere with a resignation letter to support your position, you people sort of rally around this guy. Joe is now the the savior.
Speaker 2: Well, let's point out this is your second time on Redacted. So you're not out of nowhere.
Speaker 0: No. No. I'm saying yeah. But but suddenly, we get to hear from Joe in protest of the Iranian war. And for a lot of people, that was like, oh, this is the salve to the MAGA problem right now.
Like, we do not want boots on the ground. Joe is the guy. What do you how do you respond to the SIOP piece of this?
Speaker 1: I think people should stay, skeptical. I I appreciate that, actually. I mean, we're we're in an era of, you know, deception, unfortunately. So I get it. I think if people observe me, and they've known me for a couple years now, they'll they'll see that that's just simply not the case.
Took a, you know, a fair amount of risk, I think coming out the way I did. So yeah, that's kind of all I can say, I haven't read too many of the conspiracies, but I totally understand the skepticism. I think it's healthy and good.
Speaker 2: I mean, if I were going to run an extension of the neocon movement, I probably would do something like this. You are you have a very impressive resume.
Speaker 0: Serve your country.
Speaker 2: Yes, you are well spoken. You know, Clayton gets a little jealous, but you're a handsome dude. You can take to the campaign, Jerrell. I'm sorry, honey.
Speaker 0: I can handle it.
Speaker 2: And so I'm sure we have seen people of that ilk put into this role for a specific purpose. So you can't blame people for seeing it this way. Right?
Speaker 1: Not at all. No. I mean, I again, I I think people questioning everything is is is good. Please please do. I dig into people's finances too.
I mean, that's a big thing. If I ran for office twice before unsuccessfully, I think if people look at, you know, where I got my funding for for those two runs, they'll kind of see that I was supported by mostly small dollar donor, I think almost all small dollar donors. So yeah, I think the the skepticism I think is good, though. I know no pushback on skepticism. Do
Speaker 2: you have continued political aspirations? Will you run again?
Speaker 1: No. I mean, I I've ran for Congress unsuccessfully twice. I hate asking people for money, my least favorite thing in the world. If I felt if I felt called to do it, I guess, I I just don't know. It would have to be something, I guess, not because I I I moved states again, so I don't think I'd run for the house or the senate.
I think my the best service I can do right now is stay focused on on this issue, this issue, because I can provide a lot of insight and clarity. And I do think there's an ever growing movement of folks on the left and on the right, you have a lot of them on on your show, who are anti war who want foreign influence out of our government who want to get the deep state under control. I can support presidents in that in that role. I think we need people that understand how the IC works that can go in day one of the government and actually, you know, force the people's will on the IC on the military industrial complex. That's how I prefer to serve running for office.
I'm glad I did it. But it is not a fun experience. I would much rather fight kind of in the in the national security realm.
Speaker 2: Okay, but I'm gonna call you back if I see your name in one of those APAC tracker, Congress. Then we're gonna have we're gonna revisit this conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I when I when I ran for Congress, I had I mean, people can look it up. I had folks donate in APAC's name. So I I think I had a couple thousand from something that was APAC affiliated. And I got not, like, super anti Israel either.
Like, I I'm anti Israel directing our foreign policy. So I I talked to Republican Jewish groups, those types of things. But, yeah, I seeing how, APAC gets their hooks into people, I would definitely resist all that if I ever did end up running again.
Speaker 0: So I wanna bring I I wanna I mentioned Whitney Webb, a friend of the show, Whitney Webb, one of the best investigative journalists, I think, in the world. She was on Jimmy Doors show, I think, the other day. She she said she wasn't really prepared for the question about Joe Kent. And, so she came out today and clarified what she said. And to be clear, I don't think she said that she in that interview
Speaker 2: No. She said, you have to be skeptical. We don't know what the conflicts are, and this is a playbook that would be clever for an extension of the neocons and sort of the way I asked the question.
Speaker 0: So she responded today and kinda put this out here, and I wanna take it. She says, I got a lot of shit for saying why I don't trust the Joe Kent trajectory. And why I was obviously put on the spot about it could have had been more articulate. I think the points I brought up are very reasonable. If the counterterror spook resigns to amplify rhetoric, even if it's mostly accurate, and then the current administration defines as indicative of domestic terrorism, And that spook was previously also funded by Peter Thiel, the co founder and chairman of the intelligence contractor working to establish domestic terror pre crime in The United States.
I think it's fair to be skeptical of him. Of course, the Peter Thiel Palantir concerns, Joe, are at the heart of this, right, that we need to separate ourselves from what's going on with Iran, but now we need the Technate in The United States, part of this greater North American project that Pete Hegseth today announced, which I couldn't believe he announced that. So we're gonna take control of North America, essentially. We need this massive surveillance state, control through central bank digital currencies, a digital ID, and that maybe perhaps Joe Kent is at the heart of this Peter Thiel Tech Nate Palantir surveillance state. What do you say about the Palantir Peter Thiel connection?
Speaker 1: Peter so when I ran for congress, I think Peter Thiel donated to my campaign in 2022, but it was a direct donation to my campaign. So it couldn't have been more than I think just shy of $6,000 And he didn't donate to me again when I ran the second time. Then I didn't get any Peter Thiel Super PAC money. Like Peter Thiel funding me, people can look that up. Obviously, check everything I'm saying The money is just not there unless you're talking about something that was less than $6,000 four years ago.
So I just but again, I appreciate the skepticism. Think I think that's good. And I think that's healthy. But yeah, don't I don't really have much relationship with with Peter Thiel. I've I mean, being in the government for as long as I have been, I I've used Palantir for for quite some time.
And Palantir is coming up with like some impressive AI stuff. Now, I don't think it should be used here on American citizens. And I think we have to be wary in times of of conflict, in times of war. It's really easy for our our civil liberties to be eroded. And with how fast the technology moves nowadays, we should be on guard, and we should be aware from that of that, and we should we should fight that with everything that we can.
So did you fight it?
Speaker 0: I just wanna follow-up on that. So that's very important. And as Whitney Webb continued in her piece, she said Trump previously considered making a precrime program using AI to flag the social media accounts of Americans who displayed warning signs of violence or mental illness. Its main advocate was Jared Kushner. So within the administration, you were in the administration, was there pushback against this Palantir surveillance of The United States from internally, or was it pretty quiet?
Speaker 1: A lot of pushback internally.
Speaker 0: There was.
Speaker 1: A lot
Speaker 0: of pushback.
Speaker 1: I I mean, yeah, there's there's a lot of advocates, for civil liberties, and I think there was some pretty healthy debates going on about that. I I didn't I don't think that that that concept is being advanced, to my knowledge. Now, again, wars and the way things are accelerating, but there was definitely folks who who who I think in the administration would support something like that. Yeah. So I I again, this is where I think we need people to pay attention.
So I I appreciate Whitney Webb's, scrutiny and calling attention to it.
Speaker 2: That Israeli leaders have said many times is that the freedom of speech clause in our constitution is a problem inside America, that, you know, unrestricted social media is a problem. They are the only ally who has dared to tell us how to live. Can you imagine even Zelensky and all of his idiotic hubris would not dare to try to shut down opposition to supporting Ukraine? And then on cue, we see president Trump releasing expanding definitions of domestic terrorism, which there really cannot be a domestic terrorist because that means anyone who speaks against the government can't. But the Trump administration uses that term a lot, and it gives me a lot of heartache because we are supposed to be completely free to criticize the government.
And so you're saying there was pushback at surveillance, but that term at all, is that something that is being codified in intelligence against Americans?
Speaker 1: The term domestic terrorist? Yeah. Domestic terrorism.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's in press releases. It's everywhere. We're not really supposed to have that. That's not really a
Speaker 1: thing. I don't yeah. I think it it as far as I know, that term preexist even president Trump. And, again, I agree with the skepticism of it. And I think because of the violence coming from Antifa, etcetera, there was some there was a desire with by this administration to tackle that head on.
But anytime you start using the tools of the intelligence community against domestic targets, run into some major issues legally, rightfully so. So I yeah, again, I think this is something where we need a lot of people to be engaged and to take notice and to check what the government's doing and not trust the government.
Speaker 2: If I may take that a step further, right wing anti semites, anyone is it has been now included, not just antifa and antifa is cape is is committing crimes. Right? And a crime is a crime. And the motivation behind a crime should not matter because the crime matters.
Speaker 0: It's like a idea of a hate crime.
Speaker 2: Right? Right. So this idea that now this is thought policing, and you can define the ADL defines antisemitism as hearing problematic com comments about Israel. That clearly is not antisemitism. But because they can expand that definition, that gives them the right to survey and shut down legitimate criticism of the government.
And so, again, it you're right that, the Biden administration used domestic terrorism, but the the Trump administration uses it quite a lot in a way that I said like I said, is quite worrying because we are free to feel however the f we like.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And we've already seen the the pro Israel lobby basically say that what I'm saying right now that we should question the amount of influence Israel has over our own government in terms of our foreign policy, that that's antisemitism. And that falls under, you know, hate speech and that limits your First Amendment. We've we've seen that that push, you know, in the public sphere and then also, like, it's it's happening behind closed doors. And again, this goes back to just how much influence the Israel Israeli lobby has over our country.
At the end of the day, like, they're a foreign country. They're a foreign country. They have their own agendas. They also, for as similar to us as they feel, they do have a different way that they view things like free speech. And we just have to acknowledge that and separate ourselves from them and from their influence.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It goes back to George W. Bush. I mean, this idea of war war on domestic terrorism. Right?
It's a and both parties love it because it takes away our freedoms, and that's exactly, where we're moving. Catherine Austin Fitts, just made a statement today, I believe. And she said Trump is basically finishing a decades long plan to turn America into a mass surveillance police state. I wanna ask you about that in a second, whether you see actual evidence for that inside the Trump administration to what she's saying. She thinks Trump's was chosen by the New York Fed members, basically, as bankers to get this control grid.
She's really outlined the control grid, deeply when she's been on Tucker show and others, but but here she is on her own show. Listen.
Speaker 4: So so let's look at the control grid. There are three general baskets of what you need to do. The first is programmable money. The second is digital ID. You to do programmable money, you require digital ID.
And then the third is you need the hardware and the software infrastructure to do the social credit system and surveillance that you need to do those two things. And so you need all the data centers, it's the big one, but you also need a surveillance infrastructure and enforcement infrastructure to back it. So how do you persuade, how do you persuade conservatives and people in the heartland to embrace building that infrastructure? The way you do it is you say, oh, we have election fraud, or, oh, we have an immigration problem, and so we need a digital ID to identify who everybody is so we can't have fraud. Now
Speaker 0: What do you think about that sort of Trojan horse approach? If that's how the conservatives who live in the heartland and so forth, that's how you usher in this mass surveillance state? A, or one, one, did you see this push for this mass surveillance inside the administration? I know you said that there's pushback on it, healthy debate and conversation, but was there a really concerted effort either by Jared Kushner, that kind of group? And and two, do you agree with that approach that that's how you really get people to fall for it, the conservatives?
Speaker 1: Mean, it's hard to argue for logic. What I saw from from the inside, especially in the topic of, like, immigration, we we know that we have a had an immigration crisis under Biden. And so a problem that we constantly had was, hey. The the book keeping was so bad. How do we go and make sure we're targeting the right illegals and how we how do we find the illegals?
A big limitation. I know a lot of the the MAGA base is frustrated with how low like a lot of the deportation numbers are. A problem we had was that we did have to follow civil liberties. And so I didn't see a concerted effort from from my vantage point where I was. Now, again, these guys kinda knew who I was, so maybe I just didn't get invited to the meeting.
But I I saw, I I didn't see any concerted effort to do what she's describing. The way she lays it out, though, it's completely logical, and it and it it makes sense to me. I just didn't see any of that being done.
Speaker 0: Even with, like, the Peter Thiel influence with JD Vance and the amounts of money on the Palantir side within the administration, like, open meetings at the White House with these guys, who are deeply involved in this plan. They just I find that that to me is, like, a number one troubling for me, this AI control of The United States and handing over our civil liberties to these people, to these technocratic clowns. It just it terrifies me. I mean, I'll just I'll be emotional about it. But, you know, you see these meetings and Peter Thiel coming to the White House or Alex Karp and these guys.
And, basically, is Trump just a puppet for these people, these tech these technocrats?
Speaker 1: I wasn't privy to any of those those meetings. Think with any kind of tool that we give the government, though, we do have to have oversight, and we have to basically have a healthy skepticism. Pfizer always gets constantly debated. And, you know, Pfizer is one of those things that has been used to violate, you know, American civil liberties, Pfizer seven zero two, etcetera. But at the end of the day, the government has, like, has a lot of these powers.
And so you have to have oversight of the government. You actually have to hold people accountable. Think that's one of the biggest problems that we run into is we we think Congress will pass a law that will prevent the NSA from spying on Americans, for instance, or something like that. And we think the law will be our savior when at the end of the day, unless we actually hold people accountable when they do abuse these these very powerful tools that the American people have given our government, nothing will ever change. So I think the constant oversight and the vigilance from the American people, think is critical.
But yeah, unfortunately, I didn't see any of those those. I know those meetings happen just like you do, but I wasn't a part of any of those.
Speaker 2: Can I just ask you before we let you go, I'm to circle back around to what you have done the resignation and what it cost your family because the spotlight has got to be quite hot? And what that discussion probably looked like with you and your wife, Clayton and I have had something similar when we left mainstream media. It's painful, and it's hard. But once you're through the looking glass, it's a little easier on the other side. And are have you heard rumblings without naming names of people who said, I would do the same, or maybe I should or something to that effect?
Will we see more of this?
Speaker 1: I don't know if we'll see more, but I've definitely heard, you know, former colleagues, you know, text me, call me, and say, hey. They they would like to do the same thing. You know? But at the end of the day, people have mortgages to pay, kids to feed, etcetera. So there's a lot of people who simply just can't legit imately keep the lights on and walk away from their their job.
I'm blessed in that regard that I, you know, my wife and I both have military pensions. We could kind of walk. But yeah, having the support from my my wife, my parents, my extended family, That's been key. It was it was it was like you said, it was a tough decision to make. But once I made the decision, I actually felt really good.
And I felt like, you know, a lot of clarity, more clarity than I had felt in several months. So, it's it's definitely been a wild ride, but I I'm confident I made the the best decision.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you sort of a UFO related question. And we've seen now six scientists that have gone missing. Several scientists, military personnel working in plasma physics, advanced heat resistant materials, magnetism, doctors, director of MIT's Plasma Science Fusion Center. I know from sources that in special forces that this plasma technology was found accidentally, after a downed UAP. That's how we obtained this advanced plasma technology.
China has also scientists that have gone missing. Brandon Weichert reported earlier today, he said this isn't about aliens. I mean, that's where the tech came from initially. It's not about aliens. But China and The United States are playing this very dangerous game right now of basically missing each other's scientists.
Can you talk about that on The US side specifically? I know it sounds a little out there, but they're missing. They're gone, and they were working on this advanced technology. And China has now missing scientists as well who are also working on this advanced technology.
Speaker 1: I I don't have any insider knowledge about that. I mean, I think I was I was kept pretty nearly focused on, the Middle East terrorism, those types of things. I what I think Brandon's what I think Brandon said, though, is the most likely, to be honest. And it I it's pretty well documented that countries will take out each other's key leaders. We'll try and take out the brains.
Again, you saw the Israelis do this really effectively, in Iran, you know, about ten years ago when they killed off a lot of the nuclear scientists. So I I think what what Brandon is talking about is probably closer to the truth than than than anything else. But honestly, I unfortunately, I can't give you too much good insight on, on that case.
Speaker 0: No. Not even presidents of The United States are apparently on a need to know basis with this. It's unbelievable. Joe, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it.
I know, you know, some, obviously some difficult questions here, but this is, you know, at the heart of it is the most important, which is US troops could be sitting sitting ducks in cannon fodder right now at the heart of all of this. So, that seems to be what we're barreling towards. So thank you for speaking out on that and your bravery on that and trying to prevent this mass slaughter of American forces doing the bidding of Israel in The Middle East. So at the heart of it, that's
Speaker 2: And refer yourself to his ex account. Call your representatives. Do what we can. We have these you know, we're the adults here. These young kids, their lives are in our hands collectively.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Joe, thank you. Appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Amen. Thank you, guys. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: You too.
Speaker 0: So Harry in our chat says, Joe is not perfect, but he's doing the best that he can. Other people saying, love Joe. Other people saying Joe's a sigh. A lot a lot of discussion.
Speaker 2: We literally asked him, but you're free to
Speaker 0: Well, this was earlier earlier. So here's a good question. G d n p d says, we know Iran is hitting the entire Middle East with drones, so how do you protect troops on or inside their border? All nonsense. All nonsense.
Brad Gilbert says, anyone who, says, Chump is trying for we, the people, is either stupid or a SIOP. Chump has always been playing against us. Chump is the SIOP. Well, what Catherine Austin Fitz believes that he's just being used as a puppet. He was installed because of these bankers.
Referring to Mark Levin, Gary Hardy Incorporated says, how can anyone listen to someone who's never served? 17,000,000 of us have served Levin. Shut up. That's how I I feel about
Speaker 2: that guy. I know. He's so weasely and distasteful. I try. I'm like, what what's he trying to say?
Nope. I'm done. Can't take I can't take more than three minutes, him and Shapiro.
Speaker 0: Proupe Proupefer says, Rumble rant. I'd like to know where Mark Levin studied military tactics and strategy, or perhaps he has extensive combat experience to base his opinions on. Fixed bayonets, Mark. Lead by example. Oh, I would love Mark to go out.
Yeah. Can you imagine that old troll in the on a battlefield? Oh, my god. Coville said this about, I guess, Joe Kent. There's Flynn's guy, my favorite current psyop.
Joe Kent, keep up the good work, sir. The people are awakening to how The United States was controlled for one hundred years. What you WWG one, WGA. I I forget I'm bad with the acronyms. What does that mean, Philip?
Does anyone know what
Speaker 2: What would?
Speaker 0: No. No idea. What what was the what was the acronym? I'll put let put me it back up on the screen. WWG one WGA.
What would WG. What what's good for does anyone know what that means?
Speaker 2: I mean, I could Google it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't know. I guess, only we could Google it. Where one go one, one go all? Okay.
I don't know.
Speaker 2: Alright.
Speaker 0: That's that's just my guess. Don't I'm not sure of that one. Jinham Stoneface says, don't have your troops in range. That's one way to avoid casualties. Exactly.
Which I've been saying for months, get our men and women out of the freaking Middle East. We do not need 50,000 plus soldiers in the Middle East sitting ducks like cannon fodder. But the Biden administration admitted it was only a matter of time when they would be killed, when they would be attacked. Right. So thoughts thoughts on the Joe Kent discussion?
Me? Just Yes. You.
Speaker 1: Or or the chat? You.
Speaker 2: Mean, I I quite like him. You know? It seems like he was willing to answer questions about his past funding. And, mean, I I guess, as a journalist, it doesn't matter what I like. Right?
But I accept his answers as valid.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, he and I I I appreciated his, hey, be skeptical. Mhmm. You know?
And I asked him about Whitney Webb's context and, Catherine Austin Fitz. He said, I like Whitney and, yeah, read her work and, you know, and she I'm glad that she's skeptical.
Speaker 2: But and and again, he's allowing for this not to be the final answer on this. So maybe we will see something that we don't like. And he's encouraging us to keep looking. Okay, that's valid, right? And I don't know, in this in this day and age, like David was saying, I need to get off X because I think I like these people.
And then they say something, and you're like, I don't like that person anymore. So we can't really attach to brands right now. We are aligned with Joe Kent on not being in the war with Iran, and that's where we've gotta be right now in the here and now.
Speaker 0: Well, that's why I ended it that way. Because it at the heart of it, regardless of how you feel about Joe Kent and what other pieces of the story and all of it, I I said at the end, Joe's message today was, no US boots on the ground. Stop this. Stop it. And that to me trumps really everything else with this war right now.
Yeah. But at the heart, you know, there it's worthwhile asking questions like, why why now? Why did Joe just come out right now? Sure. Right before the war.
Like, what about this surveillance state? It was fascinating to hear his take on inside the administration. There's a really big pushback from people that do not want us to lose our civil liberties.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I was fascinated to hear that too and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Pleasantly surprised. So let us know what you think of all of that.
Speaker 0: Alright, guys. Hey, we'll be back tomorrow with a great live show tomorrow at 4PM eastern time. So please subscribe to the channel if you're not already subscribed. It's very easy to do. Just follow us on X, follow us on Rumble, follow us on on on YouTube, and we'll be back here tomorrow at 4PM eastern time.
Don't forget to grab our newsletter. It's totally free. If you go to redacted.inc, just put in your email address, and you'll receive the newsletter first thing in the morning over your cup of coffee. You'll receive a welcome email. You just need to confirm that email.
It goes to your spam folder or something. Because people sign up, they're like, I never received the newsletter. You have to confirm. So we'll send you a confirmation email. Just make sure it's not in your junk folder, and then you'll receive the newsletter tomorrow morning.
So final say say final thoughts.
Speaker 2: My final thoughts.
Speaker 0: Big gulp.
Speaker 2: No war with Iran. Yeah. War is based on a lie.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: It's bullshit. That's bullshit is my final
Speaker 0: K. That's a good final word.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Bullshit.
Speaker 2: The the war is bullshit.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: You're welcome. Do you will you sum it up, mister Erudite?
Speaker 0: War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. I'll say it again.
Speaker 1: Oh, good god, y'all. K. Goodbye. See you there.
Speaker 0: See you. Bye, everybody. Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you.
Sorry. But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest. It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs.
So I hope you called our friends at Leer Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me. It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it.
They know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks? Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them.
So does Natalie. We both do. And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver.
I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice. Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I've been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices.
I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them. 1806133557 or go to learredacted.com and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
THE CLOCK IS TICKING. 😳 April 6 is Trump's deadline. But while Washington counts down, America's missile stockpiles are nearly gone, China is quietly resupplying Iran, & the Houthis just opened a new front. The war is far worse than anyone in power is admitting. https://t.co/F0aibOy3c9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Eight days remain until April 6, the date President Trump says Iran must comply or face an even more devastating next phase of the war. The timeframe has shifted by ten days, but the reality on the ground over the last 24 hours contradicts the Washington, Tel Aviv, and mainstream media narrative.
Key battlefield facts cited:
- The United States has burned through more than 850 Tomahawk missiles in four weeks, entering a second month of the war.
- U.S. intelligence can confirm with any certainty that about one third of Iran's missile arsenal has been destroyed; officials say 10,000 targets have been hit, yet only a portion of Iran’s missiles appear eliminated.
- Iran remains in the fight and has held back its most advanced weapons, reportedly planning to deploy them when the timing is right.
- The Houthis in Yemen launched their first attack on Israel in this war, with timing alleged to be aimed at raising the strategic economic cost by threatening access to the Red Sea, particularly Saudi ports like Jeddah.
- The presence of the Houthis expands the conflict to a regional, multi-front scenario beyond Iran and Israel, potentially spreading from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.
- The Red Sea disruption could become an economic disaster, as roughly 12% of world trade passes through that corridor.
- The Pentagon has deployed the USS Tripoli carrying about 3,500 soldiers, bringing total U.S. forces in the region to well over 50,000—the largest American posture in the Middle East in more than twenty years.
- Iran attacked Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia on Friday, injuring at least 15 troops; Iranian sources claim more than 500 Americans have been wounded or killed so far.
- China is alleged to be supporting Iran by providing hardware before the war and, publicly, top Chinese chipmakers are said to be supplying technology to Iran’s military-industrial complex. Reuters reported Iran was nearing a deal with China for anti-ship cruise missiles.
- The claim is that U.S. aircraft (including F-35s) were downed or disabled due to Chinese targeting; Iran has not yet deployed its most advanced hypersonic systems, according to sources.
- Much of Iran’s arsenal is believed buried in underground tunnels and bunkers, making it difficult to assess losses; missiles continue to be fired despite repeated bombing.
- Casualty reporting includes a recent figure from Israel’s health ministry: 142 people were brought to hospitals in the last 24 hours; Israeli casualty numbers reportedly exceed 5,000 wounded, though such figures are not consistently reflected in all media.
- Oil markets react to the conflict: Brent crude closed around $112 per barrel, with the Strait of Hormuz effectively at risk and Reuters estimating roughly 11 million barrels per day of global oil supply affected.
- The overall message pushes back against the notion that the war is under control or that the U.S. and its allies are winning decisively, describing the conflict as escalating and the U.S. burning through firepower faster than it can replace.
Strategic framing:
- The speaker argues the conflict is moving toward escalation through exhaustion rather than peace through strength.
- They describe a growing regionalization of the war, with China assisting Iran and the Houthis expanding the battlefield, making a rapid, decisive victory unlikely in the near term.
- NATO is criticized as being a “paper tiger” by Trump, with comments implying a reduced role for the alliance in this period.
Note: A sponsor segment discussing copper and investment opportunities followed the news analysis; this portion has been omitted from this summary per guidance to exclude promotional content.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we better buckle up because this Sunday afternoon, we are now eight days away from April 6. That's the date that president Trump says Iran has to comply or face an even more devastating next phase of this war. By the way, a delay that Iran didn't even want, he extended that deadline by ten days, and the media wants you to believe that means that Washington is in total control. But over the past twenty four hours, the real picture coming out of this battlefield has been absolutely brutal for the official narrative. Because over the past twenty four hours, we got some devastating new information that completely blows apart the propaganda that we're being fed by Washington, by Tel Aviv, and, of course, by the mainstream media, which is in lockstep with both of these governments.
And they are basically PR arms of the Pentagon. Here's the reality on this Sunday that they don't want you to focus on the Washington Post reporting that The United States has already burned through more than 850 Tomahawk missiles in just four weeks as we now enter this second month of the war. Remember it was supposed to be a four day war? Okay. So think about that.
More than 850. These are not cheap Tomahawk missiles. These are not easy to replace, and we don't have the capacity to replace them yet. At the very same time, Reuters is reporting US intelligence can only confirm with any kind of certainty that about one third of Iran's missile arsenal has actually been destroyed. One third?
Do you buy that number? So let me get this straight. We've fired off a staggering amount of high end munitions. We've hammered them with bunker busting bombs. 10,000 targets we can now confirm.
10,000 targets. And we can't say with any kind of certainty that we've taken out more than just a third of what Iran had. That's not victory, although that's what the White House would have you believe. That's not dominance at all. That's an ambition that this war is chewing through American firepower at a terrifying rate right now.
Iran's still very much in the fight and has actually been holding back its most advanced weapons that we haven't touched. It kinda reminds me of Muhammad Ali's rope a dope strategy, taking a whole bunch of punches, just waiting and just waiting and just waiting, and then pouncing when the enemy is tired and worn out, when America and Israel are at their most vulnerable. And that's exactly why this next phase is so dangerous, because now the Houthis are in. No more guessing, no more maybe, on Saturday the Houthis in Yemen have now launched their first attack on Israel in this current war. I spoke with colonel MacGregor just this morning who told me that Houthi intervention was timed to raise the strategic economic cost by threatening access to the Red Sea, particularly in Saudi ports like Jeddah.
In addition to that, the Houthis are now compelling our forces to fight on multiple fronts and further regionalize this war beyond the Gulf. So that means this is no longer just Iran and Israel, this is now a regional multi front mess that can spread from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea in a heartbeat. And if the Houthis start choking off Bob El Mandeb the way they've threatened to, it will be an economic disaster through the Red Sea. Roughly 12% of world trade passes through that corridor, so just forget oil for a second. All of that trade coming through.
12%. That's not some side issue. This is a global economic artery. Colonel Dan Davis on his show on Saturday made the point that this might have been the strategy all along. You degrade America's missile stockpiles, drag us deeper into Iran, and then open another front through Yemen while The US forces are already stretched incredibly thin.
Speaker 1: 10,000, maybe 12 or 13,000 by now, missile strikes has only netted you about one third of what they had. And so that means that their ability to sustain is likely going to continue on for the foreseeable future. And that gives them confidence. With the Houthis joining, that gives them more confidence. Khatib Hezbollah, Hezbollah in Lebanon, all of this stuff gives them more and more confidence.
Speaker 0: Now look at what the Pentagon is doing. The USS Tripoli has arrived, carrying about 3,500 soldiers. The total US forces in the region now well over 50,000, the biggest American military posture in The Middle East in more than twenty years. And this comes after Iran hit Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia on Friday, injuring at least 15 troops there. Iranian sources saying that more than 500 Americans have been wounded or killed so far.
So when they tell you this is under control, that America has already won this war, no. It's not under control. That's a bald faced lie. You don't rush in more marines, more paratroopers, more ships, more contingency special forces with the eighty second airborne division because you're calmly wrapping things up. We're all done over there.
You do that because you know this war is about to get a whole lot worse. What's going to happen in these next eight days? By the way, here's the part that no one on, like, Fox or CNN wants to really touch, and that is China. Because what we are hearing from our sources in the region is absolutely explosive. They are telling us China is not just quietly cheering Iran on from the sidelines, they are helping Iran build a battlefield nervous system right now.
China has basically sent massive amounts of hardware right before the war started. We're talking portable anti stealth radar surface to air systems, the Baidu satellite support systems, signals intelligence systems, terrain mapping, cyber architecture, real time tracking of U. S. Naval movement. Our sources say Beijing is using this war as a live fire intelligence laboratory against America's most advanced systems, watching everything we do.
So is taking Taiwan next? What will we do? They're watching everything that we have. Now publicly, this is where US officials actually admitting that China's top chipmakers are supplying technology to Iran's military industrial complex. Reuters also reported last month that Iran was nearing a deal with China for anti ship cruise missiles.
So even on the public record, China's fingerprints are all over this. China learning our systems in real time while Iran does the bleeding, absorbing all of these blows. And the reason our f 30 fives are being hit, one of them downed by Iran, is because of China's targeting. Iran wasn't doing this on their own. Remember these aircraft were supposed to be unhittable.
That's why we spent tens of billions of dollars on this F-thirty five program. They're unhittable. Okay. Not anymore. And maybe that helps explain the next humiliation in all of this.
America and Israeli intelligence appear to have badly underestimated Iran's underground missile cities as they're being called. One major reason The United States still can't confidently assess Iran's missile losses is because so much of that arsenal is buried in underground tunnels and bunkers, sophisticated bunkers and tunnels before the war even started. Dispersed stockpiles. This is why these missiles keep flying. This is why Iran can keep absorbing these strikes and still fire back.
You can't bomb what you can't see. And what you know what you don't know about, and that's what an intelligence failure looks like in real time. I remember what Colonel MacGregor and Colonel Davis told us on Thursday on our show. We did a whole military panel about this. Iran has not even used what he says are the most advanced hypersonic systems yet.
Speaker 2: Well, my impression is that they have a large number of hypersonic missiles they have yet to fire. That's very clear. They made that clear because they started utilizing older missiles for the purpose of wearing down air and missile defenses, also identifying air and missile defense batteries and radars and so forth. I I don't see any evidence that they're about to run out.
Speaker 0: So let that sink in. They're exhausting defenses with older waves while holding back something far worse that we can't stop. Now let's talk about the propaganda on casualties because this is where the media really loses me, loses all of us. We keep hearing the fairy tale that Israel is basically taking light damage, that everything is under control, that Iran is lashing out wildly and achieving nothing. Really?
New reporting over the last twenty four hours, citing Israel's health ministry, says a hundred and forty two people were brought to hospitals in the last twenty four hours alone. One hundred and forty two. So no, this idea that Israel is barely getting touched is nonsense. We're also hearing from multiple sources that the number of Israeli wounded is over five thousand. Yeah.
You won't hear that on Fox News or CNN, and when governments start tightening information during wartime, you should assume the real picture is worse, not better. Doctor. Trita Parsi on our show earlier this week revealed that within twenty four hours of this war starting, The United States classified US casualties. You don't classify US casualties if you're proud of how well things are going. So while all of this is happening, the economic fallout is already here.
Brent crude prices closed Friday, $112 a barrel. Price is gonna go much higher if this drags on. The Strait Of Hormuz, Saturday morning effectively closed. Reuters also says this war has taken about 11,000,000 barrels a day of global oil out of the supply chain. 11,000,000.
This is why markets are shaking, gas prices skyrocketing across The United States, inflation now up over 4%. That's why every family watching this video needs to understand this is not some faraway conflict that doesn't touch your life. It's already here. Now Trump is also blasting NATO, saying The US does not have to be there for the alliance after Europe refused to basically back this war. He called them a paper tiger.
Speaker 3: This is NATO. And I've always said NATO's a paper tiger. And I've always said we help NATO, but they'll never help us.
Speaker 0: So this effectively is the end of NATO as we know it, and good riddance. And that's the real story this Sunday, not the fake news version. The real version of everything that I just went through is America is burning through missiles that we can't replace fast enough. Iran is still standing, has been waiting to strike their most sophisticated weapons yet. The Houthis are now in the fight.
China appears to be learning from every second of this war. US troops are getting hit, getting hit hard. Oil is screaming higher, and April 6 is now just eight days away. So when they tell you this is all going according to plan, don't buy it. It's garbage.
This looks a lot more like escalation through exhaustion than peace through strength. So that's the news update part of today's video. Now I want to tell you about today's sponsor, which is tied directly to everything we just talked about in this global chaos right now, and frankly all of our weapons being used up. And let me level with you and share with you how I believe I'm gonna personally view this period in next ten to twenty years from now because I've always heard from friends, family, colleagues, like, they'd only been there during the dot com bust. You know, I was in my twenties when the dot com bust happened.
I didn't see it coming. I didn't understand it. They said, oh, they could have recognized it was a generational bottom at the time. Or had they been able to be there in 2008, 2009, they definitely would have identified that this was a panic situation back then and a major bottom to invest in both in real estate and otherwise. Or Brexit or COVID or Liberation Day, all of these clear signals in hindsight, major panics, which ended up being honestly the best opportunities to look for.
I think, and this is just me speaking, that if you open your eyes right now, today is the biggest economic shift of them all, the biggest we've ever seen in our lifetime. The decline of the US dollar, the decline of the petrodollar, the rise of the Chinese yuan, and this disastrous war in Iran is the closest investors has come to World War two, and it's what you call a classic Warren Buffet play when everyone else is full of fear, try to be smart for your family and fall for the panic because the panic is real. Prices are cheaper for many companies than in the past year. Just look at the markets right now. I mean, they're cheaper than they've been in the past year, past two years, three years, even five and six years for a lot of, you know, big companies.
So all that to say, think of how we would look back on this moment for two to three years or a decade from now. So with that, Trump's announcement that the military budget of The United States might actually be 1,500,000,000,000.0? It's like disgusting. It's like hard to even wrap our head around. The largest in US history.
President Trump announcing electricity demands need to triple right now. At the very least, by 2030, see all these data centers that are exploding all over the country. A new report out today talking about all these people hearing like a humming, like, their neighborhoods because all these data centers are kicked on. People in New Jersey, they're like, we're just sitting on our front porch and we're hearing like a humming. It's because coming from these data centers, all like build up AI demand right now.
You have billionaire Robert Freeland has said the world is sleepwalking right now into a copper crisis.
Speaker 4: Copper right now we're expecting that to be 270,000,000,000 a year market by tomorrow morning. And where's this metal gonna come from? There's no copper inventory at all. Let me show you how bad this problem is. In human history if we go back to Mohenjo Daro we have mined 700,000,000 metric tons of copper.
So we put that in a big cube you see the Eiffel Tower for scale. It's about four thirty meters by four thirty meters. Approximately 80% of all the copper we've ever mined is still in human possession. Now if you want to get that back, problem. We can recycle that.
All we have to do is tear down every building in The United States, every building in Europe, every building in in Japan and all of China, and we can get back about 80% of that 700,000,000 tons, but we'll be living and freezing in the dark.
Speaker 0: So copper demand is beyond belief right now. Supply is vanishing. Copper shortage is just a matter of time. And I don't I don't usually do this, but I'll just say copper on US soil may be the most straightforward way to align with the biggest trend of them all right now, which is reindustrialization in The United States, and honestly, it's my highest conviction idea. So president Trump has taken massive action to bring copper production back to The United States, including an executive order and enacting 50% tariffs on these imports.
Speaker 5: Our great American copper industry has been decimated by global actors attacking our domestic production. To build back our copper industry, I've requested my secretary of commerce and USTR to study copper imports and end unfair trade putting Americans out of work. Tariffs will help rebuild back our American copper industry and strengthen our national defense. American industries depend on copper, and they should be made in America. No exemptions.
No exceptions. America first creates American jobs and protects our national security. It's time for copper to come home.
Speaker 0: In fact, Stanley Drunkenmiller, who many consider to be the all time greatest macro investor, a self made billionaire with a track record of never having a losing year, is very bullish on copper.
Speaker 2: Copper is in the tightest position, well, frankly, I've ever even studied.
Speaker 0: So you have to be insane not to pay attention to what these people are saying. How can anyone stay indifferent after a copper billionaire, a hedge fund billionaire, real estate billionaire who happens to be president of The United States, and a 100 secretary of commerce all say copper is a massive opportunity right now. Regardless of how you feel about any of these guys right now, they're absolutely very bullish on copper, and they're correct about its demand. So look at the global production outlook right now when demand is projected to soar by 50% by the year 2040. Supply and demand, and I always say it, the deficits coming are ungodly.
The United States and America, China are battling over mineral supply chains, technological supremacy because globalization stepped up this equilibrium right now. And you can see just when you look at the strategy both superpowers are taking right now, trying to secure domestic copper production. Bloomberg expects copper demand to reach 40,000,000 tons by 2040. Energy transition, data centers, chips, robots will be the main drivers of this demand. Today I want to showcase a company that is actually trading near its all time lows right now, down nearly 62% in the past forty five days.
It's the owner of the Mujaba Hill copper project in a past producing mine in the state of Nevada. That's the sponsor of today's video, and that's Giant Mining Corporation. Here is their ticker symbol on your screen. It's b f g f f. Here it is on your screen.
This company is the only copper company that I'm bullish on right now. Again, say Giant Mining has rarely, if ever, traded this cheaply. I'm showcasing it to you right now at one of the lowest market caps in its history. It began in 2026 with a breakout over all of that record setting copper prices, and today, it's trading around just 11¢ a share. So Giant Mining's US ticker symbol is available on all of the big brokers, like Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab, among all of them.
If they're a big broker, they're there. So since president Trump's inauguration, his administration has aggressively pursued policies to secure US mineral independence with copper emerging as a flashpoint. And what we've been seeing is the very first chance, in my view, to be part of that rebirth of the American copper mining business. We can access it at this founding moment as far as I can tell. So Giant Mining owns a past producing copper mine in Nevada, one of America's best and most cherished mining jurisdictions.
And giant mining, in my personal view, is my number one copper idea, and I stand by that statement here in 2026. So historic underground mines at the Mujaba Hill project produced copper, tin, silver from the early nineteen hundreds to the nineteen fifties, including 2,800,000 pounds of copper, 184,000 ounces of silver, 5,800 ounces of gold. So I'll say this again. All of these factors and the following ones are the what has led me to my significant bullish opinion about giant mining. The infrastructure is ready.
Access roads have been built. Power supply, transportation, water supply, or stockpiles. So, guys, do all of your own homework on GiantMining. Here is their ticker on your screen. Once again, I'll have links in the description box below so you can do your own due diligence on this company.
Thank you so much for subscribing, and we'll see you tomorrow with a big guest on our Monday live show. So thank you guys so much for being here, and we'll see you tomorrow.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🏴☠️ Six years ago, the world changed forever, not by accident. @sonia_elijah's new book, 3/11 Viral Takeover, maps exactly how it happened, who made it happen, & why populations around the world complied without question. https://t.co/QeupGjMdYI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sonia Elijah’s book, three eleven viral takeover, is described as a deep forensic investigation into the COVID era, built from years of FOIA requests, leaked documents, timelines, interviews, and scientific literature to examine unanswered questions from the period. The host, Clayton, frames the discussion around why the pandemic happened, how it happened, and which power structures created populations that largely complied with lockdowns.
Elijah explains that March 11, 2020, marked more than a health response; it was a global reset. She compares it to 9/11, arguing that while 9/11 led to citizen surveillance, three eleven led to citizen compliance with the state, with mass lockdowns and surrender of civil liberties. She characterizes the day as a turning point into a new era.
The book argues that COVID marked a shift from a post-9/11 surveillance state to direct citizen compliance, facilitated by weaponized fear. In the UK, messaging campaigns spent hundreds of millions of pounds to tell people that “if you go out, you’re going to kill grandma” or “you’ll die,” which helped create a climate of fear. Elijah cites hypocrisy in leadership during lockdowns, noting Boris Johnson at parties and senior New York public health officials at drug-fueled gatherings, while ordinary citizens faced harsh restrictions. The narrative includes stories such as a family member being pressured to isolate a non-COVID patient and care-home policies that contributed to elderly deaths.
Elijah discusses the personal toll of the lockdowns, including experiences with hospital visiting restrictions during a family member’s stroke and the broader trauma seen in children and mental health. She cites a child psychologist and the emergence of “COVID anxiety syndrome” as diagnoses, noting that the public messaging and fear-based coercion affected behavior and well-being.
The book emphasizes the role of censorship and the disinformation apparatus after three eleven. Elijah highlights a machinery of censorship, including the World Health Organization’s influence on what was deemed scientific, and the suppression of the lab-leak theory and early vaccine harms discussions. She points to the Trusted News Initiative, coordinated by BBC leadership, which she claims enabled big tech to downrank or remove dissenting voices, including doctors and scientists who advocated for early treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The narrative includes examples of vaccine-injury discourse being shut down, with veteran platforms and media networks flagging or removing related content.
Elijah details the epidemiological and testing framework that supported lockdowns, focusing on the PCR test’s use, high cycle thresholds, and the rapid antigen tests from Innova Medical Group. She argues these tests, funded through substantial procurement schemes and criticized by the FDA, helped justify continued restrictions. She discusses a “VIP lanes” procurement environment in the UK and the role of Innova and related networks in driving large-scale testing and surveillance.
A major thread is the diffuse network surrounding gain-of-function research and the origins debate. Elijah discusses EcoHealth Alliance, the DEFUSE proposal, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, noting that Fauci’s NIAID funded related work after a DoD rejection. She references emails and FOIA material showing that a core group of scientists coordinated a public narrative that favored a zoonotic origin while privately wrestling with lab-leak possibilities. The Great Barrington Declaration is described as a focal point of dissent that was aggressively attacked; Francis Collins reportedly questioned “these three fringe epidemiologists,” leading to professional repercussions for Kalodorf and others.
Elijah’s closing argument positions COVID as a planned, coordinated effort toward a global biosecurity state, with ambitions including digital IDs and alignment with Agenda 2030. She cites NATO involvement in disinformation policy as evidence of state and military coordination, and she frames the book as a road map to prevent future similar actions. Her aim is to empower readers with knowledge and truth as antidotes to potential future crises. The book, she says, is written to chronicle these events for humanity, hoping that awareness will reduce fear and increase vigilance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On 03/11/2020, a pandemic was declared by the powers that be, and our world changed forever. That's not debatable. But why did it happen? How did it happen? And what power structures were in place that created sheep of populations around the world that were just sort of glad to be herded into pens, so to speak, locked down, and went along with it?
Friendships destroyed. Families destroyed. So that's at the heart of this question, and our next guest aims to answer that in her brand new book called three eleven Viral Takeover. Here is the book cover. Investigative journalist Sonia Elijah is our guest.
Her new book is a deep forensic investigation into the COVID era, drawing on years of FOIA requests, leaked documents, timelines, interviews, all to examine some of the biggest unanswered questions of that period. And Sonya has been a frequent guest on our show over the years. She's broken many stories wide open. Her investigative journalism, I will say, is meticulous, is second to none. And so we're thrilled to have her on the show today to do a deep dive on this subject.
And Sonya, I have to say just the book I mean, as you and I are speaking, we are recording this, I it's hard to believe, six years after they declared this pandemic. I think your book is really going to be, like, the ultimate deep dive on this subject, the ultimate examination. I mean, students maybe twenty, thirty years, a hundred years from now will read your book as the standard to try to understand and make sense of this. So welcome back to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Clayton. Thank you for having me back on.
Speaker 0: My pleasure. And I just should say at the out at the outset because, you know, they have gone after you big time. I just wanna show, like, I want our audience let's see if we can make this like a number one bestseller, by the way, and just pick it up, buy a copy of it, donate it to your local, you know, library after you read it, but just pick up a copy. I think that this is an incredibly important book for the future of humanity. So incredible work on this, and I know that this took you many years to write, didn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, close to probably five years of my investigative reporting, particularly the last three and a half years I would say. And I strove for it to be like a meticulously documented and evidence based expose to uncover the profound deceptions at the heart of the official COVID narrative and the response to it. So, yeah, I didn't want it to be based on speculation. So we've got interviews with experts, freedom of information responses, official public documents and scientific literature as well, everything to back it up. So that was really important to me, Clayton.
Speaker 0: So the book is called three eleven, which is March 11. Why is 03/11/2020 so important in your view, like that date, so much so that it made it onto the front book jacket of your book?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what we saw that day and it was exactly six years ago today was more than just a health response, Clayton. It was a global reset. And so just how we saw for nineeleven, so I see threeeleven being a biological sequel to nineeleven and history shows us Clayton that usually we see these sort of global resets in society precipitated by disruptive events. So just how we have, you know, tax and nineeleven, know, had that birthed the Patriot Act, the two thousand and one anthrax letter attacks, and we know what happened from that.
So nineeleven led to citizen surveillance, state surveillance of citizens whereas threeeleven led to citizen compliance with the state. We saw mass compliance. We saw literally the whole world almost go into lockdown, surrender their sort of civil liberties and on the words of so few and unaccountable bodies. And the world has never been the same since. So I sort of marked that day as like sort of that turning point going into a new era.
Speaker 0: And you argue really that COVID marked a shift from, like, this post 09/11 Patriot Act surveillance state into this new era of direct citizen compliance. Like, so many people were totally compliant with it. Just having conversations the other day with an individual who's telling me about, like, going to an event at his family for, like, some kind of, I don't know, holiday or whatever it was. And when he was going to this family member's house, they were like, oh, well, you didn't get the the COVID shot. So we really think that we're gonna have to separate we keep you in a separate room.
We'll have to and it was really made him, like, shaming him in a way. You know? Like, haven't you seen the news? You should have gotten the shot. Now you're putting my entire family at risk here.
So what do you think changed in practical terms for just ordinary people who seem to like lose their minds?
Speaker 1: It's quite simple. They absolutely weaponized fear, Clayton. They used fear as a vehicle to justify locking down the way they treated the unvaccinated as sort of second class citizens, if you remember. And so when someone is so afraid, it sort of arrests your critical thinking, when you're petrified, when you're so scared and you believe that when you go out, you're going to die from this virus. And my book, particularly this is in chapter three, I talk about how the British government totally weaponized fear.
We had messaging campaigns, hundreds of millions of UK taxpayers money spent on messaging campaigns where it was like, if you go out, you're gonna kill grandma. If you go out, you'll die. And people were petrified, people died in their homes. This is such a crime and it really hasn't been documented enough. And it's just so horrific.
So people were just afraid.
Speaker 0: There was a disconnect too. And there was a big disconnect too, right? You had the revelations of Boris Johnson at parties and so they were weaponizing this fear on the British. Mean just you know, we focus on Britain for a second here. The streets were empty, people were locked staying at home and Boris Johnson was out at parties.
They knew about it. Did they know about this weaponization?
Speaker 1: Well, hypocrisy. So I mean, I write about these lockdown parties. You've got Boris Johnson, you've got also in New York City senior public health officials having drug fueled sex parties going on in New York City. So I mean, they knew absolutely that it was not harmful. Like it wasn't because we knew early on that the infection fatality rate was zero point one percent for those 70, which is comparable to like a severe flu season.
So that was known very early on. And exactly the hypocrisy, they're telling people to, you can't say goodbye to your loved one who's dying in a care home. I mean, the way they treated the elderly in care homes was just the greatest crime there. And yet they were having parties and wine and cheese parties and soirees at Downing Street. Yeah.
Speaker 0: You know, I I I don't think I've ever really told this story on the show, but my father was, had a stroke and then taken to the hospital, never came home after that. And in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, one of the worst states in the country for this, and we were not allowed to see him. We were not allowed to to go into the hospital at all. And he, you know, just died alone in the hospital because of COVID and because we couldn't go see him. Even though he wasn't there with COVID, had nothing to do with COVID.
He was just there. He's 86 years old and and had a stroke and, was taken there. And, and once he got into the hospital, basically, that exacerbated his death. But, yeah, they wouldn't let us wouldn't let us see him. And they told my mom, that, you know, they she could come up to the window outside the hospital.
Like, if she could get high enough, like, in the shrubs to to, like, look in the window. And he was out of it at that point. Like, he was gonna be able to, like, look out the window and see her. He would have thought he was being attacked or something. He wouldn't know what was really going on.
So just awful what they did to people, what they did to us, what they've done to everyone.
Speaker 1: It's horrific, horrific story. I mean, we also had in care homes, Clayton, we had these end of life, the just in case protocols. Many elderly were just basically dispatched with given midazolam, basically like these sort of opiates to slow down their breathing and they died. So a lot of the excess deaths that were seen early on in 2020 was because of those protocols, Clayton.
Speaker 0: Did you know the biggest threat to your smile is something silently happening to your gums? More than seventy eight percent of people worldwide experience gum recession that actually develops slowly over time. In The United States, nearly fifty percent of adults 30 already show signs of gum disease, and by the age of 65, that number actually reaches sixty percent. It's pretty shocking. Gum loss is not just cosmetic.
It's actually exposing tooth roots. Increasing sensitivity can lead to decay and even tooth loss. The problem is that standard toothpaste actually don't rebuild gum tissue at all, and they actually may mask the symptoms, never addressing the root cause and consist of fluoride and all sorts of harsh additives inside of it. Have you seen those charcoal toothpastes? Terrible.
Smile changes everything. It's the first ever fluoride free peptide toothpaste designed to assist in the reversal of gum loss to the source. Peptides like BPC one five seven and GHK CU support natural tissue repair, and nano hydroxyapatite strengthen and remineralizes teeth. They whiten without peroxides while soothing botanicals and blue spirulina and aloe vera reclaim those sensitive gums. The result is stronger gums, healthier teeth, and a much brighter smile.
So get 10% off plus free shipping. Head to twc.health/redacted and use the code redacted. And how difficult was it for you to get access to that information? For instance, if we just take, like, Pennsylvania for instance, so do we as they labeled individuals having died with COVID, right, Of COVID or with COVID? And then what sort of like drug protocols were they given?
I've, you know, a friend of our family has called this a culling, c u l l I n g, a culling of the population. Do you see it that way?
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't ever speak to intent because I can't get into people's minds. But from the evidence from what we're seeing, I mean, I don't know how you explain away these protocols that were put in place in care homes and the way they treated the elderly. I mean, it just, you can't quite comprehend that. It's deeply disturbing.
Speaker 0: So when you started this book, I'm sure you had an outline. You had an idea of where you were gonna go, right? The best laid plans. What point did you just scrap that outline and just say, oh my gosh, you know, I've discovered this and I have to go down this rabbit hole. How many different corridors were you traveling down?
So
Speaker 1: what really helped me is the book begins with an appendix a and it's a a timeline. It's a critical time of all the key events. And that took me actually months to compile this timeline. But really the book follows the sort of the timeline because the way I see it when dates don't lie. When I look for example, you have January 10 was when they in China when was when the virus, the sequence to the virus was uploaded to virological.org.
And then you have three days later, January 13, you've got Moderna with the NIH, the National Institute of Health Vaccine Research Center, on the vaccine sequence for SpikeVax. So just three days later, have on that same day on January 13, again, three days from January 10, you have Professor Christian Drosten and his PCR test protocol being approved by the World Health Organization. And as you know, Clayton, the PCR test was the primary gold standard test used for locking down the world practically. It was all on these PCR tests. And these PCR tests were never designed.
Doctor. Carrie Mullis designed this PCR test back in the day. And we have him on record saying, this test should never be used for diagnosis, to diagnose a disease. Yet you have this unvalidated test severely flawed and somehow peer reviewed magically within twenty four hours, it gets approved by the World Health Organization. And this is what is used this test to justify locking down the world.
And it's notoriously flawed because if it's a high cycle threshold, your chances of it being a false positive dramatically increases. So we have all these false positives. So people thinking they have COVID when they don't, and they're forced to quarantine, to lockdown. I mean, and it just perpetuated lockdowns. My book also, I examine the INOVA Lateral Test, which is the rapid antigen test.
It was by a California startup. And this startup Innova Medical Group was founded right in March 2020. What a coincidence. It's founded at that time. Now this is the test that NHS spent £4,000,000,000 of taxpayers money on this test, Chinese made lateral rapid antigen test, that was basically the FDA then said this test is rubbish and should be thrown in the trash.
But the UK government kept putting in all the NHS test and trace court kits, which were given out like candy free for everyone. And it was completely these tests were bogus. They were like completely flawed and they were not fit for purpose.
Speaker 0: When you you mentioned some of the dates and how convenient that is that three days later, we have this five five days. Were there were there things that shocked you about this timeline? For instance, we hear stories about, obviously, the the pandemic planning that was happening beforehand. We see in the Epstein emails, obviously, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, discussions about a pandemic. So when you're mapping out this timeline, we're like, okay.
Here's point a, what we think of point a. Yeah. But wait a second. There's something that predates point a. How did that happen?
Speaker 1: So if you go back to 2019, I mean, you have these pandemic exercises that were taking place. So from January 2019 to August 2019, you had Crimson Contagion. And that was led by Lieutenant Colonel Robert Kadlek. And he's actually quite, I've written a lot about him in this book. And so that was a pandemic exercise, which happened to basically be a group of US tourists go to China, they contract some kind of respiratory novel influenza, they come back and they spread it to The US.
So you have that going on. Very convenient. But what you have actually is that you've got then a few weeks after that exercise concludes, so that goes through to August, but then you have in September, no, actually October 2019, you have event two zero one. Now event two zero one was hosted by the John Hopkins Center. In conjunction, it was also partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
And I found that was very, very telling what came out of that because they basically, these leading officials, they're doing these pandemic exercise. Again, it's on a novel coronavirus. But what comes out of that is that something has to be done with misinformation, okay? That governments and private entities need to work together and come up with nimble approaches to combat misinformation. And what did we see?
Right post three eleven, Clayton, we saw an unprecedented use of censorship all in the name of combating disinformation. And of course, it's these elites that get to decide how they define what disinformation is. And a lot of the book, especially towards the end, I go in a lot of detail about this machinery of censorship. I talk a lot about the trusted news initiative, which is essentially a network that crosses big tech, big media and the governments. They all come together and they decide on that they're gonna shut down any sort of scientific discourse debate.
And it's only one narrative, one official is allowed.
Speaker 0: Where was that narrative coming from? Was it so we saw the coordination through Facebook and Twitter. We know that the Biden administration had access, backdoor access to Yes. Facebook, Twitter, etcetera. Where was it coordinated?
Did you were you able to pinpoint The it
Speaker 1: World Health Organization. So it's what the World Health Organization deemed as scientific. So for example, anything to do with sort of even the lab leak theory that was quickly shut down. You had them going after anybody talking about that. And then anything to do with sort of early vaccine harms, anything to do with early COVID-nineteen treatments.
Don't you remember how they treated people who advocated ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine? These were proven early treatments for COVID. Those doctors who advocated those treatments were demonized. They had their licenses, the medical licenses taken away from them. Some were even driven to suicide.
I mean, it's just the book, I mean, I'm going to lift it up here, but this book, it cuts across. I really wanted to have a really good overview of everything. And I didn't want to leave anything important out. I didn't go through any sort of rabbit holes or any sort of like conspiracy. Everything was backed up by evidence and I really wanted to stay true to that.
But you see,
Speaker 0: Well, was gonna say on the WHO piece, you know from our show on Redacted on YouTube, in the early days of the pandemic as we were reporting these adverse events or women that were having all sorts of menstrual issues, we were highlighting Facebook groups where women were getting together saying they're, like, their periods are disappearing because they got the shot and all the we were reporting that, and then we were we were banned. You know, YouTube banned us. And, of course, the reason for the banning was WHO misinformation. We need to adhere to WHO standards. And even under our videos, they would put that big disclaimer that said World Health Organization gives you know, and it gives a whole list of, like, COVID data.
You know, someone was watching our video, they felt the need to put this, like, disclaimer about what the World Health Organization actually says under videos. Like it was a massively coordinated big tech and all these big tech people were compliant. We saw that with Mark Zuckerberg. You know, we saw that with Google, YouTube, Facebook. I mean,
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, a lot of my early videos and me interviewing other experts were all taken down. I mean, I interviewed Doctor. Robert Malone very early on in June 2021 was my first interview with Malone and that literally the same day that got taken down. I mean, you're really the also wanted to highlight the way the vaccine injured were treated, Clayton, let's not forget that.
You had Facebook pages, Facebook page. I interviewed Maddy DeGray's mother, Stephanie. Maddy DeGray was a 12 year old that was in the Pfizer's adolescent clinical trial. She was left with life altering injuries. She had a feeding tube, she couldn't walk.
I mean, the book goes into so many things. I obviously dissect all the Pfizer documents and trial documents, but the way she was treated, so she had Facebook accounts that were shut down. This is a girl that was vaccine injured. You had vaccine injured groups. They used to use, for example, they would to try and get back to get around sensors.
They would use carrot emojis instead of saying like the vaccine, they would do a carrot emoji. And what you have, you have the BBC and we know BBC let they helm the trusted news initiative. It's led by the BBC. They would flag these Facebook accounts of the vaccine injured and flag it to big tech for them to be brought down. And you have the BBC bragging about that.
That article is is in my book. I mean, there's a lot of exhibits in my book. There's a lot of screenshots. There's a lot of images. There's like 124 images.
There's nine forty one citations. There you have legacy media working with big tech to bring down, to basically censor and silence the vaccine injured.
Speaker 0: The doing the really doing the at, like, the heart of journalism, like protecting the people against tyranny and and big government, and here they're doing the bidding of the government against the people. It's it's remarkable. When you looked at these FOIA requests after five years of FOIA requests and leaks and interviews and going through Pfizer documents, was there, like, single most shocking piece of evidence you came across that made you think, wow. This is this is even bigger than I first thought it was before I started writing this book?
Speaker 1: Yeah, actually it was quite it was towards the end. I mean, obviously I've been brought to tears with a lot of things that I've discovered with vaccine harms going through a lot of these periodic safety update reports, which was submitted by Pfizer and BioNTech to the European Medicine Agency and all the harms. I mean, it was just especially even to newborns, to pregnant women crossing the placenta, going to the fetus and really horrific harms, all documented, all known and yet still approved, still greenlit. You have harms known before emergency use authorization was given. There's a chapter that talks about this FDA's slide presentation slide in October 2020.
This is a few months before EUA was granted. And there was on this slide, and there's a screenshot of it in my book, it's a whole list of harms that they were on the lookout for that they were associated with these novel mRNA based injections. Yet they still greenlit it. But more recently, Clayton, I would say towards the 2025, I did a Freedom of Information at request to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, DSIT, and I asked them if they had any, I wanted all documents, of meetings, anything related to NATO's direct influence on The UK's COVID-nineteen vaccine disinformation policy. And they admitted they have it.
So now we have on record that NATO was involved, directed The UK's vaccine disinformation policy. They refused to give it to me because of national security and the risks of it being misinterpreted.
Speaker 0: I guess we're too stupid to read it for ourselves and interpret it for ourselves. It's just embarrassment. They're worried about being embarrassed because they were directing the news agencies and others to squash the truth.
Speaker 1: So yeah. So we have NATO involvement. This is military involvement. We know that the, seventy seventh brigade, which is sort of this British army unit was covertly, had UK citizens under surveillance. They employed the military to survey citizens.
You've got also, I mean, it just goes on and on and it's just so shocking. It really is. And you have like five, at least five secretive whitehall units, one being the CDU, Countering Disinformation Unit. And people were being tracked. People, what posts they were having on Twitter or X at the time.
And you have scientists and doctors being under surveillance. So it really is just very disturbing.
Speaker 0: One of the big fights over the last few years has been the virus origins. In your reporting what role did those like early like pillar papers play in locking in this natural origin narrative before the debate had even been settled?
Speaker 1: Yeah, my first two chapters really look into sort of the locking in the narrative is what I call it. And you have these three pillar papers published in eminent journals and they sort of, yeah, it's all about dispelling any sort of lab leak theory or anything that came from a lab. I went into deep dive mode in dissecting the emails that were released by Freedom of Information Act, all the Fauci emails. So Anthony Fauci's emails with Sir Jeremy Farrar, who led the Welkin Trust at the time, all their emails with all the scientists that were sort of key authors of these papers. And the first paper, which is in the Lancet, this is the joint statement that went out early on.
We know that 26 out of the 27 signatories of that statement had ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its funders.
Speaker 0: So a lot of conflicts of interest right there. Exactly. Mean, how important, I mean, these conflicts of interest, how in shaping what the world was told to believe. So they were not impartial at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and then you've got, I mean, is, for example, you had also at that time, you had a paper coming out of India, Pradham et al paper. And that was really explosive because these researchers, these scientists, they discovered four HIV like inserts in the SARS CoV-two spike protein. And they were like, this is really weird, you know, this is what That paper got shut down, the authors were forced to withdraw it three days later after it was published. And when I looked through all these emails, like you've got Anthony Fauci talking about it, or that's such an outlandish, what a crazy paper.
They're all discussing it amongst themselves. But what these emails reveal was a coordinated, they all acted in one accord. They were very unified on shutting down the lab leak theory. It was all about the natural origin of the virus, the zoonotic tale that they told the world. They all locked down very early on to agree on that.
And even though privately they believed it did, it was man made privately, this is what they discussed, but in public, this is what they told everyone.
Speaker 0: We've been desensitized to this idea of the lab leak. We've heard it thousands of times. Was there one particular piece of evidence that stood out to you that the public was discouraged from examining seriously this idea of the lab leak that we were like, don't be you're if you believe that. Right? Or or there was some other piece of evidence that we were total strongly discouraged from examining seriously.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was just, it just was really obvious. It was shut down. You were branded as a conspiracy theorist if you were to talk about that. And obviously we know that a lot of these scientists who were saying, this it's they were bringing up the science like this is a possibility, you know, were de platformed, the algorithm worked against them, they shadow banned. It was just, you couldn't discuss it.
I mean, but chapter two of my book obviously talks about the cracks in the narrative, which I talk about this Indian paper. But that's not only that, there was a 19 nucleotide sequence, and this has to do with Moderna's fingerprint in the virus, that somehow was a reverse match of an early pattern from Moderna. So this was really odd, right? We know that this did get picked up by, I think Fox News, one of the anchors interviewed the CEO of Moderna at the time and he sort of dismissed it. I think some UK papers wrote about that, but that could have quietened down quite quickly.
There were just a lot of anomalies were going to tie to this, the genetic sequence of the virus.
Speaker 0: Do you think there was like a to me, it seemed like a tipping point moment at least in YouTube and big tech when Jon Stewart went on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert was challenging him because Jon Stewart said this was clearly came from a lab, you know, and made fun of it, clearly came from a lab. And Stephen Colbert was pushing, really sort of carrying the, you know, carrying the pale of water for for this deep state that was trying to to paint a certain story, and Jon Stewart just was having none of it and said, come on. This is ridiculous. You know? And he laid it all out.
And I saw, I think, a a a switch right then, at least on YouTube. Suddenly, like, we were allowed to talk about the lab leak. We were allowed to say that, yeah, that's what we all believe. And now Jon Stewart kind of gave us a pass and YouTube sort of had to acknowledge it and even the mainstream media had to start acknowledging it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. I think it's just because they couldn't sweep it under the rug anymore. I've just I mean, you have so many people speaking out about it. So I think it just became too troublesome for them to try and kind of you know, dampen down. But
Speaker 0: yeah. We've also been I mean, you've done an incredible job of sort of tracking this, like, this large network, you know, EcoHealth Alliance, the EcoHealth Alliance, Wuhan Network. So for people who haven't followed that part of the story closely, I guess the diffuse network, right, is what it's called or in this important document. Can you walk us through like why that is so important?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so basically there was in 2018, this is what you're referring to is the DEFUSE proposal, which is EcoHealth Alliances. So this is run by Peter Daszak at the time. And we know EcoHealth Alliance was at the heart of all of this, right? They worked in tandem with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They got grants from the NIH, hundreds of billions of dollars in grants and doing gain of function research, right?
When there was a moratorium on that kind of research, it was forbidden. So they did it in China. And so the DEFUSE proposal was in 2018, it was done and it was basically EcoHealth Alliance's submission for a grant partnering with, again, with the Wuhan Institute of Virology submitted to DARPA, okay? To the DoD and they were asking for $14,000,000 to do research where they were going to insert the furin cleavage site into coronaviruses. And the DoD at the time turned them down because they deemed it too risky.
So this paper got leaked out. I interviewed Charles Rixey, who is a former Marine expert in this. And that proposal was leaked to him. And he then put it on the group called Drastic, the Drastic's website. And this is around the 2021, September 2021 when that came out.
So yes, so we have it there like evidence that the US government didn't We have eco health Alliance asking for money to do exactly this kind of risky research, gain of function, and it got turned down. But yet somehow they managed to get funding through Anthony Fauci's NIAID to continue doing this work in China. And I have emails, looking again in the book, are emails where Fauci's asking exactly what would, from his colleagues, give me a list of all the, What are all these projects that we have funded, that EcoHealth Alliance has done? And listed. So he knew exactly what was going on.
So when he when you see him testifying to congress, oh, gain of research, you know, this type of research has never been done, is is just that's not true.
Speaker 0: There are a lot of key and I know that senator Rand Paul has been trying to prosecute Fauci, trying to go after him, saying that he is a criminal, that he should be locked up. There were key private calls, emails between Fauci, Farrar, Anderson, all early on. Yeah. So in your view, what do you what do you think these communications reveal about how, like, the scientific and maybe the public messaging was all coordinated?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So you have the February 1 teleconference taking place in 2020 and you have, again, all these key officials were on that call. And I looked at emails sort of leading up to that call and afterwards, and there was a real sort of sense of back slapping afterwards and relief. Like, I'm so glad we're all on the same page. And we're all gonna, basically, we're only gonna put forward one narrative, which is the zoonotic, like it's just come from animals and it's jumped from one species to another.
And we're gonna shut down this lab origin theory hypothesis. And yeah, like I said, that was done very early on. And essentially, they're protecting themselves because many of these scientists are linked with gain of function research. So, of course, they want to protect the field that they're working in because they're, you know, they're relying it for you know, that that's their source of funding.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And they were telling us they weren't involved in this at all. They were lying before congress. It's so despicable.
I wanna talk about the lockdowns because
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: You know, from your scientific background, I mean, we just I I don't know that we have maybe we do, but I don't know that we have the full accounting and data yet to know just how detrimental these lockdowns were because it's like, where do you where do you start? With the children? Do you start with mental health? Do you start with the economy, businesses shut down? When you were tackling the lockdowns, where did you how did you try to wrap your arms around that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I I I tackled it from different different places, but also I looked at the testimonies given during the COVID-nineteen inquiries. We had one in England, we had one done in Scotland and I wanted to get the scientists that were such strong proponents for these lockdowns.
Speaker 0: Like Neil Ferguson? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Susan Michie, obviously Neil Ferguson, we know his paper. So Neil Ferguson's, this is report nine. This is infamous report nine. This was the paper that literally the whole world locked down on. And it was notoriously flawed, his lockdown paper on how if these countries did not lock down to mitigate COVID-nineteen, then like so many, like hundred million, like I can't remember the exact number, I think it's like five hundred million deaths would occur, like so, it just within three months and that never turned out to be the case.
And that paper was severely flawed and anyone speaking against that paper again was just sort of sidelined. But I looked at what those scientists on oath were saying, and I dissected their transcripts. And that was quite I quite enjoyed doing that actually because you're saying this on one side, this is what and this, you know, and we know the truth is telling us, you know, what's going on. But to do with the actual harms, we will never know Clayton, it will take decades for the true tally really of all the harms because we have a whole generation of children who lost out in education, in development, social, emotional, academic. We will never know the full extent, we will never know.
But we know that more harms were caused, 100% more, so many more harms were caused by the lockdowns than by the actual virus.
Speaker 0: It's so deeply disturbing. And just seeing like the little kids who are, you know, in kindergarten or not even kindergarten and were forced to do like online classes, like, they're sitting there bouncing around on a camera, like on a Zoom call, like, come on.
Speaker 1: And you you had them also so I interviewed a clinical, a child psychologist. So my interview with her is also in the book and she was sort of at the ground zero essentially, she's a child psychologist, she's seeing children, they're all and she was saying, they're so traumatized and also their parents, they're so scared, the parents. I mean, almost you have the anxiety, she actually gave me an example, a specific parent that made their children like stripped down, like come home from school, stripped down, put everything in the wash, jump in the shower, this is to sort of wash the whatever microbes away. You had syndromes like COVID anxiety syndrome being diagnosed, being termed, and it's official diagnosis. Wow.
Right?
Speaker 0: Well just kids being terrified of it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, constant hand washing, sort of obsessive impulsive of like, if I go out, I'll get a virus and I'll die. And again, I mean, the populations were brainwashed. I mean, again, going back to the public messaging, government public messaging at the time, it was all about using fear and coercing compliance.
Speaker 0: Just horrible.
Speaker 1: I looked at in the book as well, there are these government documents, meetings that occurred. This is with SAGE. SAGE is the UK government sort of scientific advisors. And they were actually, there are screenshots of these documents where they actually clearly say we're going to use fear to getting people to comply, we need to up the fear. Just Psychological operations is what it is.
It's psyops.
Speaker 0: I mean, it's the yeah. To to lead children down this path to terrify them, it's, you know, like lifelong trauma. They'll never they'll perhaps never recover from it. I guess let's turn to the great Barrington Declaration. This became, like, really a lightning rod.
Why do you think that the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration were treated so aggressively? And and what did that tell you about how dissent was being managed, you know, and and voices were being silenced and people were being shut down? What is the Great Barrington Declaration?
Speaker 1: So the Great Barrington Declaration, we have the co authors of that. So basically it was Doctor. Jay Bhattacharya, Doctor Martin Kaldoff and Doctor Suneetra Gupta and they met at Great Barrington, a town called Great Barrington in The US and essentially they agreed these sort of key scientists that they wanted to basically say like, lockdowns is a really horrible idea, we should just focus about protecting the elderly, But anybody healthy young can should just go about their business because they believed in herd immunity, right, which is a complete scientific. And they so they were the first of as they came up with it, were the co authors of it. And they got other medical professionals and scientists to sign this document and agreement.
And I think millions of people signed it. And these three scientists were really demonized very early on. And we have an email again in my book, I've got this email from Francis Collins, who was leading the NIH at the time saying, what are we gonna do about these three fringe epidemiologists? And basically like these fringe, And we had I know, like, for example, Martin Kaldorf had to leave his position at Harvard University. He was forced to leave.
And, I mean, all of them were demonized. They were they all faced intense backlash from doing that. And you have the media at the time, jumping on the bandwagon of these these people are gonna kill the great Barrington declaration. It's like people are gonna die. You know, these are so it's a dangerous theory.
Yeah. So they were all deemed, yeah, very dangerous to society, like almost like terrorists really for advocating not locking down and just protecting the elderly.
Speaker 0: You mentioned PCR tests earlier and I can't help but think, it infuriates me and we've had Doctor. Pierre Corre on many, many times. He's to your point about ivermectin and other protocols, he wrote, you know, the book, The War on Ivermectin. He says of, obviously, the you know, these shots these shots would be pulled off the shelves immediately. That's also what, you know, doctor Peter McCullough, good friend of the show, has also said many, many times.
And yet they're still there, and there are television commercials during, you know, NFL games and so forth. And you see John Legend going to get his flu shot and also getting his COVID shot with his little Band Aid on his shoulder and Travis Kelce. And the promotions in The United States are still ongoing. And the same with, I imagine, the PCR test. So I wanna kinda go back to you mentioned the PCR tests and how flawed they were.
Like, the rapid testing, are we still using those in order to determine whether or not you have COVID or something else right now they're still being used?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, these were billion dollar procurement scandals that I sort of exposed in my book. And I mean, it's nothing more than a big, I I see it as big scam, it really is. And it's to perpetuate this idea of like, well, they used it, we know, to just prolong locking down. And, yeah, there
Speaker 0: And the government bought them. The government was like, hey, the United States government, you could call go to this website and have them shipped to your house. So the government was paying billions in this massive, like, money laundering scheme is what it really at the heart of it.
Speaker 1: Exactly. So so I talk a lot about that, and I highlight Innova Medical Group as one of the companies, and the umbrella group is Pesaca Capital by enigmatic Charles Huang from and who was from Wuhan actually, Charles Huang. And so you have mean, it's if you again, going back to the timeline, because again, dates don't lie, right? It's when things happen, you can unravel a lot. And for some reason, Innova was the sort of first, you know, the first horse to, you know, like the first out of the box kind of thing.
They were the ones who were buying. This before even the pandemic was declared. They were founded just at that time and they were going all in on these tests. And it happened to be the one that the UK government through the NHS, this is our National Health Service, they only used Innova when there were lots of dozens others who were which were more validated that they weren't as flawed, but they went with Innova Medical Group from this California startup buying these Chinese made tests. And literally we had the FDA.
I mean, I wrote that, that was based on an original report I wrote at the time in 2021. And it was actually at the time I started writing on Innova and these lateral flow tests before the FDA made their announcement that The US public need to throw them in the rubbish because they're so bad. And that was like, I'd already written part one of my report. So part two was based on, oh my goodness. So they're not even, you know, and you have the UK government going all in and doubling down and just billions and billions going.
So these are called the VIP lanes. So it's that, you know, this is a huge scandal of UK, these VIP lanes where certain companies got special treatment and being, you know, got really good hefty procurement contracts all at The UK taxpayers expense.
Speaker 0: Yeah. One big boondoggle. I'm you know, it's curious how this company sort of just gets suddenly founded, pops up out of nowhere, secures these massive government contracts. It's I mean, it reminds me of what we're seeing right now with, like, on polymarket where these people are making millions of dollars betting on that The United States is about to attack Iran or whatever, and they have some sort in insider information about what's about to unfold that, you know, you could examine this and say that's why it's clear that this was all planned. Alright.
I guess at the end of the day, are you are you willing to say, or are you willing to say that this was planned?
Speaker 1: I would say there's so there's the evidence. What the evidence tells us is that this was a coordinated this wasn't just a normal, you know, to a health event crisis. It was this it there's there's too many things that going on where it's like, it's a coordinated effort for a global reset. And I believe my last chapter talks about the rise of global authoritarianism that we are seeing across the West. And I believe COVID was used as a pretext to bring in this sort of global, this sort of biosecurity state.
You've got this expansion of digital IDs, which very hot topic now, digital IDs. And that is in accordance with agenda 20 because of the UN's agenda 2030s sustainable development goals 16.9, which mandates universal legal identity by 2030. And then you have The UK's and then you've got entrenched in laws, you have The UK's Online Safety Act and the EU's Digital Services Act. So this is the landscape we are right in. We have all these laws put in under the guise for our safety, right?
And it's all to do with justifying surveillance and control. Clayton, I believe at the core of this is control. Yeah. Is more and more control and it's surveillance and it's really frightening.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, it's terrifying. I want everyone to read the book of course, but I'll just sort of get you out of here on this Sonya which is, do you think we've learned our lesson?
Speaker 1: Well, this is another reason why I wrote the book, Clayton. I wanted to document this. I wanted to chronicle it. I wanted to do it for for humanity because I believe that knowledge and truth is the antidote for this, for the next global crisis reset, whatever it is, or the next pandemic. If people know the truth, if they have the knowledge, then that is more powerful than when you know the truth and you know what's going on, it doesn't make you afraid.
It makes you really aware of what's going on. It's empowering. It's empowering. Exactly. And really, that was the main aim of writing this book.
Speaker 0: Right. When we can see their roadmap, we can see their plan. When we have a document now we have your book, which is really the perfect catalog of this event. And then we know their game plan. You know, it's like a coach it's like it's like a coach having the game plan of the other coach on the other team, going in going into the game so that we don't fall for this again.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: To to to you know, they can try all they want. It's not gonna work. I mean, you know, people are gonna go into lockdowns again in this way. I mean, I'm sure there would be people, but I think we're great work by you and others here that have laid it all out. I don't think we're ever gonna do that again, but they'll try in other ways.
You know, they'll of course, they'll try it in other ways, and, you know, we'll see if they're successful or not. But as they've mentioned, this is a this was a trial run. Right? I mean, it was so detrimental and we've had people on the record saying this was really a trial run.
Speaker 1: I see it as almost a stress test to see how much they would get they could get away with, how much people could comply. It was a stress test.
Speaker 0: They did a remarkable job. They got away with a lot. Unbelievable. Oh, boy. The book is called three eleven.
You've got to everyone, please go check it out right now and let's put it back up here on the screen for everyone. Three eleven, the viral takeover. I'm just gonna read the subtitles. I love the subtitle. On 03/11/2020, a pandemic was declared and our world was changed forever.
Again, go buy the book, buy an extra copy, donate it to your library. This is their road map so that this never happens again. Sonya, great to see you. Thank you for the incredible work on this. Five years in the making.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. And I really appreciate you inviting me on to interview me on this book. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
☢️ Agenda 2030 was never about poverty or hunger. It was always about controlling how you live, eat, travel, and own property. The Iran war didn't pause it. If anything, it accelerated it. This is the conversation they don't want happening right now. https://t.co/SVaBoUzLk1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Clayton opens by arguing that Agenda 2030, far from fading, is expanding its reach, reshaping how people live—from diet to travel to property ownership—and potentially enabling population management. He notes that the UN-led initiative, rolled out in 2015, promised poverty reduction, better health, education, equality, DEI, and a move toward a one-world framework. Critics feel Agenda 2030 has advanced globalist control rather than peace and prosperity, pointing to ideas like “you’ll own nothing” and a shift to digital systems and 15-minute cities as signs of a new control grid. Yet Clayton emphasizes that one component deserves more attention: agriculture. He says policies tied to Agenda 2030 allegedly promised safer, less chemical-intensive farming, reduced hazardous chemicals, and sustainable food production, but evidence from the FAO suggests the opposite approach is taking hold.
Clayton cites FAO data: total global agricultural pesticide use in 2023 reached 3,730,000 tons of active ingredients, a 14% increase from a decade earlier, with pesticide use intensity over two pounds per acre. He notes the public assumption of a shift toward organic or safer practices, but asserts that the trend shows greater chemical dependence. He highlights a global database that found pesticide use rose about 20% over the prior decade. He questions why, despite sustainability rhetoric, agriculture appears more chemically reliant, and asks where insects have gone, recalling memories of decades past when windshields and ecosystems bore heavy insect presence.
A sudden executive order is discussed as shifting protections toward Bayer and Monsanto in glyphosate production, despite glyphosate’s associations with cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. The main justification cited is protecting American manufacturing, but Clayton challenges this rationale, suggesting a conflict between public health goals and policy moves that appear to favor industry.
Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to unpack these policies further. She agrees Agenda 2030 marches forward regardless of administration and notes the confusion around current policy directions. Bright explains that farmers have become dependent on pesticides for decades to achieve high yields, which has degraded soils and reduced beneficial soil microbiota, leaving crops and ecosystems more vulnerable to pests. She argues that glyphosate and other pesticides are harmful to health, but she sees a potential silver lining in domestic manufacturing: reducing dependence on foreign glyphosate production could be a step toward reform.
Bright emphasizes the broader environmental and health harms of pesticides, noting that pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, can damage DNA, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and cognitive function. She argues that pesticides contribute to rising cancer and chronic diseases and may target vulnerable populations, including older adults. She asserts that while glyphosate is problematic, it is not necessarily the most toxic pesticide in use; chlorpyrifos, for instance, has severe health impacts and remains widely used, sometimes through regulatory back-and-forth (ban and unban).
The conversation turns to the gut-brain axis and the microbiome. Bright explains that 90% of serotonin is produced in the microbiome and that the gut communicates with the brain via the vagus nerve. A healthy gut microbiome supports nutrient uptake, immune function, mood, and cognitive health; conversely, a depleted soil microbiome leads to a depleted gut microbiome, compromising health and potentially contributing to conditions like dementia. She links environmental exposure to pesticides with neurocognitive risks and argues that antibiotic overuse harms gut microbiota, necessitating mindful approaches to food sources and farming practices.
They discuss kimchi as a potent dietary intervention. Bright cites studies showing kimchi degrades chlorpyrifos during fermentation (83% by day three, complete by day nine) and that kimchi’s probiotic, prebiotic, and postbiotic components offer multi-pathway gut, immune, and cognitive benefits. She claims daily kimchi consumption yields significant health improvements, including improved memory function, anti-aging effects, and cardiovascular benefits. The discussion then covers the superiority of a diverse, multi-strain microbial ecosystem over high-CFU probiotic pills.
Bright notes that Kimchi One provides a convenient daily option, though the broader point remains: daily gut health supports brain health, and a healthy microbiome is central to resilience against pervasive environmental and dietary challenges.
In closing, Clayton reiterates Agenda 2030’s ongoing influence and the need for personal responsibility in protecting health and soils. Bright encourages proactive steps, including dietary choices and awareness of food sources, while highlighting kimchi’s potential as part of a broader strategy to support gut health and overall well-being.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, just when you thought maybe agenda 2030 was dead in the water, not so fast. In fact, maybe stronger than ever. Agenda 2030 made go down as one of the most sweeping and dramatic attempts to reshape human life in modern history. We're not talking about a few minor policy changes around the edges. We're talking about a full scale transformation of how people live, how people eat, how people travel, work, own property, ultimately, how populations are managed and controlled.
Is the Iran war, like, a major piece of this new control grid? It's hard to say. Well, the most important part of this is that it's not some far off plan sitting on a shelf somewhere. It's already underway massively. Much more of it is still coming.
So buckle up. For those who may not already know, Agenda twenty thirty was rolled out by the United Nations in 2015, presented as a coordinated global mission to tackle issues like poverty and hunger. That's how they presented it to us, while also promoting good health. Right? Don't eat meat.
Eat fake plant based garbage. Get quality education. Who who's telling us, like, what quality education? Like, who's going to provide that education? Really?
Equality. Right? It's all about equality. DEI, a whole list of other, like, lofty utopian sounding goals. One world government, essentially.
But despite the sweeping promises that were made at the start, the evidence that has emerged since then has led many people to believe it's already done far more to advance with some are calling the new world order and the broader glow goals of globalist control than to deliver the peace and prosperity that it was supposed to bring in. And over the past several years, more and more details about what critics believe is the real agenda have continued to surface. The push towards a one world government. The end of private property. They don't want you to own anything.
Right? You'll own nothing. And they love that. Everything is moving to digital, so you don't own any sort of physical media. You won't own property anymore.
Then you have the rise of the fifteen minute cities, which is happening in real time, designed in a way that many fear would make populations easier to monitor, to manage, to control. We've already seen these fifteen minute cities rolling out in England. We've covered it on our show. And even signs pointing to what some believe is a full scale depopulation program. Now while all of those concerns are serious and impossible to ignore, one part of agenda twenty thirty that has not gotten nearly enough attention, and in some cases, has been almost completely ignored, is the effect it's had on agriculture and how the policies tied to it appear to have taken us in the exact opposite direction from what people were promised.
Because agenda twenty thirty didn't just claim it would help end hunger. It also made major promises about protecting the integrity of the food supply, reducing harmful effects of what ends up on our plates at dinnertime. The agenda claimed it would move the world towards safer agriculture, less toxic exposure, get us away from all those harmful pesticides, stronger control over hazardous chemicals, and sustainable development goals. You can see that most clearly in target 3.9, which calls for a major reduction in deaths and illness caused by hazardous chemicals and pollution. And in target 12.4 in the document, which calls for environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste throughout their full life cycle by 2030.
And then when you pair that with target 2.4 on sustainable food production, the message seemed clear. Agriculture was supposed to become more productive without making us even more dependent on harmful chemical inputs. But the actual evidence points in the opposite direction. The latest figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization show that at total agriculture pesticide use in '2 in 2023 reached 3,730,000 tons of active ingredients. That's 14% higher than it was a decade ago.
Oh, but we're all eating organic food. Everything's natural now. So that's roughly double what it was in 1990. And keep in mind, that's only what is officially being reported because the FAO also shows pesticide use intensity at more than two pounds per acre of cropland in 2023. Again, this is three years ago.
That's significantly higher than it was ten years earlier. You think it's gone down since then? And that tells us the problem isn't just that more land is being farmed. It shows that there's actually a deeper and growing chemical dependence built into the system itself. Another widely cited global database study found that pesticide use increased by around 20% over the previous decade.
So despite all of this language about sustainability that came out of agenda 2030, the reality on the ground is that agriculture has continued moving steadily towards greater chemical dependence, not less. And what about all the insects, by the way? Like, where'd they go? We had Dave Wiggington on recently, and he said, do you ever notice when you're driving? Remember the nineties you would drive and your car windshield would be covered in bugs at the end of the night in the summertime?
Like, that was constant. My little 1989 Ford Escort that I used to drive with my friends and blast Tom Petty music in the summertime, it was covered in mosquitoes and bugs. Not anymore. Where'd they all go? So you have these, like, direct contradictions, the gap between what was promised, what was actually what has actually happened that are driving more and more people to conclude that agenda 2030 has not protected us at all from dangerous chemicals, but may have actually accelerated the pesticide use and the spread.
It's how this works. Then came a sudden shift that left a lot of people scratching their heads. A recent issued executive order. I mean, this was made us furious here at Redacted. It sparked major backlash from the MAHA movement.
Like, wait a minute. This is exact opposite of the MAHA movement. The order taken by the administration appeared to give added protection to Bayer and Monsanto in its production of, glysophate, the key ingredient in Roundup despite the mounting evidence and large numbers of lawsuits tied to
Speaker 1: glass
Speaker 0: glysophate. It's linked to higher risk of cancer, Alzheimer's disease. Watch this.
Speaker 2: Fifty years ago, Monsanto invented something that would change the world forever.
Speaker 3: Roundup. No root, no weed, no problem.
Speaker 2: Roundup was more than just a good weed killer.
Speaker 1: We've been using the weed killer for decades, but now it's at the center of a billion dollar health scandal.
Speaker 2: Did Roundup weed killer cause a man to get cancer?
Speaker 3: There's many, many diseases that are linked to glyphosate exposure.
Speaker 0: My doctor, he goes, You know, I think this is all due to Roundup.
Speaker 2: What made Roundup so effective was the chemical glyphosate that, thanks to Monsanto, has become the most popular pesticide in the world and now one that's linked to cancer.
Speaker 1: My patient's dying just so their shareholders can make a few more bucks, just so their CEO can get a bonus.
Speaker 2: Despite its links to cancer, Roundup is still a billion dollar business. So how exactly did Monsanto pull this off?
Speaker 1: There was an intentional effort to deceive that took place over many, many decades.
Speaker 2: And now, Mons anto has a new owner, a billion dollar pharmaceutical firm. And together, they're working on a way to keep selling Roundup no matter the cost.
Speaker 0: So more glyphosate in our systems. Now the main justification for this move was that it was necessary to protect American manufacturing, support domestic production. But for a lot of people, myself included, something about that explanation, of course, doesn't sit right at all. Because if the stated goal all along has been better health, safer food, less exposure to these dangerous chemicals, then why are we suddenly watching government policy move in the opposite direction? Like, why is the Trump administration supporting more of this in our soil?
So today, I wanted to bring on Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, back on the show to help us sort through these controversial decisions. Kim has been fighting this cabal for nearly fifty years. Hopefully, she can help us make sense of what we're seeing and, maybe what's lingering here beneath the surface. Kim, great to see you. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Well, great to be back. Thanks for having me. You know, Clayton, I remember when Natalie was interviewing a reporter a couple months ago, and they were speaking about the 2030 agenda. And he said something that really stuck deeply in my mind, that the agenda marches forward regardless of the administration and who is in power. And, you know, I hate to say it, but man, he's right about that.
But here's the deal, you know, these guys like to cause chaos and confusion and they're sure doing that. And I'm as confused as everyone else about some of the things going on right now. I mean, for instance, the farmers that, you know, they were talking about in that clip, there isn't another option right now that allows us to continue to produce enough food agriculturally to feed everyone without making a transition first because we've been dependent. They made the farmers dependent on these pesticides, for what, close to now over a half century. And, so we're talking about they did it for the quantity of food that could be produced, not the quality of it, But now they're so dependent on it, and they've they've basically killed everything in the soils.
And so the any bugs that are out there, yeah, there's less bugs, I think, because they've been killed off too. But any of those bugs now, you know, they're gonna they're gonna attack the the weakened plants even more. And the other thing is, you know, there's no doubt that glyphosate and other pesticides are totally bad for our health. But one positive, I try and find a positive somehow in this, is that we are taking away the manufacturing of this from other countries because the number one producer of glyphosate worldwide is China. And before this executive order, Bayer Monsanto produced the majority of glyphosate in Germany.
But I think gaining control of manufacturing will allow us to wane off dependence on this dangerous chemical. Plus a lot of other things have to change too to get us to get that soil healthy again. It's it's not gonna happen overnight. But people still have to eat something, and and that's just the gist of it. But, you know, at the end of the day, regardless of who's producing it, we're it's still poison.
Speaker 0: And and I wanna Can you Yeah.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: I'm just curious that the poison part of this, like I mean, it's unbelievable to me. Like, I I lived around, like, a small lake in Pennsylvania, and they would tell us in the HOA documents because they knew how detrimental it was to the water supply and the lake, to the fish and everything else. Like, do not use Roundup to spray your driveway or whatever, you know, in your because it would run off right into this into this lake. And it would have a detrimental effect on the fish and the whole ecosystem. It was in the homeowners association documents.
You weren't allowed to use Roundup specifically labeled this, and this is, like, twenty years ago. So we know like, we know that this is a poison, but how bad is glyphosate? Like, what exactly is it doing to us?
Speaker 1: Well, it's first of all, it's destroying the the microorganisms in the soil, and that's what allows the the plants to uptake nutrients. But it's also, it's destroying that microbiome, but it's also going into our body and destroying our microbiome. It's destroying our good bacteria that do so many things in our body that I'll get to a little bit later. But, know, Clayton, it's been known. And so it's been, it's just been keeping in use because there's lots of money involved.
And when you can keep people, make people sicker and sicker on this stuff and poison them more, well, guess what? Medical community, they make a lot of money. All these guys, big pharma, we've talked about this before, they're all working in collusion together. And, you know, the thing is, it's not just glyphosate, Clayton, It's pesticides also that are far worse than glyphosate. And they're still being used.
I don't Did you ever read Silent Spring?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Oh my God, what's her name?
Speaker 1: I can't think of it now. I'm having a break. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I read it I read it in college, Silent Spring, of course, and it was all about the DDT and the Bald Eagles. Oh, my gosh. It's Philip insets and everything.
Speaker 1: I mean, It's just it's Rachel Carlson. Rachel Carlson. That's it. Rachel Carlson. Carlson.
Sorry. Rachel Carlson. Carlson. Rachel Carlson. Yeah.
No. It's been going on for so long, and and they're still using pesticides that are far worse than glyphosate. And I find it very interesting too that, even though all of this has has been shown to us in our health as it it's it's not good for us, there are thousands of lawsuits, that are against the glyphosate concerning the glyphosate, but virtually there's no lawsuits against these other pesticides that are proven to be more harmful. And some of these pesticides have even been used as in warfare, as nerve agents, and they're wreaking havoc on our health, especially, I think for older Americans, which leads me to believe, Clayton, that glyphosate, despite being unquestionably bad for our health, is far from being the most toxic pesticide that we're being exposed to.
Speaker 0: So it's kinda like they're like the boogeyman, like life is just like the boogeyman, but there's like far there's many, many other pesticides that are maybe even far worse. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's just what they're adept at. It's like, look over here, but don't look at what here what we're doing here. Oh, look over here. You know that whole thing, how they So, work all you know, there's so much mounting evidence that pesticides are being used as part of, of course, the deliberate population control program, which we know they all, you know, the bad guys want. And that's increasing our risk of cancer and other chronic diseases.
But it's not just that. They're actually, these pesticides are actually attacking our cognitive abilities in a way that could be nothing less than intentional targeting. And what I'm talking about here, Clayton, is problems with our memory, higher rates of dementia and Parkinson's disease. I mean, just a few days ago, Robert Mueller just passed away and he was dealing with years of Parkinson's. These things affect our mood, they give us anxiety, depression, because our body's not, it's suppressing the good guys in our body and aiding and abetting the bad guys.
It's raising our risk for other chronic diseases like heart disease and asthma and diabetes and cancer. But again, back to 2030, the whole Agenda 2030. I think that, you know, for those who simply see Agenda 2,030 as a scheme for depopulation, I think they're missing out on how just how intricate and detailed some of these attacks are. I don't think the goal is simply depopulation. I think they wanna depopulate and disarm those that have the presence of mind and know how to fight back.
I mean, everything about how this agenda is played out indicates that they want to target older, wiser individuals first. And I think it could be for a variety of reasons. I believe that it's because the younger generations have already been conditioned to comply for the most part. So they're not having that tendency to resist. Some are, but, you know, a majority of people that are younger aren't.
And I think even being aware that something's very wrong in in what we're dealing with every day, it eludes them. And I think these these the bad guys, they want a generation, the new generation that's made up of those TikTok robots. Syncing they seek instant gratification, and they wanna populate these fifteen minute cities with people who are incapable of recognizing what's truly going on in the injustices and essentially the people that are too naive to think for themselves. So, you know, if you become fixated solely on that it's deep on depopulation, I think you're missing the point because they can target the population most apt to resist without killing them, but robbing them of their cognitive facilities and mental stability.
Speaker 0: I mean, this dementia thing is a huge piece of it. I've been seeing studies over the past week, actually. I was away for for a little bit, over the weekend, and I was reading a study about dementia, and I couldn't believe the explosion of it. I mean, because, you know, in Alzheimer's and everything else, but like, why are we seeing I think it was like what was that number? Like a three hundred and seventy three percent increase in dementia among thirty to forty four year olds?
Like, what?
Speaker 1: It's staggering. Staggering. And then it's a a three hundred and eleven percent increase in forty five to fifty four year olds. You never heard about these age groups No. Having dementia before.
I mean, this is this is this is significant.
Speaker 0: And Do you believe that it's environmental? I mean, it's gotta be. I mean, where else is it coming from?
Speaker 1: It's definitely environmental because if you if you look at the bigger picture environmentally, you know, they're spraying this our skies with the chemtrails and the aluminum and everything that's in that, and it comes down and it and it's killing off our healthy soils. Our our soils are struggling. The plants then struggle. The animals that eat the plants, including humans, are struggling. You know, it's definitely environmental.
The waters are polluted, everything. And, you know, so going back to, you know, the dementia and Alzheimer's, I mean, mental issues, health issues also have shown a significant consistent increase over the past two to three decades, Clayton, with a sharp acceleration around 2009 to 2015. But, at the same time, the overall pesticide consumption rose by approximately 58% over the two decades leading up to 2015 with a consistent trend, an upward trend in that same time range. But
Speaker 0: But no one's willing to call that out. I mean, that seems to be a pretty obvious core like right? I mean, the same time, we see a massive increase in the amount of pesticide use around the same timeframe, and then we see this massive skyrocketing of dementia?
Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. And that's, you know, keep in mind, it's all pre COVID and pre vaccine, which isn't to say that that vaccine, the COVID vaccine didn't play a role in it as well. I think it certainly has, but the ultimate point is that there isn't any one thing really. It's all of these things that are being used by those who are really in control to gain more and more power for their agenda.
They're they're they're trying to reduce us down to to nothing. And and, you know, we're gonna be happy with no property. We're gonna be happy with no health. We're gonna be happy with nothing. And so, you know, raising awareness is a huge part of the battle that we're in, and it truly is a battle.
But my mission has been for the past fifty years to not only bring awareness to these problems, but also help educate people about what we can actively do as individuals to to try and protect ourselves against this craziness. So
Speaker 0: what can we do to actually protect ourselves from all of this?
Speaker 1: Well, first and foremost, I think, you know, people trusted for so long, Clayton, that if it was on a grocery shelf or, you know, anywhere, food, whether it was ultra processed or whatever, it's okay to eat, because otherwise it wouldn't be there. But you have to now be very careful and selective about what you're eating. Thank goodness RFK Jr. Came in and started exposing this on a grand level about, you know, ultra processed foods. You gotta pay attention to the sourcing of your food, and eat organic whenever possible.
Try and go out to, you know, find farmers that are growing organically or regenerative, farming and support them and and stop just for the don't get used to the convenience of supermarket food because you don't know where it came from. So try and be more selective and, you know, if possible. And prevention, of course, is always the first step, but it's far from enough. You know, a lot of people, they picture pesticides as something that just sits on top of, you know, the outside of the produce, like a dusty layer that they can just take home and rinse off with water. But let me tell you, those pesticides are really interesting because, you know, you need more than water to rinse the things off that just sit on the outside, but a lot of them actually will soak in and move through the plant's tissues.
So you're eating a plant that is inundated with these pesticides. I mean, think about how a plant drinks water through its roots and it sends it up to the leaves and the fruit and certain pesticides that hitches a ride in that same system, And it ends up inside what you're actually going to eat. Now, are others that'll stay on the surface and cling to that skin and the leaves after spraying, but there are others also like, you know, they spray with the GMO corn and it floats down the road and infects other organic cornfields down the road. Well, that's what I
Speaker 0: was gonna ask you. Like, we talk about organic. It's like I remember when I lived in Montana, there was big concerns, like you'd have certain farms and ranches that didn't want they really wanted to make sure that whatever was being sprayed on that ranch wouldn't just be windswept and blow right into the other ranchers. And so they had to deal with this, and they wouldn't they would discover and by the way, they would even be sued by Mansanto because they would know, like, certain seeds that were Monsanto seeds, Roundup protective seeds were flowing into other people's farms. And, like, I didn't plant this.
It flew from that other farm, and now you're suing me because I have a Monsanto seed that I didn't pay for? Like so how do you even I mean, there's really no way to keep this stuff away from these other farms, sadly, it seems.
Speaker 1: It's really tough. I mean, it even goes into the irrigation water, and it shows up where you least expect it. Yeah. I remember those days. They used to send around people to go take samples of other people's, farm, stuffs that they were growing in order to sue them.
The people how are
Speaker 0: you able
Speaker 1: to do with those.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's trespassing. Like, you have Monsanto, like, lawyers, like, snooping around farms stealing seeds so they can, like, scan it and see if it's a Monsanto seed or not, like a Roundup, you know, protective seed. It's unbelievable. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It is crazy. I mean, you know, but it just people have to understand that these pesticides have leached their way into our soil on a global scale. So even if you're following strict organic diets, you're you're not gonna avoid the rapidly accelerating eventual exposure. And some of these pesticides we're talking about have been proven to be more toxic, as I said earlier, than glyphosate, and perhaps the most damaging and widely used pesticide now is called chlorpyrifus, and it's causing severe damage to our DNA, our cardiovascular, our respiratory systems, and unequaled level of damage to our cognition and brain health. And I just want people to understand that when it comes to our brain, when it comes to all these other areas of our body and organs, the first line of defense is our gut.
Speaker 0: So how can you maybe explain a little bit more? I mean, I know this from years ago, but it's certainly the science on it has expanded dramatically. I mean, going back to the days when I would interview Doctor. David Perlmutter, and he was exposing this brain gut health relationship and Alzheimer's. And he was, like, kinda getting vilified for his this was, like, twenty years ago for his, like, brain gut health relationship.
Maybe can you explain, how your gut health impacts your brain health and maybe leading to this dementia problem?
Speaker 1: Sure. I mean, we have what's like this highway from our gut to our brain. It's our vagus nerve. And they communicate along this highway. And all aspects of our cognitive health, whether it's early onset Alzheimer's or other neurological disorders or our mood, are determined by the health of our gut because our brain chemistry originates in our microbiome and then travels up that highway through the vagus nerve.
That is called our gut brain axis. And it involves nerves and hormones and immune signals where they're constantly sending messages affecting our mood, our digestion, our stress levels, know, even our cognitive function. And the microbes play a significant role in this crosstalk. I mean, if you can think of your gut as your second brain that talks to your actual brain, it's influencing everything from anxiety to appetite. And the gut doesn't only affect our brain, it affects all areas of our body.
Now, how it does this is the gut, when we have, it's just kind of like, if people can think with, if you have a sick soil and it has been robbed of its beneficial bacteria that help a plant, a seed, when you put that seed in that soil, it needs the good microbes there in order for that seed to be able to grow and uptake nutrients and elements that eventually come into our food supply that then we eat. And what happens is when we take food that is loaded up with good bacteria, we're able to then have that in our body. But if we're uptaking food that is lacking nutrients, is lacking enzymes because it's been created in almost dead soil, pesticide rich soil, our gut microbiome is going to be sick too. You have a sick soil microbiome, you're gonna have a sick gut microbiome. And what does that mean?
That means that we've got viruses that come in and replace the good bacteria. We have fungus that comes in. We have parasites that come in and thrive in our gut. And when that happens, the gut cannot naturally make things like serotonin, our happy hormone. It can't make that in the gut.
That's where it originates. 80% of our immune system's in our gut and our immune system weakens just like the immune system of the plants. They have a, not quite like our immune system, but they have an immune system where they have these protective elements that they pass on to us that aren't there if they're being grown in this depleted soil. So if people can really understand that when we are eating food that is is made from from, a soil that's been depleted, our gut's depleted, and it cannot make and produce the, hormones. It cannot, make and produce the hormones that are gonna affect our mood, that then ultimately affect give us anxiety.
It can't, manufacture the things that's needed to break down bile. So then our blood fills up with fat, and then we have high cholesterol, and then we have heart problems. And then we have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. All this starts and originates in our gut, and we can't think straight. We get foggy brain, we get Alzheimer's, we get dementia because that whole communication system that goes from our gut to our brain, the gut to our liver, the gut to our skin, even we start seeing all kinds of things happening on our skin.
It all comes back to that healthy microbiome.
Speaker 0: It's remarkable. And I think you I know that FDA Commissioner, Doctor. Marty Makari was recently talking about how serotonin is made in the gut. And so all of it connected. I guess we have this clip.
I wanna play this here. Take a look.
Speaker 3: We also know that the microbiome is producing things central to health. It makes vitamins. It makes clotting factors. It makes serotonin, which is involved in mood. 90% of your body's serotonin is made in the microbiome.
What's happening when we alter the microbiome in the modern world? Antibiotics can carpet bomb parts of the microbiome resulting in overgrowth of one type of bacteria. And a study out of the Mayo Clinic that was recently published showed that kids who took antibiotics in the first two years of life had a higher rate of chronic diseases from allergic rhinitis to obesity compared to kids who did not have exposure in the first two years. Why is that? Well, it may be because their microbiome has been altered.
Now the average two year old has already received over two courses of antibiotics in their brief two years, sometimes in the first day of life just as a precaution. And we're now trying to have better antibiotic stewardship.
Speaker 0: That's crazy to me because, you know, you're just destroying that entire population of the good bacteria in your gut biome with these with these, antibiotics. And I've I just saw a study last week actually about how now it can take up to two years to remedy that. If you wipe it out with some sort of an antibiotic, you get the flu or whatever, you know, and they they give this thing to you and you get it can take up to two years to fully build it back again.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you have to know what you're doing to build it back because so many people, if you keep eating, you know, ultra processed foods and everything, it's it's gonna you're not giving your body what it needs to rebuild. And think about it, Clayton. How many people got cesarean deliveries? How many people, didn't get fed breast milk?
All of that aids in a bets of baby's microbiome. And if they if they don't have that, their immune system is so reduced when they came in. So we're dealing with all kinds of attacks from all sides. And then when doctors are targeting brain disease, they will prescribe medications in an effort to directly target the brain. They forget, or they might intentionally do it about, you know, addressing a root cause.
They're treating symptoms instead of curing the problem. And you're going to find the root cause of problems in the brain, just like most other areas of the body, within the gut microbiome because of that balance of good and bad bacteria. And taking proactive steps to protect yourself is as essential, if not more, than simply avoiding pesticides, which you almost can't do this day. And so I got very excited, Clayton. I found this study called Kimchi degrades chlorpyrifus with, you know, the most intense pesticide that we're using, the most damaging, and it accounts for 40% of total global pesticide usage.
And it's far more dangerous, as I said, than glyphosate. And this study that I found showed that kimchi actually degrades it during fermentation. 83% of this pesticide was degraded by day three. And by day nine, it was degraded completely.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: And just so people know, they actually banned this pesticide completely in 2021. And then they came back and unbanned its use in 2023. So what in the world is going on here? They're clearly playing a game.
Speaker 0: They banned it and then they unband it. And then they unband it.
Speaker 1: They're using glyphosate as a misdirector here, you know? And it's crazy, but the study goes on to show how kimchi's gut protective properties provide us the best protection from toxins in our food supply. And there's so many studies out there, Clayton, that are showing the remarkable ability of kimchi to positively impact not only our brain, but every area of our health.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Like, cognitive and memory functions as well. And if you would talk about the, you know, the dementia piece of this. Right? Here's this study as well on the cognitive and memory functions.
What are we looking at here?
Speaker 1: Well, you're looking at, that the bioactive compounds that are existing in kimchi, that it improves the cognitive memory functions impaired by amyloid beta. Now, is amyloid beta? That's the key marker of Alzheimer's disease. And then the cancer preventative potential of kimchi with the lactic acid bacteria. And there was another study that showed eating kimchi every day for twelve weeks, and that's key, eat it every day, can do far more than improve your gut health.
It can actually train your immune system to fight smarter. And there was another study that I found that regarded anti aging effects of kimchi. It actually slowed the aging of human cells. And then another study showed the ability to improve heart health and prevent hypertension. And another study I read reduced the body fat by 31.8% by eating kimchi every day.
Can you believe that?
Speaker 0: I I need that. I need that. I've put on a little weight after the holidays. But, it's remarkable because when you look at when you look at kimchi and you think about, okay, I've got to eat all this fermented food, but do I need to eat it on a daily basis? Like, how often are people needing to eat this?
And how and how and what sort of a dosage can people get it and and and and lead to this, change in their body?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, where kimchi originated was Korea, and they eat it over there every single day, sometimes at every single meal. And so there's a reason why all this evidence exists about kimchi and not other probiotic supplements or other fermented foods. I mean, there are people that are taking typical probiotic supplements out there, but I kind of consider them like a one note solution. Whereas kimchi, what it does is it provides a complex microbial symphony, if you will, wrapped in protective fiber delivery system that ensures that the good guys actually arrive alive down to our gut. And it's more like a full ecosystem package because it has the 900 unique strains of probiotics.
And it's naturally bringing prebiotics, which is the plant fibers and compounds that are found in some of its ingredients, the cabbage, the garlic, the onions, etcetera, that will feed the beneficial bacteria. And in postbiotics, the helpful compounds that those bacteria are producing during fermentation, you know, like organic acids and bioactive metabolites, that combination matters because the probiotics often struggle to colonize or even to survive if the gut environment is not supportive. So kimchi has all those things that help create the supportive environment and delivers ready made microbial byproducts that can interact with the gut lining and immune system right away. And in practice, that means that kimchi can offer a more reliable multi pathway benefit than let's say your typical probiotic pill. You know, if people are taking that typical probiotic supplement, you're likely also only getting a few different strains of bacteria, but a high CFU count.
While billions of CFU counts makes for great marketing, focusing solely on the quantity of bacteria is kind of like judging a military strength by the number of soldiers while ignoring their specialized training. So if you look in the complex landscape of the human microbial diversity is number one key. It's a far more accurate predictor of health than raw CFU counts. And this resilient gut that we wanna build isn't built by a massive population of identical strains, which is what I'm talking about in the probiotic supplements, but by a varied community that can adapt and defend and perform a wide array of metabolic tasks.
Speaker 0: So I guess, like, is this something that we would need to take on a daily basis? I mean, I take, you know, I take kimchi every day. I certainly try to eat it as much as possible, try to always eat it with meat. And if I don't, I try to take supplements, obviously. But how often do we have to take this in order to like build this up?
Speaker 1: Well, in every single research paper that I've read, and I've read thousands, they take it every day. And in order to reap all the health benefits of kimchi, I believe it needs to be consumed on a daily basis, which is why we decided to create, Kimchi One. So we could put all the remarkable benefits of kimchi in a convenient capsule form, which people are used to taking. I mean, the studies, you know, show that people, especially Americans that aren't used to this type of food may not eat it every day. But I wanna say one thing, when it's in a capsule, most Americans are used to taking it that way.
But if you look at the studies, the studies are great, but nothing compares, Clayton, to hearing directly from the people that have used Kimchi One and have benefited from being able to take it every day. And we have thousands of stories, but I'd like to share just a couple. We had a lady who's from Tulsa. Her name is Jennifer, and she called in and ordered the Kimchi One. She started giving it to her mother who was experiencing things like brain fog and her memory was getting worse.
And she experienced a night and day difference when she started taking the Kimchi One every day. And again, that's because our gut health affects other areas of our health, like our brain, like we've been talking about. And another great success story we've had is, and I felt so sorry for this woman because what she went through was so horrible. It was truly horrible. She's 64, her name is Nancy, and she was dealing with terrible anxiety and depression for decades.
And she couldn't identify the reason and didn't, she didn't want to take prescription drugs and then get on that, you know, wheel where she's stuck in taking them for the rest of her life. So she started taking Kimchi One and she saw an incredible uplift in her mood and energy levels. And now she's happy, you know, that serotonin's being manufactured in her gut and it's all great. But there's countless stories about improved digestion, regularity, stronger immune systems, and people who are suffering from a variety of symptoms and couldn't identify the cause are finally feeling better. And again, you're right.
The key is daily consumption. And having it in the capsules makes it so much easier to stay consistent and actually realize all these health benefits. So kimchi once made here in The United States, all natural, non GMO.
Speaker 0: I take it every day. Like I said, I take two two with me every day, and, I I absolutely love it. So, and now all the you know, every member of my family is taking it as well. And even my I got my father-in-law now to to start taking it. He was, dealing with some of that brain fog, and he's been trying to reverse that.
So, fantastic. So, I know you have a special offer for our viewers. Can you tell us about if people want to order kimchi one and have it delivered to their house?
Speaker 1: Yes. You know, I I just wanna say, like, there's so much chaos going in the world right now. It's easy to have everybody just throw their hands up and and and say, give up. But, you know, you can take proactive steps. So take don't take those steps to protect yourself and your family and society as a whole against things like agenda 2,030.
I mean, when we when we stop fighting the battle is when all hope is lost. So let's, you know, get our guts healthy as a beginning point, and let's, let's help you take this important step. We wanna do that by, offering you 25% off of your order of Kimchi One today by clicking the link below and using the code redacted. Or for an even better deal, call us for up to 50% off and free shipping. And that number is 8884046312.
And we love you to call. We're, you know, I've been educating for over fifty years now, people. We love having you call in. We like to answer your questions and talk to you and make sure that you feel good about this product and you understand how it's gonna work for you and that it's the right product for you. And every person that calls to order, we're going to give you a free bottle of our Thrive.
And Thrive is a curcumin turmeric complex that combats inflammation, boosts your brain function, and even promotes liver health. So remember, you're only gonna get the best discounts and that free bottle of Thrive when you call (888) 404-6312.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I love what you guys do, which is, hey, I we just wanna talk to you on the phone. And if you call us, we'll give you 50% off. If you just wanna use the website, we'll give you 25% off. But we wanna actually develop a relationship with you.
And, it's so funny. Your team because I I buy it separately. I, you know, order it and have it sent to my house. And I eat it I take it every day as part of my supplement stack, so does my wife. And your team called, like, few weeks later just to see how everything was going.
They had no idea who I was. Like, they were not aware that I you know, like and they just were like, you just wanna check-in, see how you're how you're liking everything. And so it's like, wow, that's like such an anachronistic thing. Like an American company that wants to actually have a conversation with you.
Speaker 1: So rare these days. Right? We actually care. It's like the neighbor next door, you know, you could have a conversation. How are you doing?
How's it going? Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's amazing. Well, thank you, Kim, for this. We'll be watching Agenda twenty thirty. You know, it's crazy with Agenda twenty thirty because, oh, I think a lot of people thought that it was dead. Right?
We haven't been hearing about it. It was something under the Biden administration era, you know, these globalists in the EU and the World Health Organization and Klaus Schwab, and it's it's still here. It's still here, and these globalists are running the show.
Speaker 1: Yep. Sorry to say you are correct. You are correct. And we have to just step up to the plate and take more responsibility for what we can and starting with our own bodies. We we can do that.
And, you know, hopefully be a voice out there to, to stop these crazies before it's too late.
Speaker 0: And to be sort of self sustaining in our own way and our own families if we can. It has to start at home, I guess. Kim, great to see you. We'll have links in the description if people wanna take advantage of that. Thank you for this, and thank you for this deep dive on all these pesticides that are currently part of this agenda.
We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Well, you're welcome, and thank you for what you do, you and Natalie.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Kim.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🔥 UNLEASH HELL. That's Trump's plan. But Col. @DougAMacgregor and Col. @DanielLDavis1 say we've already fired everything we have. 13 US bases destroyed. Missiles running low. Marines about to land in a killbox. This is not a war we are winning. https://t.co/Dn5j8yDxrG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on current Middle East troop deployments, strategic calculations, and the potential paths the conflict could take. The hosts discuss publicly reported moves, including the eighty second Airborne Division being deployed, Green Berets from the seventh group transferred to the eighty second, and some from the seventh special forces unit moved to the tenth special forces unit in the European sector. They also note President Trump’s behavior as a factor in timing, mentioning “Friday evenings when the markets are closed” and suggesting that the last round of attacks began in Tel Aviv around 2 AM in Tel Aviv time.
Douglas MacGregor and Daniel Davis, both retired military officers, are invited for a deeper analysis. MacGregor begins by describing what he sees as a potentially limited, not game-changing force buildup, arguing that there are enough forces to “control much of Los Angeles, if that’s what we need to do,” but not a significant commitment that would alter the war’s outcome. He contends Trump faces “the very real probability of total humiliation” at home and abroad, given the credibility of his rhetoric about defeating Iran. He flags plans for a “war winning offensive,” comparing it to Market Garden in September 1944, suggesting the U.S. would seek to secure bridges to advance into Germany, but asserts Market Garden failed and warns Iran’s capabilities—“precision guided weapons,” the ability to reach out almost a thousand miles, and persistent surveillance—could blunt any light infantry insertions into the Persian Gulf, including Kharg Island and other Hormuz Strait locations. He criticizes the notion of a rapid success and argues that Iran could respond effectively, potentially leading to regional chaos and European spillover if the operation succeeds or fails.
Daniel Davis responds by highlighting a recent Trump True Social posting indicating a pause in “energy plant destruction” for ten additional days, implying ongoing talks are “very well.” He notes the tension between Trump’s statements about having destroyed Iran and the visible Iranian activity, including multiple rounds of missiles and rockets against Israel. Davis emphasizes the danger of underestimating Iran’s capabilities and warns that the plan resembles a poorly resourced, improvised operation lacking sufficient rehearsal, equipment, and planning. He likens the approach to a history of ill-fated offensives and stresses that even if a withdrawal or pause is intended as an off-ramp, the plan remains risky and potentially disastrous.
The discussion broadens to consider strategic and economic consequences. MacGregor points out that England and Australia may face energy and refinery shortages, while Russia benefits economically from higher oil prices due to the Strait of Hormuz disruption. He notes a developing global crisis in food, fuel, fertilizer, and feed, with a potential impact on India and broader Asia-Europe markets. He questions the effectiveness and purpose of seizing a small number of offshore islands versus maintaining control of sea lanes, warning that Iran’s defenses and surveillance make landings highly challenging. Davis adds that the Israeli military is reportedly near collapse from within, requiring new conscription or reserve laws, and that Israel’s internal stability is a crucial factor in the broader campaign.
Both analysts discuss the Pentagon’s options for escalation, including potential ground troops, and reflect on the possibility of a “final blow” that would give Trump leverage to declare victory. They acknowledge Iran’s mobilization claims (up to a million fighters) and Iranian reliance on alternate supply chains, including China’s manufacturing capacity, to replenish munitions. They consider the risk of a broader, multi-theater conflict, including potential reactions from Russia and China, and the possibility of a strategic miscalculation leading to wider war or even nuclear consideration if the situation deteriorates.
Super chats bring additional questions about the potential American draft and the reactions of Russia and China. Dan Davis argues a draft would be domestic disaster and unlikely to alter outcomes; MacGregor adds that the volunteer force has structural limitations and may not sustain extended campaigns. They discuss how China and Russia might respond—potentially urging restraint or seeking to avert a broader catastrophe—while stressing that the ultimate decisions lie with President Trump, and that the pause and escalating bombardment may reflect a struggle to maintain momentum and resource constraints.
In closing, the hosts emphasize the uncertain and high-stakes nature of the unfolding situation: contested troop deployments, debated strategic aims, and significant international economic and political repercussions as the conflict evolves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We wanna look at what's going on right now in The Middle East with these troop deployments. As I mentioned, just a short time ago, and I will do it again, we're getting word about what special forces have been sent to the region. And I wanna kinda give you an update what I just heard just a short time ago, That the eighty second Airborne Division unit being deployed, that has been reported publicly. I can also tell you according to our sources that Green Berets from the seventh group, the GSB battalion, who also got transferred to the eighty second airborne division are also headed to the region. Also, some in the seventh special forces unit that got transferred to the tenth special forces unit, which is in charge of the European sector.
All of this unfolding. Of course, president Trump to start wars on Friday evenings when the markets are closed because his, I don't know, his personality is tied to what the stock market is doing. And so when it's crashing, he doesn't like that. So Friday nights into 2AM in Tel Aviv time is when the last round of attacks started this war. Sirens going off in Tel Aviv at 2AM.
Are we likely to see US troops landing at that time? I do wanna bring in now colonel Douglas MacGregor, colonel Daniel Davis, to have a deep dive discussion. No pun intended, colonel Davis, the host of the, the name of your show, about these troop deployments and where we see things going. Welcome to both of you on this Thursday.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Very glad to be here.
Speaker 0: Thanks, colonel. Oh, I think colonel's muted. Is colonel colonel Douglas and Doug, are you muted?
Speaker 2: Are are you want me to start?
Speaker 0: No. No. I just wanted to say hello.
Speaker 2: Oh, here.
Speaker 0: Just hello.
Speaker 2: I was sitting quietly on a log here. Way to be told.
Speaker 0: Don't I don't I don't I don't boss any of you guys around. I just listen. I listen intently. So, when you look at these latest troop deployments and what we're hearing and not hearing, what stands out to you? Me Let start with you, Doug.
Where do you see what what are you seeing of the last few hours that really, maybe, you know, makes your hair stand up on end?
Speaker 2: My hair normally doesn't stand up on end no matter what happens. But I think we have enough forces to probably control much of Los Angeles, if that's what we need to do. I don't think this is a significant commitment of any kind that is going to change the outcome of the war. I think what's important for people to understand is that president Trump right now faces the very real probability of total humiliation. Humiliation at home and humiliation overseas.
Because all of his talk and bombast about destroying, defeating, subduing Iran, and wielding the, you know, righteous saber of justice, namely the US Armed Forces against the evil bullets, all that crap is gonna go away. People And are gonna say, what are you doing? What have you done? And I think what we're getting ready to do right now is launch what we call historically a so called war winning offensive. And this reminds me a lot of Market Garden in September 1944, where we decided that, you know, if we could secure some bridges, we were home free, we could march into Germany, and the whole war would be over by Christmas.
There were considerably more troops and assets involved, but as we all know, it failed miserably. And I think what they're doing right now is they're going back over all of the target lists that they have attacked in the past. They're revisiting all of those, looking at all of satellite photography, any new intelligence that they can get. They're replenishing the stocks of exotic munitions, joint attack service to service missiles, all kinds of other weapons, with the goal of launching probably sometime in Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, somewhere in there, a nonstop ninety six hour sort of polarization of everything in Iran. And while this is going on, I think they're going to try and find a way to insert the light infantry into the Persian Gulf, into these islands, islands in the Strait Of Hormuz, there are a couple of them, and of course the famous Kharg Island.
Now, what's the problem with all of this? Well, once again, we're the World War two force reenacting World War two, and the Iranians are not in World War two. They're in World War three, and World War three is very different. Everything that happens, they can see. They have constant, uninterrupted, persistent surveillance of the entire area.
They also have precision guided weapons. Everything is precision guided, missiles, drones, whatever. And they can reach out almost a thousand miles with these weapons and attack very effectively. And we don't have, at the moment, inside the Persian Gulf, the means to protect those marines and and paratroopers if we use them. And I don't know how they get from wherever they start to to be in a position to do very much, because once again, the Iranians can see everything.
And then it's simply a decision of how long do they wait before they target us. And if they try to fly in in b 20 twos or u h sixties helicopters, well, they're gonna fly low presumably. And everything under 15,000 feet can be acquired and effectively attacked by Iranian air defenses. So, I I think this is a dumb idea. I don't think it'll work, but I could be wrong.
And it could be enormously successful, in which case then you get the complete disintegration of Iranian society and the state and chaos across the region that'll spill all the way into Europe.
Speaker 0: Colonel Davis, Colonel MacGregor brings up the allied operations operation Market Garden. Others have suggested this could turn into World War One Gallipoli disaster, trying to, you know, unseat the Ottoman Empire, really, and wind up in a bloodbath. Where do you see it? And anything you agree with, disagree with what Doug just said?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the interesting thing, first of all, this is a this in thirty minutes ago on Trump True Social, we were all worried about what might be happening this weekend because the deadline that he extended from the, the ultimatum was supposed to have expired tomorrow. And he just now says as per Iranian government request, please let this statement serve as a represent that I am pausing the period of energy plant destruction by ten additional days to Monday, April 6 at 8PM eastern time. Talks are ongoing, and despite erroneous statements to the contrary by fake news media and others, they are going very well. So, I mean, I mean, yeah, the the part of the issue is, man, how do you take anything president Trump says at face value?
Whether that's earlier today where he said, again, they're already completely destroyed. They are they hardly have any missiles and drones left, and they are definitely wanting to negotiate. At the same time, foreign minister Arakshi repeated again on state television with all these images on the side of the camera of all these people around the country celebrating and and supporting their their country and their government. So he obviously has their support is is the point being of that. And then as president Trump was making that statement, you had Trey Yinx on Fox News with all the sirens in the background.
He's wearing his Kevlar helmet. As he said, the tenth barrage from Iran today was in the process of being landed. That was even before dark. Who knows how many they may get later tonight? But I mean, every physical thing you can see shows that Iran is very far from a defeated foe.
And in fact, they have their hand around the the the Strait Of Hormuz and therefore, 20% of the global oil supply, also the natural gas, and also the fertilizers and all the other feedstocks that are necessary to feed a good portion of the globe. So they are definitely in the driver's seat here. When you think that you're gonna go in with a few troops here and there and have a spot, Doug said they're about Market Garden. That's exactly what I was thinking. The same kind of thing and Gallipoli.
I've shown both of those on the show earlier today, in fact, about how the similarities are and the difficulties, and and we don't even have as many assets. Also had somebody on from the British Navy, a retired Commodore who took place in an in an a ground operation in the Falklands War where he said he was part of a a battle group that got smaller number of people ashore and trying to do the same kind of thing. And he said they lost four ships in the process. That's back then. That was before you had a lot of missiles and drones and all this other kind of stuff, and even that was more difficulty.
Every one of these operations that Doug was talking about in here, they all come with a pretty high price tag, and that's if you have it thought out well, and there's a plausible military prep hope that it's gonna succeed. This doesn't have that. This is one of those to me. Doug, you say whatever you think. To me, this looks like it's just flying by the seat of your pants, figure stuff out on the fly, and say, throwing something to the wall and see if it'll stick.
It's not been resourced. It's not been rehearsed. It's not been equipped and this just has disaster written all over it and I pray that this statement here about, you know, we're gonna wait ten days. Hopefully, that's not just for the energy, but it's trying to find an off ramp here. I really hope that's the case.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go ahead, Doug. Do you wanna respond to that? Hope you're muted. Is that on our side?
Speaker 1: No. It's on our side.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. It's on Doug's side.
Speaker 2: Oh, he muted. He's automatically muting me. It must be Anyway Go ahead. Let's look at a couple of other data points that I think we need to take into consideration. England, that is Great Britain, is just about out of oil.
They figure that in two weeks they'll be completely out of oil. Have a similar situation, by the way, in Australia. And I was amazed to discover that Australia doesn't have a single refinery. So that country could come to a complete screeching halt in the very near future. You have to look at the impact on India.
They have millions of people lined up at the gas pump trying to buy refined gasoline. The only one that seems to be doing really well at this point is Russia. Russia is making an additional $250,000,000 per day on top of what it was already earning every single day. So, while the commercial the Strait Of Hormuz bleeds commercial traffic, Russian oil becomes more and more valuable. And if you look at Asia and Europe, and now I think we're seeing this begin to get into North Africa and perhaps other parts of Africa, there is a food, fuel, fertilizer, and feed crisis developing.
In other words, the financial economic consequences are building, such that if Trump cannot declare victory very soon, the rest of the world is going to come down on him very hard and say, stop. The war is killing us. So that's the first thing. And then when you look at these these islands that are targeted, the question you have to ask is, assuming you could get there, what do they do for you? Invasion or blockade of Karg Island?
Alright. Go ahead and do that. What difference is it going to make? That's not the only place where oil can be shipped out by Iran. And if you do this, if you go in in great strength into the Persian Gulf, that shuts the movement down, excuse me, of vessels through the straits to zero.
Right now, it's dropped off by about 95%. So, the 5% that are getting through, tankers headed to India, tankers headed to Japan, tankers headed to China, they'll be stopped as well. Now, has a substantial reserve of oil. Many months left. That's not the case with most everybody else.
So I think the the whole idea right now is, yes, they want a war winning offensive. Can they do it from the air? Is is an attack inside The Gulf gonna do any good? And if they do these things, what else are they going to hit? Are they gonna hit desalinization plants and power plants in Iran?
In which case, everything on the other side of The Gulf, up and down on the Eastern side or excuse me, Western side, is gonna be destroyed. And it'll take decades to recover from this kind of damage. I I just think a lot of people in Washington are disconnected from reality right now. Most of all, the Pentagon and the president.
Speaker 0: I'll throw this out to both of you, colonels. The Pentagon, according to Dave DeCamp writing commenting on Axios reporting this afternoon, the Pentagon is developing options for a potential major escalation against Iran that could involve ground troops. US officials and other sources speaking to Axios reporter Barak, Ravid, former IDF intelligence officer described the potential escalation as, quote, a final blow that would give Trump more leverage in room to declare victory. Though all indications are that Iran is ready to face ground forces and that any such operation would prolong the war. We heard from the Iranian, reports today from Iran saying that that they are mobilizing upwards of 1,000,000 fighters for potential ground war according to, Iranian sources and also being reported by Al Jazeera.
So, colonel Davis, final blow that would give Trump more leverage. But I'm confused because Trump in the past few days has been telling us that this war is over, that we've won, and that any discussion around that is fake news. So why would we have to have an invasion and a final blow if the war is already over? And I'm I'm just confused.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. And this just goes on to show that just the disconnected from reality, that president Trump is. And by the way, I wanted to add this one other data point that Doug just mentioned here. Is the Iran conflict is endangering Taiwan semiconductor industry by throttling supply of vital materials such as helium, aluminum, and bromine and crucially energy as Iran backed shipping routes jeopardize over a third of Taiwan's Guatari liquefied natural gas which they need to make these threats. So you're talking about there's also a near term threat to even to the semiconductor industry.
This is just having tentacles all over the global economy, not just the fact of the of the global, the oil itself. So that's putting pressure literally all over the world that Doug was talking about on president Trump to get this over with. And I think that the allure of having, let's go in with one big blow here and it's gonna win it. I'll just tell you, there is no one big blow that you can level. We fired 10,000 strikes so far of everything that we have and I'm talking bunker busters, these big ones, you know, jazzums, the Tomahawks, you name it.
We've been firing everything and it obviously, it's now almost background noise for the Iranians. They they have figured out how to endure this and they could go on probably indefinitely like this. So, the only thing that you could theoretically do is bring in a tactical nuclear weapon and god help us all if that's the case. If Trump has some idea that he's going to have a big once and for all kind of thing, I don't even know what else you can bring in that's even theoretically could bring in one final blow because there is nothing. You've already attacked everything and now we're attacking things multiple times in some cases.
And so I I don't know what they're talking about. There's no conventional answer for that. I'll just tell you. But the pressure on president Trump to get this over with fast is about to start striking big time here at home, in The Middle East, in Europe, and, of course, now you see also in Asia. So this is a disaster of epic proportions.
It's unfolding before our eyes, and you can understand why president Trump is desperate to get this over with, and that may lead to desperate actions that have even less chance of success. And I worry a lot about what could be coming.
Speaker 0: Doug, the I get you to respond to that. I I think you're spot on. But where would these troops do you think be landing? There's lots of speculation. You mentioned Carg Island.
We've had other people say, Conorock, which is a port, a port area there. And then Benjamin Netanyahu today released a video where it looks like the backdrop behind him is Kanarok, as if sort of like telegraphing or as a faint behind him in his background that, you know, almost like the the deception before the Normandy landings. You know, we're we're gonna try to everyone thinks you're gonna land at Calais because it's close, you know, it's as close to The UK as possible. And then you get Monty out there parading parading around looking like he's about to lead this invasion across Calais, and then it happens at the Normandy Beaches. Right?
All of this deception was happening. But when you look at the Strait Of Hormuz, like, how much deception can there actually be? I mean, you've got Kuwait, but you've got eyes and ears everywhere.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the bottom line. Deception, I think, is an impossibility. That doesn't mean that the Iranians have to be everywhere at once. They just have to have numerous weapon systems within range of any of the potential targets, and that's what they've got. They can sit a 150 kilometers inside Iran from north to south, and they can take under fire very effectively any of the potential targets that we've mentioned.
The the question is, first of all, if you're the if you're in the Marines, you've got to come ashore. How are you going to do that? Are you going to fly directly from your amphibious carriers or perhaps from, you know, the the Navy's carriers, fly from there to some point on land? Do you do you then get out and reorganize and get ready to go and then fly further? I mean, this is a very complex operation.
There's not as Dan said, there's not much time to get ready for it. So I'm hopeful that as we progress in the days ahead, that we can avoid the whole thing altogether. Now, that may not be possible. But here's another data point. This just came into me.
This is from channel thirteen in Israel. It was originally in Hebrew. It was translated for me. And it says, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force warned last night in a cabinet meeting, the Israeli army is on the verge of collapse from within. I'm raising 10 red flags, Zamir added.
The army now needs a conscription law, a reserve law, and a law to extend mandatory service. The reserves will not hold up. He said these things in front of the prime minister, heads of the security apparatus, and ministers. So I think we have to understand that the nation for which we're fighting, which is really Israel, is a real problem. They they've got an enormous problem on their hands.
And I I don't know how they're gonna solve their problems, but we can't solve that problem for them, what what happens internally. So bottom line is, I think the whole thing has reached strategic inflection point. And they're they have to make a decision pretty quickly because of the economic circumstances as to what they're going to do next. And the notion initially is going to be double down. Keep doing something which has failed thus far in the hopes that it will produce success.
I think that's where we're headed. I don't think it's gonna produce success.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask both of you. We have some super chats come in for some questions here. The German rabbit asks this question. Clayton asked asked the colonels how the Russians and the Chinese would react to an American draft mobilization. We saw the increase, obviously, in the enlistment age in The United States.
But maybe take that question and then also just the the Chinese Russian piece of this story we heard from president Putin today saying that what we are about to see from an energy perspective is going to be worse than COVID than the Russians saying that that Europe, The UK will be begging Russia for oil and natural gas. We heard that from Dmitryev, a diplomat from Russia. So first on just the, the draft question. Dan, you wanna take that one?
Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah. Look. That I I think that would be just domestic disaster. Just try and have a draft.
I mean, I I think that they have extended the ages here because I I think that there are those in the Pentagon and apparently the White House that are saying, hey, if this thing goes south, this war here, I I mean, we could just get sucked in and we may need more people. We better start getting them right now and so, you want to try to do that, you know, quietly if you can by just allowing more people to come in and join by extending the agency. That's not going to work. Number one, I doubt there are very many people that are in that age that are also qualified and desire to come in and and if you you go into a a draft situation, I mean, there's a reason why we got rid of the draft that got us out of Vietnam War and why they went to the all professional military and why we've used it so easily since that way because you affect such a small portion of the population but if you now start going back into that to where you're now pulling these, you know, kids from all over the country who have no interest in or desire to serve and force them into a ward that they don't, you're going have a revolt on your hands.
I I truly believe that. I I don't think it would work anymore. I think if that day has passed unless we had a Pearl Harbor type thing where somebody attacked us out of nowhere. And then and then even then, it wouldn't be, I don't think, the reaction because our population isn't the same as it was in 1941. So I don't think we would react the same way, but there would be plenty, there would be a number of people that would do that to, you know, to take care of the country but not this.
Not a war of choice that we went into. The the only reason you're doing a draft is because you ignored everybody's advice that had any sense like Doug McGregor and you went down this path because he was saying even on my own show several times for months ahead of this, what a disaster this would be and it's unfolding unfolding just like he said and in some ways even worse and people would see that then and they're going go, no, I'm not going to like the you know, send my son or daughter into death here. I mean, we're not gonna do that. So I I think that, if you get to that point, you're gonna have a revolt on your hand.
Speaker 0: Of course, likely not to have another Pearl Harbor because now with alternative media and our show, I know I would would be immediately out there saying, oh, did the president know about this ahead of time and allow this to happen just like Pearl Harbor? False fight? Like, we I think, you know, 1941 looks a lot different now with alternative media. I think you would have a disaster on your hands. Doug, what do you think?
On the draft question and Russia, China in all of this.
Speaker 2: Well, first on the draft question, we went to a volunteer army and it had the same impact as going off the gold standard. Once we went off the gold standard, we could print as much money as we wanted and use it any way we wanted to. There was no longer any accountability. There was no longer a need to raise taxes to pay for military operations. Right.
So that's effectively why we went to the volunteer army, and everybody in Washington loves that. So I see no evidence that they're gonna try and draft anybody, because I think Dan's absolutely right. And I can just see that Baron Cameron and Lutnick's children and Whitkoff's sons, and let's just go down the list, Kushner's. I can see them all rushing to go fight against Iran for greater Israel. I don't think so.
I'd be very surprised. Right. So I don't see I don't see a draft coming at all. Now then there's the other thing. The Chinese and the Russians have been watching this in disbelief.
Everybody thinks, well, they are our enemies. Okay. Most of them would just like to do business with the rest of the world, and they're not interested in going to war with us. And I think they view our thinking as incredibly stupid. They can't believe we're doing the things that we're doing.
But what they will do if we continue down this road and there's no no evidence whatsoever that we're willing to get off, you will have, both Moscow and Beijing will try first to talk directly to president Trump, And they'll they'll say, look, this has got to stop for the sake of the world, for the world economy, for everybody. We don't want Iran to collapse. If you're trying to destroy Iran and you succeed, millions and millions of refugees will pour over the border into Turkey, into Syria, into Iraq. Eventually, they'll find their way to Europe. This is a catastrophe, so we don't want this to happen.
You know, I don't think that we'll get that far, but I'm sure that that's on the minds of both Putin And, I I even think the German chancellor, as deranged as he is, is capable of understanding the implications of that along with Macron. And I think that's why they both said forget it. We're not gonna participate in this crazy war. But in the final analysis, all of this, unfortunately, rests with Donald Trump. And, if he can't find a way to declare victory, then he's gonna face a very difficult time in Washington DC.
This could actually force him out of office. And since everything with him is mortgaged to vanity, I worry a great deal about what Dan mentioned, which is the possibility that somebody says, we'll use a tactical nuclear weapon. And we all know what that means. You use a tactical nuclear weapon, which doesn't it's a misnomer. It doesn't exist.
Then others who have nuclear weapons are immediately on alert, and there's a real danger of everybody getting involved. So I hope that doesn't happen.
Speaker 0: Got another super chat here.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Clayton. I'm and sorry. Let me I I wanna one thing I wanna add to that. Sorry, I had a problem with my camera there. Quick move.
Speaker 2: No worries.
Speaker 1: This you talk about China and Russia. There's one thing that hasn't gotten enough focus yet. I'm sure it'll get that way as time goes on. But there's a there's a real problem that is developing that that China and Russia are definitely paying attention to. And that is when President Trump and and a lot of people have been saying forever.
America is the most powerful military history, a country in the history of the world. No one else is even close. Trump says that all
Speaker 2: the time.
Speaker 1: And now that they see, we can't even bring Iran to its heels. And and we can't we don't have enough ammunition to defend against Iranian missiles. And and we don't have enough offensive missiles to to do anything that's going to bring them to their heels. I promise you. China's going, okay, if we were worried about United States like in a Taiwan scenario or something like that, I think that their fear of us has gone way down their recognition that the paucity of our industrial capacity, how we're the few amount of missiles we have, the technical limitations of the interceptor missiles, whether that's PAC three or THAAD.
I think that they're looking at their production rates and their storage rates and they're like, when we can saturate anything you got and you're keeping your ships far away from Iran and from they don't even have a navy effectively. We've we've destroyed their surface combatants. They still have the speed boats and they're a big danger to us despite what we claim but in terms of a of a even a blue a brown or blue water navy, they they don't have that. China does and and I think the same thing with the Russians are saying, hey, man. If we had to fight you on on the European soil somewhere, I I think that their confidence and their capabilities, it went even higher than it already was, which was pretty high.
We are exposing that we are not this incredible military machine. And in fact, we're a lot weaker than people thought no matter what the president says.
Speaker 0: Oh, for sure. I couldn't agree more with you, and I believe Doug agrees with you 100% on that. Here's a question. Here's a question from Blueskin. It says, do you guys think that the military would recall veterans even if they're outside their IRR time?
Speaker 2: It's been done before. I think so. A lot of people, they retire or leave the service, they fill out a form and the form says, if there's a national emergency or there's a requirement, are you willing to come back and serve? And most people sign that and say yes. So I think it's I I think they could do a lot of things to bring more people back.
But it's not the answer. It's not gonna change the outcome. This is not a function of how many men under arms you've got. The the very from conception or inception to where we are now is a disaster. It's never been carefully thought through.
All of the underlying assumptions were always flawed, because we mirror image. We assume that the enemy, whoever it is, always thinks like us. That's never the case. We impute things to the Chinese, to the Russians, we did it to the Germans, the Japanese. It doesn't work.
The other thing is that we prefer assumptions we like over the evidence. Instead of digging hard and saying, where's the evidence for this assumption, we say, yeah, I I believe that. That's good. Let's go with that. And then finally, there's this tragic, tragic predisposition to dismiss the possibility that it won't work.
And then then what do you do? How do you get out of it? I mean, if we put all these troops out there and I know it's only 10,000, still a lot of American manpower in uniform that could be spread across the Persian Gulf and these various islands and places. If it all falls apart, how do we get them out? How besides that, how do you how do you ensure they have water?
How do you replenish the ammunition? I mean, all of this kind of stuff. I just don't think anybody started all through.
Speaker 1: Dan. Let let me piggyback off of that. Yeah. Please. Because the great example of that well, one of the points Doug just made about that we we are operating on the our preference.
This is what we would prefer. This is the outcome we'd like to have and then even if the evidence isn't there and we certainly don't do any research for it. We just go with it because that's what we want to do. Lindsey Graham has been talking about this a lot by saying, hey, you know, we can take Cargillan. She he was seen on, I think it CBS News over the weekend.
I think it was and they said, hey, look, this Atlantic Journal here says, there's a lot of problems going into Cargan. It was a pretty good military assessment of the challenges and he goes, yeah, I don't care what that Monday morning armchair colonel says or whoever that was. I believe in the US marines and they can do Iwo Jima and they can definitely do this and I and I about fell out of my chair because I'm like, dude, the difference between Iwo Jima and Carga Island is about as different as not as from day and he either doesn't know, doesn't care to know, or doesn't wanna find out just like that's what I want to be true, so it is. And Trump listens to guys like this. And then Keith Kellogg, oh my god.
His advice here lately is, yeah, we'll just roll up the the Persian Gulf with, a couple of marine ships there in the the Boxer and the Tripoli. And, yeah, we'll just take the first part, and then we'll motor on up to the next part. Like, it's no problem. And I'm like, my god. If these are the men that are advising president Trump, no wonder we're making so many bad mistakes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And a point that, Doug, you've been making for a long time is, like, you know, we have this 1945 style military that's still built for like a, you know, like a World War two military. So we're gonna just roll in more aircraft carriers and that's gonna work. You saw what happened with USS, you know, Gerald Ford. So that's what we're gonna do.
Just have, we're gonna be permanently stationed there just off the coast of the Island Of Hormuz, just making sure that ships are going through and the Iranians won't attack those ships. It's it's it's madness.
Speaker 2: It it it really is madness. The other thing that disturbs me, we got people like Lindsey Graham. Nineteen thousand marines died in the Pacific seizing islands. Nobody knows that. You know, I don't think he understands what that means.
Frankly, not all of those islands, by the way, needed to be seized. That's another tragedy. And 58,000 airmen died in the eighth Air Force trying to penetrate German air defenses. Now what I'm trying to get across is how many ballistic missiles does it take to achieve what I would call mass casualties? If you put 3,000, 4,000 men on a particular island, and you can pepper the island with these ballistic missiles, how many of them will be killed?
That's
Speaker 1: the
Speaker 2: whole point. And and what are we asking them to die for? What what gives us an assurance that seizing a particular rock in the Persian Gulf is suddenly going to prompt the complete opening and abandonment of the Straits Of Hormuz by the Iranians? Well, there's nothing that will do that. And by the way, if you used a tactical nuclear weapon and you think at that point the Iranians would throw on the towel, I've got news for you.
I think the opposite would happen. I think they'd be working tirelessly to hurl a nuclear weapon back in our faces as soon as they could develop one or receive one from someone else. So I I just don't see anything positive emerging from this succession of events that we're witnessing. We this has been wrongheaded from the beginning. And this was something that I think Donald Trump knew he was going to have to do when he was elected because of the people that paid for his election.
Speaker 0: Guys, I'll get you out of here in just a minute. I wanted to have you maybe talk you mentioned it briefly, Doug, just on the Americans killed number. We had, doctor Trita Parsi on the show yesterday who learned that within twenty four hours of this outbreak, they had classified the number of casualties. And he made the point that you don't classify casualty numbers if you're happy about those casualty numbers. The the numbers of American dead, American wounded have been very tight lipped from the Pentagon.
What are you hearing maybe from your sources or what's your assessment? Do you believe the official number that they're telling us? Dan, first to you.
Speaker 2: No. But then again, I don't I don't much I don't believe much of what comes out of the government.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and, you know, I mean, the unfortunately, I mean, like like I said a minute ago, while president Trump has talked about how he has destroyed Iran and they don't even have the ability to launch missiles or drones as he's speaking. A tenth round was falling on Israel at the moment, so I don't trust a single thing that comes out of them. We've seen the Iranians have claimed, and they did again this afternoon, they said there's over five hundred Americans killed and think like eighteen hundred wounded or so. Certainly don't take that at face value either, and it could certainly be for domestic cases to make their people feel better.
I don't trust a single thing out there, but man, with all this firepower and when we've had to move out of 13 different bases, according to the New York Times analysis, it just doesn't seem like there's going to be that few casualties. Maybe there is. Maybe we've gotten really lucky. Maybe the defenses have been good. But I trust nothing, unfortunately.
Speaker 0: Dan, you brought up the last question that I just was about to ask both of you, which is the New York Times report on these 13 American bases, which New York Times now says have largely been destroyed. They're uninhabitable. The Iranians yesterday announced that they know that Americans who were stationed there, commanders and soldiers have fled and some of them in hiding or outside of those bases, and they are pursuing them. Their words, pursuing them. In other words, hunting them down, I would assume.
What's your assessment of these American bases in the region? And by the way, they they told us they were going to do this in the same way they told us that the Strait Of Hormuz was going to be shut down. Like, this is somehow news to to the Trump administration that's kinda shocking. But, Doug, first to you on these American bases, this New York Times report.
Speaker 2: Well, initially, they hit 27 of them. So there were 27 bases damaged. Now they're saying that 13 are totally demolished. They've eliminated all of the expensive early warning radars that we had placed in the region. And this has hurt us badly, particularly in Israel, because they don't get the the several minutes of early warning time that they were getting previously.
They're hearing, you know, that you've gotta get into the underground shelters, and you got, like, sixty seconds or a minute and a half to get there. And this is taking its toll in Israel. I I think, you know, the problem is, once again, we we were victims of our own happy rosy scenario. And I don't know how else to put it, Dan. Do you?
Speaker 1: I I don't. And, you know, I mean, we we're at the mercy of what people in the region are reporting because, you know, I hardly can trust anything that's coming out of reporters either. But based on the paucity of our responses, I mean, I think it's pretty likely that there's been a lot of casualties. You know, you've got the the Navy has been moved back, allegedly, somewhere around a thousand miles away from the Iranian shore, so they're not doing anything good. Most of our aircraft, according to reports, I'm getting that we're still doing despite what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said on like the fourth or fifth day, we're now still doing standoff because when we try to do stand in, we have what happened with that F-thirty five the other day.
It gets knocked out of the sky, or the MQ-nine Reapers, they get knocked out, which has also stopped making it more difficult to do targeting because we don't have that persistent stare over there. Every everything that we're using so far is a lot less effective than what it's claimed to be. So, that's why we circle back around. It seems like the casualties are probably gonna be higher, and one wonders if we're ever gonna be told the truth.
Speaker 0: I guess a a final question on Iran's capability, guys, which is you mentioned the 10,000 strikes so far. We've hit them with just about everything. Is Iran still holding back? Do we still have lots of hypersonic missiles? Do we still have lots do they still have this capacity to strike and they've been holding back, in large capacity?
Do we have any sense of how much of their ammunition munitions have been totally destroyed, downgraded?
Speaker 2: Well, my impression is that they have a large number of hypersonic missiles they have yet to fire. That's very clear. They made that clear because they started utilizing older missiles for the purpose of wearing down air and missile defenses, also identifying air and missile defense batteries and radars and so forth. I I don't see any evidence that they're about to run out. If we had believed everything we were told back in 2022, the Russians were running out of missiles and ammunition and tanks and everything else by 2022, and the war was gonna be over.
So again, I go back to Dan. I I'm very skeptical of whatever we're told. And remember that the Iranians had spent have spent at least two plus decades getting ready for exactly this event. So I suspect they they have a lot left over. And frankly, don't underestimate the ability of the Chinese, in particular, which is a giant manufacturing base, to replenish their their losses.
I I think we have to take that in consideration. You know, Luke Grumman was on the other day, one of my favorite people in terms of financial analysis. And he pointed out, you know, the Chinese have said, we can build a thousand rocket motors for cruise missiles in just one day. We're hard pressed to to build 20 or 30 rocket motors in a week. When you when you turn to shipbuilding, it's even worse.
We may build a few ships a year. They can build, you know, 800 to a thousand every year. The Chinese manufacturing capability that lies behind Iran is enormous, and we shouldn't underestimate its ability to resupply Iran.
Speaker 0: That's unbelievable. So, like, you know, we're not marshaling, tens of thousands of Higgins boats on a moment's notice out of New Orleans. Right, Dan?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. That that's that's one of the things I've been, warning about for for decades, really. I in in the the mid two thousands, I was working for the Future Combat Systems Program in Fort Bliss, Texas, which was supposed to have been this future warfare organization that we put together so we would have a leap ahead, etcetera. After winning the Cold War.
And I watched this show incredible incompetence at being able to manage anything. So we were trying to have all these gold plated weapon systems, and literally none of them ever saw the light of day. We never produced anything. And then they they said, well, we're we're cancel that after, I think, six years and $20,000,000,000 worth. And they said, alright.
We're gonna have the ground combat vehicle that, you know, use the technology of this, and we'll get something next. That didn't work. And then they had another one, then another one. And now we're on, I think I think it's literally the fifth iteration since 2003 to have to try to find a a next generation leap ahead combat vehicle. Now what we're doing is just continue to upgrade the M1 from the 1970s technology, for example.
You look at how long it takes us to build a ship, how long it takes us to build I think it's like eighteen months or something to get just even a handful of THAAD interceptors or so, and we have so many high dollar items, and they take so long. They're so complicated and so expensive. You can't get very many of them. Now when you get into a situation like we are in right now to where the majority of our PAC-three interceptors have been used, as long as the Iranians keep going on with this sustained rate of fire, which they've got, you're going to run out of them, and then you're going have to go into some of the older stuff that doesn't work as good, like the PAC-2s, for example, and they're going to be even less capable. If we get into some kind of an unexpected conflict with either Russia or China, North Korea, something like that, we are literally going to be hung out to dry because we can't replace our ships if we lose those.
We can't replace our planes if we lose those. And now then, because we have foolishly chosen a war to use the remainder of our stocks after we gave a bunch to Israel since 2023 and to Ukraine since 2022, we're on E right now. And our industrial capacity is still at snail post pace. So we have put ourselves in a strategic vulnerability that's hard to even imagine, and we just have to hope that there is no Pearl Harbor type moment now because we are going to be in a world of hurt.
Speaker 0: Doug, final question, which is president Trump said, well, the option is unleash hell. They're not gonna end this war. No ceasefire. We're gonna unleash hell on them. But to Dan's point, what do we have left?
What what hell could be unleashed other than using nuclear weapons do we have at our disposal at this stage that we haven't basically run out of?
Speaker 2: Well, there's no shortage of, bluster and bombast and hot air. That's that's clear.
Speaker 1: That's a good point.
Speaker 2: I think, we will try to ratchet up the intensity of the strikes. In other words, more strikes with more munitions, more missiles in a shorter period of time than we have done in the past. And I think that's really what the pause is all about. The pause is also there so that she can get some more missiles and things out to the fleet, and and probably to Germany, and then ultimately down into the region for the Air Force. That's what's going on.
I think that's where we're headed. And I that's that's the only answer they can come up with at this stage. And they're hoping that if they can suppress the enemy long enough, that they can safely get marines and paratroopers into the Persian Gulf to stand on some islands and sort of offer that as evidence for victory. That that's about all I can imagine at this stage, and I think that's where we're headed. I don't think it's gonna change much.
I think things are gonna get worse.
Speaker 1: And and sorry, Clay. Let me jump in real quick. That reminds me of something, Doug, that you told me on our show, maybe a month or so before this war came out, is that I had to ask you, you know, how long with that much combat power that Trump had assembled there, how long could they go before they have to start replenishing? You said, They can probably go about two, maybe three weeks, is what she told me. And now here we are at the three plus week mark, and now here's this ten day pause all of a sudden, because you told me they would have to significantly reduce the rate of fire of these things, because then you've used up what you had stored forward, you're going to have to bring the stuff forward and bring it from other places to include on the ships and in the ground.
I think that's the most likely explanation for this ten day pause.
Speaker 2: I'm glad you explained your question. I was about to say I did not have sex with that woman. I don't know anything about her. I've never met need to specify.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that clarification. He is a soothsayer, by the way. Gentlemen, colonel Daniel Davis, colonel Douglas MacGregor, great to see both of you. Thank you so much for this analysis and this deep dive. This is, one of those interviews that while I'm sitting here trying to ingest all of your your brilliant, analysis, I'm gonna go back and rewatch my own interview, which I almost never do because I wanna go through point by point and take notes actually.
So thanks to both of you for your incredible analysis on all of this. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: My pleasure.
Speaker 2: Good to see you.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Doug. Thanks, Dan.
reSee.it AI Summary
I read that the Strait of Hormuz was open before this war; now fuel lines stretch for hours across Europe, Asia, and Australia. Putin says the damage is worse than COVID, and @HealthRanger warns food and fuel lockdowns are coming to America next. The timeline is weeks, not years.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The Strait of Hormuz was open before this war started. ✅ Now fuel lines stretch for hours across Europe, Asia, & Australia. Putin says the damage is worse than COVID. @HealthRanger says food & fuel lockdowns are coming to America next. The timeline is weeks, not years https://t.co/LR34XSJkf3
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Speaker 0 notes that the United States Postal Service is adding a fuel charge to every package due to fuel cost increases tied to Iran–Israel tensions and says fuel costs have jumped more than 30% since the war began.
- Reuters/Financial Times mention: US inflation to surge to 4.2% on energy shock; OECD warnings. Fuel lines are long worldwide, with coverage of shortages in Slovenia, parts of Europe, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines; some countries have run out of petrol or declared a state of emergency.
- Speaker 1 paraphrases Putin, saying the energy shock from the Iran war is devastating globally, harming global logistic and production chains and the fuel industry. He claims Europe will beg Russia for oil and gas, referencing a pipeline blown up by the United States.
- Mike Adams (Speaker 2, Health Ranger) joins to discuss fuel and food shortages and global impacts. He asserts: energy is the primary driver of affordable food, transportation, and personal freedom; farming is hydrocarbon-intensive due to energy inputs for fertilizer and for planting/harvesting; the Strait of Hormuz constriction worsens scarcity. He argues the Strait was open before the war and that actions against Nord Stream pipelines and the Strait have created energy constraints, predicting severe economic and food shortages until Hormuz reopens.
- Speaker 3 (a senator) is shown commenting on the war costs ($2,000,000,000 daily) and casualties; notes that policy decisions and actions have led to escalating prices and potential long-term impacts on Americans.
- Speaker 4 and Speaker 2 discuss a pattern of energy lockdowns, global shortages, and potential government controls: universal basic income (UBI) tied to digital control via a CBDC, with quotas on food and energy consumption; off-ramps include off-grid solar power and EV adoption. They suggest this could lead to government-delivered food and fuel, and to a broader move toward centralized control.
- The conversation covers the European angle: Putin and the diplomats say Europe may beg Russia for cheap energy as Nord Stream pipelines were disrupted; China–Russia energy deals and Mongolia–Northern China gas transmission are noted as supporting Chinese industry.
- Speaker 4 observes European leadership as having pursued energy restrictions and nuclear shutdowns, calling it “energy suicide” and expressing sympathy for European people, while criticizing their leaders for energy policy.
- Speaker 2 discusses the petrodollar system’s fragility, noting potential shifts as allies and non-allies trade outside the petrodollar; warns of inflationary effects on the U.S. and potential mass selling of U.S. Treasuries by indebted economies like Japan.
- The discussion touches on broader implications: a potential shift toward AI and robotics replacing human labor, with energy scarcity viewed as a driver for social and economic controls; concerns about large-scale power disruptions and rationing, and the possibility of a 10-year horizon for significant changes in labor and energy policy.
- In closing, Mike Adams emphasizes the need for viewers to be informed and distinguishes between differing levels of information sources, inviting continued engagement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For the first time in US history, the United States Postal Service is now adding a fuel charge to every package that you ship because, well, why else? The Iranian war. Fuel costs have jumped more than 30% since Israel's war with Iran broke out. So now they will add this on top of your shipping cost. Imagine how, like, if you're a small business and you're shipping items on a regular basis, you're not Amazon adding on this additional fuel charge on top of that.
Then this morning, the Financial Times reporting US inflation will surge to 4.2 on energy shock, warns the OECD. Fuel lines around the world are getting very long. We've been covering, of course, what's been happening in Slovenia, parts of Europe, Australia, Thailand, The Philippines. It's just getting worse and worse. Many countries have run out of petrol, gasoline, or have declared now a state of emergency.
President Putin of Russia just declared that the energy shock from this Iran war is having a devastating effect around the world just like COVID. Here was his statement just a a short time ago. Watch.
Speaker 1: That is escalating, and it's making more and more significant contribution to the global situation today. And it's dealing a great damage to the global logistic supply chains, production chains, and entire entire industries of the fuel production, fuel refinery. Now our industries are getting these savvy blows, and it's difficult to predict what happens next because of this.
Speaker 0: So Putin also, through his diplomatic team, are issuing a damning message about this war that we are about to face an energy crisis the likes of which we've never seen before. You don't wanna hear that. And that Europe is going to be begging Russia for oil and gas. Too bad one of your pipelines was blown up by the United States government, but here is, Dimitriv. Listen.
So it's really in their hands now. It's amazing how the tables have been turned, isn't it? Mike Adams is the founder of the Brighteon platforms, the health ranger. You might know him on X. I love following Mike on X because he just cuts through all of the BS and gets right to the heart of the matter.
And, Mike, great. Welcome back to the show. One of the areas you've been very focused on, of course, is fuel shortages, food shortages, and what the global impact of all of this is going to look like. Maybe you can just give us your 30,000 foot assessment before we get into more details.
Speaker 2: Okay. Sure. Great to join you again. Love your work. First of all, I would say that every major form of recognized abundance across our world comes from affordable, abundant energy.
So energy is the primary driver of affordable food, which for many people translates into affordable families because you, you know, you have to feed your kids in most countries, right? Hopefully. Also affordable transportation by plane or by car. So it's personal mobility. It's personal freedom.
And food comes from energy. That's what a lot of people don't necessarily realize is how strongly every calorie of food that comes from a farm today is tied to energy inputs. And not just the fertilizer and the urea, which of course you've covered on your show, are now incredibly scarce because of what's happening in the Strait Of Hormuz and with Trump's war on Iran, but also because of the fuel for transportation and and the fuel for the tractors to do the planting and harvesting, etcetera. So food is extremely hydrocarbon intensive. In fact, farming is really more of a rearranging of hydrocarbons with the help of photosynthesis.
That's what farming really is. And a lot of people didn't realize just how devastating this would be when the Strait Of Hormuz is now constricted. And I just want to remind you, I'll turn it back to you, but the Strait Of Hormuz was open before Trump launched this war by choice. So it was open. So not only did The United States, as you said, destroy the Nord Stream pipelines affecting Western Europe and their affordable abundant energy from Russia.
Now, Trump has effectively indirectly closed the Strait Of Hormuz through his actions. And now he's probably desperately trying to figure out how to get it open again, but that's where we are. Until the Strait Of Hormuz reopens, the world will suffer dramatically, economically, and through food scarcity.
Speaker 0: Mike, you make a great point. In fact, we had a senator just a short time ago on the floor of the senate making that exact point about the Strait Of Hormuz. Watch this.
Speaker 3: Here's the problem. The Strait was open before the war began. We are now seeking to solve a problem that we created. This is insanity. $2,000,000,000 is a lot of money.
That's the minimum amount of money that is being spent every single day on this war. There are over a dozen families who are burying their loved ones in The United States, and there may be dozens more if this war continues. Prices are skyrocketing, not just in America, but all across
Speaker 4: Someone in the chat says Chris Murphy's an idiot. In many ways, I agree with you, but what he's saying is true. Now did congress actually vote to end the war escalation? No. So we can't give congress too much, credit.
Right. You wrote you wrote about how, you know, the mobilization of ICE, the strategic closures of the TSA, and now the looming fuel and food shortages are not disparate things. You said these are visible threads of a deliberate premeditated pattern, one that is weaving a trap to the American people. And you said that it will lead to national lockdowns of movement, food, and fuel. So can you play that out, please?
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's where this is headed. Clearly, in in my view, it's the same pattern as COVID, but now with a different justification. So, already many countries are suffering so called energy lockdowns. You mentioned some of them in the intro, but also, for example, in South Korea.
You're only allowed to drive on certain days of the week if you're a government employee based on your vehicle license plate. In Australia, you know, hundreds of of petrol stations have run out now, and it's not clear when they're gonna be replenished. What's going to come is government controlled delivery of food and fuel. And this will encompass Americans, especially as prices get much higher and more job displacement takes place because of the AI displacement. And you just saw a humanoid robot walking around the White House.
That's also part of the plan. That's why I have the AI background here today behind me. But as you have all this displacement, the public will scream for universal basic income. But the UBI will be tied in my view, and Catherine Austin Fitz talks about this and she's excellent on this subject. It'll be tied to a government controlled CBDC that allows you to purchase a certain amount of food, but builds in the scarcity or the quota allowances through that digital control grid.
And the same thing will happen with fuel, and also the same thing will happen probably with the number of kilowatt hours of energy that you're allowed to consume as a household. And interestingly interestingly, one of the off ramps to that is to have your own off grid solar power system and an EV, which is funny because Trump is becoming the world's greatest EV salesman now. Right. As more people are buying EVs. Go figure.
Speaker 0: Well, you break up a great point. This whole push, like, couldn't help but thinking when we're seeing this TSA move, right, the the long lines at the airports, all of this is tied together and these austerity measures. And just love this CNN headline here, Mike, from, Asia. Asia embraces austerity. Right?
Like, Asians are thrilled about it. Like, look at this picture of this little girl. She it's it's great. Asia embraces energy austerity.
Speaker 4: We're fine with it.
Speaker 0: As dire fuel shortages force Philippines to declare national emergency. They're so they're all across Asia and now through Europe. We'll get to Europe in a minute. I wanna unpack that what Russia just said. But on the Asian side, it's very dire.
But they're embracing this idea of austerity because they want to keep people home. That's been part of the plan all along.
Speaker 4: Sort of see the racist undertones there as like, they're third world, they don't need much, you know, so they don't know any better is sort of what I read from a headline like that. What do you think?
Speaker 2: Well, in in The Philippines, you know, they're very heavily dependent on transportation to and from work. They have long commute times in cities like Manila. And the fact that their fuel is now in short supply is going to be dire. And also the the percentage of The Philippines income that is being spent on fuel is now outrageous and unaffordable and unsustainable. So Philippines is headed for a real dire economic collapse situation if this doesn't get reversed.
But I want to mention something. You said you're going to have Daniel Davis and Colonel MacGregor on the show. They're excellent sources. And I believe that they will tell you that if this land invasion takes place, that it's not going to be a quick fix. The Strait Of Hormuz is not going to be opened in any kind of, you know, permanent, reliable way by US occupation of Southern Iran.
Because Iran is going to fight back, and they're going to fight back from an existential position of their own national survival, as well as their own national pride and thousands of years of Persian civilization. So that means that the Strait Of Hormuz will will not be open anytime soon, not reliably. There might be a few ships that slip through, but they're all gonna be under heavy fire and the insurers won't insure those ships. And US naval vessels will take hits and possibly be destroyed or sent back for repairs like the USS Gerald R. Ford.
So this this situation could go on for literally years, even if we land troops in Iran. And I don't think Trump is factoring that in. That's my position.
Speaker 0: No. That's a great point. We've had so many journalists on our show who have been debanked, literally sitting next to a journalist one afternoon from the gray zone who was debanked right in front of me. He couldn't believe it. All access to his banking account information, and he you know, journalists don't, like, make billions of dollars.
So it cut off completely because of his politics, because of his journalism. That's where Rumble Wallet comes in because banks can cancel our accounts and freeze our cards. And that's why Rumble launched Rumble Wallet, a wallet that no one can cancel and a wallet that supporters can use instantly to tip your favorite creators if you want to. It's not no one can control it. What Rumble has no access to it.
No one can touch it. Not a bank, not a government, not a tech company. Like I said, not even Rumble has access to it. It's yours, only yours to protect your family and your future. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold.
Now the new USAT, which is Tether's US regulated stablecoin all in one place. Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars. So it's not only a wallet to buy and save, but also allows you to support your favorite creators. So support our show, support any of the shows that you love. Go to wallet.rumble.com, or just search the Rumble wallet on the App Store's Android or iOS.
Rumble, that's the place to go. Wallet.rumble.com. I wanna talk about the European piece of all of this. You heard the message from president Putin today about how this is basically on par, if not worse than COVID, and it's spiraling out of control. You heard from his, diplomats saying that this that Europe will be begging Russia for oil and gas.
And we're already seeing major cutbacks and states of emergency being declared in Europe. We saw what's going on in Slovenia specifically. But this is gonna be a cascade effect all through Europe. Maybe you could just unpack the European Russian perspective on this.
Speaker 2: Well, I I think Russia is absolutely correct here that Europe will be begging Russia for affordable cheap energy or abundant energy because it was upon Russian energy that the European economic miracle, especially in Germany, gave rise in the first place. The industry in Germany, for example, BASF, BASF, and the manufacturing of 45,000 plus synthetic chemicals, plus using the Haber Bosch process, you know, urea and nitrogen based fertilizers, etcetera. All of that has been compromised and shut down because of the destruction of Nord Stream pipelines. But as Putin says, one of those pipelines could still be reopened. And if Europe doesn't want to commit energy suicide, they will beg Putin to open that pipeline and get some gas flowing.
And and don't forget that China and Russia signed a deal six months ago or something to have 50,000,000,000 cubic meters of gas from Russia's Yamal gas fields piped across Mongolia into Northern China to feed China's industry. China's gonna maintain its dominance of the world's industrial sector. The manufacturing coming out of China for vehicles and robots and drones will be incredible because of their access to affordable energy. Some of it, a lot of it coming from Russia.
Speaker 4: I just having lived in Europe for five years, it it astounds me how the European people work so hard not knowing who's holding them under their thumb. So in in such a cruel manner, and it's hard to watch. It's really hard to watch. And, you know, Germany took offline energy sources because of green policies and then also lost access to liquid natural gas. And their leaders are like, that's what we're doing.
We're doing this and then also supporting Ukraine. We've talked a lot about how if we see copious amounts of bloodshed, the American people will revolt, and I hope that that's true. Do you think there will ever be a consequence for the European leaders who have inflicted this on their people?
Speaker 2: Good question, Natalie. I I I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that countries like The UK are busy trying to figure out how to send their young men to die in the war with Russia. So that's part of their answer to stay in control. They want to eliminate their own nationalist populations and then have them exchanged, replaced with someone else coming in across the open borders. But what what you're really getting to is the fact that Western European nations, they decided for one reason or another to commit energy suicide.
You know, they they have the energy in Europe. They have it. They've got the fields. But they close them down and they close the nuke plants, like you said, which is, you know, a carbon free, no no carbon emission source of renewable energy, if you think about it. Yes.
They've made these decisions. It's suicide cult in charge of Europe. That's not the European people. The people, they despise their leaders. The people of Germany despise what the German leaders are doing.
So I'm rooting for the European people to somehow replace or dismantle their overlords who are destroying their cultures and civilizations.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Me too.
Speaker 0: Me too. You know, one of the most troubling pieces of this is that, well, you compare this to COVID. Right? And President Putin just compared this to COVID just a short time ago this morning. But I I argue that there's differences because there was a lack of demand during COVID.
People were being told to stay home. So they were overproducing at all this abundance of oil and natural gas, and they know what to do with it. So that's why you had the now, we have an incredible demand, and we don't have enough of it. So it's the exact opposite. And even like a a short, like, a sort of a 10% supply demand offset imbalance here could be catastrophic.
The other big piece of this, Mike, is that, you know, you've got petrol usually is is not the first to fall. Gasoline is not the first to fall. It's usually diesel jet fuel. And but now we're seeing petrol almost first. We're seeing long lines of gas stations running out UK two day supply throughout The Philippines.
So you're seeing this weird, this weird imbalance from a gasoline perspective, petrol, perspective. And then I'm just curious your thoughts on the diesel, jet fuel, petrol piece of all of this. And how much of a imbalance would it take for this to be catastrophic? 10%, 20%?
Speaker 2: Well, remember that refining oil into diesel fuel requires the right type of oil. So it's not just that we could, you know, we can't just close our borders in America, for example, and just generate all the diesel fuel we want regardless of what else is happening in the world. We need other mixtures of oil, including, you know, Saudi Arabian oil, for example, to fuel the refineries. So the the lack of oil trade, even though we are a net energy exporter in America, lack of oil trade impacts our ability to produce some of these fuels. On top of that, countries like China, for example, have completely halted their export of refined fuels, such as kerosene, jet fuel, diesel, etcetera.
That's affecting Australia. This is why Australia's airlines are going to end up being grounded. And Australia is a massive, large continent, you know, and there's a lot of road miles required to live and work in Australia. That's going to get strongly impacted, strongly shut down. And again, that's why EV sales are skyrocketing in Australia right now, which is extraordinary.
But, you know, to answer your question, it doesn't take much to lead to a collapse scenario because our modern civilization is far more fragile than people thought. Nobody thought about the fact that so much of the world's abundance and food came from, went through one narrow strait, 20 kilometers wide or whatever it is, that can be closed off very simply just by a credible threat from Iran to say we will harass ships. Therefore, no one's allowed to pass unless you pay in Yuan or you pay the, you know, the toll or whatever. So our civilization is very fragile. We stand on the verge of a planetary scale collapse of the system that has kept 8,000,000,000 people alive.
Speaker 4: I want to ask about the petrodollar because it's it's a shaky system as it is. It was negotiated through backdoor negotiations after we promised OPEC leaders we wouldn't do it. And now we are collapsing it ourselves by giving allies and nonallies, all other countries, an incentive to trade outside the petrodollar because we cannot be trusted. What do you think will happen to The US the petrodollar allows us to spend and rack up debt. That's the reason we can do it.
So what happens when that collapses? We will have to feel the nearly $40,000,000,000,000 in debt we've got. That sounds horrific for the world we're handing off to our kids. What do you think of that domino effect that I'm laying out here?
Speaker 2: You're exactly right. You just described it. The repatriation of the inflationary effects of fiat currency creation will be devastating to American consumers. We're going to be living in impoverishment across The United States Of America. And and also countries that are already struggling financially, such as Japan, are about to offload hundreds of billions of dollars of US Treasuries as a means of their own financial survival because of what's happening there.
Trump has, in the meantime, punished our allies like Taiwan through tariffs that are punitive, as well as three zero one sanctions that are punishing Taiwan for for being really good friends of ours and exporting microchips, for example, to The United States and making them affordable, and then they get punished for excess production? You know, what is And and and India gets punished for purchasing oil from from Russia. So, you know, the The US is is being a bad neighbor on the world stage under Trump. And sadly, the American people will suffer as more and more countries choose alternatives to the petrodollar. That's where this is headed.
Speaker 0: And so with this austerity, do you see these lockdowns on a large scale where you talked about EV, the, you know, the electric car piece of this? I can't help but think that this push I mean, it's all intentional. Right? This plan has been in place for decades to move us in this way, in this 2030 agenda, and get us to stay home, use electric energy instead of, instead of gasoline, ration how much we're allowed to eat, tell us that we're not allowed to eat beef, all of these things. So, it seems obvious.
I mean, it seems obvious, I think, to to the three of us sitting here. I guess what comes next? Are will we see wide scale, like, power power disruptions? What is your sense of looking at this, like, playing this out, sort of gaming this out, I guess, on a chessboard?
Speaker 2: Well, as you know, I I believe that the big picture is the widespread replacement of human cognition and labor with either AI agents on the cognition side and AI powered robots, which we just saw introduced again, you know, with Mulan Yeah. There in the White And even she was saying that these can basically replace teachers, which is technically true, but it shows you what they are up to. As AI cognition gains in technology, and Jiang Zhen Huang recently said that he believes that it's already achieved AGI. I have jokingly responded and said AGI is not a very high threshold because the average human worker is not that smart. So, you know, we, there's still a lot more upside to go on that.
But robotics is making a lot of advances. And when you begin to replace labor, which will be a gradual thing, it'll happen over the next ten years, it will take time. Then the question becomes, what is our government's plan for us as human beings when we cannot meaningfully participate in this economy? And I believe that these fuel and food lockdowns, scarcity and rationing are just the opening chapters of what they have in store for us.
Speaker 0: What do you see over the next week to two weeks? Because we're really at the beginning of this. We haven't even felt the ripple effects yet. Like, we're, you know, we're using up stuff left in the pantry, so to speak.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right. Well, Americans in particular are in a much more generous situation compared to people in The Philippines or other countries. I was just checking, you know, my staff orders bulk food supplies from farmers in America. We are still able to order food that was grown last season.
And my understanding is that at least half of American farmers got the fertilizer that they needed for this current planting season. The real question for America is going to be the next planting season, you know, summer or fall. That's where we're going see a lot of fertilizer scarcity in place if we don't get the Strait Of Hormuz opened between now and then. So, America itself has more of a buffer than almost every other country in the world other than perhaps Russia or, yeah, probably just Russia. But a lot of other countries are going to suffer and as they bid up fuel prices, many American oil companies will end up selling American oil to other countries because they make more on that.
And that will drive up prices domestically for the American consumer. So price increases, but not Mad Max yet.
Speaker 4: Yeah. It's weird to me as, you know, a mother of three housewife. I go to the market and I'm like, we're not panicking about this, but we panicked about COVID. COVID, which had a low mortality rate. But this, like, hey, everybody, put peanut butter in your cart.
Like, that's how I feel all the time.
Speaker 0: Maybe there's cognitive dissonance in The United States, Mike, because like David on our staff here, he no. He's in Thailand, and he said that he he's never seen lines like this. Right, David? I mean, it's
Speaker 5: Yeah. Correct. And and I was gonna say it in the other part you're talking about, the Thailand economy is basically run on motorbikes. I mean, they deliver everything, mail, everything. So if the gas is gone, you're gonna shut down the whole economy here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I haven't seen a long line yet.
Speaker 2: Fleet there is in trouble because of a lack of diesel. So they're not they're not fishing as much as they used to either. So some a lot of the big seafood exports are halted. Oh.
Speaker 0: So The United States, I guess my my cognitive dissonance point, I think there's, you know, people just still running to Costco, still living their life. They're not really seeing it yet. They're seeing gas prices going up $1, $2, diesel is going up significantly across the country. As I mentioned, nearly 30% in some areas. That's why the US Postal Service is asking for this fuel surge charge to be added to packages.
But for the average American yet, maybe they're not seeing it in the way that the, you know, people in Thailand or The Philippines are seeing it.
Speaker 2: Well, Clayton, if more Americans just watched Redacted, they would be well informed and they could get ahead of this. The sad part is that people just don't have the information. They have busy lives. They're taking care of whatever. And they're they're just catching glimpses of news from bad sources that won't tell them the truth.
So that's why I'm honored to be on your show. And I'm I'm really I love the work that you're doing and I'm happy to come back anytime. Thank you. You, sir.
Speaker 0: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. Follow him on on X. Really one of my favorite voices. Really incisive. Always great to see you, Mike.
Thanks so much. We'll be checking in with you as well. Thanks, Mike, as always.
Speaker 2: Alright. Take care.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤯 U.S. troops are cannon fodder for Iranian Soldiers, and now Trump is sending more soldiers to die. The Iranian Press reports that all American bases have been destroyed. What's really going on? @tparsi joins us. https://t.co/iadCKw5K5k
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the U.S. military buildup in the Middle East amid tensions with Iran and the broader regional dynamics driving the potential conflict. Key points include:
- Military posture and numbers: The 82nd Airborne Division and 5,000 U.S. Marines are traveling to the region, with CENTCOM confirming roughly 50,000 U.S. troops already there. President Biden previously acknowledged that American forces were “sitting ducks” and that an attack was imminent. The hosts note that ground forces are arriving by Friday, with the Marine Expeditionary Unit from the Pacific on station soon, and reference a pattern of rapid escalation around Fridays into Saturdays in past conflicts.
- Public reaction and political stance: Representative Nancy Mace says she will not support troops on the ground in Iran, even after briefing. The panel questions what powers she or others have to restrict presidential war powers, noting a perception that both parties are in lockstep on war funding.
- Open-source intelligence on deployments: There is a reported flow of special operations elements—Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, Task Force 160, 75th Ranger Regiment—into or toward the Middle East, with multiple flights of SEACEs and C-17s observed in the last 48 hours. The discussion emphasizes the significance of such ground-force movements and their possible outcomes.
- Iranian messaging and claims: An IRGC spokesman claimed that if the American public knew the true casualties, there would be outrage, and that “all American bases in the region have effectively been destroyed,” with American soldiers “hiding in locations adjacent to these locations and they are basically being hunted down.”
- Expert analysis on negotiations and off-ramps: Doctor Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute argues that an off-ramp would require behind-the-scenes talks and cautions that the 15-point plan reportedly leaked to the Israeli press is not a basis for serious negotiation. He suggests a diplomacy path could involve sanctions relief and restricted military actions, but warns the public leaks risk undermining negotiations.
- Israel’s role and objectives: Parsi states that Israel has aimed to sabotage negotiations and that Netanyahu’s objectives differ from U.S. aims. He suggests Israel desires a prolonged war to degrade Iran, while Trump’s objective may be to declare victory and withdraw. The panel discusses how Israeli influence and regional actions (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) relate to U.S. strategy and regional stability.
- Saudi Arabia and other regional players: New York Times reporting indicates Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman privately lobbied Trump to keep the conflict going and even push for boots on the ground. The Saudi position is described as complex, with the foreign ministry potentially opposing war tones while MBS may have privately supported escalating the conflict. The guests discuss whether Saudi wealth is tied to the petrodollar and how a potential Iranian escalation could impact the region economically and politically.
- Iran’s potential targets and escalatory capacity: Iran could retaliate against UAE and Bahrain, which are closely linked to the Abraham Accords and Israel. Iran’s capacity to strike urban centers and critical infrastructures in the Gulf region is acknowledged, and the discussion underscores the risk of significant disruption to desalination plants and strategic assets.
- Propaganda and public perception: Iran released a viral video portraying global victims of U.S. and Israeli actions; the panel notes the messaging is aimed at shaping U.S. domestic opinion and demonstrates the intensity of propaganda on both sides during war.
- Two emphasized “truths” (from Parsi): first, there has been a misperception about the efficiency of Iran’s missiles due to media censorship and selective reporting; second, U.S. and Israeli interests in the region have diverged, calling for a reassessment of national interest over coalition pressures.
- Additional context: The conversation touches on U.S. military readiness, enrollment trends, and the broader historical pattern of wars shaped by executive decisions and external influences, including pressure from regional powers. The discussion ends with thanks to Dr. Parsi and an invitation for future conversations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, to the latest in the war in Iran now, US soldiers from the US Army's elite eighty second airborne division are now on their way to the Middle East in addition to the 5,000 US marines headed to the region. And this morning, CENTCOM confirming the numbers that approximately 50,000 troops already there. Of course, we've known that number for quite some time. Even president Biden acknowledged that they were just sitting ducks, and it was only a matter of time before they were attacked. Hey.
Here's an idea. Bring them home so they don't get attacked, mister Biden. But no. We're gonna keep them there under Trump as well. And now they are cannon fodder.
Nancy Mace, representative Nancy Mace, just left a briefing a short time ago, and she posted this. Just walked out of a house armed services briefing on Iran. Let me repeat, I will not support troops on the ground in Iran even more so after this briefing. So what do you know? We'd like to know that.
Speaker 1: Former She's congress has not been asked to really support anything. They have approved the war budget. They never voted on the war. So that's nice that you say that. What powers does she have?
Speaker 0: Right. Can you can you actually pass a bill that would limit The US response or the president's war powers ability? That would be nice. But, of course, both parties are in lockstep because they are a uni party, and a lot of people think this is just performative anyway. Representative Nancy Mays, like, what have you really done?
Okay. Former CIA officer though confirms The US is, this is Mark, Polymeropoulos. He says The US is deploying the most elite kill units and kill squads to the Middle East. Watch.
Speaker 2: Similarly, and if you you know, there's some very good open source intelligence sites that we've seen a flow of the special operations commands, kind of lead elements, army's Delta Force, SEAL Team six, the task force one sixty, that's The US Special Operations Aviation, seventy fifth Ranger Regiment. They also have, been been going to The Middle East on c seventeens, multiple flights over the last forty eight hours. So we're seeing the deployment of what our ground forces. And so I think that's something that, you know, one should take note of in particular because in the past when Trump has done this, whether it's the Venezuela operation with Maduro or this initial kickoff in Iran. You know, when he moves military assets, he actually uses them.
And in particular, we also have to, we have to have to remember that the marine expeditionary unit, the one coming from the Pacific, that will be on station, by Friday in in in the area too. So that's another contingent of marine. So there are forces, there are ground forces flowing.
Speaker 0: So by Friday, of course, this is happening. And a lot of people pointed out, of course, the five day delay, like we're talking about peace. Five days, markets close on Friday night. Ground forces arrive. This all unfolds Friday into Saturday.
That's when Trump likes to start his wars. It's Friday into Saturday. But how many Americans have already died? Iran's r I IRGC spokesman sent a message saying if the American people actually knew the true number, there would be outrage across The United States Of America. And this morning released he released another statement saying all American bases in the region have effectively been destroyed, and that American soldiers had to run away from these bases and are now hiding in locations adjacent to these locations, and they are basically being hunted down.
Watch. Doctor Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the author of losing an enemy, Obama, Iran, and the triumph of diplomacy. Doctor Parsi, welcome to the show. I wanna get your response to something Iran had, basically issued this morning. According to Iran's press TV, that Tehran has rejected Trump the Trump administration's 15 proposal to end this conflict, which US and Israel, of course, launched on February 28.
Basically says, no. That that's we're not doing that. These 15 points are just a maximalist approach here. We have our own response. What is your thought on that?
Speaker 3: First of great to be with you guys. And also, you know, my think tank similar to yours do not take any defense contractors' money, and it's part of the reason why we've been able to push against wars, whereas most other think tanks in DC tend not to. But as to your question, look. I think that if there is a serious effort to find an off ramp, not only will it not be based on these 15 points, many of them are complete nonstarters, but it would also not be telegraphed publicly. If you actually want to seriously find an off ramp, it will take place through very serious and sensitive talks behind the scenes with as little of it as possible being leaked to the outside.
These kind of things that we're seeing, whether it's coming from the Iranian side or whether it's coming from The US side, You know, this 15 points incidentally was leaked by the Israeli press. Perhaps it was a misinformation sent to the Israelis by The US, in order to give The US some cover to actually pursue some serious negotiations, will not be based on those type of things. So, again, I wanna make a differentiation. If it is based on these type of points, then it's not a serious negotiation. That in and of itself does not mean necessarily that serious negotiations are not taking place behind the scenes.
We would not know about them because that's part of the reason why they're serious.
Speaker 1: Now why do you say that? Do you think that our model ally Israel has a vested interest in not allowing that? How much do you think they would be a party to these investigations? Because the rumors are that Iran has rejected meeting with Kushner and Whitkoff and is requesting J. D.
Vance, you know, if we know this, certainly Israel knows this. And so what part would Israel play in such negotiations do you think in this hypothetical?
Speaker 3: I don't think they would play any part in the negotiations. They will play a part in trying to sabotage the negotiations. They have done so in the past. They've been dead set against US negotiations for more than twenty five years. And then they when negotiations have been successful or been ongoing, they've tried to sabotage it.
When they've been successful, they have pushed to undo those deals. Netanyahu is on record taking credit for Trump walking out of the previous Iran nuclear deal. Tulsi Gabbard made it very clear in her testimony, the Israeli objectives with this war are very different from that of The United States. The Israelis want this war to go on as long as possible to degrade Iran's industrial base, its military, political, and economic capabilities as much as possible to set them back decades so that for decades to come, the Iranians will not be able to be a challenge to Israel's designs for domination in the region. And that one the Israelis want that to be achieved regardless of the cost to the global economy, to global energy markets, to regional stability, and to Trump's presidency.
Those are secondary concerns. Trump's objective here, or at least the objective at this point, I think is quite different. He wants to be able to declare a victory and get out of this war. Now, does he believe that he can declare a victory through a negotiation, or does he believe that it's better for him to try to put ground troops in and try to do some sort of a magical move to turn this war around in his favor. I think that is still unclear.
I hope it's not the latter. I don't think there's any magical moves. I think he will be stuck in an escalation trap if he goes down that path. It will increasingly look like Iraq and Afghanistan, in which we were constantly promised that victory is just six months around the corner. Just be patient, we'll get there.
And two decades later, we had to go home, and having spent $2,000,000,000,000 in Afghanistan to change the regime there from the Taliban back to the Taliban.
Speaker 0: So, doctor Parsley, I wanna get your take on this. This is, CNN reporting today, mainstream media, CNN, and, of course, you know their their connections to the deep state and intelligence community. So when they say these types of things, I kinda pay attention to it, especially this guy reporting here. So I wanna play this and you take a listen.
Speaker 4: Well, Audi, whatever the president ultimately decides about a ground operation in Iran, all the pieces are now in the region to carry one out. And and it's not just the thousand paratroopers. You you have marines deployed to the region, and then all the forces, the the the air transport, etcetera, that one would require to to put troops on the ground, whether that be you've heard the discussion of Karg Island, which is so central to Iran's energy industry, or perhaps along the shores of the Strait Of Hormuz to secure the Strait Of Hormuz. We don't know. And, ultimately, it's up to the president.
But
Speaker 0: So well, already whatever the president ultimately Let me if I can pause that. Yeah. So, doctor Parsey, you know, CNN, we're also hearing the same from Fox News, like Jennifer Griffin, those individuals who are sort of, you know, in beds in the Pentagon and and friends with, friends, you know, inside that in inside that world. So all of the pieces are now in place for some sort of a ground invasion. It seems like that this is moving forward.
Do you see it that way?
Speaker 3: I I see it as as such that the president is pursuing all of these different options at the same time, that there may be a diplomatic off ramp being explored behind the scenes while at the same time moving everything in place for a ground operation and then not making his final decision until later. I think, again, it would be a huge mistake. I think he is still in a position in which he hasn't crossed the Rubicon and in the sense that he can, you know, end this war in some way that it won't end up defining his presidency. But if he goes in with ground troops, I think this will define define in the same manner as the Iraq war defined, George W. Bush's presidency.
Speaker 1: Now at the same time, it seems that the Netanyahu government is off the leash, really, because president Trump has warned him not to move into the West Bank. That is happening. There are now Palestinians being evicted from Jerusalem. There are Lebanese being evicted from their house. The New York Times comically reporting that Israel may take more territory that it already occupies.
In other words, an invasion, an increased invasion. There's no one to constrain that happening while all eyes are on Iran, and that's very upsetting for us to watch and support. What what will come of this? What do you make of this?
Speaker 3: Look. We have very different interests from the Israelis, and allowing them to drive the bus is disastrous for The United States. And that is not just in terms of this specific war, but also what they're doing in Gaza, in the West Bank, and in Lebanon. I mean, what are the signal we're sending to everyone else in the region is that when push comes to shove, none of them matter, and Israeli preferences will be the ones that The United States will side with even if it comes at the expense of the lives of people in these other countries that also are friendly to The United States, whether it comes to their territorial integrity. I mean, the Israelis are annexing more Syrian land.
They're now annexing or saying openly that they're gonna annex part of Lebanon. This is an expansionist power, and the only reason why it can be expansionist is because we're funding it and and defending and protecting it politically and diplomatically when it does so. Without The US's support, none of this would have been possible. And then we have to ask ourselves, if with our support, this is being done, is it actually in our interest? Will this lead to a more stable Middle East, the one that The US can bring its troops home from?
Or will it bring will this bring about a Middle East in which there will be more wars and The US will be dragged into more wars? I think the track record is quite clear right now. We're at another war. We're at another ground war potentially in The Middle East, in a war that according to Marco Rubio, was started because the Israelis were gonna attack, and The US concluded that if, as a result, The US also has to get into that war. So we essentially, according to that statement, allow the Israelis to decide when The US goes to war.
Speaker 0: I'll ask in our chat room because we're live. Do you know, in our chat room, do you guys think that president Trump has an off ramp here? And I'll ask you, you know, from the Quincy Institute for responsible statecraft, is there any sort of responsible statecraft taking place? I mean, are is president Trump is his back really against a wall at this point? And have the Iranians called president Trump's bluff?
Speaker 3: I think they have called the bluff on a couple of occasions. I still think that there is a way out of this. There is a pathway in which The US can secure some of its interest, get the Straits Of Hormuz open again, perhaps bring back some sort of a conversation on the nuclear front that can lead to a deal, end the wars, get the Iranians to stop attacking GCC countries and Israel, and, of course, constrain Israel so that it doesn't do those type of attacks either. And I think it would absolutely entail some degree of sanctions relief for a variety of reasons. The US has actually already offered it, the already unsanctioned Iranian oil on the water.
So Trump has already opened the door to that and even walked through that door. So I don't think, you know, a couple of weeks ago that would have been inconceivable. Now it's already happening. More of that will probably be needed in order to get the Iranians to back off. But even if it will be politically costly, it is worth the price because the alternative is to see this war not only continue, but to escalate into a ground war.
And then something will happen that has not happened quite yet, which is, yes, oil prices are up, gas prices are up, grocery prices are up. But what we haven't seen quite yet is a very large number of American troops coming home in coffins. That will happen if there is a ground invasion.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Or if how much of this I we've spoken to sources on our show who literally worked inside Afghanistan putting pieces of American soldiers bodies into coffins. And the CIA worked right side by side with them to keep those numbers completely silent from the American people. So how accurate do you think the numbers that we're seeing out of the Middle East I mean, Iran, they said yesterday, if the American people knew how many Americans were actually hurt or killed, there'd be outrage across The United States. Do you think that they are they are they are they full of crap?
Speaker 3: They said at some point that they've killed 500 Americans. I've seen no evidence for it, but, and I don't know to what extent the US government can keep deaths away from the public. Perhaps they can. What I do know, though, is that very early on in the war, according to sources in government, they classified the number of injured. And they did so because they were very large numbers.
Don't know if the numbers they're coming out with now are accurate. I am surprised that reporters are not asking about this more often, particularly mindful of the fact that the administration didn't say anything about it for the first week and that they classified it within twenty four hours after the war started.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 3: And as I I was told by a government source, this is only done when the numbers are so high that they're politically problematic.
Speaker 0: I just got chills.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: That I hadn't heard that. Thank you for reporting that. And you just made some news with that. To classify those numbers, the American people have a right to know how many Americans are being killed and wounded in a war that we didn't agree to, and that Congress didn't approve. Then
Speaker 1: we war. Yeah. And now Restarted.
Speaker 0: Sorry. I'm just so angry about this. Now we got the word yesterday, they're raising the enlistment age and rolling back what marijuana restrictions so that, hey, if you got a marijuana violation
Speaker 1: That's a okay.
Speaker 0: It's a okay. You can, you know, increase the age now. So
Speaker 1: Well, I think it also speaks to the fact that enrollment has been down for years, because The United States has never apologized for using human lives to start wars based on lies. And even the enrollment boost that happened when Trump took office because Pete Hegseth went and, you know, did this whole we're we're we're not woke anymore. We're strong now. We're cool now. That, you know, those soldiers are presumably not ready for a conflict like this.
And so, you know, what what do you know about the United States military's readiness for a prolonged conflict in The Middle East like this?
Speaker 3: I think those are all great questions, and you're absolutely right. There's been no accountability whatsoever for the previous wars, and that's why part of the reason why it still is possible for us to drag ourselves into unnecessary wars again. Once you have that accountability, it's gonna be completely different incentive structure for politicians to drag, American young Americans into war unnecessarily. But when it comes to the specific, question of are we that ready? Look.
I think it's quite clear that we were not ready for what we are in right now. Trump told regional leaders this war would only take four days, hundred hours. Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: He believed that this war would end within that time frame, particularly after Khomeini was killed as supreme leader, because either the Iranians would, capitulate or their entire system would implode. None of those things were even close to being plausible. In fact, The US Intelligence Services also argued against that before and afterwards. But he only went in with one plan, a plan a. He had no readiness for plan b.
That's why we're seeing this scrambling of things. I mean, if we were thinking about a ground troops, that should have been done while he was amassing all of those naval forces into the Indian Ocean. But that wasn't done then because, again, the belief was this is just gonna be a very quick, variation of Venezuela, but far more glorious than what Venezuela was. And there was no readiness for any other scenario. And part of this, by the way, is not because The US intelligence services believed this.
It's because that's what the Israelis were telling the president. And they knew very well that if they could convince Trump that this was easy, that's how they could convince him to do something that he otherwise has said he would never do, start a war, do regime change. But if it's easy and it's almost guaranteed success, then it's too tempting to say no to.
Speaker 1: Well, that was his exact terminology when reports leaked that his top advisers were warning him that this is a war we could not win. He went on Truth Social and said, this is fake news. This is not true. My generals are saying that the war would be easily won. He said it in the days before.
And so it's clear that he believed that, which is incredibly hubris, and and incredibly upsetting given the fact the cost to the American people, to people in the Middle East, to Israelis as well. This is this is not good for them in the long term. So even though I'm I'm upset about it.
Speaker 3: Look at the reporting in January and December. Because of the riots and the protests in Iran, there was this constant reporting, asking the question, is Tehran on the brink of collapse? Is this regime about to fall? And that was part of, intentionally or not, but it became part of the picture that convinced Trump this is gonna be so easy. I'm gonna be a hero.
I'm gonna be the president that finally gets rid of this regime or gets them to surrender to The US. And if you take a look at how the reporting was back then, it wasn't the questioning that the regime is really, really weak. I hope you you can go back and look at my interviews. I kept on saying that this is an exaggerated view. They definitely are very, very unpopular.
People tend to actually detest this regime, but that is not the sign as to whether they're about to fall or not. And basing your plans on that is just complete falling.
Speaker 0: Someone in our chat just said, miss doctor Trita Parsi is 100% correct. I agree. Will you hang on for just a minute? We're gonna get some water, take a quick break here. We're gonna come back.
I wanna talk about the other players in this, particularly Saudi Arabia and the new reporting from the New York Times, which says that Saudi Arabia basically lobbying president Trump pushing him for a protracted war and boots on the ground. Plus Iran just released a new video, which has gone viral, which is pretty shocking. We're gonna show that to you. So doctor Parsey, stay with us here. But first
Speaker 1: First, we wanna tell you about our friends over at Venice AI. Because if you want to use AI for certain, you know, aspects of your life, but you're concerned because it tracks you, it gets to know your thoughts, your dreams, your sensitive questions, and obviously, it's biased. Did you know that the former director of the NSA is sitting on the board right now, Edward Snowden, called this a willful and calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth. Now when I wanna know what the government propaganda line is, I go to ChatGPT and ask, and then I just laugh. I had a whole argument today with ChatGPT about Mordecai Venunu, who was the, Israeli nuclear whistleblower who's been tortured for decades.
And ChatGPT said, it is a complicated situation, to which I lost my mind. So you should not rely on ChatGPT. Would you like a more reliable AI solution? Well, then you need to know about venice.ai because it lets you use AI without handing over your sensitive information without the bias. So again, go to venice.ai/redacted.
If you use the code redacted, you can get 20% off a pro plan or you can use, again, that link venice.ai/redacted. You can get 20% off a pro plan. Don't be scammed. Don't be mind controlled by ChatGPT. And, of course, we wanna know what the mind control is.
Go to ChatGPT, but rely on a more safe and secure AI. Venice.ai/redacted.
Speaker 0: Alright. We are back. And, thank you guys for subscribing to the channel and smashing that like button. It really actually helps. I've learned this recently.
When once again, because YouTube loves to suppress our show. So if you actually hit the like button on YouTube, it actually pushes it out to more people. And because they like to unsubscribe you from our show on a regular basis, they I love that. Like, you subscribe and then YouTube's like, nope. Maybe you should subscribe CNN.
Speaker 1: This information. Right.
Speaker 0: Anyway, it's so frustrating. Many, many years of battling these, big
Speaker 1: The algorithm is not your friend.
Speaker 0: These tech oligarchs. Okay. Anyway, well, everyone knows the Israeli government desperately wants The US to keep fighting this war in Iran. And but few people are actually paying attention to the other players who want this war. We are back with doctor Atrida Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
And, doctor Parsi, from according to a new reporting from the New York Times, Saudi Arabia's crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has been pushing Donald Trump to keep this conflict going in Iran. We know the huge massive money investments that are coming to The United States from Saudi Arabia. And we know last week that Saudi Arabia during the height of this war is saying, yeah, we're still going on. We're still fully investing almost what trillion, like a trillion in The United States. So that's all on.
Hey, but could you also do this for me, which is keep this war in Iran going? Oh, and by the way, put boots on the ground according to this report from the New York Times. Just to get your sense of we've been focused so much on Israel, but there's so many other players that want this war protracted. What do you say?
Speaker 3: I think it is a very confusing and complex picture. And part of the complexity is that MBS, Mohammed bin Salman, is a person almost above his own government. I've seen evidence that the Saudi foreign ministry was pushing back against this war. But I've also heard from people, with very good knowledge of this because of their conversations with, top people in the government here in The United States that MBS himself was privately lobbying in favor of this war directly to Trump. Now whether all of these other things then are also true that they're pushing for ground troops, etcetera, I don't know.
I think the Saudis are likely in a position in which they're worried that the manner that this war will end is one in which they will deal with an emboldened Iran and an America that finally has concluded after this war. Let's really never, never do it again. I know we said we would never do it again before, but let's be serious about never doing this again in The Middle East.
Speaker 1: Well,
Speaker 3: I'm And and this and this will put the Saudis in a tough position. Would they, at the same time, want the major escalation? I think that would be extremely foolish. They don't have much water. Their desalination plants are much, much more important to them than the ones the Iranians have.
I'm not saying that the Iranians are flushed with water, but they don't have the same vulnerability there. And the Iranians have indicated that they will take out the Israeli as well as the GCC desalination plants if there's a ground invasion or if these countries actively enter the war. The one country that I think is very close to actively entering the war is The UAE. Saudi, I'm not sure if they're there yet, but quite a lot of contradictory information about what where they actually stand on this.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm wondering about the preservation of the petrodollar because you probably know that the establishment of the petrodollar happened in the 1970s illegally because you The US and Saudi Arabia had promised OPEC not to do this. And then a drunken delegation from The United States showed up in Saudi Arabia and did it anyway. And because oil is traded in the petrodollar, it benefits both Saudi Arabia and The United States. Now Iran is saying, we're not gonna allow this through the Strait Of Hormuz. So now we will trade outside of the petrodollar.
That will hurt Saudi Arabia economically. So how does that factor in to this desire to weaken Iran and preserve this? I wanna say, guess illegal is not really a word that's relevant in international law, but this perversion perversion of a of a currency.
Speaker 3: Yep. So I think it's one part of the picture, and the larger picture is that this war could have ended up in a disastrous way for the Saudis by having Iran completely collapse, becoming a failed state. 90,000,000 people, if 20% of them were to, end up becoming refugees, that's 18,000,000 people that would have fled that country. Most of them would try to go to neighboring countries or to Europe. Just as a point of comparison, about 25% of the Syrian population ended up, fleeing the country as a result of the civil war over there and the collapse of that state.
If the same thing were happened with the same type of a percentages, we would talk about a huge number of people. Moreover, there would be secessionist movements, other things that would be very destabilizing to Saudi Arabia. But then there was also this other extreme that probably folks did not take into account, which was what if the Iranians don't lose the war? They don't necessarily win the war, but they come out of this war with more leverage than they did going in. And that is where we are right now.
And I think that is a scenario that the Saudis are not happy about, particularly not mindful of the fact that the Iranians have hit them several times. Not as hard as they've hit other states in the GCC, but nevertheless. And all of that coming together, I think, makes it quite plausible that the Saudis don't want this war to end in a manner that leaves the Iranians stronger and angrier than they were before. But whether there is actually a path for them to achieve something different at this point, I I find unlikely and and unconvincing. But that doesn't mean that that is not what they're trying to achieve.
Speaker 1: But so you you don't see the binding of Saudi of Saudi's wealth to American wealth because they sell oil in dollars and recycle those dollars into US debt. I mean, how would that would that devastate the region? Are they wealthy enough to withstand that impact?
Speaker 3: I have to be honest. It's a bit outside of my area of expertise to be able to, you know, give you a a good answer to that question.
Speaker 1: Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. It's just something that I I'm wondering in terms of why Saudi Arabia has not stepped up, in fact, to, you know, help Palestinians to stand up to the American government. It seems to me there's a financial incentive not to Oh,
Speaker 3: that I do agree with. The the extent to which it is tied to the petrodollar, that's the area I I can't give you a good answer.
Speaker 1: Gotcha. Yeah. Fair enough.
Speaker 0: Can I ask you though about Iranian's response that they will attack The UAE, other partners, Bahrain? This was, of course, passed over the past twenty four hours that so these and take the coastline areas. Again, talk about desalinization plants. And so the this would be absolutely devastating. In your estimation, talking to your sources on the hill, do you see the Iranians with that capacity at this point?
Because we get the one-sided story from Fox News, CNN, really the the MAGA media, which is sort of fully in the tank for this thing. But what is the real truth here about Iran's capacity to maybe take the coastlines of The UAE and Bahrain, etcetera?
Speaker 3: So I think there are capacity to take out several of the key states in these regions. And remember, these are essentially city states. These are not, you know, countries in the same way you would have in Europe, and you would have plenty of different cities. These are city states in a country. And if you have the capacity through missiles to take out a lot of those critical infrastructures in those cities, you can destroy those countries effectively.
The necessity of taking it by land, I don't quite understand why they would go in that direction and whether they actually could do it and why it would be necessary. But they absolutely have the ability of really inflicting existential damage onto both Bahrain as well as, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and some of the other cities in The Emirates, that exist over there. And I think we should be very careful about dismissing those threats because the previous threats that they have issued were not taken seriously, and they did act on them. And that's part of the reason why we're in this situation. And the reason why I think they're singling out Emirates and Bahrain is because those are the two countries that have signed the Abrams Accord and become much closer to Israel.
Emirates is the country that is the closest to entering into the war. And the common joke in the region right now is that Bahrain is governed by The UAE through what's WhatsApp. That essentially the, royal family in Bahrain is is, essentially just caretakers of that country, but the real power lies in The UAE. And as a result, that's part of the reason why the Iranians perhaps are also making those threats to Bahrain at this point.
Speaker 1: I wanna ask you about Iranian media. They released this video about American imperialism covering, oh, so many American conflicts. It's hard to answer for. I wonder, is it for their own people? Or is it to demoralize us?
Because especially the part about the Epstein, we'll watch it. And and, you know, what do you think this is this accomplishes?
Speaker 0: So that says one vengeance for all. And for people who are listening to the audio version of this video, it's gone viral now. It's been seen millions of times around the world when Iran released it today. The the the again, for people listening to an audio, the idea of the video is that all of these people that we've genocided or helped bomb throughout the centuries are watching as an Iranian ballistic missile is flying overhead, and they're smiling because it's heading towards The United States. Everyone
Speaker 1: Well, the the tablet has blown up says Tel Aviv. And, you know, it's a demonic representation. It's hard to watch because, yeah, we feel awful about most of those things. Who is this for?
Speaker 3: Look. One of the things that have has come out of this war is to see how, trying to find the right word here, how clever the Iranians have been in the propaganda war with the type of videos and messages that they have sent. And you're asking the critical question, who is the audience? If you go back and take a look at particularly the op eds and the tweets by the Iranian foreign minister, it is very clear that they have a much better idea of what the political pulse is in The United States, where the winds are blowing in The United States than we do on what on earth is happening in Iran. So they know very well that the overwhelming majority of Americans have turned very strongly against war, particularly in the younger generation.
They know very well that the younger generation has dramatically turned against Israel, both on the left and the right. They know very well that Epstein is a very sore point even for people who are strong supporters of Trump, and they've been pushing those buttons throughout all of this before the war and even more so now during the war. It's all part of the war effort, and I think the calculation behind these things is both to bolster their position. At the end of that video, it said a vengeance for all, essentially saying that the Iranians are doing the vengeance for all of these other people that in in this video are are presented as victims of The United States or Israel.
Speaker 0: I mean, especially the Epstein piece. I mean, they even put an Epstein Island in there, and there's a little girl on Epstein Island.
Speaker 1: Of it. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I I mean, we have to be careful because, you know, we hate all of those things that they have just shown. But, you know, if we have to be careful to think that Iran would be our savior, like, that's, you know, that's terrifying. And the propaganda is strong, so we have to put ourselves on guard.
Speaker 3: Definitely. And I think we should be on guard in general right now because in a war, there is propaganda coming from all different directions. There's misinformation coming from all kinds of directions. And the truth is, as they say, the first victim in a war. But this, I think, is very much geared towards bolstering the opposition of the war inside The United States amongst Trump's own base.
Whether it's successful in that regard, I don't know. Because as you said, just because a lot of people are, very much opposed to The US going into these unnecessary wars again does not mean in any way, shape, or form that they're gonna take Iran's side in all of this.
Speaker 0: Right. And it seems like their messaging coming from Iran is one of our chat room, people has so rightly put it. It's just reinforcing our already deep hatred of this war. Like, it's vastly unpopular across The United States. So what these memes that Iran is releasing, these Lego memes and other things, is just reinforcing how much we already hate it.
Speaker 1: Which is useful. And it's useful, I'm gonna say, to both sides.
Speaker 0: Well, I just wanna get you out of here, doctor Parsey, on this. You mentioned truths. And there's a lot of misinformation. If you had to name two truths that you see unequivocally right now I was gonna push you on three, but I don't wanna take up too much of your time. Two truths that you see in this war unequivocally right now, what would they be?
Speaker 3: I think the first truth is that we have to go back and recognize how much we were lied to about the efficiency of Iran's missiles during the June war and prior to that. We were constantly told that, oh, the Iranians took a huge whacking beating in in June and etcetera, etcetera. And, undoubtedly, they took a lot of hits. But we knew that Israel has military censorship and does not allow for there to be any reporting about the hits that they're taking. And even though we knew that, the media did not report that.
If you go right now and you see if CNN goes to Tehran, they're forced to say that whatever reporting they're doing there is with the permission of the government. That's true. It's fair that you mention it. But you don't mention it when you're in Israel and which it's very clear. You can only film where the military censorship allows you to film.
Even when it comes to, you know, the damage done, this the casualties, etcetera, that's based on official figures that do not include where the missiles hit military facilities. One of the worst things that happened during the June war was that because the foreign media were only allowed to see nonmilitary places that had been receiving missiles, whether they were targeted or not, they reported the Iranians are only targeting civilian targets even though they knew that the censorship doesn't allow them to see the rest. So I think that's one of those things. We were lied to about the efficiency of the Iranian missiles, and as a result, it became easier to go to war with a country which we were told is much weaker than it is.
Speaker 0: Right. And
Speaker 3: also Go
Speaker 0: ahead. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And the second undeniable truth is we have to really come to terms of the fact that The US' interest and Israel's interest in this war and also before, in my view, for quite some time has been diverging. And we have to make a real decision. Are we gonna be America first in the sense of not being against other countries, but but like any other country, have to pursue in, our policy based on what is our national interest rather than, essentially letting other countries preferences or interests take equal or even greater weight. We have to stop that, not just with Israel, but with other countries as well.
But in The Middle East, when we have done that with Israel, which is almost always, it has oftentimes led us getting dragged into wars.
Speaker 0: Doctor. Trita Parsi, we really appreciate your thoughtful responses.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 0: Really educated and thoughtful responses. Great to have you. Thank you so much. Appreciate I'd to have you back.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Anytime. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see a depopulation plan. Agenda 2030 was said to make food safer, but pesticides doubled, dementia surged in under-45s, Roundup linked to cancer and Alzheimer's, and Washington shielded the company from courtroom accountability.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
DEPOPULATION is the plan. 🏴☠️ They told us Agenda 2030 would make our food safer. It didn't. Pesticide use doubled. Dementia EXPLODING in people under 45. Roundup linked to cancer AND Alzheimer's. And Washington just made sure the company behind it never sees a courtroom. https://t.co/V4Lj7fgnwe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Clayton opens by arguing that Agenda 2030 is not dead but advancing more aggressively than ever, reshaping how people live, eat, travel, work, own property, and how populations are managed. He notes the plan was rolled out by the United Nations in 2015 as a global mission to tackle poverty, hunger, and promote health, education, equality, DEI, and a move toward a one-world governance system. He contends that, despite promises of peace and prosperity, evidence suggests Agenda 2030 has pushed forward a broader globalist control agenda, including depopulation theories, the end of private property, and a shift to digital ownership. He highlights “fifteen minute cities” and other reforms as developments seen in real time, while claiming the policy has not fulfilled its stated health or sustainability goals.
Clayton emphasizes a specific disconnect: while Agenda 2030 promised safer agriculture and reduced chemical exposure, actual agricultural data show increasing chemical dependence. He cites FAO data indicating that total pesticide use in 2023 reached 3,730,000 tons of active ingredients, a 14% rise over a decade, with pesticide use intensity over two pounds per acre—twice the 1990 level. He notes that other global studies show pesticide use up about 20% over the previous decade. Despite rhetoric about sustainability and reduced chemical inputs, Clayton argues agriculture has moved toward greater chemical dependence, implying a contradiction between promises and outcomes. He also references a curb in insects he previously observed, suggesting ecosystem disruption consistent with rising chemical use.
Clayton then critiques a recent executive order that he sees as protecting Bayer and Monsanto in glyphosate production, despite allegations linking glyphosate to cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. He frames the move as counter to the stated goals of better health and safer food, calling out a tension between official health claims and policy action.
Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to unpack these concerns. She agrees Agenda 2030 marches forward regardless of administration, noting that the policy has created chaos and confusion. She argues farmers have become dependent on pesticides for quantity of food production, not necessarily quality, leading to soil degradation and diminished ecosystem health. She asserts glyphosate and other pesticides are harmful to human health and soil microbiomes, and she emphasizes the need to regain local control of farming inputs to reduce dependence on foreign manufacturers. She argues that even organic farming cannot fully avoid pesticide exposure due to global contamination, and she highlights chlorpyrifos as particularly damaging to DNA, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and cognitive health. She discusses the link between environmental toxins and increases in dementia and other neurocognitive disorders, suggesting environmental exposure plays a role alongside other factors.
Bright stresses that the gut microbiome is central to health and cognitive function, describing the gut-brain axis via the vagus nerve, where gut microbes influence mood, digestion, and cognition. She explains that a degraded soil microbiome leads to a degraded gut microbiome, reducing the body's ability to produce serotonin and other essential compounds, contributing to anxiety, depression, and chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. She notes that antibiotics and modern medical practices can disrupt the microbiome, and she criticizes the tendency for physicians to treat symptoms rather than root causes.
In discussing mitigation, Bright advises careful food sourcing, supporting organic or regenerative farmers, and prioritizing prevention while acknowledging that some pesticides cannot be entirely avoided. She highlights kimchi as a potent natural modulator of the gut microbiome, pointing to its 900+ probiotic strains, prebiotics, and postbiotics that work together to support gut health. She cites studies showing kimchi improves cognitive function impaired by amyloid beta, reduces aging in human cells, and may lower body fat when eaten daily. She argues kimchi provides a robust, multi-pathway benefit beyond typical probiotic supplements and emphasizes daily consumption for health gains. Bright explains that kimchi fermentation degrades chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with high toxicity, and notes that kimchi’s gut-protective properties help shield against toxins.
Bright further discusses the superiority of a diverse microbial ecosystem over sheer CFU counts, arguing that complex microbial ecosystems more accurately predict health. She shares anecdotal success stories of Kimchi One customers experiencing brain fog relief and mood improvements, attributing these outcomes to gut health.
The conversation concludes with Bright reiterating that Agenda 2030 remains active and urging proactive personal health measures, including daily kimchi intake and informed food choices. She encourages readers to take responsibility for their bodies and to seek reliable information while resisting uniform passivity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, just when you thought maybe agenda 2030 was dead in the water, not so fast. In fact, maybe stronger than ever. Agenda 2030 made go down as one of the most sweeping and dramatic attempts to reshape human life in modern history. We're not talking about a few minor policy changes around the edges. We're talking about a full scale transformation of how people live, how people eat, how people travel, work, own property, ultimately, how populations are managed and controlled.
Is the Iran war, like, a major piece of this new control grid? It's hard to say. Well, the most important part of this is that it's not some far off plan sitting on a shelf somewhere. It's already underway massively. Much more of it is still coming.
So buckle up. For those who may not already know, Agenda twenty thirty was rolled out by the United Nations in 2015, presented as a coordinated global mission to tackle issues like poverty and hunger. That's how they presented it to us, while also promoting good health. Right? Don't eat meat.
Eat fake plant based garbage. Get quality education. Who who's telling us, like, what quality education? Like, who's going to provide that education? Really?
Equality. Right? It's all about equality. DEI, a whole list of other, like, lofty utopian sounding goals. One world government, essentially.
But despite the sweeping promises that were made at the start, the evidence that has emerged since then has led many people to believe it's already done far more to advance with some are calling the new world order and the broader glow goals of globalist control than to deliver the peace and prosperity that it was supposed to bring in. And over the past several years, more and more details about what critics believe is the real agenda have continued to surface. The push towards a one world government. The end of private property. They don't want you to own anything.
Right? You'll own nothing. And they love that. Everything is moving to digital, so you don't own any sort of physical media. You won't own property anymore.
Then you have the rise of the fifteen minute cities, which is happening in real time, designed in a way that many fear would make populations easier to monitor, to manage, to control. We've already seen these fifteen minute cities rolling out in England. We've covered it on our show. And even signs pointing to what some believe is a full scale depopulation program. Now while all of those concerns are serious and impossible to ignore, one part of agenda twenty thirty that has not gotten nearly enough attention, and in some cases, has been almost completely ignored, is the effect it's had on agriculture and how the policies tied to it appear to have taken us in the exact opposite direction from what people were promised.
Because agenda twenty thirty didn't just claim it would help end hunger. It also made major promises about protecting the integrity of the food supply, reducing harmful effects of what ends up on our plates at dinnertime. The agenda claimed it would move the world towards safer agriculture, less toxic exposure, get us away from all those harmful pesticides, stronger control over hazardous chemicals, and sustainable development goals. You can see that most clearly in target 3.9, which calls for a major reduction in deaths and illness caused by hazardous chemicals and pollution. And in target 12.4 in the document, which calls for environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste throughout their full life cycle by 2030.
And then when you pair that with target 2.4 on sustainable food production, the message seemed clear. Agriculture was supposed to become more productive without making us even more dependent on harmful chemical inputs. But the actual evidence points in the opposite direction. The latest figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization show that at total agriculture pesticide use in '2 in 2023 reached 3,730,000 tons of active ingredients. That's 14% higher than it was a decade ago.
Oh, but we're all eating organic food. Everything's natural now. So that's roughly double what it was in 1990. And keep in mind, that's only what is officially being reported because the FAO also shows pesticide use intensity at more than two pounds per acre of cropland in 2023. Again, this is three years ago.
That's significantly higher than it was ten years earlier. You think it's gone down since then? And that tells us the problem isn't just that more land is being farmed. It shows that there's actually a deeper and growing chemical dependence built into the system itself. Another widely cited global database study found that pesticide use increased by around 20% over the previous decade.
So despite all of this language about sustainability that came out of agenda 2030, the reality on the ground is that agriculture has continued moving steadily towards greater chemical dependence, not less. And what about all the insects, by the way? Like, where'd they go? We had Dave Wiggington on recently, and he said, do you ever notice when you're driving? Remember the nineties you would drive and your car windshield would be covered in bugs at the end of the night in the summertime?
Like, that was constant. My little 1989 Ford Escort that I used to drive with my friends and blast Tom Petty music in the summertime, it was covered in mosquitoes and bugs. Not anymore. Where'd they all go? So you have these, like, direct contradictions, the gap between what was promised, what was actually what has actually happened that are driving more and more people to conclude that agenda 2030 has not protected us at all from dangerous chemicals, but may have actually accelerated the pesticide use and the spread.
It's how this works. Then came a sudden shift that left a lot of people scratching their heads. A recent issued executive order. I mean, this was made us furious here at Redacted. It sparked major backlash from the MAHA movement.
Like, wait a minute. This is exact opposite of the MAHA movement. The order taken by the administration appeared to give added protection to Bayer and Monsanto in its production of, glysophate, the key ingredient in Roundup despite the mounting evidence and large numbers of lawsuits tied to
Speaker 1: glass
Speaker 0: glysophate. It's linked to higher risk of cancer, Alzheimer's disease. Watch this.
Speaker 2: Fifty years ago, Monsanto invented something that would change the world forever.
Speaker 3: Roundup. No root, no weed, no problem.
Speaker 2: Roundup was more than just a good weed killer.
Speaker 1: We've been using the weed killer for decades, but now it's at the center of a billion dollar health scandal.
Speaker 2: Did Roundup weed killer cause a man to get cancer?
Speaker 3: There's many, many diseases that are linked to glyphosate exposure.
Speaker 0: My doctor, he goes, You know, I think this is all due to Roundup.
Speaker 2: What made Roundup so effective was the chemical glyphosate that, thanks to Monsanto, has become the most popular pesticide in the world and now one that's linked to cancer.
Speaker 1: My patient's dying just so their shareholders can make a few more bucks, just so their CEO can get a bonus.
Speaker 2: Despite its links to cancer, Roundup is still a billion dollar business. So how exactly did Monsanto pull this off?
Speaker 1: There was an intentional effort to deceive that took place over many, many decades.
Speaker 2: And now, Mons anto has a new owner, a billion dollar pharmaceutical firm. And together, they're working on a way to keep selling Roundup no matter the cost.
Speaker 0: So more glyphosate in our systems. Now the main justification for this move was that it was necessary to protect American manufacturing, support domestic production. But for a lot of people, myself included, something about that explanation, of course, doesn't sit right at all. Because if the stated goal all along has been better health, safer food, less exposure to these dangerous chemicals, then why are we suddenly watching government policy move in the opposite direction? Like, why is the Trump administration supporting more of this in our soil?
So today, I wanted to bring on Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, back on the show to help us sort through these controversial decisions. Kim has been fighting this cabal for nearly fifty years. Hopefully, she can help us make sense of what we're seeing and, maybe what's lingering here beneath the surface. Kim, great to see you. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Well, great to be back. Thanks for having me. You know, Clayton, I remember when Natalie was interviewing a reporter a couple months ago, and they were speaking about the 2030 agenda. And he said something that really stuck deeply in my mind, that the agenda marches forward regardless of the administration and who is in power. And, you know, I hate to say it, but man, he's right about that.
But here's the deal, you know, these guys like to cause chaos and confusion and they're sure doing that. And I'm as confused as everyone else about some of the things going on right now. I mean, for instance, the farmers that, you know, they were talking about in that clip, there isn't another option right now that allows us to continue to produce enough food agriculturally to feed everyone without making a transition first because we've been dependent. They made the farmers dependent on these pesticides, for what, close to now over a half century. And, so we're talking about they did it for the quantity of food that could be produced, not the quality of it, But now they're so dependent on it, and they've they've basically killed everything in the soils.
And so the any bugs that are out there, yeah, there's less bugs, I think, because they've been killed off too. But any of those bugs now, you know, they're gonna they're gonna attack the the weakened plants even more. And the other thing is, you know, there's no doubt that glyphosate and other pesticides are totally bad for our health. But one positive, I try and find a positive somehow in this, is that we are taking away the manufacturing of this from other countries because the number one producer of glyphosate worldwide is China. And before this executive order, Bayer Monsanto produced the majority of glyphosate in Germany.
But I think gaining control of manufacturing will allow us to wane off dependence on this dangerous chemical. Plus a lot of other things have to change too to get us to get that soil healthy again. It's it's not gonna happen overnight. But people still have to eat something, and and that's just the gist of it. But, you know, at the end of the day, regardless of who's producing it, we're it's still poison.
Speaker 0: And and I wanna Can you Yeah.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: I'm just curious that the poison part of this, like I mean, it's unbelievable to me. Like, I I lived around, like, a small lake in Pennsylvania, and they would tell us in the HOA documents because they knew how detrimental it was to the water supply and the lake, to the fish and everything else. Like, do not use Roundup to spray your driveway or whatever, you know, in your because it would run off right into this into this lake. And it would have a detrimental effect on the fish and the whole ecosystem. It was in the homeowners association documents.
You weren't allowed to use Roundup specifically labeled this, and this is, like, twenty years ago. So we know like, we know that this is a poison, but how bad is glyphosate? Like, what exactly is it doing to us?
Speaker 1: Well, it's first of all, it's destroying the the microorganisms in the soil, and that's what allows the the plants to uptake nutrients. But it's also, it's destroying that microbiome, but it's also going into our body and destroying our microbiome. It's destroying our good bacteria that do so many things in our body that I'll get to a little bit later. But, know, Clayton, it's been known. And so it's been, it's just been keeping in use because there's lots of money involved.
And when you can keep people, make people sicker and sicker on this stuff and poison them more, well, guess what? Medical community, they make a lot of money. All these guys, big pharma, we've talked about this before, they're all working in collusion together. And, you know, the thing is, it's not just glyphosate, Clayton, It's pesticides also that are far worse than glyphosate. And they're still being used.
I don't Did you ever read Silent Spring?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Oh my God, what's her name?
Speaker 1: I can't think of it now. I'm having a break. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I read it I read it in college, Silent Spring, of course, and it was all about the DDT and the Bald Eagles. Oh, my gosh. It's Philip insets and everything.
Speaker 1: I mean, It's just it's Rachel Carlson. Rachel Carlson. That's it. Rachel Carlson. Carlson.
Sorry. Rachel Carlson. Carlson. Rachel Carlson. Yeah.
No. It's been going on for so long, and and they're still using pesticides that are far worse than glyphosate. And I find it very interesting too that, even though all of this has has been shown to us in our health as it it's it's not good for us, there are thousands of lawsuits, that are against the glyphosate concerning the glyphosate, but virtually there's no lawsuits against these other pesticides that are proven to be more harmful. And some of these pesticides have even been used as in warfare, as nerve agents, and they're wreaking havoc on our health, especially, I think for older Americans, which leads me to believe, Clayton, that glyphosate, despite being unquestionably bad for our health, is far from being the most toxic pesticide that we're being exposed to.
Speaker 0: So it's kinda like they're like the boogeyman, like life is just like the boogeyman, but there's like far there's many, many other pesticides that are maybe even far worse. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's just what they're adept at. It's like, look over here, but don't look at what here what we're doing here. Oh, look over here. You know that whole thing, how they So, work all you know, there's so much mounting evidence that pesticides are being used as part of, of course, the deliberate population control program, which we know they all, you know, the bad guys want. And that's increasing our risk of cancer and other chronic diseases.
But it's not just that. They're actually, these pesticides are actually attacking our cognitive abilities in a way that could be nothing less than intentional targeting. And what I'm talking about here, Clayton, is problems with our memory, higher rates of dementia and Parkinson's disease. I mean, just a few days ago, Robert Mueller just passed away and he was dealing with years of Parkinson's. These things affect our mood, they give us anxiety, depression, because our body's not, it's suppressing the good guys in our body and aiding and abetting the bad guys.
It's raising our risk for other chronic diseases like heart disease and asthma and diabetes and cancer. But again, back to 2030, the whole Agenda 2030. I think that, you know, for those who simply see Agenda 2,030 as a scheme for depopulation, I think they're missing out on how just how intricate and detailed some of these attacks are. I don't think the goal is simply depopulation. I think they wanna depopulate and disarm those that have the presence of mind and know how to fight back.
I mean, everything about how this agenda is played out indicates that they want to target older, wiser individuals first. And I think it could be for a variety of reasons. I believe that it's because the younger generations have already been conditioned to comply for the most part. So they're not having that tendency to resist. Some are, but, you know, a majority of people that are younger aren't.
And I think even being aware that something's very wrong in in what we're dealing with every day, it eludes them. And I think these these the bad guys, they want a generation, the new generation that's made up of those TikTok robots. Syncing they seek instant gratification, and they wanna populate these fifteen minute cities with people who are incapable of recognizing what's truly going on in the injustices and essentially the people that are too naive to think for themselves. So, you know, if you become fixated solely on that it's deep on depopulation, I think you're missing the point because they can target the population most apt to resist without killing them, but robbing them of their cognitive facilities and mental stability.
Speaker 0: I mean, this dementia thing is a huge piece of it. I've been seeing studies over the past week, actually. I was away for for a little bit, over the weekend, and I was reading a study about dementia, and I couldn't believe the explosion of it. I mean, because, you know, in Alzheimer's and everything else, but like, why are we seeing I think it was like what was that number? Like a three hundred and seventy three percent increase in dementia among thirty to forty four year olds?
Like, what?
Speaker 1: It's staggering. Staggering. And then it's a a three hundred and eleven percent increase in forty five to fifty four year olds. You never heard about these age groups No. Having dementia before.
I mean, this is this is this is significant.
Speaker 0: And Do you believe that it's environmental? I mean, it's gotta be. I mean, where else is it coming from?
Speaker 1: It's definitely environmental because if you if you look at the bigger picture environmentally, you know, they're spraying this our skies with the chemtrails and the aluminum and everything that's in that, and it comes down and it and it's killing off our healthy soils. Our our soils are struggling. The plants then struggle. The animals that eat the plants, including humans, are struggling. You know, it's definitely environmental.
The waters are polluted, everything. And, you know, so going back to, you know, the dementia and Alzheimer's, I mean, mental issues, health issues also have shown a significant consistent increase over the past two to three decades, Clayton, with a sharp acceleration around 2009 to 2015. But, at the same time, the overall pesticide consumption rose by approximately 58% over the two decades leading up to 2015 with a consistent trend, an upward trend in that same time range. But
Speaker 0: But no one's willing to call that out. I mean, that seems to be a pretty obvious core like right? I mean, the same time, we see a massive increase in the amount of pesticide use around the same timeframe, and then we see this massive skyrocketing of dementia?
Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. And that's, you know, keep in mind, it's all pre COVID and pre vaccine, which isn't to say that that vaccine, the COVID vaccine didn't play a role in it as well. I think it certainly has, but the ultimate point is that there isn't any one thing really. It's all of these things that are being used by those who are really in control to gain more and more power for their agenda.
They're they're they're trying to reduce us down to to nothing. And and, you know, we're gonna be happy with no property. We're gonna be happy with no health. We're gonna be happy with nothing. And so, you know, raising awareness is a huge part of the battle that we're in, and it truly is a battle.
But my mission has been for the past fifty years to not only bring awareness to these problems, but also help educate people about what we can actively do as individuals to to try and protect ourselves against this craziness. So
Speaker 0: what can we do to actually protect ourselves from all of this?
Speaker 1: Well, first and foremost, I think, you know, people trusted for so long, Clayton, that if it was on a grocery shelf or, you know, anywhere, food, whether it was ultra processed or whatever, it's okay to eat, because otherwise it wouldn't be there. But you have to now be very careful and selective about what you're eating. Thank goodness RFK Jr. Came in and started exposing this on a grand level about, you know, ultra processed foods. You gotta pay attention to the sourcing of your food, and eat organic whenever possible.
Try and go out to, you know, find farmers that are growing organically or regenerative, farming and support them and and stop just for the don't get used to the convenience of supermarket food because you don't know where it came from. So try and be more selective and, you know, if possible. And prevention, of course, is always the first step, but it's far from enough. You know, a lot of people, they picture pesticides as something that just sits on top of, you know, the outside of the produce, like a dusty layer that they can just take home and rinse off with water. But let me tell you, those pesticides are really interesting because, you know, you need more than water to rinse the things off that just sit on the outside, but a lot of them actually will soak in and move through the plant's tissues.
So you're eating a plant that is inundated with these pesticides. I mean, think about how a plant drinks water through its roots and it sends it up to the leaves and the fruit and certain pesticides that hitches a ride in that same system, And it ends up inside what you're actually going to eat. Now, are others that'll stay on the surface and cling to that skin and the leaves after spraying, but there are others also like, you know, they spray with the GMO corn and it floats down the road and infects other organic cornfields down the road. Well, that's what I
Speaker 0: was gonna ask you. Like, we talk about organic. It's like I remember when I lived in Montana, there was big concerns, like you'd have certain farms and ranches that didn't want they really wanted to make sure that whatever was being sprayed on that ranch wouldn't just be windswept and blow right into the other ranchers. And so they had to deal with this, and they wouldn't they would discover and by the way, they would even be sued by Mansanto because they would know, like, certain seeds that were Monsanto seeds, Roundup protective seeds were flowing into other people's farms. And, like, I didn't plant this.
It flew from that other farm, and now you're suing me because I have a Monsanto seed that I didn't pay for? Like so how do you even I mean, there's really no way to keep this stuff away from these other farms, sadly, it seems.
Speaker 1: It's really tough. I mean, it even goes into the irrigation water, and it shows up where you least expect it. Yeah. I remember those days. They used to send around people to go take samples of other people's, farm, stuffs that they were growing in order to sue them.
The people how are
Speaker 0: you able
Speaker 1: to do with those.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's trespassing. Like, you have Monsanto, like, lawyers, like, snooping around farms stealing seeds so they can, like, scan it and see if it's a Monsanto seed or not, like a Roundup, you know, protective seed. It's unbelievable. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It is crazy. I mean, you know, but it just people have to understand that these pesticides have leached their way into our soil on a global scale. So even if you're following strict organic diets, you're you're not gonna avoid the rapidly accelerating eventual exposure. And some of these pesticides we're talking about have been proven to be more toxic, as I said earlier, than glyphosate, and perhaps the most damaging and widely used pesticide now is called chlorpyrifus, and it's causing severe damage to our DNA, our cardiovascular, our respiratory systems, and unequaled level of damage to our cognition and brain health. And I just want people to understand that when it comes to our brain, when it comes to all these other areas of our body and organs, the first line of defense is our gut.
Speaker 0: So how can you maybe explain a little bit more? I mean, I know this from years ago, but it's certainly the science on it has expanded dramatically. I mean, going back to the days when I would interview Doctor. David Perlmutter, and he was exposing this brain gut health relationship and Alzheimer's. And he was, like, kinda getting vilified for his this was, like, twenty years ago for his, like, brain gut health relationship.
Maybe can you explain, how your gut health impacts your brain health and maybe leading to this dementia problem?
Speaker 1: Sure. I mean, we have what's like this highway from our gut to our brain. It's our vagus nerve. And they communicate along this highway. And all aspects of our cognitive health, whether it's early onset Alzheimer's or other neurological disorders or our mood, are determined by the health of our gut because our brain chemistry originates in our microbiome and then travels up that highway through the vagus nerve.
That is called our gut brain axis. And it involves nerves and hormones and immune signals where they're constantly sending messages affecting our mood, our digestion, our stress levels, know, even our cognitive function. And the microbes play a significant role in this crosstalk. I mean, if you can think of your gut as your second brain that talks to your actual brain, it's influencing everything from anxiety to appetite. And the gut doesn't only affect our brain, it affects all areas of our body.
Now, how it does this is the gut, when we have, it's just kind of like, if people can think with, if you have a sick soil and it has been robbed of its beneficial bacteria that help a plant, a seed, when you put that seed in that soil, it needs the good microbes there in order for that seed to be able to grow and uptake nutrients and elements that eventually come into our food supply that then we eat. And what happens is when we take food that is loaded up with good bacteria, we're able to then have that in our body. But if we're uptaking food that is lacking nutrients, is lacking enzymes because it's been created in almost dead soil, pesticide rich soil, our gut microbiome is going to be sick too. You have a sick soil microbiome, you're gonna have a sick gut microbiome. And what does that mean?
That means that we've got viruses that come in and replace the good bacteria. We have fungus that comes in. We have parasites that come in and thrive in our gut. And when that happens, the gut cannot naturally make things like serotonin, our happy hormone. It can't make that in the gut.
That's where it originates. 80% of our immune system's in our gut and our immune system weakens just like the immune system of the plants. They have a, not quite like our immune system, but they have an immune system where they have these protective elements that they pass on to us that aren't there if they're being grown in this depleted soil. So if people can really understand that when we are eating food that is is made from from, a soil that's been depleted, our gut's depleted, and it cannot make and produce the, hormones. It cannot, make and produce the hormones that are gonna affect our mood, that then ultimately affect give us anxiety.
It can't, manufacture the things that's needed to break down bile. So then our blood fills up with fat, and then we have high cholesterol, and then we have heart problems. And then we have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. All this starts and originates in our gut, and we can't think straight. We get foggy brain, we get Alzheimer's, we get dementia because that whole communication system that goes from our gut to our brain, the gut to our liver, the gut to our skin, even we start seeing all kinds of things happening on our skin.
It all comes back to that healthy microbiome.
Speaker 0: It's remarkable. And I think you I know that FDA Commissioner, Doctor. Marty Makari was recently talking about how serotonin is made in the gut. And so all of it connected. I guess we have this clip.
I wanna play this here. Take a look.
Speaker 3: We also know that the microbiome is producing things central to health. It makes vitamins. It makes clotting factors. It makes serotonin, which is involved in mood. 90% of your body's serotonin is made in the microbiome.
What's happening when we alter the microbiome in the modern world? Antibiotics can carpet bomb parts of the microbiome resulting in overgrowth of one type of bacteria. And a study out of the Mayo Clinic that was recently published showed that kids who took antibiotics in the first two years of life had a higher rate of chronic diseases from allergic rhinitis to obesity compared to kids who did not have exposure in the first two years. Why is that? Well, it may be because their microbiome has been altered.
Now the average two year old has already received over two courses of antibiotics in their brief two years, sometimes in the first day of life just as a precaution. And we're now trying to have better antibiotic stewardship.
Speaker 0: That's crazy to me because, you know, you're just destroying that entire population of the good bacteria in your gut biome with these with these, antibiotics. And I've I just saw a study last week actually about how now it can take up to two years to remedy that. If you wipe it out with some sort of an antibiotic, you get the flu or whatever, you know, and they they give this thing to you and you get it can take up to two years to fully build it back again.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you have to know what you're doing to build it back because so many people, if you keep eating, you know, ultra processed foods and everything, it's it's gonna you're not giving your body what it needs to rebuild. And think about it, Clayton. How many people got cesarean deliveries? How many people, didn't get fed breast milk?
All of that aids in a bets of baby's microbiome. And if they if they don't have that, their immune system is so reduced when they came in. So we're dealing with all kinds of attacks from all sides. And then when doctors are targeting brain disease, they will prescribe medications in an effort to directly target the brain. They forget, or they might intentionally do it about, you know, addressing a root cause.
They're treating symptoms instead of curing the problem. And you're going to find the root cause of problems in the brain, just like most other areas of the body, within the gut microbiome because of that balance of good and bad bacteria. And taking proactive steps to protect yourself is as essential, if not more, than simply avoiding pesticides, which you almost can't do this day. And so I got very excited, Clayton. I found this study called Kimchi degrades chlorpyrifus with, you know, the most intense pesticide that we're using, the most damaging, and it accounts for 40% of total global pesticide usage.
And it's far more dangerous, as I said, than glyphosate. And this study that I found showed that kimchi actually degrades it during fermentation. 83% of this pesticide was degraded by day three. And by day nine, it was degraded completely.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: And just so people know, they actually banned this pesticide completely in 2021. And then they came back and unbanned its use in 2023. So what in the world is going on here? They're clearly playing a game.
Speaker 0: They banned it and then they unband it. And then they unband it.
Speaker 1: They're using glyphosate as a misdirector here, you know? And it's crazy, but the study goes on to show how kimchi's gut protective properties provide us the best protection from toxins in our food supply. And there's so many studies out there, Clayton, that are showing the remarkable ability of kimchi to positively impact not only our brain, but every area of our health.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Like, cognitive and memory functions as well. And if you would talk about the, you know, the dementia piece of this. Right? Here's this study as well on the cognitive and memory functions.
What are we looking at here?
Speaker 1: Well, you're looking at, that the bioactive compounds that are existing in kimchi, that it improves the cognitive memory functions impaired by amyloid beta. Now, is amyloid beta? That's the key marker of Alzheimer's disease. And then the cancer preventative potential of kimchi with the lactic acid bacteria. And there was another study that showed eating kimchi every day for twelve weeks, and that's key, eat it every day, can do far more than improve your gut health.
It can actually train your immune system to fight smarter. And there was another study that I found that regarded anti aging effects of kimchi. It actually slowed the aging of human cells. And then another study showed the ability to improve heart health and prevent hypertension. And another study I read reduced the body fat by 31.8% by eating kimchi every day.
Can you believe that?
Speaker 0: I I need that. I need that. I've put on a little weight after the holidays. But, it's remarkable because when you look at when you look at kimchi and you think about, okay, I've got to eat all this fermented food, but do I need to eat it on a daily basis? Like, how often are people needing to eat this?
And how and how and what sort of a dosage can people get it and and and and lead to this, change in their body?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, where kimchi originated was Korea, and they eat it over there every single day, sometimes at every single meal. And so there's a reason why all this evidence exists about kimchi and not other probiotic supplements or other fermented foods. I mean, there are people that are taking typical probiotic supplements out there, but I kind of consider them like a one note solution. Whereas kimchi, what it does is it provides a complex microbial symphony, if you will, wrapped in protective fiber delivery system that ensures that the good guys actually arrive alive down to our gut. And it's more like a full ecosystem package because it has the 900 unique strains of probiotics.
And it's naturally bringing prebiotics, which is the plant fibers and compounds that are found in some of its ingredients, the cabbage, the garlic, the onions, etcetera, that will feed the beneficial bacteria. And in postbiotics, the helpful compounds that those bacteria are producing during fermentation, you know, like organic acids and bioactive metabolites, that combination matters because the probiotics often struggle to colonize or even to survive if the gut environment is not supportive. So kimchi has all those things that help create the supportive environment and delivers ready made microbial byproducts that can interact with the gut lining and immune system right away. And in practice, that means that kimchi can offer a more reliable multi pathway benefit than let's say your typical probiotic pill. You know, if people are taking that typical probiotic supplement, you're likely also only getting a few different strains of bacteria, but a high CFU count.
While billions of CFU counts makes for great marketing, focusing solely on the quantity of bacteria is kind of like judging a military strength by the number of soldiers while ignoring their specialized training. So if you look in the complex landscape of the human microbial diversity is number one key. It's a far more accurate predictor of health than raw CFU counts. And this resilient gut that we wanna build isn't built by a massive population of identical strains, which is what I'm talking about in the probiotic supplements, but by a varied community that can adapt and defend and perform a wide array of metabolic tasks.
Speaker 0: So I guess, like, is this something that we would need to take on a daily basis? I mean, I take, you know, I take kimchi every day. I certainly try to eat it as much as possible, try to always eat it with meat. And if I don't, I try to take supplements, obviously. But how often do we have to take this in order to like build this up?
Speaker 1: Well, in every single research paper that I've read, and I've read thousands, they take it every day. And in order to reap all the health benefits of kimchi, I believe it needs to be consumed on a daily basis, which is why we decided to create, Kimchi One. So we could put all the remarkable benefits of kimchi in a convenient capsule form, which people are used to taking. I mean, the studies, you know, show that people, especially Americans that aren't used to this type of food may not eat it every day. But I wanna say one thing, when it's in a capsule, most Americans are used to taking it that way.
But if you look at the studies, the studies are great, but nothing compares, Clayton, to hearing directly from the people that have used Kimchi One and have benefited from being able to take it every day. And we have thousands of stories, but I'd like to share just a couple. We had a lady who's from Tulsa. Her name is Jennifer, and she called in and ordered the Kimchi One. She started giving it to her mother who was experiencing things like brain fog and her memory was getting worse.
And she experienced a night and day difference when she started taking the Kimchi One every day. And again, that's because our gut health affects other areas of our health, like our brain, like we've been talking about. And another great success story we've had is, and I felt so sorry for this woman because what she went through was so horrible. It was truly horrible. She's 64, her name is Nancy, and she was dealing with terrible anxiety and depression for decades.
And she couldn't identify the reason and didn't, she didn't want to take prescription drugs and then get on that, you know, wheel where she's stuck in taking them for the rest of her life. So she started taking Kimchi One and she saw an incredible uplift in her mood and energy levels. And now she's happy, you know, that serotonin's being manufactured in her gut and it's all great. But there's countless stories about improved digestion, regularity, stronger immune systems, and people who are suffering from a variety of symptoms and couldn't identify the cause are finally feeling better. And again, you're right.
The key is daily consumption. And having it in the capsules makes it so much easier to stay consistent and actually realize all these health benefits. So kimchi once made here in The United States, all natural, non GMO.
Speaker 0: I take it every day. Like I said, I take two two with me every day, and, I I absolutely love it. So, and now all the you know, every member of my family is taking it as well. And even my I got my father-in-law now to to start taking it. He was, dealing with some of that brain fog, and he's been trying to reverse that.
So, fantastic. So, I know you have a special offer for our viewers. Can you tell us about if people want to order kimchi one and have it delivered to their house?
Speaker 1: Yes. You know, I I just wanna say, like, there's so much chaos going in the world right now. It's easy to have everybody just throw their hands up and and and say, give up. But, you know, you can take proactive steps. So take don't take those steps to protect yourself and your family and society as a whole against things like agenda 2,030.
I mean, when we when we stop fighting the battle is when all hope is lost. So let's, you know, get our guts healthy as a beginning point, and let's, let's help you take this important step. We wanna do that by, offering you 25% off of your order of Kimchi One today by clicking the link below and using the code redacted. Or for an even better deal, call us for up to 50% off and free shipping. And that number is 8884046312.
And we love you to call. We're, you know, I've been educating for over fifty years now, people. We love having you call in. We like to answer your questions and talk to you and make sure that you feel good about this product and you understand how it's gonna work for you and that it's the right product for you. And every person that calls to order, we're going to give you a free bottle of our Thrive.
And Thrive is a curcumin turmeric complex that combats inflammation, boosts your brain function, and even promotes liver health. So remember, you're only gonna get the best discounts and that free bottle of Thrive when you call (888) 404-6312.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I love what you guys do, which is, hey, I we just wanna talk to you on the phone. And if you call us, we'll give you 50% off. If you just wanna use the website, we'll give you 25% off. But we wanna actually develop a relationship with you.
And, it's so funny. Your team because I I buy it separately. I, you know, order it and have it sent to my house. And I eat it I take it every day as part of my supplement stack, so does my wife. And your team called, like, few weeks later just to see how everything was going.
They had no idea who I was. Like, they were not aware that I you know, like and they just were like, you just wanna check-in, see how you're how you're liking everything. And so it's like, wow, that's like such an anachronistic thing. Like an American company that wants to actually have a conversation with you.
Speaker 1: So rare these days. Right? We actually care. It's like the neighbor next door, you know, you could have a conversation. How are you doing?
How's it going? Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's amazing. Well, thank you, Kim, for this. We'll be watching Agenda twenty thirty. You know, it's crazy with Agenda twenty thirty because, oh, I think a lot of people thought that it was dead. Right?
We haven't been hearing about it. It was something under the Biden administration era, you know, these globalists in the EU and the World Health Organization and Klaus Schwab, and it's it's still here. It's still here, and these globalists are running the show.
Speaker 1: Yep. Sorry to say you are correct. You are correct. And we have to just step up to the plate and take more responsibility for what we can and starting with our own bodies. We we can do that.
And, you know, hopefully be a voice out there to, to stop these crazies before it's too late.
Speaker 0: And to be sort of self sustaining in our own way and our own families if we can. It has to start at home, I guess. Kim, great to see you. We'll have links in the description if people wanna take advantage of that. Thank you for this, and thank you for this deep dive on all these pesticides that are currently part of this agenda.
We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Well, you're welcome, and thank you for what you do, you and Natalie.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Kim.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Trump says talks with Iran are going great, Iran denies any talks. 5,000 Marines are being positioned to land on Iranian soil. National security analyst @wethebrandon says it would be Gallipoli—American troops landing in a killbox with no way out.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Trump says talks with Iran are going great. Iran says no talks ever happened. Meanwhile 5,000 Marines are being positioned to land on Iranian territory. National security analyst @wethebrandon says it would be Gallipoli. American troops landing in a killbox with no way out. https://t.co/IaNHHvWLjk
Video Transcript AI Summary
Brandon Weichert, host of Nat Sec Talk on Rumble and senior national security editor at 1945.com, joins the discussion to walk through the latest details in the Iran war and the prospects for peace talks. Early this morning, President Trump posted that there have been “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in The Middle East,” before markets opened, which coincided with a settling of oil and stock markets and a rebound in gold, silver, and Bitcoin. In contrast, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson stated that they “had no talks with The United States,” asserted that “fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets,” and emphasized that “no negotiations have been held with The United States” and that “the Iranian people demand complete and remorse ful punishment of the aggressors,” with officials standing behind their supreme leader.
The discussion then moves to a triad of considerations: the current state of the conflict, the likelihood of peace talks, and where U.S. military actions might head. Weichert argues that the situation is a “quagmire.” He suggests the president is escalating for market timing rather than pursuing genuine diplomacy, noting a significant buildup in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility over the past week. He mentions three potential landing sites for Marine forces that have been discussed: Karg Island (deep inside the Persian Gulf, near Iranian missiles), Keshem Island (closer to the bend of the Strait of Hormuz), and Khanarak/Conarak in the Gulf of Oman (closer to where U.S. warships operate). He warns that a landing, particularly at these locations, could resemble Gallipoli rather than a successful operation, given Iran’s drone and missile overmatch (including “over 88,000 Shahed drones,” with a note that Iran may not even know the exact number due to dispersion).
The goal of such a landing, he explains, would be sea control, allowing land-based missiles to counteract moves to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, he predicts the operation would end in disaster for the United States, with Marines facing drones and missiles, potentially leading to an Israeli escalation including a nuclear option. He asserts that Netanyahu’s government is “deeply committed to war, a regime change war” against Iran, and that Israel’s actions are driven by domestic political needs, such as diverting attention from investigations and corruption issues.
Weichert discusses whether there could be an off-ramp. He suggests that if the United States pulled back, Israel might recalibrate, though he doubts the Iranians want an off-ramp now, stating that Iranian President Raisi has called for “bloody the Americans” to deter further aggression, and that Iran’s long-term strategy centers on survival and leveraging economic and political pressures as U.S. stockpiles of key weapons systems deplete.
The conversation shifts to the broader strategic picture: U.S. strategy has been inconsistent—initially aiming for regime change, then nuclear and missile denuclearization, and then suppression of Iran’s regional power—without a cohesive objective. Iran, by contrast, aims to survive and delay, using a patient, measured approach and coercive tactics through drones, missiles, and economic pressure. Weichert argues that time and space are Iran’s allies and that the United States is being strategically defeated in a multipolar environment, with China, Russia, and regional actors like the Houthis potentially extending the conflict.
The discussion then veers into domestic financial tools and media dynamics, with a plug for Rumble Wallet, promoting crypto and non-bank financial control, including the ability to tip creators without fees and to hold assets like Bitcoin, USAT (a new Tether-like asset), or Zcash. The hosts contrast the handling of information and alleged intelligence biases, accusing Israeli sources of influencing U.S. intelligence and decision-making. They reference Joe Kent’s criticisms of the intelligence ecosystem and describe an perceived “echo chamber” around the administration, suggesting that Israel exerts substantial influence over U.S. strategy.
Finally, Weichert reiterates the risk of a broader war, potentially drawing in NATO members and regional powers, and warns that a continued escalation could precipitate a global confrontation. The guest outlines potential outcomes, including the possibility of a Gallipoli-like failure for American forces, long-term economic and strategic realignments, and even discussions of nuclear scenarios if conventional options falter. The interview closes with Weichert’s contact points and platforms for further comment and analysis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where are things right now with this war in Iran? Well, if you listen to president Trump early this morning before the markets opened, that's a key point in this entire story, he posted this on social media. I'm pleased to report that The United States Of America and the country of Iran have had over the last two days very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in The Middle East. Okay. So that was before the markets opened, and then things really seemed to settle down in the in the oil markets and in the stock market.
And then in the gold markets, gold rebounding, as well silver coming back, even Bitcoin coming back. Then Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson says they had no talks with The United States. Iranian people demand complete and remorse ful punishment of the aggressors, he posted. All Iranian officials stand firmly behind their supreme leader and people until this goal is achieved. No negotiations have been held with The United States, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which The US and Israel are trapped.
So Brandon Weichardt is the host of the Nat Sec Talk on Rumble and a senior national security editor at 1945.com. He's been doing some incredible work, and we wanted to invite Brandon on to kinda walk through all of the latest details in this war. Brandon, great to have you here on the show.
Speaker 1: It's great to be here. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: So about this quagmire that the Iranian people can see so clearly, but it seems the president cannot. Can you just sort of explain where we are right now and the likelihood of any kind of peace talks?
Speaker 1: Well, we're stuck. That's where we are.
Speaker 2: We
Speaker 1: are. The quagmire. And, the only options we have are to drop this thing like a hot potato, or if I can mix metaphors, to spastically climb the escalation ladder. And it sounds like contrary to whatever the president is tweeting or true social ing about, he's timing it, as you know, for the markets. This is not a real, I think, diplomatic initiative.
I think he's talking to himself most of the time. But whatever's going on with that, it is very obvious the troop movements are clear. I've been monitoring a very significant buildup in the region, The Middle East, the CENTCOM area of responsibility for the last week. It's getting bigger and bigger, and I believe the president has decided to attempt to escalate this thing by landing marines in one of three locations. We've all been hearing about Karg Island, which is sort of deep inside, the Strait Of Hormuz.
It's it's or rather the Persian Gulf. It's beyond the Strait Of Hormuz. It's very close to Iranian, you know, missiles and whatnot. And that would be a very, very, very bad idea to send 2,505,000 marines. It'd be like Gallipoli in World War one.
There's Keshem Island, which is much closer to the actual bend of the Strait Of Hormuz. Again, it's in the kill box for the Iranians. And then the other one that I'm hearing not many people talk about is Khanarak and or Conorak. And that's their naval facility that's in the Gulf Of Oman, which means it's closer to where our warships are operating. And, yeah.
And exactly. And, and basically, technically, it would be a little bit quote unquote easier for our troops to be able to get over to and to have some kind of backing from the Navy because the Navy won't go near the Strait Of Hormuz, right now. So much winning. But ultimately, ultimately, this will lead whether it's one of those three spots, this will end in the same way. It will be Gallipoli for the Americans, which means it will be a complete route of the US military.
And that's not because our marines are bad at their jobs, far from it, but it's because they're not gonna be fighting conventional forces. They're gonna be waiting ashore against an enemy that they're not gonna see because the enemy has studied Russian and Ukrainian military doctrine from the Ukraine war and determined that you fight conventional forces with tens of thousands of drones and with missile overmatch. And that's exactly what the Iranians have today. They have over 88,000 Shahed drones. In fact, I was told they actually don't know how many they have because they've dispersed them so well, and they keep building more of them every day.
So they're gonna be throwing those swarms of drones at the 2,500 or 5,000, marines that are deployed by Trump. So this thing's gonna end a disaster.
Speaker 2: But Kent, what would they be trying to do? They would be trying to take over
Speaker 1: Sea control.
Speaker 2: Control of a naval base. Then what? Yeah. Though, because having even one is is what's the leap lily pad from there?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, again, it's this is this is the this is a thoughtless exercise. I'm very surprised that this has got it's gotten this far than that there hasn't been mass resignations from the top military brass, but here we are. The theory is that they would, the Marines would be used to create a foothold in one of those three locations, likely locations. And from there, they could essentially interdict the sea lane and could basically punch through with land.
They could establish land based, missiles and whatnot that could counteract in theory, whatever the Iranians were using to close the Strait Of Hormuz. Now, this is ultimately about trying to reassure the markets and open up the Strait Of Hormuz. But again, they're not going to get that far. This thing's gonna they're going to try to land these guys. They're going to get slaughtered.
It's going to be a complete route. It'll be a humiliation of US military power beyond what we've already seen here. And it's gonna lead to, I think, the Israelis stepping in and launching a nuke at, you know, at Iran. I think we're we're quickly on that that glide slope to to nuclear weapons being used. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 0: I mean, you think about every time The United States is sort of positioning itself here, we're having talks. We're, you know, gonna be meeting diplomatically. There seems to be an end around from the Israelis, some sort of attack, some sort of an energy infrastructure attack, something that's sort of sideswiping what The United States is doing here. And president Trump kind of acknowledged that today. He was asked about these diplomatic talks.
He said, well, we were talking, and it's kind of a third level person. I don't wanna give you his name. And
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I I wanna play this soundbite because it's very telling what he's saying in this what he's saying here is, I'm not going to give you his name. I don't want him to be killed. Killed killed by whom? The Israelis. Listen.
I see what's up speaking with, mister president. He quit in Iran.
Speaker 3: A top a top person. Don't forget. We've wiped out the leadership phase one, phase two, and largely phase three. But we're dealing with the man who I believe is the most respected and the leader. You know, it's a little tough.
They've wiped out we've wiped out everybody.
Speaker 0: Is that the supreme leader?
Speaker 3: No. Not the supreme leader. We don't much trouble. Well, nobody's ever nobody heard of the second supreme leader, the Sun. Are these directors?
Nobody we have not heard from the Sun. Every once in a while, you'll see a statement made, but we haven't we don't know if he's living. But the people that seem to be running it, and they seem that based on really fact because things they've said have taken place.
Speaker 0: Mister president again. Mister president,
Speaker 3: I know you've deployed I don't want him to be killed. Okay? I don't want him to be killed.
Speaker 1: Mister president, you've deployed man.
Speaker 3: Nobody wants to be that nobody wants that job right now. You know? Nobody's exactly looking forward to being the head of that particular country, but perhaps we'll be able to solve that problem.
Speaker 1: Mister president, you've
Speaker 0: So, again, I mean, they're really not wanting to say this out loud because the Israelis could possibly target. They don't want certainly don't want a ceasefire. Is that how you see it, the on the Israeli side?
Speaker 1: No. The the Netanyahu government is deeply committed to war, a regime change war, sort of a final war, if you will, against the Islamic Republic Of Iran. And to be fair, look, if I if I were an Israeli, I wouldn't be comfortable with that regime being in the same neighborhood as me. But ultimately, the the reasons behind why this war initiated had nothing to do with national security, either for the Israelis, certainly not for us. It was simply because Netanyahu politically needed a release.
He needed to divert attention from very, very serious questions that were being asked of him by his own government and by his own people about the failures of ten-seven, the so called failures, what have you, of ten-seven, and also the ongoing corruption issues that he's been dealing with legally for the last several years. Every time, in fact, it's sort of like the Lewinsky scandal in the nineties, every time there was a new investigation or a new move made in the investigations into he and his family, suddenly Netanyahu would open up another front of the war and then everybody's distracted. So this is sort of a wag the dog, moment with him. But ultimately, we are reaching a point, I believe, where Netanyahu and his political party politically cannot extricate themselves. Already Israel's getting slammed.
They've opened another front in the war, you know, with Lebanon now going after Hezbollah. Hezbollah is is holding their own. They've destroyed many Merkava tanks. They're calling it the Merkava massacre. Tel Aviv is flattened.
You know, Jerusalem has been hit. The Port Of Haifa has been hit, which is a key economic hub. So ultimately, the Israelis are in a use it or lose it position. They cannot afford politically to let Trump get a deal. And, ultimately, let's face it, this is not Trump's war.
He was dragged into it by his so called partner, mister Netanyahu.
Speaker 2: Now one of the things I've seen you do so beautifully is assess what are the resources to fight. Now last week on Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent said, Israel could hold their own possibly for a bit. I would love to see that experiment. If The United States decides we don't want this anymore, we're not doing this, you've advocated for that so many times. What would happen to Israel?
Could they could they keep this going?
Speaker 1: I I if we pulled back, I think there's enough of, a bit of rationality left in the Israeli system where they would they would be for if we really were like, okay. We're done. And not only are we pulling out and we're pulling back, but we're cutting off aid to Israel. If you go after the aid to Israel, Israel cannot continue doing what it and I'm not saying we should leave them totally defenses. What I'm saying is, and this is what Joe Kent was saying.
I interviewed him yesterday for my show. And what Joe Kent was saying is, look, we need to just ratchet back a dial back what we're giving them and focus specifically on near term defensive systems to give them that would force Joe thinks that would force a recalibration on their part politically, and that might force them to kind of hew closer to what we want to do. But ultimately, the way our I used to work on the hill, the way our our political system is bought and paid for by Israeli interests, it's it's not gonna happen. And so here we are where the proxy Israel is leading us by the nose. We're pouring whatever we have into Israel in terms of resources, and they're using it, you know, belligerently across the region.
So even if Trump, I think, were to try to get an off ramp, I don't think he can get one because first of all, the Israelis aren't gonna go with him. They're gonna try to escalate. But second of all, I don't think the Iranians right now want an off ramp. The president of Iran said, he's president Pezhashkin, he said that we have to now bloody the Americans to such a degree that they never again try what they just did to us, again. So, ultimately, the Iranians are not interested in an off ramp until they quote bloody us, which they're doing pretty well right now.
I hate to say it, but, we are not looking so hot right now, in the region because we're not achieving our strategic ends. And, I'd be happy to go into, you know, that aspect if you want.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would love to hear that piece of it. And I think I just wanna kind of play off of what you just said because I think the reports are from Iranian sources that one of the major mistakes that they made was, you know, the 86 year old Ayatollah agreeing to a ceasefire after the twelve days war. Yeah. Going along with that, allowing, you know, The United States and Israel to sort of lick their wounds and kinda go back.
And that was a huge mistake seen internally that they should have never stopped firing, on Israel and making and making attacks. And so for them to just, like, agree to some sort of a ceasefire, what do they get out of it? They really don't get anything out of it. Their list of demands is pretty long. Get rid of American bases in the Middle East, close all American bases, massive reparations for what damage you've done to the country of Israel.
I mean, the list is like what, six or seven.
Speaker 2: They don't want reparations for Israel.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm sorry. For for Iran. Yeah. Yeah.
They want they want to be paid back for the massive damage inside of their country.
Speaker 1: And they also want the money back that we've been holding for thirty, forty years. They want, you know, they want yeah. Mhmm. They want complete restitution. So, I mean, that should tell you right now that there is no stasis in the conversation here because we're not going to do that and we can't do that and they're not going get that.
So we'll continue up the escalator ladder. And this actually does get us into sort of the strategic differences here. The United States entered this war very haphazardly with the Israelis leading us by the nose. Klauswitz says that war is an extension of politics through other means. You have to look at understanding that war is a political objective.
There's ultimately an endpoint and it is inherently political. They want something politically. That's why you go to war. Our strategy, our objectives have been sort of all over the place. You know, we we want to, you know, get rid of the regime.
That was a big thing. Regime change. Then we said denuclearization. Then we're saying we also want to get rid of those ballistic missiles. And then, oh, we're gonna we're gonna try to get rid of the navy and the air force of Iran, and and we're gonna try to get them to permanently stop supporting, the terrorist groups, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Well, okay, that's all great, but ultimately you've assembled a very limited force in the region that's not going to be able to affect those many changes in what Trump initially thought was a seventy two hour to ninety six hour war. This is not gonna happen. Meanwhile, the Iranians, their strategic objective is very simple. It's survival. That's all they have to do.
They win by just staying alive. That's it. And, you know, it's a country of 96,000,000 people. They have a lot of depth in terms of personnel, and the Iranians had knew this kind of attack was coming, and they have, much to their credit, prepared their regime very well for this kind of scenario. And you're seeing them now counterattack because of that good preparation, that very professional preparation that they've undergone over the last forty years preparing for this.
It's survival for them. And ultimately, they've tethered that to a very smart and savvy analysis that says the Americans, of and the Israelis as well, because of depleting stockpiles of 14 key weapon systems, many of them are interceptors that defend US bases in the region, defend the Arab states, defend Israel. Those stockpiles have been depleted since the Ukraine war began. Now we're in a real crisis here. And then also so we're running out of those.
And then also, the Iranians understand if they squeeze the economic side hard enough and they go after the Arab states long enough, the will to fight from the American side will evaporate. And then there's also the political implications as the economy goes bad. Trump and the Republicans facing a midterm will have to change their calculus. So for the Iranians, time and space are their allies, and we've given that to them. And that is why I say we are strategically being defeated, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.
Speaker 0: I wanna talk more about the boots on the ground piece of this. Rumble wallet. Okay. So we've had many of our journalism friends, have been debanked. Why have they been debanked?
Because of their politics, I guess, or because of their reporting. I don't know. But that's why we need to step away from these big banks because they are threatening, and they are threatened by the blockchain. They are threatened by crypto. They are threatened by Rumble Wallet, and that's why I love Rumble Wallet.
Go to wallet.rumble.com and download it today because you have control of your finances. No one can cancel you. No one can take away your wallet. And it again, you have protection. No one controls it.
Not even Rumble has access to it. So Rumble doesn't have access to it. The big banks don't can't touch it. They can't do anything with it when you download it. It's yours.
And you can, of course, buy, physical gold bars using USAT, which is, the new Tether gold on the blockchain. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin or Tether Gold or, USAT, any of them. You wanna buy the new Zcash? Zcash is probably about to take over Bitcoin, because it's anonymous, whereas Bitcoin, everything is tracked and they know exactly what you're buying. Zcash could be the next big cryptocurrency.
So it's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them. With the click of a button, you can do that. There's no fees when you tip our channel or any other creator, and we actually receive the tip instantly. So many of you have been kind, and you've sent a nice little tip that's very kind of you. And we receive it instantly.
I was just sitting there the other night on the couch after a long day, and I got a nice little tip from a viewer. So thank you very much. You can do that, and you don't have to at all. I just want you to try Rumble Wallet for yourself. You don't have to worry about tipping us at all.
Go go to wallet.rumble.com, support our show, support other creators, open an account, and step away from big banks for good. Wallet.rumble.com. Or just go to just search wallet Rumble Wallet on the app stores, any app store you want. We're back with Brandon Weichert, to talk more about this idea of boots on the ground. I wanna go back to something you said earlier in talking about Israel possibly using a nuclear weapon and American boots on the ground.
So the goal Natalie was asking, like, is the goal with 5,000 US marines landing on one of these three hotspots in this region? And what would then the the naval support look like? I mean, we hear about the USS Gerald Ford, which may have been internally sabotaged and is now out of commission for at least fourteen months. Iran says they struck it. What do we know about American aircraft carrier power and naval power in the region?
What is your what is is your reporting and sourcing telling you?
Speaker 1: Well, I've been a critic of the aircraft carrier for about a decade now. Platform. I think it's a boondoggle. And I think that the only reason we're building these things is because Congress is wanting the jobs in their districts. And you know, this is the old, know, Potomac two step going on here.
This is not for strategic reasons. We live in an age of drones and an age of undersea warfare, so we should have more more submarines and more drones for the Navy and less of these big simple targets, you know, like the aircraft carrier present. So ultimately, that's where I'm coming from. And ultimately, it looks like all the criticisms that I've had of the aircraft carrier are coming true. The USS Ford is probably the most advanced carrier in the world, certainly the largest $13,000,000,000 to build.
It went way over budget and way over time. And ultimately it's the new class of carrier that's going to replace the storied Nimitz class carrier. And I think we've got two more in the hopper coming out soon. The JFK is the next one that's going to replace the Nimitz. Ultimately, the Ford, I think, was probably clipped by an Iranian anti ship ballistic missile.
It's hard to sink a carrier, but it's easy to disable, the, the flight deck. If you can disable the flight deck, the carrier's basically combat ineffective. They can't launch, they can't recover aircraft, they've got to go to port. And I think that's my personal opinion is what happened. I don't have evidence of this.
As far as we know, it was a laundry fire. And possibly there might have been a sabotage attempt. We know that there's rumors of that going on with the sewage system when the ship first arrived. And we certainly know there's planned mass retirements and resignations from the Navy from that ship once they get into port because the crew is very upset they've been deployed for over almost three hundred days, which is far beyond what they're supposed to be deployed for. So my point here is that the carrier is a wasting asset and we've just sent it back to the shipyard.
There's one shipyard in Virginia that can do these carrier overhauls for the whole country. It's backlogged currently. And so they say fourteen months, I think it's going be closer to twenty four to twenty six months at best. So we're going to be down a carrier, which is why they're keeping the Nimitz, launch able, because basically it was put back into port to be decommissioned this year, supposed to be decommissioned this month, but they're keeping it combat ready for a year because they're so worried about the way the carriers are being expended. And they're they're burning through a lot of stuff, and they're sitting targets.
They're sitting ducks for these ASBM systems that the Iranians, the Chinese, the Russians, and the North Koreans all have in abundance.
Speaker 2: Now you mentioned on X that you don't think that these negotiation claims are serious no matter what Jared Kushner goes and does, no matter what plane he gets on. You think that there are three possible target landings, which you mentioned, Karg Island, Keshem, and Konark Konark. And so are we really saying that US marines would submerge from undersea or some kind of boats and be mowed down like the opening of d day, like, the Spielberg movie?
Speaker 1: Gallipoli. It would be more like Gallipoli in World War I where the British Churchill, who was the Lord of the Emirality at that time, younger Churchill, this idea we have to punch open this. It's actually very similar to what's going on now. They had to punch open the Turkish Straits going into the Black Sea. Gallipoli was the town or the port right on that location.
If you can land marines and you can hold that location, you have sea control. You can basically reopen the straits, get resupply to our, to their allies in, in inside of Europe, deeper in Europe, in the Eastern part of Europe. And basically that was the plan. And the British and New Zealand and Australian forces managed to kind of get on the beach, but they were completely repulsed by entrenched defenders. And I think something similar will happen here.
I don't know if it'll look like D Day. It would probably look like, something from a science fiction where you have marines and armor vehicles waiting ashore, receiving fire, yes, but ultimately getting ashore and then suddenly being swarmed by thousands and thousands of shaw head style drones and from missiles and, possibly even hypersonic weapons that we don't have defenses against.
Speaker 2: And then I'm just trying to picture this because I think there would there there there should be a major uprising if we let this happen in our country.
Speaker 1: I I I really believe that we are teetering on possibly a revolution and the political revolution in this country.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Say more about that because I will fucking freak if this happens. And there you can tell them I'm upset about it. So, I mean, is it do you think the Iranians would these people would surrender, or is it really like limbs flying like saving private Ryan?
Speaker 1: I think I think what would happen is is and then this is a terrible thing to talk about because I I you know, I'm I work I work occasionally with the military as a consultant. I don't say this with any joy. Want our guys to win and be safe. But ultimately, they're being led into a very bad place by really bad leadership right now. And I say this as a three time Trump supporter as well.
You know, I don't understand what's going on here. It doesn't make any sense. But if he does this, what will happen is probably a replay of Gallipoli, where they will land, they will take heavy casualties, they will retreat. The ships will then be brought to a farther range because I'm sure as those landings are occurring, the Iranian ASBM systems will be, you know, being used against whatever ships are deploying the marines close to the probably amphibious lander, close to whatever target they're they're whatever one of those three locations are trying to land at. So it would probably be a strategic withdrawal.
That can't be covered up indefinitely. I know they're covering up a lot of things about this war and they're slow walking the casualty rates, but ultimately, at least I think they are, but ultimately, you know, this can't be covered up, something that big. And what would happen is at that point you would see a pivot in the world system because the whole world would then realize the American military juggernaut doesn't work anymore. We're no longer the biggest, baddest dog in the neighborhood. And then from there, there would probably also be a run, an economic, assault on it.
We're already seeing that happen with the Strait Of Hormuz closure. You're already seeing now China. You know, we went to war supposedly to hurt China. Well, China's the only country right now getting Iranian oil and getting it below market value, and they're moving it on ships through the Strait Of Hormuz. And they're they're paying being paid in Yuan.
And now the Indians and Japanese are doing the same thing. They're being given safe passage by the Iranians through the Strait Of Hormuz. And as long as they pay transit fees in yuan, the Chinese currency. So you're already seeing the economic now, geoeconomic assault occurring. If you pair that with the potentiality of a of a complete route of an American land force being rebuffed the way that the British were rebuffed by Turks at Gallipoli a hundred years ago, I think you would see basically the end of the American economic and military system as we know it today.
It would be a true new world order coming online with The United States not in a very good position at that sort of strategic level.
Speaker 0: And, of course, this is the plan. Right? I mean, this is this is this is the plan. This is the plan that the globalists want. And, of course, this is exactly what Israel wants.
I mean, I think at the end of the day, the point has been made very well by, a number of great thinkers over the past few weeks that this is part of the plan that The United States is really the governor to Israel. Like, if you want to have the greater Israel project fully realized in the region, you need The United States out of the way. And what better way to get The United States out of the way than to completely economically ruin our country through some sort of massive
Speaker 1: economic buildup. Yeah. And then that gets us into the nuclear prospect because, you know, the the the Israelis I've spoken to and I I I have a lot of contacts in Israel. I used to have a lot of contacts within Israel. The the Israelis I've spoken to believe that The US will try to land troops and it will fail.
And at that point is when they're talking about, well, we're gonna need to introduce nuclear weapons because the Americans aren't gonna go to that next level. They don't have it in them. Trump's already looking, you know, talking like he's getting, you know, cold feet. So this is how they're going to keep us engaged is they're going to do something with nukes. And, that's where this leads, I think.
And I think the idea, as you know, is to flatten all of their potential rivals. I mean, they're already starting to pick fights with NATO member Turkey. You're gonna see flat they're gonna try to flatten all of their Arab and Iranian rivals as a means to allow for chaos to reign around their border, thinking that that will then allow them to create hegemony. But I really got to tell you, I think if this keeps going, I think that you're also going to witness the collapse of Israel. This is a very dangerous moment for them.
There, you know, there's there's plenty of Israelis who know what I'm talking about. This is not a good spot. And I keep hoping that those IDF generals and those Israelis who are opposed to Netanyahu summon the courage to start telling him no. But so far, they have not. And that's the problem here because the temple is being taken down around their heads in real time, by their own leader who is not restrained by anyone, including The United States.
And the Israelis do not have the juice, the power to actually accomplish these very ambitious goals. So you're witnessing not only the destruction of American power in the region and the destruction of America's economic hegemony for forever, but you're also witnessing the self destruction of Israel as a nation state. And that's tragic within itself, in my opinion. And so I hope that they can avoid this, and they they actually start listening to reason. But so far, I don't see anything indicating that.
Speaker 2: Now what are the pieces that would fall if Israel does use a new nuclear weapon on Iran? The Iran has said Pakistan will retaliate on their behalf. We don't know if that's true or not. What do you think of that, and what would be the fallout for Israel as well?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know if Pakistan would. I I think that's a lot of bluster because you have to understand, eight months ago, twelve months ago, Pakistan and Iran were at war with each other. Also, Pakistan is basically a, you know, a partner with Saudi Arabia, and the Pakistanis do not I I don't I don't think they would I don't think the Pakistanis would would go to nuclear war with Israel. Maybe. But I don't think they would.
I think that's a very low probability. What is more probable is whatever nuclear and we know Iran was developing nukes. This is you know, I'm not naive, and I've got a whole book out talking about the actual threat Iran posed. And so there's no doubt that Iran has the capability to build rudimentary nuclear devices, whether a dirty bomb or low yield system, whatever. They've they've had that capability for a while now.
And it seems to me, as I noted earlier, contrary to what we all thought, the Iranians are not crazy. They have been very, very responsible in the escalation. Like I said, they counter punch. They don't escalate on their own. They only do the exact same thing that we do when we first do it, then they retaliate.
So if a nuclear weapon or device were were used by Israel after an American landing failed, I could foresee Hezbollah or Hamas having access to some dirty bomb material and saying, okay, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is our Samson option. We're gonna blow up Tel Aviv and Jerusalem or Haifa, you know, whatever. But this is where it's headed. And it's you know, Herman Kahn once referred this sort of thing as an insensate wargasm.
And I think that's exactly what we're witnessing here. The escalation ladder always leads to insensate wargasm in which both parties destroy each other with nukes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, here. Let's put this up. Here's the escalation ladder.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 0: Know? You know, diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, covert operations. We saw all of these things unfolding. Remember the Starlink, CIA operations, Mossad operations in his in in Iran, limited military action, twelve day war. Right?
Regional conflict, then you have full scale war. And then that's where you go is to a nuclear war unless, you know, cooler heads can prevail.
Speaker 1: And you could make the case, and I have in other in other shows. I think I did on Tucker's show too. You know, they're calling this a regional war, and that's fine. I think this is World War three because it's already roped in the great powers from outside the region. Right?
I mean, you see not only is China and Russia having a lot of influence over Iran, but you have also, Britain is now and they were opposed to this interestingly enough. Britain is being dragged in against their will. They're they have these these defense agreements with places like Qatar. So f 35 b's belonging to Britain are being used in the copious air defense role. They're staying in Qatari airspace, but they're shooting down incoming, doing their best to shoot down incoming Iranian missiles and drones.
You see the French now are getting involved. They lost their only naval base in the region, and they are now deploying the aging Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. You know, you're seeing the world now becoming ensnared, not just economically, but actually militarily as well. There's also, by the way, a possibility here. It's not being well spoken about.
The Houthis in Yemen have kept their powder dry. I think that's purposeful. They're an extension of Iranian power after all, but they haven't really done much this time around to to, help the Iranians. And I think that's because the Iranians are keeping them in reserve. If this thing really goes south, the Iranians could use the Houthis to blockade the only avenue right now in which through which oil is getting out of the region, and that's the Red Sea.
When they did it two years ago and we lost to them, remember the Trump administration or a year ago, Trump administration pulled out and didn't look back rather than risk the air carriers. This could spread not only to that part of the Middle East, but this could spread to the Horn Of Africa, which is right across from Yemen where the Red Sea begins to, you know, have the gates of the Red Sea. That's because the Ethiopians are aligned with The US, The UAE, and the Israelis, and they've been making burblings recently that they're interested in possibly sending their troops to neighboring Eritrea to take operational control over the coastline of Eritrea so that the Americans and Israelis can establish land based missiles in the Eritrean coastline to begin targeting the Houthis more thoroughly, because our navy ships can't get close enough without risking themselves. So you have this thing. We're probably weeks away from this thing really ripping open, into a real nightmare that we're not gonna be able to get out of.
Speaker 0: Know, Brandon, I know you gotta run. I wanna get you out of here on a timely fashion. But I just wanna play this video. Iran released. They've been releasing some video memes.
You know how CENTCOM has been releasing some memes, making fun of, you know, whatever. On the American side, well, Iran has now released a video. They say this is the best way for us to explain to Trump what's happening. And they like we're releasing this cartoon. I removed the Batman music that was associated with this for copyright purposes.
But you can see here Iran is explaining what's gonna happen. Right? Yeah. We can just talk Already over happening. We're we're we're well past this stage, which is oil prices going up, going up, going up.
He stopped the flow. Iran has stopped the flow. And, if they try to make it through, they're gonna be hit with Iranian drones or other strikes. President Trump then gets mad. Here comes the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Yeah. And, you know, you you explain what we're seeing here. Yeah. Well, there there first of all,
Speaker 1: the navy has already told Trump, and and I'm surprised because it sounds almost like he was giving an order. But the navy has already told Trump we're not sending any any large ships through the strait. It's not happening. So that should tell you how badly boxed out the Navy is. The Navy is $30,000,000 a day.
I just looked it up before I came on with operations for the Navy alone in the Strait Of Or in region is costing us $30,000,000 per day for every U. S. Taxpayer. So we're spending $30,000,000 a day and the Navy still won't get near the Strait Of Hormuz, which obviously that thing being stopped up is causing all the economic problems here. And we're just at the start of this thing.
So the the the Iranians have they've they have figured out Trump. They have figured out the Americans. They've figured out the Israelis. And they really did. And I and I hate to say this, but they they really did develop a comprehensive strategy that married ends ways and means masterfully together.
And they can keep doing this probably for the next I was told, contrary to what The US intelligence community is is being told by the Israelis, because that's really how this is working. We're not even getting intelligence our own. It's all coming from Israel, which is all basically inaccurate and it's lies. But basically, was told that the Iranians likely have a minimum of eighteen to twenty four months worth remaining of missiles and drones and, what do you call it, hypersonic weapons. So all this talk about we've done 8,000 sorties and you know, hey, you know, got Pollyanna Pete up there, you know, talking about the how great everything is.
And it's like, well, okay, we ran, what was it, 50 I'm sorry, we ran 5,390,000 sorties, the Air Force did, in the Vietnam War, and we still lost the Vietnam War. So I hate to break it to polyandipine and the Trump administration, but that's not how you win wars. You don't win wars with air power alone. It never happens. And whenever we try it, we end up getting burned royally, and we get stuck in an escalation trap.
This time, this time, the escalation trap does have Afghanistan, Iraq, even Vietnam never had that. Not really. Now we've got it, and it ain't looking good. No.
Speaker 2: It's our allies that have it, and we can't stop them from using our allies. Yeah. And what is so frustrating is you're saying that the intelligence we're getting from Israel is bad. It leads us in a different direction.
Speaker 1: It's cooked. It's just like Ukraine.
Speaker 2: They're cooking intelligence. Know this. Why don't why doesn't leadership know this? Why do they use it in any capacity?
Speaker 0: Maybe it's the bubble you were talking about.
Speaker 1: It's the bubble. And and, know, if you read Joe Kent's resignation letter, he explicitly talks about the echo chamber that your fellow your former, colleague, Mark Levin, has helped to create for the president. And I don't know how anybody listens to him. This guy sounds, he has a screechy voice and all that, but that's who the president decides to listen to. Ultimately, the intelligence community, the people that I know who are retired intelligence operatives, Michael Shoyer of the CIA, Sam Faddis, Joe Kent now, you know, former intelligence people are very upfront and open with you regardless of their political persuasion that, yeah, Israel kind of runs runs us around.
But ultimately, and I think everybody currently in the in the intelligence community is aware of that keenly, but ultimately, they don't make the decisions. It's the it's the political appointees. And my understanding is there has been since the beginning of the Trump administration's second term, a direct line from Netanyahu's office to John Ratcliffe's office on the 7th Floor Of Langley. And he basically end runs all the time. The very careful vetting process that we have across 18 different intelligence agencies in The United States, that process is routinely end run by the Israelis because they have these political connections, notably with the Republican side, where they're dumping this just really unprofessional, you know, that hasn't been properly vetted, is very often made up or partly made up, and they're handing it to their political allies on the political side, the decision making side of the administration, and then that gets piped up into the White House.
And the president who's already supercharged by Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, you know, he's not listening to the generals. He's not listening to the intel people because he doesn't think he can trust them. And that's also the Israeli position. The Israeli position has always been, going back decades now, the Americans underestimate their own power. So what we have to do is we have to goose the Americans, we have to gin up the leadership, use our leverage over them to force them into a situation where they would basically do regime change for us against a target, in this case Iran, even though the Americans don't want to do it, even though the Americans don't think they can do it, and turns out we can't, the Americans don't know their own power.
We're just going to help push them over the edge, and once they fall, they'll have to fly, Otherwise, everything falls apart. That's the mentality in Israel, and you're seeing that play out here. And you're finding out the real limits of American power in a tripolar age that is trending multi polar trending toward multi polarity every day.
Speaker 2: You know what? And and then it's our business that will let these people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz get this bad intel and put them on the air. And they never stop to think, why are they saying this? What where do they get this? And they CNN will just be like, Okay, come on the air and say that.
We don't Since give you where you got it
Speaker 1: appearing on Tucker, obviously, that was a big boost for me. And I got invited to a lot of shows almost immediately. And then within forty eight hours, half of them were canceling me. I don't think what I'm saying is that radical. It goes against the preferred narrative.
It's been very interesting to see. I want to give a shout out to actually Caitlin Collins, who I think she's actually done a pretty good job of asking tough questions about this issue to the administration. I know, you know, she gets a lot of flack and I think rightly so, along with CNN. But there are a handful of people in these corporate press organs where they still are kind of asking tough questions, but you can tell it's through gritted teeth. You can tell that the executives who run these companies do not want to challenge Trump, not because they like Trump, but because they happen to agree with this policy, because the people who back them want this policy.
So you have this weird feedback where clearly CNN, MS Now, or is that what MS whatever they're calling themselves now. The the well, clearly, any other issue, they would be attacking full bore Trump. But even Rachel Maddow last week is making these weird monologues defending the war. Yeah. You know?
Rachel Maddow. It's like, what what what are you doing? It's because clearly there's incentive behind the scenes to carry a certain narrative.
Speaker 0: Oh, for sure. And the money. Just follow the money in all of this. Alright. Someone posted to to me.
He said, Clayton, the the the difficult thing about a four day war, because they told us it would be four days. The difficult thing about a four day war is that it lasts five years. Yeah. And I think that, you know
Speaker 1: Heard a variation of that from a veteran who said the worst part about a about a two week war are the first twenty years. So God.
Speaker 0: Oh, man. I hope not. From your mouth to God's ears, I hope not another Afghanistan. Brandon, thank you so much for this. We really appreciate you.
This again. Absolutely. We'd love to have you. Where can people find your show?
Speaker 1: Well, can find me right now on Rumble, Nat Sec Talk. You can find the Nat Sec guy also on emerald.tv, where I occasionally write some some incisive thoughts. And then also 1945.com. I'm one of many experts from across the spectrum. It's a really great publication.
We get everybody from me to Michael Rubin. So it's a very fair and balanced publication. And then on Twitter at WeTheBrandon is my handle. And check out my books also. I've got four of them on Amazon or wherever books are sold.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Brandon, great to see you. Thank you so much for your insights on all of this. Thank you. We'll much, Brandon. We'll see you real soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m saying the Iran war isn’t complex; it’s a controlled collapse already in motion. Gas prices, closed shipping lanes, emergency measures across Asia—each piece moving in unison toward the same outcome.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Controlled COLLAPSE. 🫥 They want you to think the Iran war is complex. It's not. It's a controlled collapse already in motion. Gas prices. Closed shipping lanes. Emergency measures across Asia. The pieces are all moving at once, & they're all moving in the same direction. https://t.co/f2ZMVPildE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the war in Iran and associated U.S. and Israeli actions are presented as a complex, intractable crisis, but in reality follow a simple pattern of a “controlled collapse” already underway. The collapse is said to be visible in everyday life, such as rising gas prices after the Strait of Hormuz being effectively closed and tensions around the conflict; the war is described as having caused thousands of deaths and sending energy markets into upheaval, with oil at a four-year high and inflation fears resurging as the Fed is expected to raise rates.
Key events cited include the February 28 to March 1 strikes launched by the United States and Israel, the 48-hour ultimatum from President Trump demanding Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the deployment of thousands of Marines to the Middle East. The speaker asserts Iran’s threat to respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz and targeting U.S. linked energy infrastructure and IT networks, including desalinization plants and data centers, stating that this represents not de-escalation but the architecture of a broader war.
The narrative challenges conventional claims that Iran is degraded or cornered, noting that Iran has fired long-range missiles toward the U.S. base on Diego Garcia and conducted strikes near Israel’s Demona nuclear facilities, contradicting the idea that Iranian military capability has collapsed. The speaker argues that war messaging routinely declares the enemy weakened while the conflict expands, and asks why thousands of Marines are being deployed if victory is close and missiles are supposedly diminishing.
The broader thesis is that this is part of a larger, premeditated shift toward centralized control. War and energy shocks are said to destabilize prices and justify intervention, with examples of strategic petroleum reserve releases and sanctions easing to calm markets. The speaker links this to a longer-running plan to install emergency governance and digital control systems: surveillance, mobility restrictions, and a move toward digital money, identity, and movement management. They point to developments such as China’s digital yuan expansion, Europe’s digital euro, and the push toward “15-minute cities,” arguing that these are precursors to a digitized, programmable money system.
The speech asserts COVID-19 demonstrated how governments can impose sustained fear and centralized control, with digital gatekeeping and state-corporate coordination seen as a live test. It is argued that the “rollout” is not about a temporary crisis but a permanent, durable control grid, with airports adopting faster digital processing and biometric scanning, and the public gradually accepting reduced freedoms and increased dependence as a solution to emergencies. The speaker concludes that the conflict is not as complex as claimed; it is about control and the expansion of a surveillance, monetary, and movement-management system under the guise of crisis management, and invites audience feedback on this perspective.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I wanted to come in today and talk about something that's been on my mind as this war in Iran spirals out of control, and it's this idea of control and complexity. This idea that if you want to fool a population of people, then you try to present this problem as very complex, that this war in Iran between Israel and Iran, United States involvement, it's very complex, when in actuality, it's very, very simple. And what we are seeing right now is a controlled collapse, and it's already here. And we need to talk about where we are right now, because people are going about their business, going to grocery stores, trying to take care of their families, trying to get the kids off to school, trying to just pay the bills, trying to live what feels like a normal life, then something big is already happening. Something big is already here.
That collapse is already here. We are watching this collapse unfolding right before our eyes. You know, you can see it in small ways, right, at the gas station. Sure. Now you're paying twice as much for gas.
I just filled up a tank today, and I couldn't believe it. I was like, how did this happen in just a few weeks? That's what happens when you go along with Israel's war and bomb a country, and an entire strait is now closed. That's what happens. All of this, though, this collapse was not random.
It was prepared for. It was anticipated. It was gamed out. Maybe not every detail in one giant master document, but the direction of all of this is obvious. Every crisis seems to push in the same direction.
Right? Less independence. After nine eleven, what do we get the Patriot Act? More fear is created. More dependence on the government, these institutions, these globalists, more centralization, more control.
So we'll get to the collapse part of the story here in a minute because we are in it. But first, let's talk about this war and where things are going. It's now spiraling out of control. And if you think this is just like another isolated conflict in The Middle East, you're missing the much bigger picture. So as of today, on this Sunday, as I'm recording this, this war that The United States and Israel launched on February the February, really, February 28 into March 1, has already killed thousands of people.
It's pushed the global economy into another round of panic. I mean, just look at the markets right now. The Strait Of Hormuz, one of the most important choke points on earth, has been effectively crippled, totally closed. New reports out this afternoon that nearly all tanker traffic has stopped. Roughly one fifth of the world's oil supply passes, of course, through this narrow stretch of water.
We got reports this afternoon of energy disruption, already sent oil to a four year high. We now have inflation back. The Fed, of course, not lowering rates, and all indicators are that the Fed is going to increase rates, raise interest rates as we as this year unfolds and into 2027. Now president Trump over the past few hours has escalated again, issuing a forty eight hour ultimatum saying that Iran must fully reopen the Strait Of Hormuz or The United States will begin obliterating Iranian nuclear power plants and just and their and their desalinization plants, and it will start with one of the biggest ones. That's where it's gonna start.
We look at the pizza index in Washington DC. I have friends in the special forces that sent me notes over the past few hours about how the pizza index is off the charts in Washington DC. What does that mean? That means related to this forty eight hour ultimatum from president Trump that they are working overtime. Thousands of marines now being deployed into the Middle East, something president Trump said would never happen.
And now we here we are back in Israel's war. And the whole while, Israel is using this war, of course, to marginalize and push The United States out of this relationship. Because if Israel wants to be the dominant power, The United States is the governor. The United States is the is the ring around Israel's neck preventing it from taking over Lebanon, from moving all the way from the Nile, taking over huge swaths of land is the part of the greater Israel project, so The United States needs to be marginalized. So Iran's answer in all of this, it says if The United States hits its power infrastructure, then lights out.
Iran will completely close the Strait Of Hormuz, retaliate against The United States linked energy, infrastructure, IT, desalinization, all of it. Infrastructure across the region. You know, legitimate targets, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir based data centers. So that is not de escalation. That is the architecture of a much wider war that we're seeing right now.
And notice the contradiction here staring everybody in the face. We are constantly told that Iran is degraded, crippled, cornered, collapsing, outmatched. Okay. We're told that the skies are controlled. We heard that from president Trump and and and Pete Hegseth.
The skies above Iran are totally controlled. Launchers are gone. That victory is basically already achieved. And yet we have reports today that Tehran fired long range ballistic missiles towards the joint US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Also, Iranian strikes near Israel's Demona nuclear facilities.
In other words, even after weeks of bombardment, Iran still retains the capacity to strike, to threaten sea lanes, to rattle energy markets, force the world to now react to this. That matters because one of the oldest tricks in war is propaganda, is to tell the public that the enemy is weak. It's almost finished, down to their last breath. Sound familiar? Like Ukraine?
Ukrainian war? We're hearing this about Russia. Remember? They were telling us in 2022, the Daily Mail. All these all these, you know, whatever, propaganda news media were telling us that Russia is destroyed, that Putin's ballistic missiles are running out.
K. And then just the other day on March early March of of this year, we already heard within the first few days, the telegraph ran the same headline that Iran was running out of the same missiles. Same script, different enemy. By the way, Moon of Alabama, a great publication, compiled the rolling sequence of claims that 50%, 60%, 75%, even 80% of Iran's launchers had supposedly been destroyed. Okay.
But then other reporting points out that the arsenal remain more resilient than advertised and that a lot of these ballistic missiles are being launched from pads underground where we don't even know where they are. And then you have right alongside these headlines, you had Reuters, AP, still reporting that Iran was striking all sorts of targets, striking all sorts of positions inside of Israel and beyond. So this is how modern war messaging works. You're fed like optimism, inevitability, Iran's degraded. And you get all these simplified talking points so you won't ask any harder questions, like if the enemy is actually degraded or not.
And you're not supposed to ask harder questions. If the enemy is actually finished, why does the war keep happening? Why does the war keep expanding? If victory is so close, why do the threats keep getting bigger? If the operation is under control, why are thousands of marines being deployed to the region?
Why is gas prices continue to explode? Why is the whole region being dragged towards an economic shock? That's why this is a much bigger story than Iran. The war is not the whole story. It's it's just one small gear in a much larger machine, and I've been really trying to challenge myself to see these things in a larger capacity lately.
You know, I think it's very easy for us to focus on a narrow part of the story. It's just Iran. It's just Israel. No. It's not.
It's a much bigger story. And then once you understand that this has been planned for decades, it really hits you in a different way. Because what happens every time there's a major crisis, the answer is always the same thing. The public is told to accept more control in exchange for your safety, more surveillance, in exchange for, oh, it's convenient. Right?
More dependence on in exchange for more dependence, really, but in exchange for some sort of stability. That's really what we see. Man, it's super windy today here in the mountains of Colorado. As you can see, the wind wind blowing like crazy, so I apologize here. So you get this centralized system in exchange.
You get this more centralized systems in exchange for for resilience. That's the idea. And the systems they're building are not temporary systems. They are permanent. They are durable systems.
I was watching a documentary the other night about DB Cooper. I I don't know how how many of you know the story of DB Cooper, famous story from the seventies. Of course, the guy who, you know, hijacked an aircraft, jumped out, $200,000. And at the time, of course, you just walked through any airport. You just walk up, got a ticket, hopped on a plane.
Think how different we are in a world post nine eleven, how the amount of security we now have because of the threat of, like, a shoe bomber. Okay. This is what we're giving up. These these they are systems designed to manage movement, manage money, manage speech, energy, access, and ultimately our behavior. To see Claudia Scheinbaum over the past two days in Mexico announcing, you know, only digital payments now for transportation.
A number of you you're not allowed to use cash anymore in for Mexico for certain transactions. No more. It's all digital because it's all about control. So whether you call it a controlled collapse, a managed transition, or emergency governance emergency. It's an emergency.
We need to take away your rights because we're in a civil war. Iran's sleeper cells being activated in The United States. So it's the same point. Right? Freedoms are weakened while new forms of dependency are introduced now as the solution.
It's more convenient for you. And you can already see this happening in real time because the shock waves in the war are changing ordinary life outside of what's happening in The Middle East. We have reporting that the crisis is already hitting Asia, Southeast Asia, very hard because of its dependence on imported energy moving through the Strait Of Hormuz. Thailand has already activated emergency measures. They're ramping up coal and hydropower, and they're telling people to stay home.
Government offices are trying to conserve energy. The Philippines shifted their government offices to a four day work week. Stay home. We don't want you because we we can't have you on the roads because we don't have enough energy. We don't have gas, petrol.
Pakistan has shut schools for two weeks, cutting fuel allocations for government vehicles. This is already what happens when a collapse looks like in the early phase. You know, it's not always bombs falling outside of your window, not always some apocalyptic movie scene. Sometimes it looks like rationing. Sometimes it looks like school closures.
Sometimes it looks like work schedules are being altered slightly. Four four, you know, four hour four day a work week. We don't want you in offices anymore. We don't want you going to the city. We want to control your movement because your movement is now being reduced.
Your choices are narrowed. You have to identify within this certain band of how you're gonna live your life. So you got movement being reduced. You got choices narrowed. You got consumption is now being monitored, and then you got the whole population slowly trained to adapt.
Like, we're just gonna live in this emergency living now. And, yes, this is why COVID matters so much in this conversation, not because every single claim floating around the Internet was true, but because COVID showed governments and institutions what they can get away with with their populations and what their populations will tolerate under, like, sustained fear. Think about it. We just passed the sixth anniversary of 03/11/2020. The WHO formerly formerly characterizing COVID nineteen as a global pandemic.
It's hard to believe. 03/11/2020. You think about the, like, broad social restrictions around the world. And, I mean, people in China were already being required at the time to scan QR codes at office buildings, malls, residential compounds just to get in and out, metro systems, handing over, like, travel, health data so people could track everything in China moving through their daily life. That's exactly what we saw.
That was a massive live test of compliance, digital gatekeeping, centralized messaging, state corporate coordination. So when people say COVID was a trial run, the strongest version of that argument is not, like, fake, not mystical. It's practical. In fact, it was true. It proved how quickly we can become sheep.
It proved how quickly extraordinary controls can become ordinary. Now look at the money system. I mean, China expanding the digital yuan by authorizing 12 more banks now to handle it. On top of the 10 already approved, Japan settling oil transactions now outside of The US petrodollar. Beijing sees the digital yuan not just as domestic payment tool, but as part of a broader cross border monetary infrastructure strategy outside of the dollar system.
In Europe, look what's already happening in Europe. Reports that European Parliament now giving major backing to the digital euro, both online and offline. And the ECB says the project is moving forward with a possible target of 2029 if this legislation passes later this year. So in plain English, major power centers already actively building programmable digital money infrastructure. You know, that doesn't prove every nightmare scenario, but it absolutely proves that the rails are already being laid for a world in which access to public money becomes more digitized, more centralized, and, of course, potentially more conditional, and we're already seeing this with the rollout of fifteen minute cities across England and other areas.
And then there's the mobility and energy piece of the story. This piece is obviously maybe more contested because you're seeing some pullback in certain areas, but the pressure is real. California, their rules still require automakers to sell a rising number of electric vehicles, and they have to meet extremely strict electric vehicle numbers. They have to have that obviously increasingly strict tailpipe emissions limits even as Congress has, like, moved to strip California of the authority to ban new, like, gas powered cars after 2035. So, yeah, there's still this political resistance.
It's not a straight line, but, hey, close the Strait Of Hormuz, drive gas under, you know, gas prices through the roof, and then push us all to buying electric vehicles. You know, it not the direct basically, the direction of elite policy pressure for years has been towards electrification, central management of energy man, reduced dependence on internal combustion engines, even if voters in industry keep fighting it, even if people aren't buying it, even if you give all these, like, government incentives, you know, like what Ford had to deal with, all of these government incentives on their trucks, and people just didn't wanna buy them. Now add a major Middle East war on top of it. You disrupt all these oil flows, and the governments are already ordering ordering conservation measures across Southeast Asia. How soon until that happens in The United States?
Can you see a pattern here? Crisis after crisis gets used to push populations towards systems that are easier to meter, to regulate, to track, to remotely manage. So when I say the controlled collapse is already here, I don't mean that tomorrow morning everyone wakes up inside some sort of science fiction prison. I mean, the transition is already underway. War destabilizes.
It's the largest destabilization mechanism that we have. War. Energy shocks destabilize prices. Then price shocks justify intervention. You're already seeing this with the release of our strategic strategic petroleum reserves.
You're already seeing Scott Benson. You're already seeing the treasury on The United States side easing sanctions, which is ridiculous on Iran, oil sanctions on Iran in a war that we are with them in in order to ease global market panic. It's crazy what world we're living in right now. So intervention normalizes digital controls. Digital controls merge with finance, identity, movement, communications, and eventually biology.
Just look what's happening at the airports right now with the TSA and air all the craziness at US airports. Move to a digital system so we can move you through the airport more quickly. Right? Because we just don't have the manpower right now because we're in this chaos. So just go digital.
We'll move you through more quickly. We'll scan your face, your eyes, your retina, everything. And all the way, this propaganda never changes. The enemy is always irrational. The media always says the missiles are almost gone.
They've completely dried up. Iran doesn't have ballistic missiles anymore, And then you've got these emergency powers that are always, like, temporary. We just need to do this temporarily while we make it through. Like President Trump said, you know, we'll have some short term pain. Right?
That's what Fox News is parroting. Right? We'll have short term pain for long term gain. That's what they've been telling us. But the surveillance state will be there.
The control grid that Catherine Austin Fitz has been warning about is here, and it's growing. The monetary control system is already in place. All of these pieces are being rolled out, and they're doing it under this guise of it's complex. Everything that's happening in The Middle East, it's all it's so complex. You have all these different power players.
You have Israel's problems, of course. You have what's happening with Hezbollah and and the Houthis, what's happening in Southern Lebanon, what's happening in Syria, what's happening with this relationship between Russia and China and Iran. No. It's not complicated at all. It's all about control.
It's all about control. So they can try to make you believe that it's complex, but it's really simple, and it's all about control. That's it. So thank you guys for subscribing. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, but I've been really thinking a lot about this over the past few days as they as they try to spin this story, to spin this yarn, and tell you that this is so complex.
Really, it's about taking away our freedoms, as we all have to sort of sit here. We hope we'll go quietly just like in COVID nineteen like a bunch of sheep. But we knew the trial run was COVID, and is is this the big rollout? It would seem to be. It would seem to be that this is the big rollout of their 2030 agenda.
So again, thanks for subscribing, thanks for listening to me, and thanks for letting me get some of this off my chest today.