TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RedactedNews
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Official casualty numbers from the war in Iran don't add up. Are thousands of wounded soldiers being treated in secret, far from public view? The truth may be far more grim than we're told. https://t.co/NEsPOoxv8D
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlights a big story he says is not being covered by the Pentagon or CENTCOM. He notes Israel’s war on Iran is in its tenth day, and says CENTCOM confirmed the seventh American soldier killed in this war, but asserts that “the KIA numbers are … not accurate.” He questions how many Americans have actually been wounded, pointing to a dispute over the casualty figures.
He cites sources claiming that the number of medevac helicopter flights in the past seventy-two hours has been flying around the clock, “stocking up medical facilities in many of the outlying countries,” including the Dubai area. Based on these sources, he estimates the injured at “well over a 135 soldiers,” noting that this is “the most conservative number possible.” He adds that some estimates from different outlets and sources suggest “well over a thousand,” but he states his figure as the conservative estimate.
The speaker suggests that the large number of flights allows wounded personnel to be transported to floating hospitals and aircraft carriers, which function as massive triage centers, enabling authorities to “keep it very quiet.” He asserts that flights land on the aircraft carriers as part of this process.
He mentions reports from Stuttgart, Germany, where there is a major NATO and US base, and notes that Germany is where Netanyahu fled to, though he is unclear whether Netanyahu is still in Germany or has returned to Israel. He claims American wounded are being treated inside Germany and says he would like to know those numbers.
Finally, he urges a brave Pentagon reporter to ask questions about this, implying that these numbers and movements are being concealed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Missed earlier in the show, this is a big piece of the story that's not being covered, and I'm I'm surprised why the Pentagon is so quiet about this, and CENTCOM is so quiet about this. The number of America wounded in this conflict so far. So, if you missed the kind of the top of the show when I started talking about this, this is when our network was attacked, and our our show shut down. So I'm gonna do it again, and I'm gonna tell you all about it again, in case anyone wants to know about it. So maybe we can even bring up the photos again.
So, today marks the tenth day of this Israel war on Iran. CENTCOM confirmed the seventh American soldier killed in this war. If you believe those numbers, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. The KIA numbers are I mean, I'm telling you right now are not accurate.
How many have actually wounded? I was saying seven and they got three in a van right there. That You know what I mean? Like, half of them are just now. Yeah.
Why are those numbers being kept from us? Well, our sources have told us the number of medevac helicopter flights in the past seventy two hours have been flying around the clock, stocking up medical facilities in many of the outlying countries. I've heard this from now multiple sources. Dubai, surrounding areas. So how many Americans have actually been hurt in this?
Is that why president Trump is now trying to pull back on this? Because maybe those numbers are gonna start to come out? You know, soldiers with brain damage, limbs blown off, we're gonna learn about that. Based on the quantity of flights alone, sources we're speaking with have put the injured at well over a 135 soldiers. And that again, that's a very conservative number.
Very con I'm giving you the most conservative number possible. Some estimates that I've been seeing from different outlets and sources saying, well over a thousand. But again, I'm going with the most conservative number of a 135 based on my sourcing. So, being able to be transported to these floating hospitals, are these aircraft carriers, massive triage. And they are basically like massive, you know, massive hospitals.
Right? We know this. And they're being able to that's how you can keep it very quiet, of course, is by having these flights land on the aircraft carriers. Many others, according to reports in Stuttgart, Germany, where there's a massive NATO and US base there in Stuttgart. Of course, that's where Germany, of course, is where Netanyahu fled to.
It's unclear if he's still there or if he's back now in Israel, But that's where he was initially. I He might still actually be there in in Israel Excuse me, in Germany. So, American wounded being treated inside of Germany. I'd like to know those numbers. One of the brave, by the way, one of the brave like Pentagon reporters is gonna ask any questions about this.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The government wants to police "propaganda" & "cultural subversion" online. During a war, they started. @BenSwann_ joins us to explain why the language in Trump's new cyber plan is broad enough to come for anyone, including us. https://t.co/AeQqil2eam
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: The Trump administration launched a cyber strategy recently in the context of the Iran war. The concern is that war is a Trojan horse for government power expansion, eroding civil rights. The document targets cybercrime but also mentions unveiling an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion. The speaker questions whether the government should police propaganda, noting that propaganda is legal in a broad sense, and highlights cultural subversion as a potential tool to align culture with war support. An example cited (satire account) suggests that labeling certain expressions as cultural subversion could chill free expression. Ben Swan is introduced as a guest to discuss the plan and its impact on everyday Americans.
Speaker 1: Ben Swan responds that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, so any move toward censorship or identifying propaganda is complicated. He is actually somewhat glad to see language that, at least, mentions “unveil and embarrass” rather than prosecuting or imprisoning. If there are organized online campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments, he views exposing inauthentic activity and embarrassing it as not necessarily a terrible outcome, and he sees this as potentially halting the drift toward broader censorship. He emphasizes that it should not be the government’s job to determine authenticity in online content, and he believes community notes is a better tool than government action for addressing authenticity.
Speaker 2: The conversation notes potential blurriness between satire, low-cost AI, and what counts as grassroots versus external influence. If the government were to define and act on what is authentic, would that extend to politically connected figures and inner circles (e.g., MAGA-aligned commentators)? The panel questions whether the office would target these allies and suspects they might not, though they aren’t sure. The discussion moves to real-world consequences, recalling journalists whose bank accounts were shut down, and contrasting that with a platform like Rumble Wallet that offers some financial autonomy away from banks. (Promotional content is present in the transcript but is not included in the summary per guidelines.)
Speaker 1: Ben critiques the potential growth of bureaucracies built around “propaganda or bad actors,” noting that such systems tend to justify their own existence and expand over time. He points to Russia-related enforcement as an example of how agencies can expand under the guise of national security. He argues there is no clear “smoking gun” in the document due to its vague, generic language focused on “cyber,” which could allow broad interpretation and future expansion of powers across administrations. He cautions that even supporters of the administration could find the broad terms worrisome because they create enduring bureaucracies that outlive any one presidency.
Speaker 0: The discussion returns to concerns about securing emerging technologies, with a reference to an FBI Director’s post about “securing emerging technologies.” The concern is over what “securing” implies, especially if it means controlling or limiting new technologies like AI. The lack of specifics in the document is troubling, as it leaves room for expansive government action in the future. The conversation ends with worry that such language could push toward a modern, more palatable form of prior restraint, rather than clarifying actual threats.
Speaker 2: The conversation acknowledges parallels to previous disinformation governance debates, reflecting on Nina Jankowicz and the disinformation governance board, but clarifies that this current approach is seen by the speakers as a distinct, potentially less extreme—but still concerning—direction. The panel hopes to see a rollback or dismantling of overly expansive bureaucratic powers, rather than their expansion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the Trump administration launched a cyber strategy recently because of the war with Iran. And what worries me as usual is that war is usually a Trojan horse for government power expansion. How can this further erode our civil rights? So let's take a look at the parts of this plan that gave me heartburn. And then we will decide collectively, are we overreacting?
Or are we about to get censored on the internet? Here's the document published late last week. The White House says that this is to protect The US from cybercrime. Specifically, they're saying they will unveil an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion. Okay.
In my view, the government is guilty of the worst propaganda around this war right now as we speak. So really, are they the ones to be policing propaganda? And also, propaganda is legal. If I wanna tell everybody to become a Muslim or whatever, I can do it. I'm an American.
I can say whatever I want. You decide if that's propaganda. It's my right to. Cultural subversion also that gives me pause. Here's one example of cultural subversion that I absolutely support.
Now, this is a satire X account, so it can't be verified. But according to this document, even if this were true, that military officials are saying that their soldiers are yelling for Epstein while they're training, like, you know, the Gen Z craze or Gen Alpha six, seven. Okay. This could, because of this document, be labeled cultural subversion. We want a war.
The culture must support it. Any kind of subversion of government narrative would count it in my reading of it. Ben Swan joins us. He's been reporting on government censorship and war powers for quite some time. Really good to see you again, sir.
What is your take on this cyber plan and how it might affect everyday Americans?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thanks for having me on, guys. Well, I think a couple of things. First of all, you know, anytime that you start to see government talking about, censorship or online activities or propaganda, again, you know, I think you're making the point, calling the kettle black here, because obviously governments are the biggest Purveyors. Yeah.
Propaganda that exist. However, however, what I would say in this case is that I actually was was kind of glad to see some of the language that was in here, because the Trump administration, I got a lot of criticisms. I mean, I can I can go on and on? You don't even have enough time in your show to hit all those criticisms, especially over the last couple of months. However, one thing that that this administration, I believe, has done a good job of is standing up for free speech rights and dismantling a lot of the apparatus that was in place, especially under the Biden administration.
But even before that, it was a growing apparatus of censorship. Trump administration has done a good job of battling that. Now in this case, the language that they use here is that they will unveil and embarrass. Okay. They didn't say that they're going to prosecute, lock people up, throw people in prison.
They're going to fine them. They said unveil and embarrass. In the event that there are organized campaigns online that are not grassroots, that are being funded by outside groups or foreign governments. I don't know that it's a terrible thing that the government say, hey, we're gonna point out that this is not authentic. This is not grassroots.
And embarrass? Okay, you can embarrass people by saying, you know, these groups are working together or this is clearly not, again, authentic or grassroots. If that is as far as it goes, I actually think that's a huge victory in terms of the way that, government would be rolling back and walking away from some of where we were headed over the last couple of decades.
Speaker 2: How do you blow the lines seem to me pretty blurry, though, between, like, satire and, as they say, low cost AI. And who's to say, like, I create, like, an x account that, like, makes fun of whatever, and I put out, like, low cost AI and it's satirical. It's not grassroots. Is it now the government's responsibility to step in and, like, blow the whistle on me? Like, you know, or is it only
Speaker 1: Government for responsibility? No. I I agree with you on that. This is not the government's job. Right?
And it should not be a use of government dollars to say, we need to figure out what is and what's not. And by the way, I think community notes does a much better job of that than government would anyways. Right? Whenever you have that hive mind of people who say an x has done a good job with this, you put community notes and say, by the way, no, this isn't authentic. I'll give you an example that that I don't think that this cybersecurity task force would go after, though, is, for instance, just, what, a week ago or so when Candace Owens decided she was gonna put out her her expose on Erica Kirk, Bride of Charlie, And then all of a sudden, the day her trailer dropped, all these Yes.
Right wing influencers all started saying the same thing that she was demonic.
Speaker 0: She's evil.
Speaker 1: That's inauthentic. That's propaganda under this definition. Would say Right.
Speaker 2: Will they go after those guys? Because these are all like friends. These are all like MAGA friends. These are like the, you know, the inner circle, like the Laura Loomer types. The Mark these are all like that little inner circle.
So will their little office of cybersecurity now go after those people? I don't I doubt it.
Speaker 1: They will bail and embarrass. Yeah. Will they do that? I I I don't know that they will. Now maybe they will, but I I seriously doubt it.
Speaker 2: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally inner in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it.
Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your fate future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA, USA app 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, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed.
It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. It's wallet.rumble.com. Go to Rumble Wallet today, open an account, and step away from big banks for good.
Wallet.rumble.com is the place to go.
Speaker 1: I think that the bigger issue was this. Whenever you are creating bureaucracy, bureaucracy needs a reason to exist. Therefore, if you create a bureaucracy that's sole job is to find propaganda or bad actors or inauthentic movements, guess what? They're going to find them. Whether they're there or not, they're going to find them because their very existence depends on it being there.
I think we saw this happen especially over the last decade with all the Russia stuff. Right? One of the the fastest growing parts of the bureaucracy in terms of fairer enforcement, in terms of watching out for foreign actors or foreign entities. And why do they focus so much on Russia? Well, because they needed to find something.
And so they spent a decade building these crazy cases about how the Russians were doing everything to the point where even now, senator Richard Blumenthal, even today, comes out and says, talking about Iran, he's talking about The United States, he's talking about war, he had to bring up, oh, by the way, the Russians are doing this and that. Oh my gosh. Here we go again. Right.
Speaker 0: So
Speaker 1: it's it's just fascinating to me, but I don't think I don't think there is an authentic move here by any bureaucracy to really say, listen. The truth is we found out we're not really necessary. This isn't really happening, and so you can do away with us if you want. They will justify their existence, and I don't think that's good for Americans.
Speaker 0: Right. So take a look at what FBI Director Cash Patel put on X today. He says, okay, we got our marching orders about cyber strategy. Here we go. What bothers me here is we're going to secure emerging technologies.
So what does that say to me? What my worry is, it there's an let's say there's a new AI. It's very forthright. And they can't have that. And it will tell you the truth that Iran never had a nuclear bomb or what have you.
The and now, do we want the government securing emerging technologies? What do you think of that?
Speaker 1: Well, and again, to your point, I mean, does it even mean? Does it mean? Securing emerging technologies. So that's not the government's job. In fact, the whole point of living in theoretically that we live in a capitalist country, we clearly don't, but theoretically, if you did, right, government has no no say in emerging technologies, and they certainly don't have the right to secure it.
Unless what you're talking about is securing it from being hacked. But, again, that's not a government responsibility. It's not the government's responsibility to protect the private sector from hackers or from ransomware. But the fact that nothing specific is mentioned, I think that's to me is the most troubling part. And and I was reading through earlier today, Natalie, where you had posted this.
Right? And I was looking for where's the smoking gun?
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And what I actually thought was the smoking gun is the fact that there is nothing. There's not a smoking gun. There's no gun that hasn't been fired. There's no bullets. There's nothing clear about any of this.
Very generic language, and it's so generic. They just use the word cyber a lot. So it's so generic that you don't really know what it's supposed to mean. What what concerns me is even if you're a a Trump supporter and you say, don't think the president's gonna use this in a bad way, fine. The problem with this, though, is you create again, bureaucracies that are going to move into the next administration, whether it's Republican or Democrat, at a different set of leadership.
And so these things always continue to grow.
Speaker 0: Right. And so when you think about the overly broad language, that's where the government hands itself the ability to do what it wants because of these nebulous terms. Now when you think about what are the biggest headaches for the war hawks, it's TikTok, It's X, and it's possible some AIs, even Grok. Right? And so if they had secured them when they emerged, they would not have this problem.
So maybe they're thinking we get control of the next TikTok. It's secured. We don't have to worry so much. That is nineteen eighty four level access in my mind. So that is my worry.
I don't see you know, I see it as a possibility because of the the language of this document.
Speaker 1: Well, I I would say the bad news, kids, is TikTok is now co opted. It's already done.
Speaker 0: They they have secured that emerging technology.
Speaker 1: Yes. They they did that by claiming that China was a threat, and so they handed it off, right, to to, friendly forces that will enforce what they want. But I will say this. I think there is something interesting about the AI argument, Grok specifically, in the age of this war with Iran because as you guys know, you know what's so crazy about this war is it's almost impossible to find video. Right?
There's a war happening on the other side of the world. We don't see almost anything out of Israel. They they have it locked down there. It's very hard to get video. We don't really have clear video of anything that's happened on US bases.
We have so many US bases that have been rendered unusable at this point. Destroyed. Zero video of this. And so one thing that I have noticed is when I will post a few things that come out, you'll see the people in Iran, for instance. There massive crowds of people, possibly millions of them turning out who are now supporting the regime there.
Right? They've all we've really done with this war is cement support for this regime and traded a Khomeini for a Khomeini. But the fascinating part of it is the immediate response from people on my feed will be, oh, you fell for a trick. That's not real. That's AI.
One thing that Grok has been able to do is it's able to verify videos. So it's doing the opposite of what a lot of AI does, which is we're going to trick you with AI and make you think things are real that are not real, and there's a lot of that out there. But one thing that Grok has been able to do is it verifies actually that is real. And for people who are saying, no, no, this isn't real, well Grok saying it is. And then they're like, well, I don't know.
Maybe Grock was tricked. So there's this information bias that's there, and I agree with you. There's a there's a goal there to get control of that because if you get control of the AI and and the way it responds, you can call anything you like fake, and the public will say, see, can't can't be trusted.
Speaker 2: So, Ben, I'm having flashbacks, though, with this cybersecurity infrastructure task force or whatever the hell it's gonna call. I'm reminded of the, the, the disinformation governance board, and this this is what I'm reminded of.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if remember Nina Jankowicz, the disinformation governance board, under the Biden administration. And then I mean, concerned Can I remind you that it went nuts?
Speaker 1: That video is forbidden on this channel. Thought the women women
Speaker 2: should Trump and that one. We did. Yeah. We did ban it on the show, but I thought Ben's presence here demanded that we bring it back.
Speaker 1: For any reason.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Am I wrong to have flashbacks about this?
Speaker 1: So I I would say this is a a very different version of that. What I was trying to describe in the beginning, you know, when you when you think about what the Biden administration was doing, what Obama was doing even before that, they were building towards an apparatus that really was a lock you down and jail you for saying the wrong things. That's where we were headed. I don't see this administration moving toward that. But what I what I'm concerned with is there was such a whiplash reaction to the cringe factor associated with what Nina Jankovic was doing and what the Biden administration was doing.
If it it was so ridiculous and scary, by the way, because they wanted the the power of law enforcement and to lock people up for saying the wrong things. What this might do, it could take us back towards that direction, but the truth is we're never gonna stop moving toward that direction. Can we can we pull it back, and and can we create systems where we dismantle it a little at a time? I would hope so. I don't think this gets us there, but does it point us back toward that direction in a much more palatable way?
Possibly. Possibly. But I really hope that's not the case again. I I really hope what's happening here is this is more of an effort to say, well, we can we can point out things that are inauthentic, But again, I it's you know, as a as a libertarian, I just don't believe that's government's responsibility. It shouldn't be doing that at all.
Speaker 2: Right. At the heart of it. No. You're absolutely right about that. Ben Swan, great to have you here on the show.
We know you gotta run. Thank you so much, and sorry to, make your ears bleed with a little Nemachenko.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Sorry about that. Thanks, Ben.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤐 140 Americans wounded & counting. Iran says ceasefire talks are off the table. And war hawks inside the Trump administration want to seize an Iranian island. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson joins us with what comes next. https://t.co/7C2b4exv50
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two weeks into the conflict, the official casualty toll for Americans is rising. The Pentagon has publicly acknowledged about 140 wounded, after Redacted reported at least 137 and Reuters later published an exclusive saying as many as 150 US troops wounded. The panel notes this number and questions why it wasn’t more prominently reported earlier by major outlets.
Iran asserts talks with the United States are off the table for now and vows to keep striking as long as it takes, with an “eye for an eye” stance. The discussion asks what “eye for an eye” would actually entail, debating whether it means targeting civilian or infrastructure components in retaliation. The Strait of Hormuz is deteriorating rapidly with intelligence tracking Iranian mine-laying threats, and Gulf energy infrastructure suffering damage. About 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE is down, and CBS reports shipping through the Strait has ground to a virtual halt.
On the broader geopolitical stage, Israel is bombarding Beirut’s southern suburbs and Lebanon, effectively expanding its operations in the region. In Washington, Lindsey Graham is openly urging Americans in the South to push their sons and daughters to fight in the Middle East, urging allied countries to step up and end back-channel support, including public pressure to move air bases out of Spain. The panel criticizes this rhetoric as urging others to bear the burden of conflict.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, joins to discuss wounded American troops and casualties. He notes March 4 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, whose memo told pregnant women not to come for births, signaling a surge of casualties. He adds a nearby Kaiserslautern blood drive was issued on March 5, underscoring higher inbound casualties. Johnson explains Iran’s capacity to respond with drones, missiles, and other weapons, suggesting the Strait’s disruption affects global energy markets—oil and liquefied natural gas—while noting the impact on major economies: India and others depending on Gulf energy, with Russia benefiting from higher oil prices as Western sanctions shift flows. He highlights Russia’s oil diplomacy shifts, including India’s discounted imports and Berlin’s and BRICS dynamics, and observes that Russia’s price at about $89 a barrel reflects new market conditions.
Johnson discusses how some in Washington may be leaking assessments to shift blame for any future outcomes, pointing to a leak of the National Intelligence Council memo warning against expecting regime change in Iran. He suggests there are warhawk factions in the Trump administration with aggressive aims, including potentially targeting Kharg Island, a critical oil export hub for Iran, which could provoke drone and missile countermeasures from Iran. The conversation notes that Iran could respond with drones and missiles rather than by ceding control of Hormuz, emphasizing that taking Kharg Island would be dangerous due to Iran’s drone capabilities and air defenses.
Overall, the dialogue conveys a war that is not winding down as messaging might imply, with escalating casualties, strategic waterway disruption, and high-stakes diplomatic and military posturing across the region.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, here's where this war stands tonight. Nearly two weeks into this conflict, the official story is already cracking, and the number of Americans wounded is slowly coming out. Now yesterday, we reported based on our sources that the number of American wounded was at least one hundred and thirty seven. Well, after our report ran, what do you know? The Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged about one hundred and forty wounded.
That confirms our sources on this. So why did it take a little news show like our little show here at Redacted to report this information? Like, why wasn't Fox News reporting this information? The Pentagon I know it's really weird. Why is the mainstream media silent on this?
So the Pentagon finally comes out and actually admits to this. If the number was this high, why did the American people hear so little about it until now? That's a great question. Well, now look at this. Sorry.
I'm just gonna pull my
Speaker 1: notes here. Well, I guess Fox News likes to support the troops until they get hurt.
Speaker 0: So Reuters comes out and reports this. Exclusive. As many as one hundred and fifty US troops wounded so far in Iran war. They just published this today, this morning. March 10.
That's that's remarkable. Exclusive. Just curious how that's an exclusive when we reported it yesterday. Yesterday. Whatever.
Hey, Reuters. Bite me. Anyway, this war is clearly not winding down no matter what the messaging says. President Trump is saying the war could end very soon. But Iran says talks with The United States are off the table for now.
That Tehran is prepared to keep striking as long as it takes. And they're vowing an eye for an eye. So what is an eye for an eye actually mean? Well, that's a great question. Does it mean you hey, you killed our leader.
We kill yours? Does it mean, hey, you killed all these girls who were the daughters of members of the the Iranian Navy at a girls school, do we also do that to you? Like, what is actually an eye for an eye actually mean?
Speaker 1: Does it mean we took out your water infrastructures or you took out ours? So we do that. Right. Your gas infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, that's that's a war crime. But we did it.
Speaker 0: Your oil infrastructure, we do that. Like, what exactly does that look like? Meanwhile, the Strait Of Hormuz is getting worse by the minute. US intelligence tracking Iranian mine laying threats now as Gulf energy infrastructure there is taking a major hit with about 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and The UAE. All down U CBS now says shipping through the Strait Of Hormuz has ground to a virtual halt.
Nothing getting through. That's of just a few minutes ago. And Israel's hammering Beirut's southern suburbs and Lebanon. So they've essentially invaded Lebanon. It's a shit storm.
And then there's the neocon political class in Washington saying the quiet part out loud. Senator Lindsey Graham, your favorite warmonger, is now openly talking about, you know, going back to South Carolina to tell the sons and daughters in South Carolina, you know, you gotta send your loved ones to the Middle East. That's what I'm doing here in South Carolina. I gotta tell them to go fight in the Middle East, and he's calling on other Middle East countries that have been sitting on the fence that we've supported over the years as allies. Get off the fence.
Go bomb Iran. Help out with Iran. And, oh, by the way, Spain, we're pissed off at you because you don't want us using your air bases or airspace to bomb Iran. Listen.
Speaker 2: To our allies step up, get our air bases out of Spain. They're not reliable. Move all those airplanes to a country that would let us use them when we're threatened by a regime like Iran. To our friends in Spain, man, you have lost your way. I don't wanna do business with you anymore.
I want our air bases our air bases out of Spain into a country that will let us use them. To our Arab friends, I've tried to help you construct a new Mideast. You need to up your game here. I can't go to South Carolina and say we're fighting and you won't publicly fight. What you're doing behind the scenes, that has to stop.
The double dealing of the Arab world when it comes to this stuff needs to end. I go back to South Carolina. I'm asking them to send their sons and daughters over to the Mideast. What I want you to do in The Mideast to our friends in Saudi Arabia and other places, step forward and say this is my fight too. I join America.
I'm publicly involved in bringing this regime down. If you don't, you're making a great mistake, and you're gonna cut off the ability to have a better relationship with The United States. I say this as a friend.
Speaker 1: Ugh. He's an odious friend.
Speaker 0: Say this as a friend.
Speaker 3: With friends pick up a gun and go fight yourself, you coward. Yeah. I freaking hate that. But you're calling so, like, bluntly for somebody else to go die for his stupid cause.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Go fight it yourself.
Speaker 0: I would love that.
Speaker 1: Right. And I I am so curious about this. I mean, he's a liar. But how many people in South Carolina are really walking up to him and saying, who are we gonna get to fight with us? Who are we gonna get to fight Iran?
Worried about this. My son can go, but who's going with him? Let's make some war playdates. Who does that?
Speaker 0: Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst, NRA gun trainer, and, he's been looking at all of this and doing some incredible writing over at his website, Sonar twenty one. Larry, thank you for joining us. Great to see you back on the show.
Speaker 4: Hi, guys. Good to see you.
Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about the American war wounded first because Mhmm. I know that this is, near and dear to your heart and, of course, something that you've been watching, closely. And the lies, of course, that are are coming out about this. Again, I spoke to sources over the past forty eight hours that were telling us here at Redacted about 137 Americans wounded. Then Right.
The Pentagon comes out and then confirms about a hundred and forty. So right pretty much right on the nose. And does that number sound low to you? Or does that sound about right?
Speaker 4: That sounds a little low. So on March 4, let's go to Germany. Stuttgart, just North West of Germany, there is a hospital called Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Landstuhl's primary mission is to handle American war wounded. On March 4, they issued a memo telling all the pregnant women that were about to give birth that, sorry, don't come here.
We're not birthing any more babies. We gotta focus on our main mission. So that was the first clue that there was there were a lot of casualties inbound. I know, without mentioning his name, somebody who was involved dealing with the combat casualties during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he dealt with the personnel at Lunstul. And he called called someone up and said, can't say anything, but there's a lot of casualties.
Then 13 miles to the east of Landstuhl is an army base called Kaiserslautern. Kaiserslautern and the Stars and Stripes issued for that base had an appeal, a blood drive appeal. Hey. We need lots of people to show up and donate blood. So those that was on March 5.
So I wrote about this March 6. So I wrote about this four days ago, that, yeah, we had a lot more casualties, and there are more coming, because Iran's not gonna stop. You know, right now, we're getting signals that the Trump administration is reaching out, trying, oh, hey, let's talk, let's talk cease fire. Iran's having none of it. They've been betrayed twice by Donald Trump and his group of clowns.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 4: You know? And and so they're not ready to say no. No. They've got the world, by the testicles is the polite way of saying it, withholding the Strait Of Hormuz. They've shut down the movement of not only oil, liquid natural gas.
They're the supplier of about 25%, 25 to 30% of the world's liquid natural gas, and, about 30%, 30 to 35% of the world's urea, which is used for fertilizer. Now, that may not I just learned that that may not be as important as I once thought it was because most of it comes out of Oman. Oman, you don't have to worry about things going through the Strait Of Hormuz. But on oil and liquid natural gas, huge. 94% of The Philippines depended upon the flow of gas, both liquid and the petroleum oil, out of the Persian Gulf.
India, 80%. Japan, South Korea. So this is gonna have a major impact on certain economies in the world. Now there there I I I've said this ironically. I I think Vladimir Putin's sitting there going, maybe Donald Trump really does like me, because what he's done is he's making Russia rich again in a way I mean, they're getting, you know, they were selling they were forced to sell their oil previously under sanctions at, like, $55 a barrel.
Now they're getting $88.90 dollars a barrel.
Speaker 0: Well and they just opened it up to India. I mean, that story over the past forty eight hours, like, so they The United States has eased its restriction on Russian oil flowing to India. I mean, talk about an absolute disaster.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah. And remember what had happened there is India was playing a double game too. You know, bricks India is the I in bricks, and Iran is the new I in bricks. And so what was India doing? Well, India was pretending to play along with The United States, but then going to Russia and saying, hey, Russia.
Yeah. We'll buy we'll buy your oil, but we needed a discount because we're going against the sanctions, and we need to cover ourselves. So Russia said, okay. As a BRICS partner, we'll let you have it at 55 you know, it was normally selling 59. They let them have for 55 barrel, dollars a barrel.
So they got a discount.
Speaker 1: So Oh, sorry.
Speaker 3: Go ahead. No. Please finish.
Speaker 4: So now when all of a sudden the the the the oil tap is turned off, including the liquid natural gas, India goes running back to Russia. Now remember, on, February 2526, India was in Israel buttering up the rear end of BB, Net, and Yahoo, kissing rear end all they could. Oh, man. It was a love fest. We're partners with Israel.
And then Israel attacks their BRICS partner. And what does India say? Nothing. Zero. They don't say a thing about the murdered girls.
So now all of a sudden, the oil's turned off. It's nine days now with no oil coming out of there for India. They go running back to Russia. Hey, buddy. Let's let's get back together.
And Russia says, sure. That's great. But it's gonna cost you $89 now a barrel. No more friends and family program. Gonna get market conditions.
Mhmm. And so so Russia's Russia's playing some diplomatic hardball, but, you know, being friendly about it. But they sent India a message on this. India, of all the countries in the world right now that are most damaged by this war, it will be India and its economy.
Speaker 0: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it.
Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA USA app 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, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed.
It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. It's wallet.rumble.com. Go to Rumble Wallet today, open an account, and step away from big banks for good.
Wallet.rumble.com is the place to go.
Speaker 1: Now I wanna ask you about president Trump responding to CBS News reports that there may be mines in the Strait Of Hormuz. That doesn't make a ton of sense. He says we have no indication that they did, but they better not. But they are picking and choosing who gets to go through, and their allies can go through. So why would they mine their allies?
What do we make of this? Do we need to respond to this at all?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't think they've done it yet. But let's recall the last time Iran mined the Persian Gulf. They didn't mine the Strait Of Hormuz. They mined farther up.
It was 1987, 1988. Why did they do that? Well, in September 1980, when Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were still in office, The United States encouraged a guy named Saddam Hussein, don't know if you've ever heard of him, but they encouraged Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran. And then Ronald Reagan comes in with Donald Rumsfeld and Cap Weinberger, and by 1983 had provided chemical weapons, or the precursors that Iraq needed to build chemical weapons, and Iraq started using chemical weapons against Iran in 1983 and continued to do it in '84, 8586. During that entire time, Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons.
They were not going because they saw it as an act against God. They were serious about the religion. So 'eighty seven, 'eighty eight, they start dropping mines there in the Persian Gulf. Well, at that time, they didn't have all these missiles, so the United States Navy, a Navy SEAL, a good friend of mine, set up what was called the Hercules barge, and he had a Navy SEAL unit with him, and they fought off attacks by Iranian gunboats. He had some Little Bird helicopters from the one sixtieth, the special operations wing of the Air Force.
And but we ended up disrupting the Iranian plan to mine The Gulf back then. Well, we couldn't do that today. We do not have that capability because Iran would blow us out of the water with drones and with missiles. You as we've seen, it's been happening over the last ten days. So United States would be in a real pickle.
I agree with you, Natalie, that I don't I don't think Iran's ready to start laying mines because they've got standoff weapons. They've got shore to ship missiles they can fire. They've got drones that they can fire. So they don't they're not in a situation where they need to close it off so that nobody can get out. Because just yesterday, Araci it was either Araci or Ali Larajani announced that any country that would expel The United States and Israel, diplomats, and and military from their country, they'd get free passage.
They'd get to take all the oil out they wanted.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess I mean, the president is responding to reports from CBS News, and he's saying the military hasn't told me this. I just wonder, and I'm spitballing here, who at CBS News might feed him this kind of intelligence given that CBS is run by a proxy of the Massad? I'm just curious.
Speaker 4: Barry Weiss, by chance. Oh
Speaker 0: my god.
Speaker 1: I'm suggesting exactly that. And I I have no intelligence, but it would make ideological sense to me.
Speaker 0: No. We are cynical bastards around here, Larry.
Speaker 4: Actually, Natalie, you have a lot of intelligence connecting those dots.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: We've got a lot of stupid people in Washington that aren't connecting those dots. You know, we're we're seeing I've seen all the Washington symptoms and signs that they're getting a little nervous in the service here. The the other day, they leaked out the results of the National Intelligence Council memo or assessment that had been prepared prior to the war warning, you're not gonna get regime change out of Iran. Now, normally, that remains secret. It's top secret, but that got leaked.
And why did that get leaked? Because the intelligence community is now positioning itself saying, when this thing turns, you know, turns into a a floating turd, it's not our fault. We're you know, we told you not to do it. You did it. General general Raisin Cain, Dan Cain, he did the same thing after they tried to talk Trump out of doing this, and, you know, one of his underlings went out and talked to three different media outlets.
So you can tell things are start starting to come apart at the seams because this war is not working out as they planned. And the bottom line is this. They're wanting Iran to agree to some deal to cease fire. Iran, mark my words, Iran is not going to agree to a cease fire. They're gonna keep this war going until at some point such point, The United States will negotiate with them and end all sanctions on Iran at a minimum.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you this, Larry. Reports from inside the Trump administration that there are warhawks inside the Trump administration that desperately want to take the island Of Kharg. Oh, god.
Speaker 4: I hope I hope they're the first ones on the boat.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly. So let's just lay this out for our audience. Here's a picture of this island. Now, for those in our audience that don't know, this is arguably one of the most important pieces of land in the world.
This is where 90% of all the oil flows from Iran, is out of Karg Island. 90%. And I had to when I when I saw those statistics over the past forty eight hours, had to do a double take and convert 90% of all the Iranian oil flows from this little island, this airfield. To my mind, it's only about four I think four miles four miles long, four miles long, two miles wide. And there are and it's and it is difficult to defend from an American perspective.
So there are those in the Trump administration who want to take this piece of land from which to be able to launch attacks to prevent any oil flows out of the Strait Of Hormuz into the rest of the world. This sounds like an absolute disaster if the Americans try to take this, but what do you think about this?
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. They well, I I hope that the ones that advocate that put them in uniform, put them at the front of the front of the the column, they go in first. Because, you know, they forget that one of the largest producers of drones in the world, one of the innovators is Iran, and Iran got its drones thanks to the CIA. Most people don't know that. You know, that famous triangle drone we've been looking at?
Iran brought one of those down twelve years ago, and then they copied it. And that that was a CIA drone at the time. CIA was sort of the leader in it. So once once you get US troops on that island, they're not gonna have any cover. They're not gonna have time to build shelter, you know, that would resist all these drones.
I mean, Iran Iran wouldn't have to land troops on Karg Island to take it back. All they'd have to do is kill them with drones as we've seen in the war in Ukraine, for God's sake. Are these people not paying attention? I mean, really, I I I'm insulted by the level of stupidity. It is.
Well
Speaker 0: yeah. Well, we've heard from the Trump administration the surprise about being, like, attacking our military bases in the region. Like, where did the surprise come from? You've been on our show for three years talking about if if we attack Iran, a, b is what is going to happen. They are going to attack our military that are stationed in Bahrain, in Qatar, and these other locations, and that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 1: And especially given the rhetoric of US war hawks in power for three decades. Like Yeah. Yes. They kind of had to prepare all of this time. Did we think that they weren't paying attention when we said it to the world?
Speaker 4: Well, when when we're writing our own press clippings and then reading them, there is a tendency to say, god, I am great. Can you see this? How good we are? And so they really believed that our air def the Patriot air defense systems and the THAAD systems would be they they could shut down the Iranian missiles and drones. And what they discovered was, nope.
They didn't work. And they worked at an even lower level than the you know, Pentagon kept foul. We're shooting down 90%.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤐 Every outlet is telling you Israel is winning. Col. @DougAMacgregor is telling you something very different. The military realities on the ground, the strategic miscalculations, & what happens if current policies don't change. His perspective is not comfortable. https://t.co/LG4ZAXtab1
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion opens by critiquing mainstream media narratives about Iran, contrasting them with “neocon run” outlets and highlighting one-sided portrayals. Condoleezza Rice is cited as arguing that Iran started the war forty-seven years ago, with the implication that the current actions are a finish. Speaker 1 (a guest) adds that Iran has been at war with the U.S. since 1979, noting the embassy hostage crisis, the killings of Marines in Lebanon, and Iranian-made roadside bombs in Iraq, suggesting longstanding Iranian hostility.
Speaker 0 and others reference this framing as propagandistic, while noting Pentagon claims of US air power over Iran. Speaker 2 describes the view of US bombers flying over Tehran and the IRGC, with the assertion that Iran will be unable to respond while US and Israeli air power dominates.
Talk then shifts to the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran. Polymarket is cited, giving a 65% probability of US forces on the ground in Iran by December 31. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (spelled Ogracchi in the transcript) says he is waiting for a US ground invasion and claims Iran is prepared, while an NBC anchor appears surprised by the statement. A dialogue follows with a reporter asking an Iranian interviewee whether Iran is ready for a US invasion; the interviewee responds that Iran is ready and willing to confront US ground forces, insisting that Iran’s missiles and upgraded capabilities were demonstrated in prior conflicts.
Colonel Douglas MacGregor appears to discuss the likelihood of US boots on the ground. He states zero probability of large-scale ground forces, noting the army’s reduced size since the 1990s and the Marines’ limited numbers. He argues a half-million troops would be needed for a meaningful ground campaign, with sustainment, drones, and missiles making a ground invasion impractical. He describes the challenge of moving forces through Israel, Syria, and into northern Iran, and asserts missiles and unmanned systems would deter such an operation. He also dismisses the idea that special operations could be the exception, noting concerns about extraction and the overall feasibility.
Speaker 6 adds that Israel reportedly wants boots on the ground but lacks generals to lead such a mission, framing the move as potentially suicidal. The panel discusses perceived indicators of US military “success,” but MacGregor cautions that such signals—like a White House meeting with aerospace leaders and Israeli mobilizations—do not necessarily indicate a decisive victory. He argues that Iranian missiles and drones have inflicted damage on bases, radars, Patriot and THAAD batteries, and that Israel’s mobility and readiness are strained, with reservists mobilized but not guaranteed to show up. He emphasizes that Iran’s capabilities could prolong the conflict, and notes a broader geopolitical risk, including potential Russian and Chinese involvement.
The conversation critiques Washington’s strategic planning, questioning whether the US or its allies had a systematic analysis of the likelihood of success in striking Iran, arguing that assumptions were evidence-free. MacGregor predicts a prolonged conflict, possibly extending for weeks, and warns against a broader regional collapse. He emphasizes that Iran’s strategy may be to endure and avoid a quick tactical defeat, while the US contemplates escalation or potential engagement with carrier groups.
Regarding naval operations, there is debate about escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. The idea of US insurers covering shipping is discussed, with concerns about the risk to US taxpayers and the feasibility of naval escorts near Iran. MacGregor and the others argue that such an approach would be dangerous and unlikely to be pursued by naval leadership, pointing to the risk of being sunk and the logistical challenges of carrier air operations at long distances.
Toward the end, the participants reflect on information integrity in wartime, noting that casualties and damage are often under- or mis-reported, and referencing Napoleon’s adage that the first casualty in war is the truth. The final segment promotes MacGregor’s Substack piece, MacGregor Warrior, and MacGregor TV, acknowledging shadow bans and encouraging listeners to seek out his material. The host and guests close with a candid acknowledgment of ongoing uncertainty and the prospect of a drawn-out conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you turn on Fox News or any of the other neocon run main run mainstream media, you'll see the usual cavalcade of voices who led us into the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan for twenty years. Twenty years war. Giving views on one-sided views of what actually is happening in the war in Iran right now. For instance, here's warmonger Condoleezza Rice explaining that Iran started this war forty seven years ago, and we're just simply finishing it.
Speaker 1: Well, the most important thing, Brett and thank you for having me. But the most important thing is to recognize that, Iran has been at war with us for, at least forty seven years, all the way from 1979. People may forget. They took our embassy hostage four hundred and forty, four hundred and forty four days. They were responsible for the killings of, 300 plus marines in Lebanon in the early nineteen eighties.
And if you ask people about Iraq, what was the source of many of our casualties in Iraq, you'll get estimates as high as seventy five or eighty percent of them were due to Iranian made roadside bombs. And so they've been at war for us a long time. So
Speaker 0: she goes on to say that anyone who questions it is ahistorical, meaning she knows history and you don't. You're ahistorical. She is an a hole. But okay. Anyway, meanwhile, the Pentagon is telling us they are raining hell down on Iran right now.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says bombers have taken control over the skies of Iran.
Speaker 2: Flying over Tehran, flying over Iran, flying over their capital, flying over the IRGC, Iranian leaders looking up and seeing only US and Israeli air power every minute of every day until we decide it's over. And Iran will be able to do nothing about it.
Speaker 0: Meanwhile, much talk now about boots on the ground in Iran. And will there be US forces by the December? Polymarket, you know, which seems to get a lot of stuff correct. This morning, this is Polymarket. US forces entering Iran by December 31, a 65% chance of US forces on boots on the ground.
Meanwhile, the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Ogracchi says he is waiting for a US ground invasion. The Iranians are prepared and watches this NBC News anchor is like, wait a minute. Did you just say what I think you said?
Speaker 3: Boots on the ground in Iran. Are are you afraid of a US invasion in your country?
Speaker 4: No. We are waiting for them.
Speaker 3: You you are waiting for the US military to invade the ground troops?
Speaker 4: Yes. Because we we are confident that we can confront them, and that would be a big disaster for them.
Speaker 3: So you're saying that that Iran is ready and willing to take on the US military if there were to be ground troops?
Speaker 4: Well, we were ready for this war even more than the previous war. So you can see, you know, the quality of our missiles, how much they are upgraded after the last war because we learn lots of lessons. And we are
Speaker 0: So there's a lot of propaganda happening in real time right now. We wanna bring in colonel Douglas McGregor, who's just written a great new piece on his Substack about how this thing possibly ends. Colonel, great to see you. Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 5: Hey, thanks very much. Good to see you.
Speaker 0: So when you look at well, of all, this idea of boots on the ground, we keep hearing this over the past, forty eight hours, and members of Congress are saying, you know, we're not ruling it out. We can't have regime change with just air power alone. What do you think the likelihood is that we're going to see US boots on the ground?
Speaker 5: Zero. Zero. I mean, you might see some special operations troops mill around the neighborhood. That's eminently possible. Although I think we're a little concerned about getting them out once we put them in.
But no, I just don't see any evidence for it. You've got an army that's simply too small. It's a fraction of what it was formerly in the nineteen nineties. The Marines, again, they don't have enough men to make a dent. You would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a half a million troops.
And remember that a lot of those are gonna have to be part of the sustainment, the support. Then even more important, we're not really organized or trained to deal with the threat, because the threat we'd face would be very similar to what the Russians have faced and ultimately mastered in Ukraine. We're not accustomed to dealing with thousands of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles of all different types and sizes converging to attack us, and we've never had to deal with these precision guided ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. So, no, I I think it's almost zero. Imagine you're trying to bring in ground troops, and someone finds out, you know, the the Iranians will find out through satellite based intelligence and their various operatives and their supporters in Moscow and Beijing that we're gonna try and concentrate forces somewhere.
It doesn't matter where you put them. Say they're gonna try and come in through Haifa, although that port's in bad shape now. And then you've got to move them through Israel across Syria to get into Northern Iran. Or you're gonna try and penetrate the Straits Of Hormuz and land at Bandar Abbas. I mean, it's all ridiculous nonsense.
The the missiles alone would destroy you, along with all of the unmanned systems. So I I can't imagine that happening.
Speaker 6: I'm seeing reports out of Israel that Israel wants boots on the ground, but they can't get any generals to lead it because their assessment probably matches yours, that it's a suicide mission. Can you respond to what we've been through collectively over the last week from this is a short military operation to four to five days to two to three weeks, then it was four to five weeks. Now we're here in September. That doesn't bode very well for a successful mission that we thought would take a weekend, and now that's seven months. So what do you make of this moving target and what it says about the status of the war that we can't see because of propaganda filters?
Speaker 5: Well, I'm seeing some real indicators of success for us. So much success that president Trump is summoning the aerospace industry heads to meet with him in the White House, presumably to tell them our missiles and munitions have done a great job. Right?
Speaker 0: Right. High five. We're done. You guys have done such an amazing job. No.
Not that we've spent over, you know, a trillion dollars, and we have we're out of Tomahawk missiles. And we have we don't have Patriot systems. Like, that's really what that meeting's about. Right?
Speaker 5: Well, I would think so about a number of things, but it's not an indicator of imminent success or that we're on the threshold of victory. This other business, you know, the Israelis just announced the mobilization of a 100,000 reservists. I'm hearing that a lot of those reservists are not gonna show up, and they've got to man the force that they're trying to ship into Lebanon, where they're meeting again resistance despite enormous bombing. I I just don't see the evidence for success. And moreover, now I'm hearing from people that say, oh, you don't understand, Doug.
The Iranians are running out of ballistic missiles. They're running out of cruise missiles. Why? Why do you say that? Well, they haven't fired as many over the last two days as they did at the beginning.
I said, uh-huh. Well, obviously, they have to have targets. What have they got left to shoot at? They've already destroyed all of our bases. They've done enormous damage to the infrastructure, command and control, radars, Patriot batteries, THAAD batteries, you name it.
It's oh, no. No. You don't understand. They're running out. As soon as somebody tells me the enemy's running out, and that's the reason, I tend to re remember Ukraine.
Oh, the Russians are running out of ammunition. They're running out of missiles. Oh, the Russians are losing. Iranians are winning. I I don't believe anything, frankly.
I I wanna look at a different indicator. And the indicator right now comes in the form of insurance premiums for shipping. They have risen by 640%. Just think about that. We don't have to shut down the Straits Of Hormuz right now.
In other words, it doesn't have to be blocked if you're an Iranian. All you have to do is make sure that the risk that insurers have to take is too high, and that's what's happened. We have 3,200 ships sitting to go in and out of the Straits Of Hormuz. Now if you're a Russian flagged or Chinese flagged tanker, you're allowed to leave. You're allowed to come in.
But if you're anybody else, you're gonna be stopped. And right now, nobody wants to insure the ships. So these these effects are profound. Higher oil and refined product risk premium, higher freight and war risk insurance, tighter financial conditions. And if ships and premiums stay high, Iran is achieving a strategic effect without having to win tactically.
So what do you need to keep this going? More drones? Sure. Some more drones, occasional missiles. And who is going to invade you?
Oh, I forgot the Kurds. Right? Only now we've discovered there is no Kurdish army preparing to invade. We're trying to stand one up, but the Kurds aren't that stupid. They've been down this road before with us, and we betrayed them.
So, I, you know, I just I just don't know what the outlook is except to say, I agree. This could go on for many, many more weeks.
Speaker 0: I I love when people would say to you, colonel, a colonel who led men into battle for crying out loud and who has sources, deep, deep sources within the United States military more than any of us sitting here on this table or anyone who's, like, probably watching right now, unless there's some sort of keyboard cowboy that we don't know about. But to say to you that you're wrong about what Iran's missile capacity is. You've been studying this for for decades and their ability to sustain this. You've laid out many, many times on our show. So I guess I'll just ask you straight out.
Is there a way that we could actually beat Iran short of a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 5: Well, I think the bar is very low for Iran. All Iran has to do to be victorious, if you will, is survive. That's it. That's all they have to do, continue to lob missiles, continue to launch drones, strike back if we come close to the country in whatever way they can. They managed to maintain command and control.
They've dispersed their forces. Those forces are surviving. They seem to have a very large supply of missiles and drones, contrary to what anybody may think. So all they have to do at this point is survive. Now what do we have to do to win?
That's the real question.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 0: I mean,
Speaker 5: you listen to all this bombastic nonsense and hyperbole from the present. We're the greatest. We have the greatest force in the world. Okay. Fine.
It's the greatest in the world. What are you trying to do? Well, regime change really hasn't worked very well, has it? You managed to kill the supreme leader. That simply galvanizes the population against you and Shiites worldwide against you.
So I don't think that's helped very much. They've developed a good succession system. So if anybody is killed or wounded and taken out of action, they have plenty of people to step up and take over. So if we're not gonna regime change this forcibly with bombing, by trying to bomb everybody out of office, what are we going to do? And I think what we're trying to do is destroy Iran and and cause the society to disintegrate.
And we're desperate. We're grasping for straws. We're trying to get the Kurds to go in to create havoc. I I see evidence that we're milling around and and causing trouble in Azerbaijan that may result in a resumption of war there between Azerbaijan and Armenia. At the same time, the Turks aren't very happy about our aspirations since the Kurds, of course, want to build a state at their expense and the expense of Iran.
And the Turks and the Irans are already share Iranians are already sharing intelligence. So if our goal is to destroy the country, I don't think we're going to achieve that. But if we came even close to it, I think we're gonna end up dealing with the Chinese and the Russians.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: And that's that's something I thought we wanted to avoid. But then again, you know, we thought that was the case under Biden, and it turns out that Biden crossed all of his red lines almost immediately, sending everything he said he wouldn't send and risking everything he said he wouldn't risk. Looks like Donald Trump wants to do the same thing.
Speaker 6: Right. You know, there is an option for president Trump to save face and say, look. We got the Ayatollah, and we got a lot of bad guys. We're pretty happy. We're walking out of here.
The problem is that it doesn't seem to be Donald Trump in the driver's seat. It seems to be president or prime minister Netanyahu, that it's Israel's will that we are bending towards. So if we walked away now, we probably would be led like a dog right back here until I don't know what. So it has to be disastrous, and yet we can't really get a true picture of what the Americans are being asked to do even though we're funding it. And I noticed because I follow your X feed closely, it helps me to cut through the ball.
But you got a lot of turds now who are pushing back on you. And you I didn't see this before because the pro war faction, the pro war bots are out. And I noticed you're taking a lot of stuff for telling the truth now. That tells me something. Right?
Speaker 0: You're over the target, colonel.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, unfortunately, if you object to waging war with uncertain purpose and unattainable goals, then you're viewed as a traitor. I mean, that's obviously, you you don't support what's right and good. But I think Americans are smarter than Washington thinks. And I'll be frank.
I don't think this is going to lead anywhere. I don't think, president Trump is going to tow the battleship Missouri into the Persian Gulf, and then repaint the name on the Missouri to the USS Trump, and hold a surrender ceremony there for the Iranians. I don't think that's going to occur. I hope we can get out of this without ending up in a major war with Russia and China, without blowing up the entire region. The entire region's pretty much blown up as it is.
But I think what's going to happen is that over the next several weeks, war fatigue is going to set in. I think we will take more casualties than we've taken thus far. And I think president Trump may be in real trouble. He may not finish his his term. He may end up no longer being president by the time the war ends, however it ends.
Speaker 0: So maybe you can give us just a military assessment beyond what you've already said here. Where do things stand on the Israeli side? Are they you know, CNN is not allowed to show us. Fox News is not allowed to show us. RT got shut down from showing us what's actually happening inside of Israel, you know, bombing attacks inside of Israel.
What do we, you know, what do we know about their the Iranian capacity at this point? Are they sitting back as professor Morandi in Tehran has said this morning? The Iranians are using basically some of their old old missiles. They haven't even really used some of their most advanced stuff yet, and they're sort of sitting back. Can you help us understand?
And also the American deaths. We've only heard six Americans have died. I'm hearing that that number is false. Maybe you can tell us about the American killed in action numbers that you're hearing about. Maybe you just can give us a sense of all of these things.
Speaker 5: Well, let's start with Israel. I think internally, is suffering from considerable unrest. There are lots of unhappy people in Israel right now. They've been through quite a lot as a result of starting this war in the aftermath of July. They've got armed forces with people that are exhausted, that are tired.
At least a million Israelis have left the country and gone elsewhere, and I'm sure more would leave if they were able to do so. So I think the the future for Israel is ominous. It it strikes me that Israel and Iran may well end up in this contest that I would describe as competitive collapse. In other words, which state falls apart first? And if I were betting, I would say Iran will not be the first, that it will be Israel internally.
They're already bringing in large numbers of mercenaries to fight, and that's been going on almost from the beginning. Israel has sustained a lot of damage. It's probably going to sustain a lot more before this is over. And I don't know where mister Netanyahu is most of the time. Everybody keeps asking that question.
He's not exactly very visible these days. So I think Israel is in trouble. Let's put it that way. Now when we go to the Persian Gulf, we look at The Emirates, we look at Saudi Arabia, but particularly The Emirates. So I think we, as a nation, are finished there because deterrence has failed.
What the Iranians have demonstrated pretty conclusively is to fight wars, you don't really need navies and air forces if you're defending your country. With missiles and unmanned systems and ground troops, you can wage war for a very, very long time. We are at the end of a 6,000 mile logistical pipeline. We've got to replenish everything. We don't know how many missiles we fired.
We're not sure about how many enemy missiles we've intercepted. And when you're in that kind of position, when in doubt, you tend to make things up. I think we're making a lot up, saying that we're doing a lot better than we are. But it's it's impossible to know with any precision. But the point is you can bomb lots of people in Iran over a long period of time, But you're not gonna bring down that nation, and you're not gonna bomb its current government out of existence.
So when you look at the map, I I tend to re re you know, rely more heavily on rebar. I find that most of their data is pretty good. And as I look at the charts right now, I'd say the Iranians are continuing to do quite well. And I don't think that we are pounding them into the dust or pulverizing them out of existence. And I think that's one of the reasons that we're going to send more troops and more firepower there.
We've got three battle carrier battle groups that we can surge. And over the next two weeks, I think they're gonna get them ready and bring them over so they can replace the two carrier battle groups that are there now. So this is going to go on. As you pointed out, everybody stopped talking about forty eight hours. Remember we go back to Witkoff?
And he said, well, president Trump and I thought they were going to capitulate. I mean, after all, look at all the firepower we amassed. Persia has been with us for two thousand seven hundred years. I don't see any evidence that they're about to go away. I think they'll they'll endure.
I think, ultimately, by enduring, they will win. The question is what what sobers us up? I think it's gonna be economics. Remember, Japan depends for 72, 73% of its oil on the Persian Gulf. South Korea depends about 66, 65% of its oil comes out of the, Persian Gulf.
China, 50%. But the Chinese have substantial strategic reserves, and they have a new pipeline into Siberia. So that no doubt helps a great deal. India's oil, 50% of it comes from the Persian Gulf. And right now, Indian industries, whether it's ceramics or automobile tires or any number of things, anything that contains petroleum, all of your, you know, your fertilizers that contain elements from petroleum, those businesses are being destroyed in India.
And people are beginning to say, now wait a minute. Did president Trump ever consult with any of the nations with which we are aligned or nations that are ultimately friendly to us before he decided to do this? The answer is no. Did anybody really present him with a systematic analysis of how likely it was that we would be successful striking Iran from the year, or was that simply waved aside based on anecdotal evidence provided by the Israelis that said, oh, this will be over in two days or three days or four days. We don't know the whole story.
I mean, the truth will come out eventually. We'll find it out. But I think most of our assumptions were false. The they were evidence free as so much analysis in Washington is. So I think we're in for the long haul.
And, hopefully, we don't have any ships that are damaged or sunk. Hopefully, we don't have a carrier that's struck by one of these ballistic missiles. That would be disastrous. Because right now, all the bases are are basically gone in most of the region. They're not usable anymore.
Speaker 6: Gosh. I wanna I wanna ask you just one more question about the idea of escorting ships through the Straits Of Hormu the Strait Of Hormuz. No one has taken us up on that offer. President Trump said, hey. We'll be the insurer.
The US taxpayer will do that. I mean
Speaker 0: Now that insurance rates have skyrocketed,
Speaker 6: as you
Speaker 4: pointed out.
Speaker 6: So the the the government is saying, okay. We'll do it. That puts US taxpayers on the hook. And I assume they would pay for, you know, replacement costs, death tolls. I I don't know exactly what that means.
You and colonel Davis both kind of freaked out about that because you're like, you really wanna sail near Iran? You really wanna do that? And no one has why who would do that? Who would sail towards a country escorted by the country that's bombing that country? So it doesn't seem like it it just seems like bluster.
Right? Is that what you think?
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know, because I think that president Trump frequently, is a victim of what we call ready, shoot, aim. Oh. He says things, and then subsequently somebody tells him it's not possible, it won't work, or it's not true. Then he just sort of waves it off. But this time, I don't think he can wave off some of these remarks.
I can't imagine any admiral in the United States Navy urging us or president Trump to send navy combatants into the Persian Gulf right now. They'd be sitting ducks. That's the easiest thing in the world to hit and sink. So I think the idea is crazy. Note that the carrier battle groups, particularly the USS Abraham Lincoln group, has moved as far away as they possibly could without completely sacrificing their ability to contribute to the air campaign.
Because remember, you know, you've got a most of these fighters are about a 300 mile range. That means they've gotta fly out a 150 miles and back a 150 miles. And you're a long way from Iran if you're four or five, six hundred miles of the Persian Gulf. That means that you've got a lot of refueling going on. All all of these things cost us logistically.
So I just don't see it working. I don't see it happening. I think what you'll end up doing maybe is conducting a kind of naval blockade, but that's gonna get you into trouble with everybody. You know, right now, we what we see is a pattern of missile volleys and drones based on a specific group of targets that are provided largely as a result of Chinese intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. And the satellite based intelligence is also providing the battle damage assessment.
And so this is a very carefully orchestrated campaign on the part of the Iranians. The these people are not amateurs. So we we, on the other hand, you know, seem to be stumbling. You know, it reminds me of Lloyd George, who said it at the beginning of World War one, if the politicians stumbled into the war, the generals have certainly stumbled through it. And I think that's what we did.
We stumbled into this behind the Israelis that that hooked us in. And we're trying to make the best of it. I'm sure the generals in the Air Force, the admirals in the Navy are doing everything they can. But this is tough. And in today's tack attack, you know, the Iranians used one of their Quran Shar ballistic missiles with subunitions.
They've done horrific damage to Ben Gurion Airport. Put it out of business. This was because, obviously, the Israelis attacked the airport in Tehran. These people aren't finished. They're a long, long, long way from being finished.
I think they're going to be standing when Israel's in ruins. And and that's the problem because when do the Israelis finally step up and say enough is enough? We're gonna use a nuclear weapon and put Iran out of business. That's really what I worry most about.
Speaker 0: I've been, you know, hearing from sources pointing out that there are a number of IDF soldiers who've been overheard discussing this, use a nuclear weapon. Just use a nuclear weapon, and take out Iran. So I I wouldn't be surprised by that. Doug, I'll get you out on here on this, which is this idea. We've been hearing from the Iranian side that they've hit our aircraft carriers.
They've targeted to hit our aircraft carriers. They've hit some of our navy ships. Is that propaganda from the Iranian side? What are you hearing from military sources? We can't seem to get any data as to whether or not any of our ships have been hit.
Speaker 5: You know, I do have some friends in the navy. I'm told that at least one of the DDGs was hit, and, they did have a fire on board. But the rest of it, no. And you know, the other thing is nobody wants to confirm success because they're afraid that they're going to tell the Iranians that that they've hit the right target. But the truth is that you can't really conceal the effects because they're gonna be picked up on satellite intelligence anyway.
But historically, just remember, we always slow roll casualties. We slow roll losses, or we simply lie. We lied during the second World War because the losses were always higher than than we expected. During World War one, they were horrific, and people waited months to hear the truth. So I I I just don't think that much of what we are hearing is truthful from our side, and I don't know that the Iranians are telling us everything either.
Because if you think you got close to a carrier, maybe you say, well, we got close, so tell them we we gotta we nicked the carrier or something. Who knows? I don't know. Yeah. But I I don't think we can depend on much integrity in war.
What did Napoleon say? The first casualty in war is the truth. Right. He was right. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Colonel Douglas MacGregor, great to see you as always. Thank you so much. Where can people read your new substack piece that you just published? What is the name of your Substack?
Speaker 5: Well, I think it's something like MacGregor Warrior. But, you know, you stick my name in there, you'll find it. You'll get there. Yeah. Fantastic.
You know, I also have MacGregor TV, but I'm shadow banned, so nobody ever finds it anymore.
Speaker 6: Well, go looking folks. Raise the algorithm.
Speaker 0: That's what people say about our show. They're like, we can't ever find you. We don't get notifications. We subscribe. You notes show up on our homepage.
You you get shadow banned. So they don't want the truth out there. Colonel, great
Speaker 5: to see popular.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Exactly. Alright. Well, I'll go into your ex feed and fight with your turds. That will make me feel better.
Sometimes sometimes when I get mad about the war, I just do stir stuff.
Speaker 5: Flush. That's the key.
Speaker 6: You got it.
Speaker 0: Flush those guys. Thanks, Craig. Great to see you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🇷🇺 Putin issued a major warning to Trump & Israel over Iran. The world's largest nuclear power just signaled it is watching, & it is not neutral. The mainstream media isn't covering what that actually means. We are. @JimJatras is with us. https://t.co/lH2bgtFhQP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russian president Vladimir Putin faces domestic criticism for not ending the war in Ukraine and is being pressed to act on Iran as well. On Russian talk shows, officials suggest Putin is dependent on his relationship with Donald Trump, which critics say stalls peace negotiations, raising questions about what Russia can do in Iran while entangled at home. Russia signals potential actions, such as stopping energy flow to those supporting the war, with Sergei Lavrov saying Russia will “do everything to create an atmosphere that will make this operation impossible” in cooperation with partners and in international forums.
Putin also floated the idea of stopping energy flows to Europe, suggesting Europe could be drawn into the conflict since many NATO members are reluctant to be drawn in, though some like Italy and Spain reportedly oppose direct involvement.
Iranian foreign minister comments: when asked whether Russia and China are helping Iran, the minister said they are supporting Iran politically and otherwise, and that military cooperation with Asia and Russia is not a secret. He did not give specifics on whether Iran is actively receiving military assistance in the current war, stating he would not disclose details of cooperation in the middle of the war.
Discussion with guests focuses on the Ukraine and Iran theaters, the Russia-China-Iran triangle, and the potential for Russia to change its approach. Jim Jatris, a former State Department official, emphasizes that Putin’s view of Trump shapes Russia’s strategy, noting Russian engagement with two Americans described as “New York flim flam artists” around ceasefire discussions. Jatris argues the Russians may have been interested in a deal via Trump’s intermediaries but now see the negotiations as “treachery” and question whether there is any real chance to decapitate or leverage Kyiv, comparing this to Israeli and U.S. tactics against Iran and other groups. He suggests Moscow’s pressure points include whether Russia will shift its Ukrainian strategy and what happens if the U.S. declares a victory and withdraws, leaving Iran and Russia to decide whether to press their advantage or pause.
Doug McGregor comments on Russian restraint, arguing Moscow has pressed for minimal terms since June 2024 and views Western capitals as cutthroat, making negotiation unlikely. He notes internal Russian debate among figures like Nabiulina and others about maintaining restraint and keeping negotiation channels open, while acknowledging that Russia might eventually decide to end the war by destroying the Kyiv regime, though it is unclear what they will do.
The conversation also touches on the complexity of Russia-Iran-Israel relations and the potential for direct Russian involvement, including possible shadowing of Israeli submarines or deploying Russian personnel in Iran, while recognizing that Russia would likely avoid direct combat if possible. The overall tone considers how a pending Xi–Trump meeting in Beijing could be affected by the war’s progression, with speculation that the meeting may be canceled or postponed depending on developments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Russian president Putin is facing criticism in Russia for not doing enough to end the war in Ukraine, and now he's facing pressure to do something about the war in Iran. Now some say that he should be doing in Ukraine what The US and Israel is doing in Iran, which I guess is balls to the walls. Right? Can I say balls?
Speaker 1: You did.
Speaker 0: I did. Yeah. Balls to the walls. I don't know if that's a good template, though. I don't know if you wanna do it our way if you just listen to colonel MacGregor.
But on Russian talk shows now, they're saying president Putin is dependent on his personal relationship with Donald Trump, and that's why he hasn't ended the war in Ukraine. That stalled peace negotiations, which are heavily criticized there. So what can Russia even do in Iran while it still is entangled in its own war at home? Russian leaders are saying they will do something, namely stop the flow of energy to anyone who is supporting this war. Here is Sergei Lavrov saying exactly that.
Speaker 2: For our strategic partners, and we'll continue to maintain dialogue with these countries, and we'll do we'll do our best to including with other countries of the international community in the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly. We'll do everything to create an atmosphere that will make this operation impossible.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we're gonna talk for a minute in a minute about what that means. President Putin is saying he also can stop the flow of energy to Europe. He was sort of spitballing in this interview. You can look that up if you want, but it is in Russian.
Why would he do this? Possibly because Europe will be dragged into the conflict because they most of them are in NATO, even though many many NATO members are saying they don't want anything to do with this, namely Italy and Spain. They may not have a choice. Now earlier today, Iranian foreign minister said this when asked about how Russia and China are helping.
Speaker 3: Are your allies are your allies, Russia and China, helping you?
Speaker 4: Well, they are supporting us politically and otherwise.
Speaker 3: Are they are they supporting you militarily?
Speaker 4: Well, military cooperation between Iran and the Asia and Russia is not is not a secret. You know? We have worked with each other in the past, and that has continued, you know, and will continue, I hope I guess.
Speaker 3: And they're actively helping you in this war?
Speaker 4: Well, they are, they have always helped us.
Speaker 3: So I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna understand that to mean, yes, that they are they are actively assisting you in this war?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not going to to give the details of our cooperation with other with other countries right in the middle of the war.
Speaker 0: Okay. What does that mean exactly? Helping, where does Russia stand? Joining us to discuss is Jim Jatris. He's a former state department official and an expert in US Russia relations.
Good to see you, Jim. Thank you for offering your expertise. So what do Yeah.
Speaker 5: Sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: No. You go ahead. You take it.
Speaker 5: No. Natalie Clayton. You. Doug McGregor, tough act to follow, but I'll do my best. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Alright. Game on. What do you think? Give us the overall.
Speaker 5: Well, I I think you I actually outlined it very well in your introduction. A lot of this has to do with how president Putin views president Trump. I mean, when we talk about US Russia relations and what's the nexus between the two major theaters right now, Ukraine and Iran, it's these two New York flim flam artists, Whitkoff and Kushner, that the Russians have been repeatedly meeting with, so they could talk about big business deals and land and money and bloody baby. You just think of the tax write off and whatever whatever kind of nonsense they're trying to sell the Russians on a ceasefire. The Russians have been polite with this.
Maybe they even took it seriously because they say, hey. Wait. These guys have got a direct line to, Trump. And now they I think even though the mirage that there's some kind of a deal possible with Trump, with The United States, that The United States could possibly negotiate in good faith. You know, even even Vladimir Putin cannot believe that anymore.
You know, he was disappointed that he thought he had a handshake deal with Trump over Ukraine at Anchorage, the spirit of Anchorage. Now we see these same two guys engaged in this treachery, and I think that's the only word for it, pretending to negotiate with the Iranians while we set up to just kill them, to knock them out, to decapitate them. So I I think you're right that the pressure on president Putin to finally drop this this illusion that he can negotiate a deal with his friend president Trump is finally gone, that the pressure is gonna be on him very strongly to move forthrightly in Ukraine. Again, the question you asked, why aren't they launching a decapitation strike of that sort against the Kyiv regime that we see Israel and United States repeatedly employing against, you know, not only Hezbollah, but also trying against Hamas, negotiations at Doha, and now doing it twice with respect to Iran. So I I think I think the the bellwether we're gonna see here is is twofold.
One is, will the Russians change their behavior in Ukraine? And secondly, when Trump wants to declare a win and get out, which I think is his only way out of this at this point, you know, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, know, at the maximum before he's supposed to go see president Xi in in Beijing. At some point, when he wants to get out and say, okay. We've accomplished our mission. Another win for Trump I saw by eighty fourth war.
Do do the Iranians let him off the hook? You know, when when the Russians and the Chinese see that here's The United States with our, you know, mammary gland caught in a ringer, do they wanna let us go now? And and and it's if Iran Iran is getting the the advantage, we've exhausted our interceptors, Do they wanna keep pounding us away, and do the Russians and the Chinese see an opportunity to bleed us white in Iran the same way we tried to bleed the Russians white in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: The big medical hack of 2025 was several peer reviewed studies identifying the direct connections between anti parasitic medications having off label benefits fighting a wide variety of cancers. This makes sense the connection between tumor growth and parasites has been known for years. While the CDC remains silent about it, of course, they have finally admitted that millions of Americans suffer from parasitic infections that often go undetected or undiagnosed. That's why Doctor. Peter McCullough, Chief Scientific Officer at The Wellness Company and the world's most published cardiologist, says these studies make clear that you should do at least one medical grade parasite cleanse annually.
The wellness company's proprietary USA compound, which is ivermectin and membenzadol, is a doctor prescribed gold standard combination dose designed to help the body eliminate parasites and other incredible benefits. Each bottle contains 90, enough for a complete four-twenty one day cleanse. This high strength formula can be found at your local pharmacy, but the wellness company removes the red tape, making the process fully digital. All you do is fill out a quick intake form, a doctor reviews it, and your medical grade parasite cleanse arrives in a week. It's time for a new year and a new you.
So head over to twc.health/redacted and use the code redacted to save $60 off plus free shipping. Again, that is twc.health/redacted to save $60 off plus free shipping. So, Jim, you know, old saying. Right? Don't get involved if your enemies are shooting themselves in the foot.
Why would, you know, why in the world would Russia jump into this if The United States is incapacitating itself completely, you know, running through its munitions right now, having to call CEOs of Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, all of these defense contractors to the White House in order to basically beg them to make more Tomahawk missiles because we've exhausted our supplies in Ukraine. So Putin could sort of sit back and sort of wait, circle the wagons, and watch as The United States really shoots itself in the foot here. Do you anticipate any change to the Ukraine war? Putin maybe doing something more, you know, as the spring unfolds here as the the ground, unfreezes and they start to move towards a spring weather?
Speaker 5: You know you know, Clayton, you know, one of the frustrating things about the Russians I've learned over several decade is that whatever you would do in their circumstances, they never do. And they do something else. You say, why the hell do they do that? So, yeah, there there are an awful lot of people I know in in Moscow from many sources have been pressing for a long time to have a change in strategy, and it seems that Vladimir Putin in particular there and there are some other people, Nabiulina, the head of the central bank and so forth, have been pressing, no. No.
We have to be cautious. We have to show restraint. We have to keep the door open in negotiation. And if you look at the way they've been conducting the war, it has been what I call pedagogical. It has not been designed to achieve a military victory, but rather to force the other side to meet the minimal terms that they set out in June 2024, the four o Blas Crimea neutrality and all that.
And that was an illusion from the start. And I I I think, you know, I'm not questioning the military competence of the Russian armed forces, but rather the political competence of understanding the mentality of people in the Western capitals who are really, let's be honest about it, cutthroats. I mean, they simply do not honestly any prospect of negotiation. I don't know if the Russians have finally figured that out. I certainly would have if I were in their shoes a long time ago.
You'd think now there's simply no excuse for president Putin to maintain this this illusion of of a negotiation, but I honestly don't know what they will do. I would think that at some point, they will decide they've lost so many men. They you know, they're they're still under economic pressure from sanctions. You know, killing Ukrainians, I mean, these people are basically Russians anyway. That's still a loss for the Russian Russians.
Anyway, at some point, you decide why we keep losing people at this one. We could end this war by destroying the the Kyiv regime, and, and I don't know if they will do that.
Speaker 1: Can I follow-up here? Because, I mean, the real Sure. So the one side, you got Ukraine, right, where they're obviously preoccupied, but the other side is this is barreling towards a world war. So Exactly. Yes.
What exactly does the Russian relationship with Iran versus Israel? I mean, Putin had over the like, five months ago was talking about how many, you know, Jewish Russians, live in live in Israel. So the relationship is very muddy.
Speaker 5: It is. And, of course, that has been damaged somewhat because of Israeli support for the Ukrainians. So that relationship is not what it was. Again, you get a lot of speculation in Russia, you know, anti Semitic conspiracy theories about how strong the Chabad organization is in Russia, how much influence it has on Putin. People tell me it has influence, but not the same degree of let's let's be honest about a control that, you know, big Jewish money and evangelicals Christian Zionists have here in The United States over the political class in Washington, but it is a factor.
How strong a factor is? I don't know. And what are the countervailing? Remember, Putin is not a dictator. He's a manager.
He's a manager over a rather diverse sense of set of pressures and interests that he's trying to balance in some way. Back to the Iran thing, I think they have to worry about what colonel MacGregor said, that if the Iranians do press their advantage, that that very well could lead to an an Israeli nuclear response. That's something they obviously have to worry about, but they also have to consider that, okay. When the Americans are ready ready to declare a victory and go home, and did the Iranians step down, or do they say to themselves, if we step down, fine, we've we've survived. That's a victory of sorts.
But that all it means is we're gonna give the Americans and Israelis another chance to come back and hit them again in six months or a year after we had a chance to to reload. So, you know, that's a dilemma for everybody involved.
Speaker 0: Well, given what a shit starter The US is, you can see why Russia would be kind of motivated, you know, to help the Iranians either directly or indirectly. And so what and and there's no deterrence now. They've been sanctioned to within an inch of their life. So so what? You know, The US doesn't have the capacity to fight Iran and Russia at the same time militarily.
So why the hell not? Right? Is that sort of their position of, like, yeah, we can help the Iranians, but how direct do you think it will be?
Speaker 5: In terms of helping the Iranians, I don't think the Russians would get directly involved if they can possibly avoid it. Now there are some things they might do. For example, I'm under I understand that the Israelis have a submarine capability launch for their nuclear weapons. If that's the case, are the Israeli subs being shadowed by Russian subs and will sink them if they think the Israelis are about to launch their nuclear weapons? I they that's that's the only place I could see the Russians would be directly involved militarily, although you can be sure that there are Russian personnel in in in in Iran today that with their air defense systems and maybe even piloting some of their aircraft.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I guess that that's the real question here. I mean, and then you have the Chinese angle in all of this as well.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So in terms of
Speaker 0: consider it. He made a good point about the meeting coming up with Xi Jinping. It will be very embarrassing for president Trump if he's still leading this bloody unsuccessful war, and he
Speaker 5: Yeah. He's in China. He'll wanna he'll wanna go to Beijing having declared himself a winner, and you'd think it would be in the Russian as well as the Iranian interest not to let him do that. And may also be in the Chinese interest not to do that. I mean, after all, the Chinese, what's their short term interest?
Turn the energy spigot back on. They want that back on. But both the the Americans and the Israelis have made it clear they want this to be the the showdown with the Iranians. They want to put an end to the Iranian threat. Well, you think that would work on the other side too, that if the Iranians backed up by the Russians and the Chinese saying, we're gonna drive the Americans out out of the Middle East.
We're gonna crush Israel. We're gonna get rid of all the American bases for force them to pull out. You'd think they don't wanna go through this again in a in a few months too, especially since the prospect for escalation might even be greater than. Again, it's a real tightrope. How much are you gonna risk becoming triggering a global conflict versus how much can you maybe reduce the prospects of a global conflict by finishing it now?
Speaker 1: How about you wanna bet? I'm not I'm not polymarket, Jim, but I I'm gonna bet I'll just lay down this bet right now that that that meeting with Xi Jinping
Speaker 0: Will get canceled.
Speaker 1: Is gonna get canceled. It's gonna be postponed.
Speaker 5: I think there's a very good chance of that depending on how long this goes on. And and, again, there's so many imponderables here. You know, we're getting propaganda from both sides. How badly degraded are the Iranian air defenses? We don't know.
I've seen reports we've used the b 50 twos, which we you think we would not want to use, if there was any chance they could be shot down. But I don't know to what extent that's propaganda that they're still firing standoff weapons, that they're not risking, flying over Iranian airspace. There's so much we don't know about how this war is unfolding. And remember, it's still very young. And to what extent the Iranians are have not had seen any attrition in their capability to strike with drones and with with ballistic missiles, but are simply waiting for the degradation of our interceptor, force where they can they can they can strike targets within community and how far they will want to push it, which as you say, we got we got nuclear risk there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Jim Jotras, thank you so much. No one we'd rather talk to who's plugged in on the Russian side of things, more than you. So thank you for your perspective on this. It is interesting now to see the president Putin throwing his hat into the rhetoric ring right now with all of this.
Thanks so much, Jim. Great to see you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The war in Iran is triggering an energy shock, sending gas prices soaring and the US economy into a nosedive. Job losses mount as inflation fears resurface. Mainstream media is missing the real story: our wallets are taking a direct hit from war-driven costs. https://t.co/VSzYijCNeQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The first speaker warns of an international disaster and a potential World War III scenario, explaining that national gasoline could move toward roughly $3.50 to $3.70 a gallon if disruptions persist over the next week. They frame this as how the war starts showing up in family budgets and note that Box News reports the US economy lost 92,000 jobs in February.
The second speaker introduces a Box News Alert: the US economy did not add jobs in February; it lost 92,000 jobs, with unemployment ticking up to 4.4%. The first speaker says the Labor Department tried to soften the data by pointing to strike activity, winter weather, seasonal factors, and post-Christmas effects, but argues those factors aren’t enough. They contend the real problem is the timing: a weaker labor market paired with a war-driven energy shock, which could revive stagflation fears and prompt markets to reassess. They point to one of the worst weeks in months for global bond markets and say traders worry the energy-driven inflation crisis will keep central banks more hawkish for longer. They reference the Cleveland Fed president suggesting a policy shift toward holding rates longer, with future rate cuts already sliding as markets brace for energy costs to feed into inflation data.
The first speaker emphasizes that energy is central because higher oil affects more than oil itself: it flows into trucking, food, airfare, home building and real estate, appliances, freight, fertilizer, utility bills, and everything related to growing, moving, cooling, heating, packaging, and delivering goods. They claim it’s not theoretical and note that companies are already warning about rising costs across supply chains. They state that air and sea corridors through the Gulf have been dramatically disrupted.
The speakers highlight an underreported angle: a viral Fox News Weekend segment in which hosts asserted that they have already beaten Iran, listing claims of how they are winning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is going to be an international disaster, a World War three by all accounts. Analysts right now seeing national gasoline moving towards roughly $3.50 a gallon up to $3.70 if these disruptions persist over the next week. So that is how this war starts showing up in the family budget real fast, real fast. And then you have, like, box business announcing US economy has lost 92,000 jobs in February.
Speaker 1: We're back with a box news alert. It's a business one. Moments ago, brand new job numbers revealed. The US economy did not add jobs. They lost 92,000 jobs in February, a steep drop from expectations.
Unemployment also ticked up slightly to 4.4%.
Speaker 0: Now labor department tried to, like, soften all of that by saying, like, oh, you know, it's strike activity. There was some striking, and then it was winter weather, seasonal, and post Christmas. No. It's not seasonal. It's not post Christmas.
Some of those things mattered a little bit. The real problem is the timing of all of this. You got a weaker labor then you layer a war driven energy shock on top of it. That's exactly how you revive stagflation fears, and the markets are already reacting to that because global bond markets just had one of the worst weeks in months. Traders are now worrying that this war energy inflation crisis is gonna keep central banks, you know, more hawkish for a long time.
I think we heard from the Cleveland Fed president saying that we need to now, like, shift this policy to stay on hold for quite some time, and, basically, future rate cuts are already sliding now as markets are bracing for energy cost to bleed into this inflation data. So that matters not because war is not making things more expensive. It may also keep borrowing costs much much higher. So when I say energy is like the center of the story, this is what I mean. Higher oil doesn't just stay in oil.
It moves into trucking. It moves into food. It moves into airfare. It moves into home building, real estate, everything. It moves into appliances, moves into freight, moves into fertilizer.
Fertilizer is a big piece of this. Moves into utility bills. It moves in everything. Everything that has to be grown, moved, cooled, heated, packaged, delivered, all of it. It's not a theory.
Companies are already warning about rising costs across supply chains. Air and sea corridors through The Gulf have already been dramatically disrupted. And here's the angle that almost no one in mainstream TV is really hammering. Because, like, if you watched Fox News weekend oh my god. There was a clip that went viral this weekend where Fox News weekend hosts, like, the morning were, like, basically coming out talking about how they basically, we've already beaten Iran.
Iran has already lost. Here are all the ways in which we're winning.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
👉🏼 Ray Dalio just dropped the most important thing you'll read this year. The post-1945 world order is gone. Not going. Gone. He calls it Stage 6. The period of Great Disorder, where raw power replaces rules & the global map gets redrawn. https://t.co/CluYxaU07s
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ray Dalio has declared that the post-1945 world order has broken down and that the world has entered stage six of the big cycle, a war stage characterized by great disorder, rules replaced by raw power, debt cycles at breaking points, and a redrawing of the global map. This shift is being reflected in the Middle East, capital wars, the weaponization of the US dollar, and the local breakdown of trust in traditional institutions. As money moves quickly during a world-order breakdown, assets like gold and silver are fluctuating—silver rose to around 120, then eased to about 90, while gold has moved with these dynamics. The discussion cautions that using stage four or five “buy and hold” rules and relying on 401(k)s may leave investors behind, highlighting that 401(k) is not designed to stand alone and noting remarks from the founder about its troubles.
To explore these shifts, the show invites Mark Wilburn, president of Neos Capital and author of Understanding the Matthew Effect, who is described as a market expert with a track record of predicting macro shifts (e.g., calling the tops for Tesla, AMD, Meta, and warning about Bitcoin profits before a crash). Wilburn discusses how to enter and exit trades under these conditions and shares concrete trade ideas and strategies.
Key points from the dialogue include:
- The capital wars are a major market driver, with tariffs and sanctions affecting market dynamics (e.g., Trump-era tariffs and Iran-related financial pressure). Wilburn notes that the market reacted with a drop when tariffs first appeared, followed by a rebound as measures took effect, but questions remain with recent Supreme Court actions.
- The U.S. debt situation is unsustainable on current trajectories, making diversification beyond 401(k)s crucial. Wilburn emphasizes the need to shift away from “buy and hold forever” to targeted entry and exit strategies, using profits to reinvest in other assets.
- Opportunities exist in nuclear energy and related infrastructure, especially as data centers, AI, and crypto demand rising power needs. Specific nuclear-focused tickers discussed include SMR (New Scale Power Corporation), NNE (Nano Nuclear), and LEU. The panel notes that major tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) are pursuing microreactors, which could drive longer-term gains in these stocks.
- AI exposure risk is a real blind spot for certain companies. IBM faced a 13% drop following Claude’s update for reading code from ATM. Other companies like Cisco and Oracle are discussed as potential candidates for short positions if they fail to adapt to AI-driven shifts; AMD, TSM, Nvidia are highlighted as leaders in the chip space.
- Tesla is discussed as a long-term potential beneficiary, given Musk’s broader AI and robotics initiatives (Grok, XAI, SpaceX, Optimus). The intertwining of Tesla’s robotics and AI platforms with broader tech ecosystems could create upside, though there are concerns about advancing automation.
- The mining sector and precious metals are seen as undervalued in places, with particular emphasis on junior and senior miners. USAR is singled out as a stock to watch, alongside others, though volatility due to policy news is a consideration. The broader view is to use stock-market gains to acquire tangible assets like real estate and metals, rather than letting dollars sit idle in a weakening currency.
The episode promotes the Freedom Trading Summit hosted by Neos Capital, with two sessions on March 5 and March 7 at 4 PM, offering free access via redactedtrading.com and a QR code. The summit aims to debunk three major investing misconceptions, present actionable strategies, and demonstrate how to profit in both rising and declining markets. Wilburn highlights a 78% win rate on swing-trade calls in 2025, based on 141 trades, with a live trading room that shows charts and real-time opportunities. The goal is to empower individuals to manage their finances with a practical skill set and to multiply money through strategic trading, real estate, and precious metals investments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, for years we've talked about the world order shifting and changing, the end of the Bretton Woods agreement, but according to legendary investor Ray Dalio, the shift is over. That break is actually here right now. In a massive new piece that he just published, Dalio released this. He said the following after the twenty twenty six Munich Security Conference, he made it official. He said the post 1945 world order has broken down.
We've officially entered what he calls stage six of the big cycle, and we'll talk more about that here in a minute. Now historically, stage six is the war stage. All signs seem to be pointing to that, certainly in The Middle East. It's the period of great disorder where rules are replaced by raw power, where debt cycles reach their breaking point, and where the global map is completely redrawn. And we're seeing it in the capital wars, the weaponization of the US dollar, saw it in Venezuela, the local breakdown of trust in traditional institutions, traditional banking institutions.
But here's the reality, when the world order breaks down, money doesn't disappear, evaporate, it actually moves, and it moves faster than most people can keep up with. Mean, just look what's going on with gold right now. What's happening with silver? Went up to a 120, dropped down to, like, 70. Now it's bounce back up around 90.
So people thought, oh, silver's pulling back big time. Not necessarily. So what is happening right now? If you're playing by the stage four or five rules, buy and hold, you know, trust your four zero one k, wait for this recovery, you are going to be left behind. As I've long said, the four zero one k is one of the worst ways to plan for your retirement.
It was never built to stand on its own. It was meant to work in tandem with pension plans, and even the the founder of the four zero one k says there's all sorts of trouble with it. This is why I've invited today, Mark Wilburn to join us on the show today. Mark is the president of Neo's Capital and the author of understanding the Matthew effect, and he is a genius when it comes to understanding markets and trading. Mark isn't just a theorist.
He's a market expert with a surgical record of predicting these exact macro shifts. He called the top for Tesla, AMD, Meta. He warned people on taking profits on Bitcoin before the crash. When everyone was screaming, hold, hodl. People now now we see where Bitcoin is.
So we're gonna talk about all of that and more today. Mark is diving into the specifics of these trades, how to enter and exit, and all of these things. Mark, welcome to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 1: Hey. It's great to be here with you guys. Clayton, I appreciate that. I love the surgical comment. It doesn't always feel that way in the moment, but when you look back in retrospect, it it turns out really nice.
Speaker 0: Well, you live in this stuff day in and day out. I mean, you teach people how to trade and, you know, that's what you do at Neos Capital, but you're you're watching a real big shift right now with what's happening in this marketplace. And I don't I've you know, in my I'm 49 years old. In my lifetime, I've never I've never seen this before. And now we've talked about this the fall down of the Bretton Woods agreement, the collapse of this old world order, and a new world order is emerging.
Ray Dalio is not being hyperbolic, is he?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. When you have someone with his track record of success saying these things, you should really pay attention. And so I find it interesting that one of the most successful hedge fund managers ever at Bridgewater comes in as a historical analyst and starts bringing to light what's happening on a geopolitical scale because understanding that shows you shifts from not just the geopolitical side, but the economy as well. And so you want to know what's happening and how to position yourself because with these shifts come uncertainty, but with uncertainty comes opportunity.
Speaker 0: What opportunities are you seeing right now? Because for a lot of people watching the US dollar collapsing, it sounds pretty darn scary. I mean, I've I've I've warned people for years on this show, you know, if your family's future is tied to the US dollar, then that's you're at you're waiting on a disaster. Like, would you want your family's future tied to the US dollar? You know, gold, silver, etcetera.
But where are you seeing, like, the huge opportunities right now with this shift? And then I wanna talk more about this shift, like, the mechanics of it.
Speaker 1: For sure. Love what you've been telling people. Looking at this as far as, like, don't just hold your four zero one k. Don't let that work for you. That's an outdated vehicle for the time that we're living in.
And so with these new shifts, have to change your strategies for investing the time of you know, you're forty nine forty four. We probably grew up hearing a lot of the same thing Save for a rainy day, you'll be fine. Work real hard. Take your paychecks, stash it away, you'll be fine. That's not a reality for us anymore.
And so diversifying yourself in precious metals, which has been huge, You know, I've been really sounding a trumpet on silver since COVID. It dropped down to 11. We started really heavily investing in that, telling our students to heavily invest in that. And now we're seeing huge dividends on it. Still a fan at this area just because with uncertainty, you've got to have something historically that has withheld the storm of time.
Big fan there, big fan of real estate, but still a big fan of trading and stocks itself. You just have to know what sectors are going to produce for you.
Speaker 0: Well, let's talk
Speaker 1: about to say the AI sector is gonna be there.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The chip manufacturer sector is gonna be there. But there's a sector that I think everyone overlooks, which is powering that revolution, and that's one area I look at.
Speaker 0: And you go back. I mean, I you know, I I've growing up, I was surrounded by friends, fathers, and p you know, people who were big traders. My father was not. My that my father was pretty you know, he was a hardworking man, hardest working person I've ever known in my life, but he was not a trader. He didn't understand the stock market.
That was not his bailiwick. You know? He understood real estate. But I was surrounded by friends and and some of their, you know, family who were, you know, millionaires, who were who had gone to Yale, who were stock traders, and they understood they understood how to build wealth by, you know, investing in strong American companies and building wealth slowly, methodically, and intelligently. So right now, when you see, like when Dalio mentions, like, there's the five fronts of this war, tech, trade, capital, geopolitical, and the military.
Which of these right now do you think is hitting the stock market the hardest right now?
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna have to say the capital wars. We we're seeing everything that Trump's been doing with tariffs. I was a proponent of those to start out with, to be honest with you. I I like seeing the money come in. I'm a I hate taxes.
I I think it's legalized theft, with the IRS because the government and the way that they've done taxes historically is at best shady to the American people. But using those tariffs to impose on other nations, that is a form of a capital war. And then we're seeing what he's done in Iran, which you I think you put a video out there really the other day that was really well as far as squeezing them financially so they don't have other options. That's dangerous in my opinion because if they can do it somewhere else, they could they could do it here too. And so we're seeing these this capital war hit the market.
There's a lot of uncertainty that comes with it. If you look back at last April when the tariffs first came out, you saw a huge drop instantly in the market.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: As analysts start seeing it work, the market exploded higher from those lows. Right? Now that Supreme Court has struck that down, what happens next? And I think that's what everyone's looking for.
Speaker 0: So let's unpack that. What do you think is happening next? Like, if, you know, you're a hardworking man out there with your kids and, you know, you're deploying some capital right now, putting it into this, you know, stock market, silver, You know, where where should where are the blind spots? What are you most worried about?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what I'm most excited about first. What I'm most excited about is the opportunity and energy that's coming through because when you look at big tech, you look at your NVIDIA, AMD, your big chip manufacturers, Taiwan Semiconductors, those guys. In order to power the data centers, in order to power quantum computing, in order to power even crypto, you've got to have a larger reserve of power. I think data centers just hit 7% of all US power. We can't keep that pace and actually lead the way as this presidency is saying we want to unless we ramp up that power.
And the best way to do it. And the cleanest way to do it right now, believe is through nuclear. And last year, we saw a huge move and a lot of nuclear companies were able to capitalize on that. But I think where the average person fails is they don't understand the the age of buy and hold forever is gone. I'm a big proponent of buy and hold, but I buy and hold to specific targets and then take our profits out waiting for another opportunity to deploy those profits again.
Speaker 0: Right. My son keeps asking. I've I've started teaching him how to trade, and we've got his, you know, Fidelity kids account set up for his IRA and, you know, so I'm teaching him how to trade, and he just wants to know, like, when do I because his his his accounts are now up significantly, you know, in the in the different stocks that I've taught him to buy. You know? And and he's like, well, should I sell?
Should I sell? Should I sell? And, just hold on. Hold on. We will.
When do I sell? When do I sell? Do I hold it forever? Do I hold it for so he keeps asking me that question because he sees the profits in the account, and I have to tell him to be strategic about it, and I'll let him know which accounts and which stocks we're gonna sell and take some profits on it. But for I grew up hearing you just you you you buy it and you just you set it and forget it, like Ron Popey Peel style.
You just you don't you don't even look at it. Don't even look at your four zero one k. Just, like, let it let it grow.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that that style has gone away.
Speaker 0: Why is that?
Speaker 1: Recent study that JPMorgan put out a recent study that 40% of all stocks will drop 70% and not recover beyond a 60% drop from all time highs. Wow. So you go look at a company like PayPal a few years ago at 200 to 50. It's now down at $70. I mean, you have that 70% sell off.
Shopify did this a few years ago. Luckily, it recovered. It has recovered, but who's to say it doesn't drop and then maintain that low. So for me, I look at the purpose of the buy and hold and I like you said with your son, you have the strategic targets. You hold it.
And then what one of the things we teach is when you get a large return on that, especially if it's a 100 X or a 100100% return sell half that position and get your capital money back out to put in your pocket. Have your money like treat your money as an employee if you would. Any any business owner that has an employee, they assign a certain task to them, and they expect that a task to be accomplished. We don't treat our money that way. We just say work on this one job forever.
In this economy, it doesn't work. That doesn't work. And so being strategic about those entries and those exits, knowing and understanding where those targets are to take profit off the table is one of the keys to having lasting success in your trading and in your investing.
Speaker 0: US interest payments right now, and I wanna circle back on some of the the areas where you see the biggest well, you said the biggest opportunity in tech. So before I move on, sorry, I wanna talk about some of the biggest blind spots. So NVIDIA, we saw, we got their earnings, I believe. Yeah. We got their earnings this week.
So people very, very excited about that, but still, like, seems like the markets are kinda mixed on NVIDIA about that. We're seeing Apple admitting they're having to pay almost, like, double to buy RAM right now to fulfill their orders for the iPhone. Of course, Nintendo also, same same RAM they're using in Switch twos also now. So are we gonna see price increases on, like, Nintendo Switch two? Like, there's there's a lot of uncertainty right now because of all of these RAM prices and everyone trying to gobble up as much as they can for the, you know, for for AI and these data centers and and everything else.
So in that sector, you see, like, nuclear. Where are the biggest opportunities? NVIDIA, AMD, a lot of the, you know, maybe chip manufacturers?
Speaker 1: Personally, I think chip manufacturers have had the parabolic run that we all look for where you're trying to make the quicker money. I really like nuclear in a longer term. Like nuclear and data centers longer term are some of my favorite trades. SMR is a great example of a ticker symbol.
Speaker 0: Huge amount. Ask you for some ticker symbols here. So SMR, what is that?
Speaker 1: SMR is New Scale Power Corporation. It had a huge move up last year to around $50 and dropped back down to 13. So it's got its earnings coming up. We wanna see how it does, but you've got companies like an SMR, LEU that have signed government contracts and individual contracts to build nuclear companies like Google is looking at building their own nuclear facility to to house their AI power. Microsoft is looking at the same thing.
Speaker 0: Amazon's building its own nuclear power plants too, these micronuclear power plants. Right? I mean, it's who would have thought? Who would where would we be, you know, just thinking years ago, the the twenty year time frame it took to build a nuclear reactor? Now these companies can do these microreactors and get them off the ground pretty darn quickly.
Speaker 1: They do it very fast, and and a really good example of that is NNE, which is nano nuclear. I wanna say they're the ones who did contract with Amazon. It's either them or SMR, but all these stocks longer term as they begin building these out and and with updated technology because you gotta remember, you know, when people think nuclear, they think Chernobyl. That was built with nineteen fifties technology.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And so compared to where we're at today, that's ancient. And so with the new technologies that are coming in, I think there's a lot of opportunity in those specific fields because they are needed to power what the current mag seven behemoths, your Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, all those names need.
Speaker 0: So you said SMR, and what was the other ticker symbol? N n a?
Speaker 1: N n e as in echo, and then l e u.
Speaker 0: L e u. Okay. I wrote those.
Speaker 1: Those are kinda my three top nuclears that I always keep a pulse on. And so they're coming into a really nice zone currently, and they're they're well off their highs. But they're coming into a nice zone currently where we're looking to start scaling in for another move higher.
Speaker 0: Nice. I love that. Alright. I've wrote those down. So I'll be doing my due diligence on those a little bit later after we talk today.
You gotta stay on top of this stuff. I mean, you know, it's really important to be able to to to monitor these sectors and to, of course, not jump in when you're at this parabolic top and, you know, there's not gonna be much move higher. Right? And it's good
Speaker 1: to see. Problem that a lot of a lot of retail traders get into. You know, when you're trying to start managing your your own accounts, your retirement accounts, etcetera, you see the hype and it's hard not to follow it.
Speaker 0: Right?
Speaker 1: I had so many people like should I buy silver here at 110? I'm like, no, you should have bought it at 50. You should have bought it at 20. You should, you know, you should have bought it back here and it's okay to miss a move. One of the things that we love to tell our students is there's always going to be another opportunity.
You just have to be prepared and know what you want to see in order to take advantage of it.
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, for instance, you know, I've been a big proponent of buying silver, and I still am still, you know, cost absolutely, you know, into it slowly and and but surely. But, yeah, we bought it around 30, I think, and then Okay. Sold sold to take profits when it was around it was sold a portion, you know, take profits when it was at, a one one eleven. And now it's pulled back and, you know, still gonna be acquiring more, over the coming years.
But, anyway, not to talk about my portfolio, but, let's talk about, The US biggest blind spot. So I asked you, you saw you you told me where you saw the biggest opportunities right now. Where do you think are some of the real danger spots right now in The US economy?
Speaker 1: Companies at risk from the implementation of AI. Let me give you an example.
Speaker 0: Interesting.
Speaker 1: A few days ago, Claude came out from Anthropic. Claude came out with an update to read code from ATM. And up to that point, IBM was one of the only companies that could do that. It dropped 13% in a day off an announcement. It's like, hey, here's a normal product announcement from Claude, IBM, it just took a huge portion of their business.
And so those types of businesses that have exposure to AI, who thought they were gonna be safe, where AI can actually replace them, those are the ones that I'm really nervous about investing.
Speaker 0: Interesting. Okay. So maybe some of these old companies that have been around for a hundred years that haven't adapted to this new AI reality is going to start replacing a big chunk of their core business. So you mentioned IBM. Are there other companies that stand out to you that you might might be leery of?
Speaker 1: Cisco is one that I'm actively looking at potential short positions in right now. Couple other names. Oracle could be on that list. Some of the chip manufacturers that are not keeping up pace with the bigger MU's, AMD's, TSM's, Nvidia's. Some of those other chip manufacturers, they could either get acquired or just fall to the wayside.
And so again, lot of people I have found through our teaching. They try to find the cheaper opportunities, not the best opportunities. And looking for those better opportunities is gonna be key in this. A stock I really like long term is actually Tesla. I'm not saying I'm a buyer of it here, but looking at everything that Musk is doing, especially with Grok and XAI and SpaceX all coming together for a potential IPO this year, we we also know that they are huge in robotics.
In fact,
Speaker 0: they think they're They're rolling out the new Optimus the the new Optimus robot. They just converted their Fremont factory from making Teslas into making Optimus robots. And then, of course, they're gonna roll out their autonomous vehicle fleet to take on Waymo. Right. You know, in a much larger yeah.
Speaker 1: They got a lot going on. And when you have optimists under the brand of Tesla, what operating an AI system is Musk gonna use? Grok. That's under XAISpaceX. And so as that IPO comes out, I've got a feeling that Tesla stock is also going to roll out and have a lot of upside potential with it, because as they they will be interlocked and intermarried almost.
Because as one does well, the other will naturally do well, especially with these robots. My only fear of that is I've watched the movie iRobot and grew up on Terminator, and so I'm a little I'm a little wary of that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just I was just on Tucker's show this week, and, you know, he said, there will never be a robot in my house. Yeah. That's I don't know. It's you know, I grew up watching the Jetsons where it looked friendly and fun.
Someone couldn't fold fold laundry, but also I also know what, what the future looks like with with Cyberdyne Industries and Terminator. So I'm I don't know. I'm very I'm very concerned about it for sure. That's fascinating. Okay.
Let's talk about the debt. So and The US debt. How sustainable and how how do how will this affect, like, American families and where, you know, putting money aside to try to protect our families and college and and, you know, and putting money down for a, you know, down payment on a home and interest rates and all of that when the interest on our debt is now a trillion dollars, and we're nearing nearing $40,000,000,000,000 in debt. I mean, I remember in high school, my teacher telling us that we had just, like, got to, like, a trillion dollars in US debt, and he asked us to wrap our heads around that. And that was mind blowing in 1993.
Now $39,000,000,000,000? It's impossible. I don't know how we come back from it.
Speaker 1: It's unsustainable. At our current trajectory with what we're currently doing, it's unsustainable, and there has to be a major shift in spending in DC. Having said that, this is why circling back to what you mentioned on the four zero one k, I don't like that vehicle personally for most people. Now if you've got a if you're in a company and they match and you're getting the match, I completely understand that. That's free money.
Right?
Speaker 0: Right. So take it.
Speaker 1: Take it. Go for it. Yeah. But if you look at the history of taxes throughout The United States, we're actually in one of the lowest income tax times currently that we've ever experienced. And I know that sounds crazy.
And so it's kinda give people a history lesson if I may, which I think is really interesting because Dalio refers to World War two so often. The highest tax bracket in 1940 is if you made over $5,000,000 in 1940 money. That's not adjusted for current average, and your tax was 81%. That continued in 1941. But in 1942, the government played a little trick here.
They increased the highest tax bracket to 88%, but they dropped who was the wealthiest American from 5,000,000 to $200,000. They dropped it by 4,800,000.0. Wow. And then in 1944 increase that bracket to 94%. So if you're making over $200,000, which again 1944, that's a lot of money.
But if you're making that level of money, you're only keeping 6¢ on the dollar. And who's to say that on a vehicle like a four zero one k that is tax deferred, you're essentially playing Russian roulette with the government because they get to come in and say, this is how much tax you owe us on that. Currently, you know, let's say let's pretend you have $10,000,000 in your four zero one ks. I think the average American has like a 100, but let's just say you've got 10,000,000 and you're saying, I'm not being a 30% tax bracket. I've got 7,000,000 live on The government changes that number and says, hey, we're gonna tax this $4.00 1 k at 60%, and now you only have 4,000,000 to live on.
That's a problem. But we do have some politicians who have mentioned, like a Nancy Pelosi, they're not really worried about the debt because they have retirement money they have not tapped yet. And they're not talking about their own. They're talking about The US taxpayer. They're talking about me and you.
Speaker 0: So is this where they're kinda we talk about how many what is it? $44,000,000,000,000 sitting in retirement accounts right now that the government could start to come after, and this could be a mass the four zero one k trap as you as as I know you called it. Right?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And we saw it happen in Cyprus. They actually rolled this out in Cyprus that if you had over a 100 k in your bank account, the government literally went in and just took their money. Took their citizens' money a few this was a few years ago. Right?
Who's to say that doesn't happen here, especially in wartime? And one of the things that Dalio put in that article that I again, I'd highly encourage people to read is that these there are extreme measures in war that can change and there's different instruments that governments will use. He he calls these wartime economic controls, and it's it's rationing production controls, like what companies can produce and manufacture, price and wage controls, import export cons and the takeover of central banks. And in World War two, The US used every one of those. And there are regu there are wartime regulations that impact assets.
Like, you can actually close the stock market and that's the only one The US didn't use but The UK Germany Japan they actually did.
Speaker 0: Wow,
Speaker 1: they can change asset price controls Futures controls margin limits. I mean, there's there's all kinds of economic wartime restrictions they have. And who's to say that if we don't get into if we get into this proxy war or a live war with Iran, god forbid, and we start running out of money because our debt is already where it's at and China starts dumping our debt even more, they're gonna have to come up with that money. We've got 44 sitting.
Speaker 0: And the Fed, you know, the Fed, of course, is one of the greatest, in my opinion, one of the greatest criminal organizations in world history. And, really, the the Fed can print money in order to keep us in these in these wars, but it's not they can't do it at scale, certainly not at a $44,000,000,000,000 scale, and they wouldn't be able to do it because we obviously would see runaway inflation. It'd be all sorts of, problems if we did that. So these retirement accounts just sitting there is it's like a little money pot just waiting for the government to come in and swoop it. It's terrifying.
Speaker 1: It is. Because if I'm sitting here and this is my only means of a retirement hope. How can I best protect that? And to me, it's it's using another skill set in diversifying outside of that four zero one ks. So instead of putting my max contribution in taking scaling that back and then using some of the money that would be going into a four zero one ks to put in other real tangible assets or learning a skill so that I can start multiplying that money a lot more quickly than I would be able to with it just sitting, hoping, and one day maybe it all works out.
Speaker 0: But you can tell me, you know, we we see mining stocks right now and where things are going with gold and silver. I'm a big advocate certainly of owning precious metals. I I talk about it often, and I do. I own it myself. But also, as I talk about on this show, I'm a huge proponent of, like, these junior miners and Mhmm.
And senior miners who've been actually pulling the minerals out of the ground. And as we had Peter Schiff on the show a few weeks ago, he said, I think it's one of the most undervalued markets right now, one of the spaces because these miners are just compared to where prices of gold and silver are, their value is way lower from a share price perspective. Do you agree with that? Where do you see in the in the mining sector right now?
Speaker 1: I do agree with that, and I I like the battle that we're seeing for these precious metals and these other minerals. Big proponent of USAR. Big proponent of USAR. There's a few more that I could pull up for you. I know USA are is one that we have actively traded over and over and over.
The downside of these is the volatility that gets created because they almost move with news news reports that come out of DC, Right? So a policy I know that Trump created the, the vault
Speaker 0: project vault.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Project vault. Right? That sent miners really high. And then everything kind of dropped.
And so if you're chasing these moves and you don't know how to strategically enter you could be left holding a 304050% loss saying and hoping one day it comes back and most likely the war for minerals that's raging on right now. They probably will most likely but also knowing where to take that money out. So when I tell people Clayton, what's the purpose of putting money in the stock market for me? It's to multiply that money. Right?
A lot of people like the security feeling of having shares of Apple or Coke or Walmart or you know, any of these consumer defense companies. I like multiplying my money and turning it into hard assets I can touch. And so because of that we use as we make money in stock market, we turn around and get real estate with it. We turn around and get gold and silver with it. We do have a nice portfolio.
But like you said, with the weakening dollar, I don't want my money just sitting in dollars. Right. And so there's other asset classes to implement with these strategies. And I think you're you do a really good job explaining that to your audience.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm a big advocate of this, and this is what I've done personally. You know, I I we put have money in the stock market and when it's multiplied significantly, we pull it out, take profits, and then I buy gold and silver and buy real estate. I've just bought another property right now that we're, you know, we're renovating right now. So I try to I I like tangible assets, and I like to use the stock market as a vehicle to make that money. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to have you on because, you know, a lot of people ask like, well, how do I do this?
You know? Or they just sort of jump in and they don't know what they're doing and they don't have the education to do it. And then they crash and burn and they they they feel like, well, I'm never gonna do that again. And that's what you teach. In fact, you're putting on I think you're putting on a free summit right now, if I'm not mistaken, right, on March March 5.
I think I have the dates here. The Freedom Trading Summit. Can you talk about this and maybe how people can jump in and take advantage of that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So we're gonna hold this. We're actually giving two people two options. We're gonna have it on March 5 and March 7 at 4PM both days. And in that, what we are going to do is break down three of the biggest misconceptions and lies that we've been told as it pertains to investing and to to the stock market itself.
Growing up, I wasn't taught a lot about trading and investing in the stock market, but I heard you know, one of the things I heard is it's only for the rich. But the way my mind works, if it's for the rich, I probably need to learn how to do it if I wanna be rich one day. And so I started pursuing education in it. And so we're gonna break down some of these misconceptions, and then we're gonna show people some different strategies they can implement and utilize coming out of there. In fact, one of those strategies we held one of these back in January.
We did an event back in January. We gave some different opportunities and called out some trades absolutely free. We got out of one of those today for a 22% return in twelve days just from one simple strategy. But like, you know, there's there's different strategies for different games that you play. Right?
Like if I want to buy real estate, I first have to figure out what real estate game am I playing? Am I gonna wholesale the real estate fix and flip? Am I gonna short term lease long term lease or am I gonna live in it? And there's different strategies for each of that and there's different strategies for long term investing. What we call swing trading where you're in and out within a few weeks or even day trading, which this morning we did and we called a 40 drop in the market.
So it was huge. We had people making 5 figures in thirty minutes Jeez. This morning. So having said that coming to this event, are going to get a really solid education where if you've never looked at a stock chart, you'll walk away knowing exactly what to see what to look for in a pattern that can potentially make you money moving forward. If you've got experience, there's gonna be some nuances there that will really take your investing and trading game to the next level.
Speaker 0: Well, we also set up I think you guys set up a special link for our audience too if they, we'll put it up here on the screen and a QR code too if people wanna just scan it and sign up and claim your spot. I don't know how many spots you have available for this this trading summit, but if they go to redactedtrading.com, I think that's the website you guys set up for people to take advantage of that. And, again, the QR code on the screen, and people just click on it and then reserve their spot, and they can join you on either March 5 or March 7. Right?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. We've got a thousand seat spot for each day, that we can have. And like you said, if you click the QR code, it's absolutely free. We want to do that for you and your audience. Come join us, and you'll you will walk away.
Time well spent.
Speaker 0: That's great. And is there any other ways that people can learn? I know you guys have had I think you guys have had significant trades over the years over this past year in 2025. Can you just talk about your win rate? Because you and I were talking offline.
I think you guys had a 78% win rate last year in 2025 with your students.
Speaker 1: For our swing trade callout. So one of the things that we do with our students is I'm a big believer in tell you, show you, do it with you. Because my hope for people is that they learn the skill and they don't just rely on me. I want to teach people a skill set. And so we caught we have trading rooms live where we're on a zoom call showing charts looking at charts looking at opportunities answering questions.
And last year we called out about a 141 trades, which sounds like a lot. It does sound like a lot. But out of that we had over a 78% win rate on those trades we called out. And we had people make phenomenal returns their first year ever really engaging the market and that's that is our hope. That's what we want to do is we want to empower people to take your finances in your own hands because no one's coming to save us.
It's gonna be up to you to learn how to do it, and then you can make that money and use it to help fund your own freedom. That's so that's why it's called the Freedom Trading Summit.
Speaker 0: Awesome. I love it. And I love that you guys have a trading floor where you guys are all like, students are in a Zoom call with you and you're watching these charts. That's I think that's really phenomenal. So really, really great stuff.
So alright. Here it is. You got on the screen again, and people wanna take advantage of it and start to educate themselves on this. Redactedtrading.com, and then, scan the QR code as well if you want to and jump in and, and join Mark and the team from Neos on March 5 or March 7. So any final thoughts here, Mark, about where you see this economy going in 2026?
Speaker 1: It makes me nervous. I'm gonna say that. I think 2026 has some different opportunities to be fantastic. And we see a booming economy. I also see the opportunities for us to get into a war with Iran, start depleting a lot of our investments, and it go the other way.
And so a lot of this I'm gonna use the word unfortunately is on the shoulders of our leaders. Having said that, I'm optimistic because one of the things that we know how to do is profit in either direction.
Speaker 0: That's key. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's one of the things we're gonna show you guys how to do. And in those times of decline, it does make some of the best buying opportunities that you can have. And if you know some of the things we'll teach you on the summit, we'll actually show you how to make money if it does drop as well.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Mark, great to see you. Thank you so much for this. And we'll have links to everything we talked about in the description if people wanna dive more deeply into this and educate themselves. Thank you so much, Mark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Clayton.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤬 Not many people in American politics will say out loud what @Dennis_Kucinich says on camera. The global elite. The calculated push toward war. The power structures pulling the strings. He names them. All of them. https://t.co/U6pkG1R925
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dennis Kucinich discusses his Kucinich Report piece on Substack, titled Iran, Epstein, and Human Sacrifice, and argues that many elites view war and power through a distorted moral lens. He contends that the Iranian population and officials frame the conflict as an existential fight against a “pedophile regime” in the United States and in Israel, and he notes controversial claims about Israel as a safe haven for pedophiles. The conversation broadens into a critique of Western elites and the culture surrounding war, emphasizing that those at the top “don’t care about you and I,” nor about American soldiers who may be killed, describing the elites as bloodthirsty.
Kucinich challenges readers to consider how Western civilization is perceived to be in decline under elite leadership, arguing that leaders legitimize extreme acts in pursuit of greed. He questions what would happen if Israel or the United States used atomic weapons in Iran or Pakistan, warning that radiation could spread regionally, effectively causing Israel to bomb itself. He asserts that there is a uniparty in Congress with little true opposition, and he claims that Congress is complicit by approving massive budgets—“over a trillion dollar budget” and a request for a $1.5 trillion annual military appropriation—without exercising its constitutional powers.
The discussion then shifts to partisan politics. The host notes apparent support for the war from older MAGA Republicans and some Democrats, suggesting there is little daylight between the parties on this issue. Kucinich points to long-standing influence Aligned with Israel, including APAC’s role in elections and the media’s amplification of Israel-centric narratives, alongside the U.S. veto at the UN and a lack of enforcement of international law. He emphasizes that Netanyahu has pushed for war against Iran for thirty years, recounting a 2002 exchange in which Netanyahu pressed for war against Iraq and linking Netanyahu’s current influence to ongoing pressures on U.S. leaders and Congress.
The host and Kucinich discuss the consequences of the conflict, including potential war escalation and civilian casualties, referencing Iran’s defense of Palestinians and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They criticize the path of a broader war and warn that new nuclear programs could arise as nations seek deterrence, noting the deteriorating START treaty environment and the possible global arms race spurred by current policies. They argue that the government’s conduct reflects a total disregard for human life and morality, with elites pursuing “meglomaniacal ambitions and grifting.”
Both speakers advocate for visible, nonviolent civilian resistance to pressure Congress to cut off funds for the war and to initiate impeachment proceedings as a check on executive power. They recognize that impeachment in the Senate would require two-thirds support, which may be unlikely, but contend that the process itself is important to curb executive overreach. They discuss the potential impact of public protests, campus dissent, and electoral choices in November as ways to express opposition, warning that the regime’s actions could provoke a harsher American response as casualties mount and as Iran potentially escalates its own defense.
The conversation closes with a call for people, especially women who express concern, to translate moral outrage into action, to stand up for freedom and human rights, and to push back against a permanent warfare state. Dennis Kucinich reiterates that a broader peace movement is required to counter what he views as a dangerous consolidation of power and a disregard for democratic accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We wanna bring in former congressman Dennis Kucinich, author of the Kucinich report on Substack, and he's written a a really fantastic new piece. I encourage all of you to read it. It's called Iran, Epstein, and Human Sacrifice. And, of course, many people are calling this the Epstein administration, that's carrying out these attacks and to listen to the Iranian people, listen to the Iranian officials, they think of this as an an existential fight against the pedophile regime in The United States and in Israel. Of course, Israel is one of the the leading countries in the world that defends and actually openly welcomes pedophiles into its midst as we've covered here on the show.
CBS News before Barry Weiss took over that a whole in-depth report about Israel being really the safe haven for pedophiles. So, to have a point here and the larger question about culture, right? Which is these pedophiles, these elites don't care about you and I, and they certainly don't care about the American forces that will be killed as a result of this. They're bloodthirsty, and they don't care. I mean, Netanyahu's son is hanging out in Miami.
His wife is sunning herself in Miami having coffee on the balconies. That must be nice for the elites. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich joins us now. Congressman, great to see you. Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, and you've certainly set the stage for this discussion by talking about how, leaders and elites are removed from the reality that, descends upon the upon mass publics in a in a war. And that's, you know, one of the things that I wrote about in my Substack column was, that we're we're really looking at a at a departure from what we have known as Western civilization. We're looking at the decline of Western civilization, led by elites who legitimize child rape, child murder, cannibalism, war war aggressive war against whoever they choose for whatever purpose they desire generally goes back to some kind of greed. Yeah. We're we're in a serious moment here in in not just the history of our country, but in the history of the world.
And, you know, you you you raised the question about what happens if Israel, in its maniacal drive towards a greater Israel, moves towards, using one of the many atomic bombs they don't they say they don't have. If if Israel or The US were to drop a bomb in Pakistan or in in Iran, the radiation would go to Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, throughout the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East. So Israel will be bombing itself ultimately. Now I you know, this whole idea about aggressive war needs to be met head on. But, unfortunately, as you pointed out earlier, you know, you have a uniparty.
There's no real opposition. You might have a few members who might be willing to either, a, put a resolution forward to cut off funds for this abhorned enterprise, or, b, put forth an articles of impeachment, which would, authentically cite chapter and verse the constitutional violations, which are many, that have been, committed by, the current president. But, you know, I don't know that anything like that will actually happen or that the congress as a whole will be ready to do anything because they're complicit. They've already provided funds for over a trillion dollar budget. The administration has asked for 1,500,000,000,000.0 annual military appropriation in the next budget, and that is actually one of congress's powers that is not being exercised.
You know, we're in a very dangerous moment.
Speaker 2: Yes. I wanna ask you about partisan politics even though it kind of turns my stomach to ask it. Republicans seem to at least the older MAGA generation seems to have support of this war because they are buying the line about nukes and Israel's our greatest ally and all of that. But democrats are too. John Fetterman seems to be just as excited as Lindsey Graham.
Yeah. They I don't see any daylight between the two of them, and I am mad as snakes about it. But then I recall that they are a uniparty when it comes to war. So can you respond about the partisan politics that just don't seem relevant anymore?
Speaker 1: Well, just go back to July, 2025 when Netanyahu last visited congress. You know, he had over 50 standing ovations.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Now how does that come about? It comes about as a result of years and years and years of, interest working on behalf of the state of Israel through, funding congressional campaigns, through opposing certain members of congress who will challenge Israel's narrative. It comes about through the media's support for that narrative. It comes about as a result of, there being no enforcement of international law because of The United States veto in the UN, in the at the UN. And, there's this narrative about Israel being our ally.
You know as I write my column, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and, and others have warned about foreign entanglements. And we, you know, Israel right now is there is there is absolutely no question that this attack would not have happened on Iran, would not have happened absent Israel and Israeli interests putting enormous pressure on, on on the Trump administration and also on members of congress who are constrained to to say anything even when over a 150 little girls get killed in a in a in a bombing strike where assassination has become a, you know, a policy of the government notwithstanding previous executive orders. You know, we we are we're in the thrall of this, of this foreign interest, and it's it's affecting the legislative and the executive branch.
Speaker 0: Can I take you back to 2002? Can I take you back to 09/12/2002? I think you know what happened on that day when you sat across from Netanyahu in congress. And of course, he famously responded to your question. That question, of course, has surfaced and people sharing it all over the internet.
Of course, once again, I love seeing you ask him, you know, like, are there other any other countries that we should be concerned about and Netanyahu at that point turns to you and says, you know, he snaps at you by the way in in his condescending way but let me finish. Let me finish what I'm talking about here as if he holds court over the entire US Congress even then And he tells you that one of the main concerns is Iran. So, you know, twenty four years ago, he was telling you this, and congress, I I don't know, stood fast against it. I don't know. But what what do you think has changed now in twenty four years?
Has Israel managed to get its teeth and claws into just about every corner of congress and that's what's changed?
Speaker 1: Well, they certainly have a a greater hold on congress. There's no question about that. And they've been impactful in elections. APAC, in particular, has helped to elect or defeat members of congress depending on where they stand on favoring Israel. Now going back to 09/12/2002, have to remember that it was Netanyahu who was who was came to The United States to beat the drum for war against Iraq.
Mhmm. You know, he helped to, propel the weapons of mass destruction narrative that led The United States, Congress to, you know, in October 2002, to pass a resolution that put us on a path to work with with with with Iraq. That was part of Netanyahu's mission. Now with Iran, his mission has, been the same for thirty years. When it comes to Iran, it's been he's been a b b one note.
You know, Iran's could have a nuclear weapon at any time. I mean, what what he would do was to conjure up this hatred towards Iran. And I would I would say, generally speaking, American people aren't really aware of what our government has done in Iran. They don't know about 1953 when we overthrew a democratically elected government of Mossadegh. They don't understand how we set in motion the forces that led to the nineteen seventy nine Iranian revolution.
They don't understand the psychology of the Iranian people who are not afraid. They don't understand the technological advancement of Iran, which is not a pushover like Iraq, which had 1% of the military capability of The United States, Venezuela, which really had no defense at all. This is a technologically advanced nation of 93,000,000 people who have the capacity to fight back, and they will with everything they have. And, when I spoke to Netanyahu, what was interesting, I talked to him afterwards out in the hall in addition to what, you know, the exchange that everyone is can see on the Internet. I talked to mister Netanyahu out in the hall.
We have some mutual acquaintances from Cleveland. And so I, you know, began with that, and then I I said, look, you you have all of these ambitions to go after all these countries, you know, including Syria and and Libya, Syria, and Iran. I said, why don't you do it? Why don't you do it? Right.
And his response was, oh, no. No. We you know, you have to do it. You know? You have to do and, you know, in his, and and there is this toxic relationship that's developed between Israel and The United States, which has brought about carnage in The Middle East and has ruined, any hope that America would have to try to be an honest broker of peace in the region.
And we we have, the the equation has flipped. We've been Israel's cat's paw. And and why is Netanyahu doing this right now? Because he's trying to avoid going to jail. I mean, that's the bottom line.
His his coalition in the Likud with, Ben Gavir and and Smotrich who are as, you know, objectionable people as you will ever find involved in government at any level anywhere came about because, you know, Netanyahu is in trouble politically in Israel. And so you you take this admixture of his political troubles, of his playing with the with fire of the greater Israel, whether it's from the, you know, Euphrates to the Nile or wherever, and Trump's lack of understanding that he's not a king. He's a president. And that as president, he's governed by laws, and, you know, that's out the window. So you put you put these kind of things together, and you have, the basis for, for for a wider war.
Speaker 2: Disaster, really.
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 2: Now as you mentioned, congress is complicit, which means that Americans who feel furious about this like I do don't have any way to stop it. Now I've seen some optimists on X saying, oh, once there's ground troop casualties, Americans won't abide this. We already don't. There was no support for this war before it began, but we can't do anything, which is making me so crazy. You can hear I'm getting a little hysterical.
I am a woman. I will take that point of privilege. Now last week, the day before the this war began on Friday, Gallup published a poll. And for the first time, it showed that Americans expressed more sympathies with Palestinians than Israelis. Support for Israel has plummeted, which made me think that it was now or never because Americans would not be dragged into this going forward.
But what now? What do we do now? We just sit here and watch this play out? What what can we do?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think the, you know, we're at a point where, people have to become visible in their objections to this war. They have to demand their members of congress take action to cut off funds. They have to demand their member of congress start the discussion about, an impeachment of the president. Now I know that see, here's the thing about about impeachment. They don't have the votes right now.
They they might have the votes in the house possibly to render an indictment. And and, you know, there's a just justification for it. But they need two thirds of of the senate. That's not gonna happen right now. But the process itself is part of curtailing an administrative abuse, extreme abuse of power.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in the case of in the case of Donald Trump has, has given a a great measure of impunity to the chief executive of The United States. And, it's become ever more difficult to prosecute, not just before, but there's it's difficult to prosecute after someone leaves office if they've committed a grave offense against, peace and humanity. The real power right now is with the congress, cut off funds or start the impeachment process for the purposes of of of pulling back the, administration's use of aggressive warfare. Absent that, people have to wait till November to vote, in the elections and indicate their displeasure with the administration to, voting up or down certain members of congress. But as you pointed out, we have a unit party.
And then the issues of Israel, there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. So, you know, the Democrats taking over the congress will restrain Trump somewhat in his grifting and and rapaciousness. But it's not gonna change things in The Middle East. And I think what will change it is that Iran is going to be responding in a way that no one has ever been able to properly anticipate, to defend their country against the against this this attack. And in their response, that will change the public opinion and and the calculus of the war.
That's a that's gonna that is going to be, I think, determinative about what happens when the president finally realized that he was that, you know, he was led into a trap by Netanyahu, willfully, by the way, and by, the supporters of of, the Zionist ambitions, he, he's going to, understand that he has to be able to extricate himself. But by then, look, this could go on for quite a while. We once war starts, things happen, you know, you assassinated a leader, killed a 150 some, if not more, schoolgirls, little girls, bombed them. There's there's more carnage on the way. And four servicemen and perhaps women have been killed already.
You're going to, the administration blithely blithely says, well, yeah, there's there's gonna be more. Sorry about that. What? Yeah. I mean, what's at the core of this and and the link that ties it to what's happening with Epstein is just a total disregard for human life Yeah.
A total disregard for human values, no code of morality. You know, the House of Representatives, has a border, above it of all the lawmakers in history. Okay? Moses, Hammurabi, Napoleon, on and on. Throw all that out the window because this group doesn't care a wit about morality, about law, about, about anything except, meglomaniacal ambitions and grifting.
And so we're we're in a moment now, an inflection point in human history, where everyone watching has to go out and be visible by the millions of people in objecting to this because, you know, maybe they maybe and and to and to, by by their very presence, force the government to recognize that we're just not tolerating this. You can't you can't murder people in our name anymore. And and I I think that's what it's gonna take. And so this peace movement, this this movement that we have to liberate ourselves from this yoke of of permanent warfare, which our government and both parties has visited upon us, requires our own reflecting the power of our own hearts. And I just want to point out, you know, talk about, women, feeling this.
You know, women tend to be a little bit more connected to the earth. They can their heart might be a little more connected to the heart of the earth. And I have I just wanna share. I've been approached by not just women in my life, but, know, on a flight, I talked I had a couple stewardesses come up to me, expressed their their grave concern and their distress over what's happening. Look.
People need to translate those feelings into into action, nonviolent action, and challenge this this administration which has has, without our consent, taken America down a down the the rabbit hole of of a, of maybe the most dangerous war that we've ever, been involved in since World War two.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for saying that.
Speaker 1: I hope.
Speaker 2: Validating my hysteria. We're not birthing your soldiers.
Speaker 0: I hope you're right about that. I mean, the thing is though, I think what we had the problem with Vietnam, of course, is that so many Americans were coming home in body bags. And America has been disconnected from war because it's like going to the grocery store when you get a piece of chicken and cellophane wrap. You're disconnected from the butchering process And Americans have for far too long been disconnected from that. We don't see it.
It's sanitized. And I fear, maybe I don't have a female sensibilities here, but congressman, I fear that that's really at the heart of this, that it won't really start to resonate with people in The United States to take to the streets and protest like they did during Vietnam until thousands of Americans end up coming home dead.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you what I see going on. You have to look at at how, US Israeli interests have tried to suppress dissent right from the go. You know, no boycott laws are are permitted in in many places, suppression of dissent on campuses, even states passing laws where you can't criticize Israel. I mean, is all part and parcel of an of a attempt to keep suppressing dissent. Well, I think they misread America.
Real I I mean it. Really. We'd misread America and Americans because there's there still resides in in, I think, most of us, this sense of freedom. And when we feel it being constricted by some, amorphous anonymous force, we rebel. And I think that has to be, part of what's injected into the public response because, you know, this is happening because of another country.
Iran has not done anything to hurt The United States. I mean, people could talk about terror this, terror that, overthrowing the embassy in 1979. You know, we're we have been consistently the aggressors. You know, we started this mess, and the label of terrorist is thrown about for political convenience without any substantive, effect. And Iran's defense of Palestinians is something that, is not just a political statement.
It's a moral statement. Why are we permitting Palestinians in Gaza to be murdered? Why are we permitting and standing by while the IDF makes sport of shooting children in the head? Why are we permitting the, the theft of lands under under the most brutal conditions of settlers just going in and grabbing people's home, or burning burning it down, of seizing the land, of killing their cattle or their or their, other livestock. This is I mean, I follow this daily, and it is horrific.
Yes. It is. And as the American people come to understand what their government right now represents and how every dime that they spend, Eisenhower said it years ago, every dime they spend for the military, every dollar, every million dollars is taken away from the health, from the education, from the general welfare of the people of this country. We are in economic trouble. We have a $31,000,000,000,000 debt.
Our dollar is losing its value. We're finding trouble selling you know, getting people to invest in America. We wanna expand over 80% of our domestic budget for military. Hey, America has to stop this. We have to be prepared to go in another direction, and it may not be through the political parties, but it's certainly gonna be through Americans rallying to the defense of our own freedoms because our freedom is being taken away here.
They're not going to congress to ask for this approval. Whether congress would do it or not is beside the point. They're not giving getting our permission to go and and, bomb other nations. They're not getting our permission to put soldiers in the streets of our city to put, to take down the Act and send ICE in as a private army. Hey.
You know, we're at a point where Americans have to speak up. Two hundred fifty years of of, of nation experience. Well, you know what? Everything's come around, and now we have to stand up for our freedoms again. And in doing that, we may help, liberate the world.
Speaker 2: Now you're you're talking about them taking our rights. The anti war collaboration that we see online, the right and the left who oppose this, not our leaders, but the people can still speak, but for how long? How long do you think we still will have free speech? Because they can't have this if they need to you know, I've been thinking a lot lately about the yellow ribbon campaign that was so successful in the nineteen nineties to get us to support a war that we might not otherwise have done. And they don't have that now.
That's not gonna happen again. So what is at risk here when it comes to freedom of speech and expression?
Speaker 1: You know, I I I think the the cauldron is bubbling. Okay? And and and there'll be, I don't think that we're sunk. I think I think I still believe in the American people's capacity to respond to the outrages of their government. And, and and as we saw in rallies around the country, a couple months ago, no kings, this now is an expression of the misuse of executive power.
And this gives people an opportunity. I mean, we now have to come forward. And and it needs to happen soon. Because as you pointed out a moment ago, you know, the body bags are gonna are gonna start coming back. And, it was that was one of the factors that caused the war in Vietnam to, bring it to a close.
But there was another thing too, and that was college campuses coming forward. Is, Zionist interests have done everything they can to squelch consent, dissent on campuses and to put sanctions if people, start to criticize. We might see some of those walls come down. So, you know, I I still have, I still have some confidence in in the innate, abilities of Americans to stand up for what's right, to stand up for freedom, to stand up for, humanity, to stand up for morality, to to stand up for their their families and their homes and and everything that's ever meant anything to any of us. So, you know, and we're at this kind of a moment right now, just no question about it.
We are at a the most dangerous moment that we have been in in our time, because of the wanton exercise of aggression by our government. The lies are pancaked on top of each other in a way that is shameful, but it but it's everything's carefully devised here. When you hear the Pentagon today saying, yeah, you know, the head of the joint chief saying, yeah. Yep. We're you know, war's gritty gritty and, and, you you know, know, there's there's gonna be more losses and and the president, basically, okaying the war while he's at a party at Mar A Lago.
Yeah. You know, what I mean, there's this detachment that you've spoken about, but I think they're gonna get a rude awakening.
Speaker 0: Well, I hope it doesn't come in the form of a bloody nose for the American people.
Speaker 1: It's it's gonna be more than that. I promise you. You see, we're you know, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: And they weren't trying to develop a nuclear weapon. But I can tell you, any nation that's thinking about it now is gonna move ahead and do it to try to prevent, themselves from being attacked. That that's that's another consequence of this. We trashed the START treaty with Russia. We didn't renew it.
And as a result, with this attack, which we say is about stopping you know, one of the many, prevarications is, oh, well, they're they're at someday, they may have a nuclear weapon. Please. This will result in in in other nations building nuclear weapons, and we're looking at a at a whole new round of fear and aggression and and a lot of people killed because, our our our leaders, do not understand the limits of power and because the elites who help, support them, don't care about human life at all. They're in a different world than we are. They they they don't understand how ordinary people live, and they could care less, frankly.
And so goes back to we the people. What is our capacity to, stand up, speak out, resist this attempt to, annihilate our, other nations and our own? And it's time for us to stand up.
Speaker 0: Well, I encourage everyone to read your great piece in the Kucinich report on Substack. Congressman, you're a rare voice in these times, and we really appreciate it. And I hope I hope you're right. I hope the American people can can wake up and stand up to this. Thank you so much, congressman.
Great to
Speaker 1: see it. Thank thank you. Thanks to be with both of you. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Col. @DougAMacgregor has spent his career studying how wars are actually won and lost. His assessment of whether the US can beat Iran is not what the cheerleaders on cable news are telling you. Not even close. https://t.co/1xsj1E97yH
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the discussion, Speaker 1 argues that Iran’s objective is simply to survive; their strategy is to continue lobbing missiles, launching drones, and striking back as the U.S. approaches within Iran’s vicinity. He contends Iran has maintained command and control, dispersed forces, and possesses a large and enduring supply of missiles and drones, so the minimal victory for Iran is to endure the conflict.
When asked what the U.S. should do to win, Speaker 1 criticizes bombastic rhetoric about U.S. superiority and questions the efficacy of regime change through bombing. He suggests that killing the supreme leader backfires by galvanizing the population and Shiites worldwide, noting Iran’s developed succession mechanisms that compensate for leadership losses. He argues that attempts to destroy Iran or disintegrate its society are misguided and that, if the U.S. pushes toward such aims, it may trigger greater confrontation with China and Russia. He also implies mixed signals from U.S. leadership, contrasting expectations under Biden with actual actions, and contemplates a similar pattern under Trump.
Speaker 2 adds that President Trump could claim success by neutralizing key figures like the Ayatollah, but suggests that Israel’s preferences are driving U.S. policy, implying limited autonomy for America. He notes the risk of being drawn back into conflict and emphasizes uncertainty about public perception as the war continues. He remarks on the presence of pro-war voices and social media pushback, interpreting it as a sign that the audience may be “over the target.”
Speaker 0 seeks a military assessment of the current state: the Iranian capacity, the Israeli position, and American casualty figures. Speaker 1 assesses Israel as internally distressed: internal unrest, exhausted armed forces, and a large exodus of citizens; he predicts Israel faces an ominous future and foresees Israel possibly deteriorating before Iran. He describes Israel’s use of mercenaries and acknowledges substantial damage on both sides, with Netanyahu’s visibility limited. In the broader Persian Gulf, Speaker 1 states that deterrence has failed among regional powers such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The United States is perceived as hampered by a long logistical footprint; uncertainty about missile stocks and intercepts persists, but Speaker 1 asserts that Iran can sustain war for a long time and that bombing alone will not compel Iranian capitulation. He foresees intensified U.S. troop and firepower deployment, including three carrier battle groups over the next two weeks, to replace the current forces.
Overall, the conversation centers on Iran’s resilience, the limited likelihood that bombing will force regime change, the risk of broader great-power involvement, and growing weariness and strategic complications for all sides, with Iran poised to endure and possibly prevail in the long term.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I love when people would say to you, colonel, colonel who led men into battle, for crying out loud, and who has sources, deep, deep sources within the United States military more than any of us sitting here on this table or anyone who's, like, probably watching right now, unless there's some sort of keyboard cowboy that we don't know about. But to say to you that you're wrong about what Iran's missile capacity is. You've been studying this for for decades and their ability to sustain this. You've laid out many, many times on our show. So I guess I'll just ask you straight out.
Is there a way that we could actually beat Iran short of a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the bar is very low for Iran. All Iran has to do to be victorious, if you will, is survive. That's it. That's all they have to do. Continue to lob missiles, continue to launch drones, strike back if we come close to the country in whatever way they can.
They've managed to maintain command and control. They've dispersed their forces. Those forces are surviving. They seem to have a very large supply of missiles and drones, contrary to what anybody may think. So all they have to do at this point is survive.
Now what do we have to do to win? That's the real question.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: When you listen to all this bombastic nonsense and hyperbole from the present, we're the greatest. We have the greatest force in the world. Okay. Fine. It's the greatest in the world.
What are you trying to do? Well, regime change really hasn't worked very well, has it? You managed to kill the supreme leader. That simply galvanizes the population against you and Shiites worldwide against you. So I don't think that's helped very much.
They've developed a good succession system. So if anybody is killed or wounded and taken out of action, they have plenty of people to step up and take over. So if we're not gonna regime change this forcibly with bombing by trying to bomb everybody out of office, What are we going to do? And I think what we're trying to do is destroy Iran and and cause the society to disintegrate. And we're desperate.
We're grasping for straws. We're trying to get the Kurds to go in to create havoc. I I see evidence that we're milling around and and causing trouble in Azerbaijan that may result in a resumption of war there between Azerbaijan and Armenia. At the same time, the Turks aren't very happy about our aspirations since the Kurds, of course, want to build a state at their expense and the expense of Iran. And the Turks and the Irans are already share Iranians are already sharing intelligence.
So if our goal is to destroy the country, I don't think we're going to achieve that. But if we came even close to it, I think we're gonna end up dealing with the Chinese and the Russians. Yeah. And that's that's something I thought we wanted to avoid. But then again, you know, we thought that was the case under Biden, and it turns out that Biden crossed all of his red lines almost immediately, sending everything he said he wouldn't send and risking everything he said he wouldn't risk.
Looks like Donald Trump wants to do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Right. You know, there is an option for president Trump to save face and say, look. We got the Ayatollah, and we got a lot of bad guys. We're pretty happy. We're walking out of here.
The problem is that it's doesn't seem to be Donald Trump in the driver's seat. It seems to be president or prime minister Netanyahu, that it's Israel's will that we are bending towards. So if we walked away now, we probably would be led like a dog right back here until I don't know what. So it has to be disastrous, And yet, we can't really get a true picture of what the Americans are being asked to do even though we're funding it. And I noticed because I follow your x feed closely, it helps me to cut through the ball.
But you got a lot of turds now who are pushing back on you. And you I didn't see this before because the pro war faction, the pro war bots are out. And I noticed you're taking a lot of stuff for telling the truth now. That tells me something.
Speaker 0: Right? You're over the target, colonel.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, unfortunately, if you object to waging war with uncertain purpose and unattainable goals, then you're viewed as a traitor. I mean, that's obviously, you you don't support what's right and good. But I think Americans are smarter than Washington thinks. And I'll be frank.
I don't think this is going to lead anywhere. I don't think president Trump is going to tow the battleship Missouri into the Persian Gulf and then repaint the name on the Missouri to the USS Trump and hold a surrender ceremony there for the Iranians. I don't think that's going to occur. I hope we can get out of this without ending up in a major war with Russia and China, without blowing up the entire region. The entire region's pretty much blown up as it is.
But I think what's going to happen is that over the next several weeks, war fatigue is going to set in. I think we will take more casualties than we've taken thus far. And I think president Trump may be in real trouble. He may not finish his his term. He may end up, no longer being president by the time the war ends, however it ends.
Speaker 0: So maybe you can give us just a military assessment, beyond what you've already said here. Where do things stand on the Israeli side? Are they you know, CNN is not allowed to show us. Fox News is not allowed to show us. RT got shut down from showing us what's actually happening inside of Israel, you know, bombing attacks inside of Israel.
What do we, you know, what do we know about their the Iranian capacity at this point? Are they sitting back as professor Morandi in Tehran has said this morning? The Iranians are using basically some of their old old missiles. They haven't even really used some of their most advanced stuff yet, and they're sort of sitting back. Can you help us understand?
And also the American deaths. We've only heard six Americans have died. I'm hearing that that number is false. Maybe you can tell us about the American killed in action numbers that you're hearing about. Maybe you just can give us a sense of all of these things.
Speaker 1: Well, let's start with Israel. I think internally, Israel is suffering from considerable unrest. There are lots of unhappy people in Israel right now. They've been through quite a lot as a result of starting this war in the aftermath of July. They've got armed forces with people that are exhausted, that are tired.
At least a million Israelis have left the country and gone elsewhere, and I'm sure more would leave if they were able to do so. So I think the the future for Israel is ominous. It it strikes me that Israel and Iran may well end up in this contest that I would describe as competitive collapse. In other words, which state falls apart first? And if I were betting, would say Iran will not be the first, that it will be Israel internally.
They're already bringing in large numbers of mercenaries to fight, and that's been going on almost from the beginning. Israel has sustained a lot of damage. It's probably gonna sustain a lot more before this is over. And I don't know where mister Netanyahu is most of the time. Everybody keeps asking that question.
He's not exactly very visible these days. So I think Israel is in trouble. Let's put it that way. Now when we go to the Persian Gulf, we look at The Emirates, we look at Saudi Arabia, but particularly The Emirates. So I think we, a nation, are finished there because deterrence has failed.
What the Iranians have demonstrated pretty conclusively is to fight wars, You don't really need navies and air forces if you're defending your country. With missiles and unmanned systems and ground troops, you can wage war for a very, very long time. We are at the end of a 6,000 mile logistical pipeline. We've got to replenish everything. We don't know how many missiles we fired.
We're not sure about how many enemy missiles we've intercepted. And when you're in that kind of position, when in doubt, you tend to make things up. I think we're making a lot up, saying that we're doing a lot better than we are. But it's it's impossible to know with any precision. But the point is you can bomb lots of people in Iran over a long period of time, But you're not gonna bring down that nation, and you're not gonna bomb its current government out of existence.
So when you look at the map, I I tend to re re you know, rely more heavily on rebar. I find that most of their data is pretty good. And as I look at the charts right now, I'd say the Iranians are continuing to do quite well. And I don't think that we are pounding them into the dust or polarizing them out of existence. And I think that's one of the reasons that we're going to send more troops and more firepower there.
We've got three battle carrier battle groups that we can surge. And over the next two weeks, I think they're gonna get them ready and bring them over so they can replace the two carrier battle groups that are there now. So this is going to go on. As you pointed out, everybody stopped talking about forty eight hours. Remember we go back to Witkoff?
And he said, well, president Trump and I thought they were going to capitulate. I mean, after all, look at all the firepower we amassed. Persia has been with us for two thousand seven hundred years. I don't see any evidence that they're about to go away. I think they'll they'll endure.
I think, ultimately, by enduring, they will win.
Speaker 0: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally inner in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it.
Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your fate future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA USAF 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, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed.
It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. It's wallet.rumble.com. Go to Rumble Wallet today, open an account, and step away from big banks for good.
Wallet.rumble.com is the place to go.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
OOPS: 🙊 America is running out of missiles, and the Pentagon knows it. Emergency meetings w/defense executives. Drained stockpiles of Tomahawks & Patriots. The weapons that take years to replace are disappearing fast. https://t.co/C8TI11YIqq
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: In a few days, America is already running out of weapons against Iran, despite spending about $1,000,000,000,000 a year on defense. The administration is meeting with top defense contractors at the White House because strikes on Iran are diminishing US stockpiles, especially long-range munitions like Tomahawk missiles. Interceptor missiles are being exhausted by Iranian attacks. This is not getting wide play in the mainstream media; there is a blackout. CNN reported that Israel told them they are not allowed to show incoming rocket attacks.
Speaker 1: One go up there. We're not showing you that because we're not gonna show. The Israeli government does not allow us or want us to show where that may have come up, that interceptor.
Speaker 0: The most powerful military machine in history is not calling a meeting because it's winning too hard. It’s calling a meeting because the shelves are getting bare. Axios and The Wall Street Journal report that the reality contradicts slogans of unlimited munitions. War is fought with inventory and magazine depth, not slogans. The White House is seeking more supply as munitions run low.
Speaker 0: The dirty little secret is that war isn’t fought with slogans; it’s fought with inventory. The Iran fight is the worst kind of war for stockpiles because it’s strike targets and defense of everything you own at the same time. A CIA station house in Riyadh was hit; Iran could strike a CIA station, and telemetry data may have come from China or Russia. Iran doesn’t need to beat the US head-to-head in aircraft carriers to bleed us dry.
Speaker 0: Aircraft carriers are relics of the post-World War II era and are vulnerable to hypersonic weapons. France is sending a carrier; it’s not about carriers but about forcing us to burn high-end interceptors faster than we can replace them. It comes down to math: a $50,000 drone versus a $4,000,000 interceptor or a naval missile defense shot. We’re bleeding resources.
Speaker 0: Tomahawks are expensive long-range munitions. The Pentagon plans to buy only 72 Tomahawks in fiscal year 2025 and 57 in fiscal year 2026, while operations have consumed hundreds. Each missile is around $1,300,000. Raytheon and others are ramping Tomahawk production from roughly 60 per year to eventually 1,000 per year. How long will that take? The defense supply chain is strained.
Speaker 0: The entire defensive layer is under strain: Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptors, costing about $4,000,000 each; Lockheed is moving to more than triple capacity, roughly from 600 per year to roughly 2,000 per year. Interceptors are expensive, and ramping production cannot fix the immediate shortfall.
Speaker 0: Ukraine aid is enormous in dollar terms—State Department reporting puts military assistance since 2022 at over or close to $70,000,000,000, likely higher. Ukraine has been a grinding logistics war; Iran is turning into a high-end missile and air defense consumption war. Boots on the ground are being considered as necessary; air campaigns alone cannot achieve regime change. 155-millimeter shells production is around 40,150 rounds per month as of 2024–2025, but Ukraine’s consumption is far higher. Mineral shortages also constrain production, prompting the White House to convene the defense industry.
Speaker 0: The war plan may be to destroy enough of Iran’s launch capability before magazines run shallow—a brutal last-call scenario. The US is fighting on two tracks: attack and defense, using Tomahawks, B-2 bombers, and 2,000-pound bombs, along with low-cost drones around $35,000 each. The message to Middle East allies is that the US cannot fully protect them as stocks thin. Putin and China are watching, waiting to see if the US can prevent a massive Russian advance or another major theater’s strain. The White House meeting with CEOs reads like a panic flare, not victory, as munitions are consumed faster than they can be replenished. The speaker notes the high death toll on Iran’s side and asks for more transparency on American casualties, while reiterating the commitment to anti-war principles.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So we need to talk about something uncomfortable. And let me hit you with the part they don't want you to focus on right now. In just a handful of days, America has managed to do something that should be impossible for a country that spends around $1,000,000,000,000 a year on defense. We're already talking about running out of weapons against Iran. Eventually, not, hey, if this turns into a long war, we're talking about right now the kind of shortage that forces the White House to drag the CEOs of the biggest missile companies on earth into a room and basically say, hey, stop everything you're doing right now.
We need more. And we need more yesterday. Reports right now that the administration is meeting with top defense contractors at the White House, specifically because strikes on Iran are diminishing US stockpiles tremendously, especially long range munitions like Tomahawk missiles. Think about that. And of course, interceptor missiles, are being exhausted by Iranian attacks.
Of course, you won't see this in the mainstream media. For whatever reason, the mainstream media is ignoring this. There is a blackout. And even CNN, yesterday admitting that Israel the Israeli government has told them that they are not allowed to show incoming rocket attacks. Aaron Burnett on live television admitting that.
Speaker 1: One go up there. We're not showing you that because we're not gonna show. The Israeli government does not allow us or want us to show where that may have come up, that interceptor.
Speaker 0: So all that to say the most powerful military machine in human history is not calling a meeting because it's winning too hard. We just love winning. It's calling a meeting right now because the shelves are getting bare. And this is where the entire sort of official storyline collapses because we keep hearing, you know, the same chest thumping line that we can do this forever. Trump even bragged about it publicly that America has virtually unlimited munitions he posted on Truth Social.
I don't know who's telling him this. It's incredibly dangerous. Axios quoting reporting from outlets like The Wall Street Journal basically saying, nice slogan, but the reality disagrees. The Rupert Murdoch Wall Street Journal talking about running out of ammunition in days, not weeks. Where does that money go?
Oh, it's one giant money laundering operation, of course. So anything we allegedly build, funneling it through Ukraine back into the pockets of defense contractors, political campaigns, of course. So here's the dirty little secret. Because war isn't fought with slogans. War is fought with inventory, with magazine depth, with actual physical objects that take time to build, that require specialized parts, that rely on fragile supply chains right now.
Incredibly fragile, especially because of what China has done with minerals production, minerals exports. So a lot of these weapons systems rely on these precious minerals that we just simply don't have. That's why President Trump launched that Project Vault a few weeks ago because it is a national security concern. So on the one hand, you can write executive orders saying it's a national security concern. On the other hand, you can tell us that we have an unlimited supply, we could do this for days, do this for years, do this inexhaustibly like we're Captain America.
I could do this all day. So these don't magically appear because a politician says the word strength into the microphone. And the Iran fight is the is the absolute worst kind of war for stockpiles because it's not just strike targets. It's strike targets and defend everything you own at the same time. And, of course, we've seen how that has how that has gone in Qatar specifically with the strike on US military bases and the destruction of a $1,100,000,000 sort of eyes in the sky system that tracks every ballistic missile that comes into The Middle East protecting our armed forces in that region, destroyed.
We didn't have the capacity to stop it or to protect it. And then on top of the fact that China has been helping with telemetry information and data, the fact that Iran was able to strike a CIA station house inside of Riyadh.
Speaker 2: At a Fox News alert, an official source has confirmed that a suspected Iranian drone has hit a CIA station in Saudi Arabia's capital.
Speaker 0: And they knew what side of the building the CIA were stationed in. Of course, the US government will just say it's hitting a civilian target. No. They hit a CIA station. That's the real truth.
Where did that telemetry and information come from? China? Russia? So Iran doesn't have to beat The US head to head in aircraft carriers to bleed us right now. They're not going to.
And by the way, aircraft carriers are a relic of the post World War II era. In many ways, they're useless against hypersonic weapons. So they just have they're like a show of force. We've got aircraft right here. It's big.
France is sending one of theirs now. Right? So it's not about aircraft carriers. They just have to force us into burning high end interceptors faster than we can replace them. Because right now, it just comes down to simple math.
They launch waves of missiles and drones. Respond with a Patriot interceptor or a naval missile defense shot, you're trading something that can cost millions and takes a much longer time to build, something that can be cheap and mass produced like drones, and we can't stop them. That's not just a battlefield problem. It's a math problem right now. So a $50,000 drone versus $500,000,000 intercept Patriot systems.
So the math is really ugly. And I know I'm off on my math a little bit there, but $50,000 drones for sure. Because a lot of our systems are way overpriced, let's be honest. Like, they're not actually the cost of these things. Because we don't have any bid contracts anymore, we just people don't compete for these.
They just charge the most from our taxpayers. I mean, look at these look at just like at Tomahawks, for instance, right? These are not standard ammunition. These are the expensive long range tools that you save for major fights, especially a Pacific scenario where you need to strike at a distance. Business Insider says that the Pentagon plan to buy only, I think, 72 Tomahawks in fiscal year 2025, 57 Tomahawks in fiscal year 2026, While operations have consumed hundreds, each missile is around $1,300,000.
How many Tomahawks have we sent to Ukraine? Now you connect that to what other reports are coming in today about Raytheon and Raytheon working on ramping up Tomahawk production from roughly 60 per year to eventually 1,000 per year. That's great. How long is that going to take? Stop and let that sink in for a moment.
So if you're buying fifty to seventy two a year in that budget and then you fire hundreds in just a short burst, you didn't just send a message. You actually ate the pantry. Mom, we have no food left. I had a bunch of teenage friends over and they ate everything. We have no food.
And it's not just Tom OX. The whole defensive, like, layer is under strain right now. Patriot PAC three MSE three interceptors. I think I'm getting that right. I think the PAC, the PAC three MSE interceptors.
Those are one of the crown jewels of missile defense. Reuters reported Lockheed is moving to more than triple that capacity, roughly from 600 per year to roughly 2,000 per year. They're also reporting that these interceptors cost about $4,000,000 each. So every time you watch footage, if you get to see that footage because they're blocking it now, they're going to great lengths to hide it from you. But every time you do see that footage of a missile defense intercept, it looks like a win.
But actually, economically and industrially, you're bleeding out. The patient is essentially bleeding out because you can't just snap your fingers and surge productions of these systems. Even the ramp numbers prove it. I mean, going from 600 to 2,000 per year is a massive industrial push. And it doesn't fix the right now problem, which is what the US military is facing.
That's the core of this story right now. And that brings me to the comparison everybody is arguing about online in all of this, which is Ukraine, right? A lot of the alternative commentary is claiming in blunt terms that we've burned more in days than we used over years supporting Ukraine. I mean, there's an expos making the rounds that says that Iran the you know, one of these Iran strikes consumed more long range munitions than four years of Ukraine And that Trump is dragging Lockheed and Raytheon CEOs into the White House like a factory boss, like demanding overtime, like a union boss getting reprimanded. And that line is rhetorically affected.
But here's what we actually verify. Ukraine aid is enormous in dollar terms. State Department reporting puts US military assistance since 2022 over or close to $70,000,000,000 It's probably much higher than that. That's what they're telling us. Probably well over that.
Right? So a huge chunk of that was artillery ammunition, ground systems, large volumes of conventional kit, not the same category as sustained burn of high and long range missiles and top tier interceptors. But nevertheless, roughly the same thing. And by the way, how many of those weapons systems then were sold by Ukraine winding up in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug cartels? It's like we're living in a clown world.
Right? So in other words, the type of weapons matter right now. Ukraine has been a grinding logistics war, mountains of shells, anti armor vehicles, air defense drones. Iran is turning into a high end missile and air defense consumption war, exactly the stuff The US can't replace quickly. That's why you're hearing rumblings right now of boots on the ground.
We're not going to rule out boots on the ground. Because as anyone understands, you cannot have regime change with an air campaign alone. It's not going to happen. It's never happened, never been successful. So we need to have boots on the ground in order for this to be successful.
And just like one clear example of this, you have the 155 millimeter shells. Even after years of, we're ramping up production, National Defense Magazine reported the Army was producing it at about 40,150 millimeter rounds per month as of twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five. And that production those production goals were still a struggle. Ukraine can chew through artillery ammo at rates that make those production numbers look small. Then you layer in Iran on top of that, and then you're looking at simultaneous demand across categories, right?
Some high volume, some high-tech, all difficult. And then add on top of that layer the lack of minerals that we have available to us right now. So that's why the White House is pulling the defense industry into a room, like the principal calling students into the room. And after all, he should because they get no big contracts and trillions of dollars in money without the bat of an eye. And we are tapped out.
We should be able to say to them, what the hell have you guys been doing? You didn't produce enough? You didn't confidence your way out of physics, basically? So this is the part that cable news avoids because it makes everyone look bad. If you have a limited number of interceptors deployed in a region and the other side's strategy is just to keep launching until you're forced to either, a, run low or, b, stop intercepting, then your deterrence becomes basically a countdown timer.
And, of course, we're seeing reporting that puts that timer front and center. The Wall Street Journal, as I talked about, described The US basically racing to accomplish this mission before the munitions run out. Good luck with that. A country of 93,000,000 people with enormous underground infrastructure and missile infrastructure all underground, small navy speedboats that are locking down the Strait Of Hormuz. So we need to get this done in a few days before our munitions run out.
Maybe we should just take our munitions back from Israel that we send them on a regular basis. Maybe we should call up Zelensky and say, hey, you know, that stuff we sent you over the past few years, if you've unless you've not burned through it. I know you sold a lot of it to a lot of terrorist organizations around the world. Maybe you could get some of that stuff back for us. So we can't you know, air defense interceptors, other munitions are being expended at a pace that strains stockpiles.
And you step back, actually, like, what does that mean? What does actually that mean? Well, means the war plan that quietly becomes, hey, destroy enough of their launch capability before your own magazines get shallow. That's a brutal sentence. That's not shock and awe.
That's like, last call. And it gets worse because The US is fighting on two tracks at once right now, attack and defense. And a new report out today shows that The United States is using a mix of weapons in these strikes, including Tomahawks, these b two bombers. Secretary Hegzeth talked about these 2,000 pound bombs, these multiple b two bomber missions across Tehran. We're seeing the carpet bombing of civilian areas now, a city of 9,000,000 people.
So these now also like one way low cost drone systems, these cost around $35,000 each. So now we're trying to basically go towards like more affordable stuff. Like what do we have? How many affordable stuff in the stockpiles we can use? Mom, the food's out in the pantry.
So if you read between the lines right now, they're trying to get away from shooting gold bars at fireworks because it's so costly. So what can we shoot at these fireworks right now besides gold bars? And, of course, here's the part that you genuinely alarm Americans. These aren't just weapons for Iran. These are weapons tied to global readiness right now.
Tomahawks are not something you want to burn through if you're worried about other major theaters, like in The Pacific. Interceptors, right? These are not optional if you're serious about protecting bases, ships, and allies. And of course, by the way, the message to our Middle East allies is, sorry. We're not we don't have the capacity to protect you.
Dubai, Oman, Bahrain, sorry. We know a lot of your hotel infrastructure, a lot of embassies being attacked and bombed in these countries. We can't really do anything about it. So when those stocks get thin, the danger isn't just you might not win faster. The danger is you invite someone else to test you somewhere else.
You gotta think you gotta wonder what Putin is doing right now. Just, you know, the the old saying, right, don't jump in when your enemies are destroying themselves. Just sit back and wait. So Putin is watching this. China is watching this.
Just sitting back and waiting. Does The US have the capacity to stop a massive Russian advance that could end the war in Ukraine? Of course not at this point. We need them now against Iran. So that's why these reports about a White House meeting read like a panic flare right now, not because The US is is winning so hard.
We just wanna come and have lunch with all you guys, all you CEOs. But we are in real trouble, and warfare consumes a lot of munitions that we cannot replenish. So that's been on my mind, the truth about our munitions. The other piece that, again, I come back to that's been on my mind is the amount of dead. The nearly 1,000 people on the Iranian side that are have now been killed.
We don't have any kind of accurate numbers out of Israel at all because there's, as I said, a media blackout on the destruction there. They don't want you to think that Israel's been hurt at all.
Speaker 1: One go up there. We're not showing you that because we're not gonna show. The Israeli government does not, allow us or want us to show where that may have come up, that interceptor. But I
Speaker 0: It's totally fine. Mike Huckabee is playing bass guitar on stage. Nothing to see here. Everything's fine. Come here, buddy.
And but the real question is, how many Americans have been killed? And what are they not telling us about these attacks on American military bases throughout the region? I mean, 50,000 American troops are already in theater and legitimate targets on the Iranian side. So they've told us that six people have officially been killed. But how many hundreds of Americans have actually been killed?
I sure would like to know. And I hope they'll tell us. So thank you guys for subscribing to the channel. And our goal is the truth here, and we are vehemently an anti war show. Hope that doesn't rub people the wrong way, but this needs to end right now.
Thank you for being here. We appreciate it.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
LIVE FROM IRAN: 🇮🇷 Hegseth says it'll be over soon. Western media says Iran's military is finished. @s_m_marandi is joining us live from inside Iran right now w/a very different account. Decide for yourself who to believe. https://t.co/iw1RBnT6Yr
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on contrasting narratives about the U.S.-Israel confrontation with Iran and what is actually happening on the ground and inside Iran.
- Speaker 0 relays the “fog of war,” noting Western media claims that the U.S. and Israel are delivering a rapid victory in Iran, with leadership and navy wiped out and the war ending soon, referencing statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that the war “should not be protracted” and will wrap up “very soon.” Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 push back, asking whether the war could spiral into a longer conflict and what the timeline may be, noting top general Dan Cain’s warning that the objectives will take time and that President Trump also suggested the operation could take weeks.
- The program then goes to Tehran with Professor Syed Mohammed Morandi, a geopolitical analyst at the University of Tehran. Morandi explains the succession process after the death of the Ayatollah: the constitution provides a council of three that runs the government until the leader is chosen by the council of experts, which should happen in the next few days. In the meantime, the president, the head of the judiciary, and a representative from the Guardian Council run the state. He notes the councilors are being arranged to meet from abroad to avoid being targeted.
- On the ground in Tehran, Morandi counters the idea that a rapid regime change is possible, detailing that U.S. and Israeli strikes have targeted Tehran and civilian infrastructure, including a claim that the government ordered people to leave the city and that an elementary school was bombed, killing about 165 girls in Minab. He describes a situation where rescue teams are struck again at the scene. He asserts that the U.S. and Israel are striking civilian targets and that there is a pattern of double tapping at sites like Fair Doce Square.
- Morandi disputes U.S. claims of destroyed leadership and navy: he says that ships of the Iranian navy are in port, there are thousands of small speed boats prepared for asymmetrical warfare, and the U.S. has not touched them. He argues that the underground bases and missiles/drones remain intact, and that senior commanders were not all killed—only a handful. He notes that Iran is firing missiles at Israel and striking U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf, and that oil facilities and tankers could be attacked if escalation continues. He warns of an energy crisis if oil facilities are destroyed and notes that the price of energy has risen.
- Regarding public sentiment inside Iran, Morandi states that there are no celebrations; instead, people are mourning. He describes gatherings across the country under missile fire, with demonstrations in Tehran despite security concerns. He shares that slogans included “We are prepared to die. We won’t accept humiliation. Death to Trump, death to Netanyahu,” and that millions were seen on the streets via his Telegram channel, though many left the city due to danger. He characterizes Western media portrayal as propaganda and says the sentiment on the ground is in opposition to U.S. and Israeli actions.
- The host suggests that the Iranian perspective views this as a prolonged confrontation, with Iran prepared to sustain resistance for years because the United States is “completely unreliable.” Morandi notes that while negotiations have repeatedly failed, Iran aims to compel the U.S. and Israeli regime to recognize that military assault has consequences, including economic and political costs.
- The program later notes that U.S. and Israeli figures frame the conflict as epically swift, while Morandi’s account emphasizes Iran’s resilience and long-term resistance, highlighting the discrepancy between Western media narratives and on-the-ground Iranian realities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the fog of war is very real right now. If you listen to the western media outlets, of course, The United States in Israel's bombing of Iran is going very, very well. Their entire military leadership has been wiped out, almost their entire navy, and that this thing will be wrapped up very, very soon at the start of the week. We, of course, we heard from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. He said this will not be a protracted war, that this should wrap up very soon.
Listen to the Secretary of War.
Speaker 1: It should.
Speaker 2: Secretary Hickseth and and one for chairman Kane as well. I understand to your point here that you don't wanna broadcast everything for our adversaries to hear, but the American people also wanna know what they're sending their men and women to war for. Are is there a concern of this spiraling into a longer war and then one for the chairman when you're done?
Speaker 1: Did you not hear my remarks?
Speaker 3: I mean,
Speaker 1: we're ensuring the mission gets accomplished, but we are very clear eyed as the president has been, unlike other presidents, about the foolish policies of the past that recklessly pulled us in to things that were not tethered to actual clear clear objectives. So we we know we have plans. We have generals. We have chairmans. We have commanders, sent comp commanders, admiral Cooper, who's executing very deliberately to ensure outcomes that I laid out are accomplished, but we would never in front of a press pool, lay out how long that may take.
Our the mission for our warfighters, which is what matters to us, is very, very clear, and they're executing it right now violently.
Speaker 0: So that's what the secretary of war is saying, but top general Dan Cain says that this is going to take time to achieve these military objectives in Iran. This is not a single overnight operation. President Trump also saying it could take many weeks. So what actually is happening in Iran right now? Well, let's go live to Tehran with our special guest professor Syed Mohammed Morandi, who is in Tehran right now.
He's a geopolitical analyst professor at the University of Tehran, host of Demystifying Iran. And we apologize. The Internet is very, very spotty. I think only about 4% of the Internet is actually working in Iran. But, professor, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much for having me. The Internet works for inside Iran, for Iranian websites and apps. But if we want to connect abroad, then we have to go to studios. So I'm basically at this I come to studios. I'm spending my whole day in the studio, basically, doing interviews.
Speaker 4: Well, we're so glad to have you so that we can get real news, not the American interpretation of news. So what I wanna ask you, The United States seem to think that a quick and fast regime change in Iran was possible. Now that does not seem like that is an easy plan. What is the succession plan in Iran now that the Ayatollah is dead, and how do you think the government stands this week?
Speaker 3: Well, the constitution is clear. The there will be a a council of three that runs the government, the country, until the leader is chosen by the council of experts, and that should happen in the next few days. They don't want all the members of the Council of Experts who are elected to gather in one place because obviously, Trump or Netanyahu may try to murder them. So they're arranging so that they can meet from abroad or meet from a distance and decide who will be the next leader. So for the time being, government is the state is being run by the president, the head of the judiciary, and a representative from the council of, the Guardian Council.
Speaker 0: Can you tell me what is happening right now? We've seen double tap where US and Israeli bombs hitting, you know, many targets across Tehran, across Iran. And then when rescue crews are showing up, they're being hit again. We know that Israel loves to do that. That's one of Israel's favorite pastimes, which is to when rescue crews show up to try to remove bodies, then they hit them again.
Can you tell me what's happening across Tehran at this hour?
Speaker 3: Actually, one of my friends who I spoke with just forty five minutes ago on the phone, he was in one of these places where they did a double it was the Fair Doce Square, which actually, which also I used to live there before many years ago. And as when they bombed the place, rescuers went to help and ordinary people to remove the rubble and see if they can find survivors. And then they struck again. So that was a personal friend of mine was witness to this. The Israeli regime, the the the Americans, they are striking Tehran regularly.
They are bombing homes, but also civilian infrastructure. They have they have caused the government to ask people who don't need to be in the city to leave, especially since the day before yesterday, they bombed an elementary school and murdered 165 or so girls. Their funerals will be held tomorrow morning in the city of Minab. It's not a big city actually, I've never been there, but it's not a big city. So imagine, I mean, 160 or so young girls murdered in any city would be horrific, but when it's in a small city, I think the impact would probably be even more painful and long lasting.
So after the strike on that school, the government shut down all schools and universities. I I I'm not I was supposed to I was supposed to have class today, so there's no class. Whether there will be online courses in the coming weeks, I don't know. But but so we have no schools open, no universities, and the government and the armed forces have asked the people who do not need to be in the city in of Tehran to leave. So Tehran is much less crowded now, but I'm in Tehran.
Speaker 0: Can I ask you? We heard the secretary of war saying that this will not be protracted. This will not be dragged out. We've also heard from president Trump that the Iranian navy has been completely severed. The top military, infrastructure, the leadership in the top of the military has been destroyed.
Can you tell us what you know? Is that truth or false?
Speaker 3: No. That's false. First of all, the the the the ships of the navy are in port. The the ships that will be used in this war are small speed boats for asymmetrical warfare, and there are thousands of them. And The United States has not touched any of them.
They're in the Persian Gulf, and they can begin destroying tankers or oil facilities and gas facilities anytime they are asked to do so. And alongside the drones and missiles and the underground bases that are most most of them have not even been used yet. They are all intact. So with regards to the leadership, yes, they've murdered Ayatollah Khamenei, but this was not successful like eight years ago, I say eight months ago, eight, nine months ago because a large number of senior commanders were murdered then, but this time around four or five, I think, were murdered. So the armed forces, as you've seen, they're functioning.
They are firing missiles at Israeli regime regularly and they are striking US targets in the Persian Gulf. And of course, they're also striking places which US troops are based and many of them are in hotels and in other buildings. So the Iranians are striking those hotels as well. So you see that the Americans have failed to get oil to leave the Persian Gulf, the price of oil obviously will go up. And there are lots of tankers stuck in the Persian Gulf, and they will continue to be stuck.
And if the situation escalates, I think they could be destroyed. And if the situation escalates and the oil facilities and gas facilities and tankers are destroyed, then even if there's a ceasefire later on, or a halt in cessation and hostilities, there won't be any oil or gas that can be taken out of the Persian Gulf and there won't be any tankers to take that oil or gas. So we're going to have, I think, long term economic crisis or energy crisis if this escalates.
Speaker 4: Now, I wanna ask you because this is the number one talking points of Idiots on X, if you can just give me the real answer. So people who support this war inside The United States either buy the lie that Iran had a nuclear program or they say, oh, but Iranians wanted this. They don't like the Ayatollah. They don't like the regime. We're liberating them.
They're celebrating this. What is the act are there celebrations inside Iran for US action? Can you please give me that answer? What's actually the temperature of real Iranians once and for all?
Speaker 3: No. This is complete nonsense. People are mourning. And I actually last night, we're gatherings across the country under fire, under missile fire, under missile strikes. There were gatherings across the country and in Tehran, they didn't have a single gathering because for security reasons, because they were afraid Americans or the Israelis would bomb the people.
So they spread them out in different roundabouts and squares in the city. And I put some of them in my telegram channel and in my Twitter and I tweeted one clip where people are chanting slogans as airstrikes are being carried out or missile strikes. And I gave put a link to my Telegram channel and I put the clips of the gatherings in different parts of Tehran. So if anyone wants to see what where the people were last night and what they were doing, it's easy, all they have to do is go to my telegram channel. Millions were on the streets across Tehran.
And they were not, and that's despite the fact that a lot of people left, because people who can leave or asked to leave. And these people on the streets, as they were the city was being attacked. And as I said, there were massive crowds in different parts of the city. So this is just propaganda.
Speaker 4: What are they chanting specifically? What are they chanting? Like, give us a saying, a phrase, a temper, like what?
Speaker 3: We're prepared to die. We won't accept humiliation. Death to Trump, death to Netanyahu, and that sort of thing. I didn't go myself because I've been doing lots of interviews. And last night, I was until very late in the studio doing interviews.
But if you go to my telegram channel, you can see them and it's clear as day what the sentiments are. All you have to do is watch the people even if you don't know what they're saying. And in the sky above, you can see air defense is working and so on.
Speaker 0: So, so then it's a lie when Laura Loomer and Mark Levin say that we started this war for the Iranian people. That's the quote. This is for the Iranian people because their lie about a nuclear program has been exposed. So it's it's not about the nuclear program. It's for the Iranian people.
Do the the people on the streets, have you seen anyone waving an American flag or an Israeli flag at all saying thank you?
Speaker 3: No. This is all disinformation to justify war. In fact, if I have this, which you alluded to earlier, I have this weekly program on Al Mayadeen. It's called Demystifying Iran. And this last week, just this last Friday, before the war, I did a program where I compared The US media in the 1990s and the 1980s and the beginning of the new century with today.
And the framing is exactly the same. If you remove the headlines from the 1990s and put them in the New York Times today, or the Washington Post, you won't be able to tell the difference. In the 1990s, were saying the young generation is sick and tired of this revolution. They want a new revolution or the revolution is collapsing. The regime is, you know, they love to say regime.
The regime is unpopular. They've been saying it's about to fall and collapse and implode, and it's a house of cards for 40 now. And the narrative never changes. If anyone is interested, they can just go to that that show and just watch the first ten minutes of it. And it's clear as day that this is what they've been saying since I was a teenager.
Speaker 4: Yes. I guess you know, I I studied closely the sanctions that the Obama administration put on Iran, and it gave us the impression that life inside of Iran was so much harder because of American imperialism. So my ignorance, I guess, is that I am surprised at how Iran is able to build such a strong military response to this despite decades of sanctions. And so what how do you think Iran can withstand? How long can Iran withstand a war like this?
And with whose support? Because we're very curious what Russia, China, and Turkey will do. Who's behind you, do you think?
Speaker 3: Turkey is in the American camp. US bases are being used against Iran. AWACS jets are flying over Turkey and gathering information from Iran. But the the missiles and drones are all Iranian made, and that's the the the main part of Iran's capabilities. And they're deeply underground.
They're very much underground, and they cannot be destroyed. And that's why The United States and Israelis are focusing on targeting cities.
Speaker 0: So for the audience that's, know, we, again, the western media is telling us they're, you know, sort of carpet bombing Tehran that this is it's gonna be very fast. You're telling us though that that's not the case and the Iranian military is resolved to carry this on for quite a long time. As they've said publicly, years. Is is that the case? Do you do other Iranians believe that?
Speaker 3: That the Iranians are prepared to fight for a very long period of time because they know that The United States is completely unreliable. Every time we negotiate, they stab us in the back. Every time Iran negotiates, it turns out that they're secretly conspiring to attack the country, and they're always violating their commitment. So what is there to talk about? The only way to change the situation is to make The United States and Israeli regime recognize that military assault will have economic, political, and military consequences, and Iran is determined to make that happen.
Already, we see that prices of energy go up. I think the Iranians are prepared to take it far higher than where it is now. And, the military across The United States, I think, is
Speaker 0: Well, it looks like we lost the professor again. The Internet, is not cooperating in Iran as you can imagine
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah. That was ambitious, but we really appreciate his perspective. You know, to his point, what he was saying is that every time The United States and Israel go to a negotiation table, they turn around and stab in the back. And that's why in The United States, we're gonna be sold this idea that this is called operation epic fury. But in Iran, they're calling it operation true promise four.
Well, why number four is because this is the fourth time in two years that Iran is retaliating over being struck first. It is The US and Israel that strikes first every time starting in April 2024, October 2024, and you may remember last June 2025. This is the fourth time that they are hit. So how long can they tolerate that before they bring out the firepower of deterrence? That does seem to be what we're experiencing.
Speaker 0: Right. And to his point that they are prepared to carry this out for as many years as as is necessary. Unfortunately, I was gonna ask the professor, but we lost him there if, you know, concerns about Israel using a nuclear weapon. Of course, Israel pretends that it doesn't have nuclear weapons. But if they get desperate enough, would they in fact use that?
And to his point about all of these thousands of smaller boats that are out in the Persian Gulf and are ready to attack at a moment's notice. So, again, put this through the lens of, like, the western media lying to you on a regular basis and then listening to members of the Pentagon lying right to your face. Scott Ritter the other day on our show said it's the responsibility of the Pentagon and these advisers to the president to tell the truth, not make up stuff
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 0: To the president of The United States. And the president of The United States goes out there and says, yeah, this is gonna be done. You know, it won't take very long. Everything's lining up. We've completely wiped out most of their navy.
The rest of it will be destroyed very, very soon. Well, that's just not true.
Speaker 4: And we've seen untrue. We've seen that narrative change in the in
Speaker 3: the
Speaker 4: course of just five days.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 ALERT: Counterterrorism experts are now warning Americans directly. The war w/Iran doesn't stay in the Middle East. Retaliation could come to US soil. This is the part of the story the cheerleaders for this war aren't talking about. @drewberquist is with us. https://t.co/7yj960mHAn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Drew Burquist, a former counterterrorism officer, discusses the current U.S. focus on counterterrorism at home, the potential resurfacing of sleeper-cell activity linked to Iran, and how events abroad may translate into threats domestically. He explains that signs of potential activity may exist now rather than in the near future, noting that sleeper cells have existed long before recent U.S. policy shifts and that many operatives have been in contact with or inspired by Iran’s ideology. Burquist points out that there are IRGC personnel and lone-wolf individuals in the United States, some less directly connected to the IRGC but sharing hostile intent, making the prospect of attacks something he would be “more shocked than not” not to see in some form. He cautions that while he does not predict attacks in every city against every target, the risk is persistent and should be anticipated.
The conversation touches on past incidents like the Austin mass shooting and Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting to illustrate that radical responses can be inspired by broader geopolitical grievances and anti-U.S. actions abroad. Burquist emphasizes the difficulty of separating religion, ideology, and individual grievances in understanding threat dynamics, stating that the cycle of violence persists because killing mid-level targets can generate new generations of extremists. He describes the conflict as an ideological clash rather than a simple nation-vs-nation struggle and notes that targeting foreign adversaries often triggers repercussions at home, including within immigrant communities and U.S. soil.
A key theme is the balance between acknowledging threats and avoiding overreaction. Burquist argues that while there are positive developments in counterterrorism efforts, the U.S. must recognize the consequences of aggressive actions abroad on domestic security. He parallels the current situation with ongoing cartel operations, suggesting that foreign actions can bring affiliated individuals into the U.S., raising the cost-benefit considerations of such actions and complicating threat assessments at home.
Regarding the counterterrorism infrastructure, Burquist describes the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) as the ongoing core of threat monitoring, combining intel, FBI, and local law enforcement across the country. He warns that the United States often focuses narrowly on single “shiny balls,” and that the JTTFs should remain active and integrated. He highlights a practical problem: U.S. intelligence and law enforcement can be reactive and hampered by data fidelity issues, such as misidentification or misspellings of foreign names, especially amid large influxes of new entrants. He suggests that the backend, including how the government manages new arrivals and information, is where gaps could appear, even as the public recognizes and responds to crises with fear or uncertainty.
The discussion ends with a concern that the United States’ preparation for and management of threats at home will reveal how effectively authorities can transition from high-profile operations to sustained, accurate, and proactive domestic counterterrorism efforts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Intelligence sources at the DNI inside of Washington are being told to focus on counterterrorism specifically. Like, don't worry about the Iranian war. Just focus on what's gonna happen in The United States, counterterrorism in The United States. And are we already seeing false flag attacks like that mass shooting in Austin where it's convenient that that person's name was being searched on Google searches days before the attack. And he's wearing a what is it?
I love Allah sweatshirt. Okay. So is this a false flag attack designed to stoke fear? Are we legitimately about to see Iranian sleeper cells activated in The United States, thanks to the last four years of wide open borders in The US. We wanna bring in former counterterrorism officer Drew Burquist now to talk about all of this who's been watching this very closely.
And I just want you to tell us tell it to us straight, Drew. Like, I mean, are we are we going to see sleeper cells being activated? Are you seeing any signs of this from your experience in counterterrorism?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, thanks for having me, guys. It's good to be with you again. I I think, you know, signs now, not necessarily signs in the near future, very possibly. This look. This has been a concern of mine long before we we kicked off this war with Iran.
And and frankly, we've had sleeper cells here long before the previous administration, which was obviously a disaster. And then that just whole that whole issue was exacerbated, you know, times a thousand. So, you know, long has been the concern. Look, these guys from from working overseas all the time that I did spend most of my adult life overseas doing doing operations for the government and living and breathing counterterrorism and and being around these guys, interrogating these guys, going after these guys. I mean, the the amount of hate that they have for us is actually impressive.
Like, you gotta give them some credit. Like, they they're like, they're really good haters. But but that's always been the case. Now you do this. Now you you kick this thing off, and you've got a you've a bunch of IRGC folks.
You've got a bunch of lone wolf type folks who are maybe not as organized and and as connected to IRGC, you know, the Iranian, cuts force, but they're all here. So I would be more shocked than not if we did not see some form. Am I saying that every city is going to have attacks going on at their their churches, their synagogues, their grocery stores? No. But this has long been a concern of mine that something is going to happen.
I, you know, the Austin thing I think is an outlier. And as you said, there's there's some some oddness to it, but I do think that there is some stuff here that that you you should be at least concerned about and that should look that should just getting getting ahead of myself. And I've I've said too much already Clayton and Allie, but, like, should always have your head on a swivel. You should definitely have your head on a swivel right now.
Speaker 2: Well, right. Because even if it's not an organized response inside The United States, one of the things I was a liberal at the time when the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting happened, and I bought the bullshit that it was a homophobic attack. It was not. This person was protesting US drone wars inside Afghanistan. He was tired of seeing his own people being bombed, so he took it upon himself to shoot up an American location to let us all see what it feels like.
The press lied to us about that, protecting Barack Obama, but it did in fact inspire radical responses. We can't blame that on any religion. We can't blame it on homophobia. It happens. And so some assholes on x are trying to fight with me and say, well, we really do need to go after radical Islam.
We are inspiring it, and that will bring consequences if you I just said what I think. Why don't you say what you think? Sorry.
Speaker 1: No. I think you're absolutely right. Mean, here here's the problem with the the GWAT, you know, our whole global war on terror. And and it and it goes back before that. Right?
Like that global war on terror doesn't happen with with without some spats between America and jihadists and extremists before that. But the problem with this is look, the Ayatollah, the mullahs terrible people. Like I'm glad Khamenei's like, that's great. Like he should be dead. He's not a good person.
But the problem is which, which is hard for, for people to understand unless you've been in. And it's, you don't have to have been in to understand this, but is with, you know, we saw it firsthand. We go and kill some dude. Who's a mid level target. Maybe he's an HVT in Iraq or Afghanistan.
His kids are now extremists. We will see his kids in ten to twenty years. Like this cycle never stops. So it's a really tough that that's that's where this thing is so complicated. This is not, you know, United States versus a big state actor in Russia or China.
This is this is an ideology against an ideology. And every time you and and we would do the same thing too. Right? And I'm not justifying what what radical jihadists do. But if you kill my father, I'm coming for you.
And and that's that's the bottom line. Like, like, that's just how it's gonna go. And that's how this cycle continues. And the same thing is true with look. There's there's some good things being done right now.
There's some bad things being done right now too. Like, I think that we could we could handle this better. But at the end of the day, when you target another country who has people who hate us, who already hated us, but certainly hate us now in our country, there's gonna be repercussions. And the same thing remains true for for stuff that we're doing with the cartels now. You you go after you go after cartels in Mexico or in South And Central America.
They also have people here. You run the risk of it doesn't mean it's a guarantee, but you run the risk of when you do this or that. And, and that's a cost benefit analysis that someone's got to run. And hopefully they've done these numbers and metrics You where you start to see some stuff here in America that, you know, we experienced overseas in war zones, and we expected there, but but the American people aren't expecting or wanting to see here, and and you you can't blame them.
Speaker 0: Early onset dementia and Alzheimer's are on the rise. Reports show a three hundred and seventy three percent increase in diagnosis among thirty to forty four year olds and a thirty three hundred and eleven percent increase in forty five to fifty four year olds in The United States in recent years. And when doctors treat brain diseases, they often focus on medicating the brain itself, addressing symptoms instead of the root cause, which is chronic inflammation and oxidative stress. These factors damage brain cells, lead to the buildup of toxic proteins, the hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. But much like much of the body, many brain diseases trace back to the gut microbiome.
And there's a direct line of communication between your gut and your brain, which is where bacteria influence inflammation, mood, memory, cognitive function. I mean, read Doctor. Perlmutter's great book on the the gut brain connection. I mean, it's all right there. That's why kimchi contains over 900 probiotic strains, and studies show its bioactive compounds help reduce inflammation.
But a lot of people, you know, maybe don't like the taste of kimchi because you're not South Korean. So that's where Brightcor created kimchi one. It's actually a supplement. It has all the benefits of real kimchi in a convenient capsule. No taste, no smell, virtually no sodium, made in The US, non GMO.
And now you can get an exclusive offer by clicking the link, below in our description. You get 25% off your entire order. I take it every day as part of my supplement stack. You're gonna get 25% off by going to my brightcore.com/redacted. An even better deal though is if you actually call them, they'll give you 50% off and free shipping.
Just get on the phone and call them. They're an American company. (888) 404-6312. Get 50% off in free shipping. One more time, call them.
(888) 404-6312. Because it's over there, we're desensitized to it. It's like I've said this multiple times. It's my it's my chicken at the grocery store analogy, but, you know, it's a nice piece of chicken breast in cellophane. People don't see the butchering process of it.
Right? So there we we are desensitized to it until poor body bags start arriving here at home, or we see terrorist attacks. I spoke to a senior level Customs and Border Patrol, official today who said, you can't let in over 200,000 special interest aliens and not have large numbers of terrorists. 60 to 70% of the 12,000,000 illegals that Biden let in were single adult military age males. Let me put it this way.
If I woke up tomorrow to learn 50 cities were on fire from terrorist attacks in The United States, I would shrug my shoulders and say, of course.
Speaker 1: Right. Absolutely. Absolutely. It's it's it's the outcome anyone with a brain would expect. And here's the thing too that you like, I don't think enough people put enough emphasis on is we've seen how the American public responds to to crisis.
You know, whether you go back to I mean, you look back I always use the DC sniper case as an example. That whole it was regional. Yes. But like that whole region shut down. If you have terror attacks, you have you have a dude clacking off in a grocery store and someone in a bookstore here in a church there and there, and this is happening across the country.
The United States Of America will not respond well to that. Like it will not go well. So there's a lot of rah rah going on right now. We're the best military in the world. Hell yes, we are.
We're, we're freaking awesome. Like, and they're doing some good things, but you've got to understand that with that comes the potential for this. And I think that's, that's, you know, as someone who lived and breathed this world for a long time and as a father and a husband now, that's my biggest concern. And again, I'm not saying I'm all for or all against all of this. I'm just saying when I see this stuff happens, my first response is, oh, crap.
Like, there's gonna be some crazy stuff that happens now in this country that people aren't prepared for.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, you can only punch someone's, you know, in the face so many times before they're gonna wind up and and clock you with a big uppercut at some point. You know? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But there's a large swath of us now immediately, my people on X. Anytime we see something more like false flag, false flag. We we just don't know. Right?
And but there's also a larger contingency that are don't live online like me, who might believe it. Where we there's there's somewhere in the middle that we need to live, and I don't know how to do that. Maybe I need to get off the Internet.
Speaker 1: I wish we all could. Right? That
Speaker 2: would be
Speaker 1: the that would be the thing because it honestly, the the answer typically is in the middle. Yeah. And the problem is as you get online and you hear these two extremes and then they get dumped into your algorithm because that's what you see. And you just, you see those two things and it's like most people really aren't there, but it but it is. It's like the the truth is usually in the middle.
Again, Iran is bad. Us attacking Iran has some benefits, but it also has some massive drawbacks too. And to think that there's none and we're just gonna end this is is very naive and I would say foolish in thinking. And and and, and I also think you can execute it the right way and have it go a certain way still with some possible and likely ramifications here at home. What I'm really curious about this whole thing is, is how we handle the back end because America tends to get into a lot more stuff on the back end after the we're great at bombing and killing people.
That part's easy. It's what happens after that. And, you know, from an overseas geopolitical perspective, that's that's where I'm really concerned and curious to see where things go. And I guess we'll I guess the proof will be in the pudding. We'll see here in time.
Speaker 0: No. You bring up a great point. That was gonna be my final question, Drew, which is the back end now, which is The United States. We know that, you know, officers and the DNI are being told focus on counterterrorism here in The United States. Like, don't worry about what's happening in Iran.
Focus. Keep singularly focused on this counterterrorism operation in The US. From your experience, like, what does that look like? Like, what are those what are, you know, what are the phone calls look like right now inside of, like, the counterterrorism offices in The United States?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that you've got threat profiles that are always there in in the different JTTFs JTTFs that are across the country, you know, which combine intel, FBI, local law enforcement, a bunch of different agencies.
Speaker 0: And that's all the different terrorism task forces. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. Joint terrorism task force. So you've always got those operating. The problem is as as a country, you know, where we go wrong so often is we're really good at focusing on one or two shiny balls at a time. And if if if a big thing such as the, like the JTTFs should never be shut down.
They should always be ongoing because again, we've got an ideology and a large, I mean, we're talking the largest group of people on the planet. Not all of them are bad, but we've got a portion of the largest group of people on the planet who who absolutely despise us. So, and obviously we've done some things to fester that hatred. So you've you've always gotta have that going. But at any rate, like these guys have always been doing this.
Now there's some extra emphasis on it. I don't think that changes a whole lot other than it's just the problem is, is you brought up, we've discussed already multiple times in this discussion here. The US government is only so capable like our like, look, our Intel who found the locations of the 49, whatever the number of leaders is that we killed and some of the key installations, great job, like really good job, bang up job on executing some of these folks and some of these targets because you had to have all that dialed in before you're you're going to do that. But back home, when people come in and you have the influx, we were we were not good at it before. And then you add the influx under the Biden administration.
Like there's fidelity on where a lot of these people are or who they are because we have systems and databases that get get thrown for a loop when someone's name spelled wrong. And guess what? An American spelling, you know, a Middle Easterner's name and doing it phonetically correct or phonetically the same every time doesn't happen. So you end up having all these things slip through the cracks and then you bring in a crap ton of people. So they're they're doing their their their everyday thing and it's maybe it's ramped up now and it should be ramped up now.
But again, you're like, you're you're you're kind of playing blind. Like you've been like, hey, here's your badge. Here's your gun. Here's your duty belt. You know, here are the contacts we're gonna give you, but now we're gonna blindfold you and just kick you out into your your area of operation.
Good luck because there's a bunch of people you don't know are here. And we're and as a result of that, we typically are as the United States government and as an intel community and even as a law enforcement community, very reactive.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, that's exactly what we're seeing too. I again, speaking with CP, you know, customs and border patrol and what's going on with some of these ICE agents that have, like, almost no experience just being thrown into trying to do arrests. Like, they have no experience doing arrests. It's like Drew, great to see you.
Thank you for your perspective on this. Keep your head on a swivel, and we should always be doing that and protecting ourselves. Watch out. Alright, Drew. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys for having me.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
PLANTING BOMBS? 💣 While Washington sells you a clean narrative about the Iran war, @TuckerCarlson is asking the questions nobody else will. Mossad agents caught planting bombs in allied nations. What is actually going on? https://t.co/5j9iz5D52Y
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Tucker Carlson released a video addressing the war with Iran, arguing he was among the few who warned Washington weeks before the conflict began and that President Trump did not heed that warning. The discussion notes Tucker’s appearance in Washington with Trump and mentions supporters like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard.
- Carlson’s framework for analyzing a major war is introduced as four questions: 1) Why did this happen? 2) What was the point of it? 3) Where does it go from here? 4) How do we respond?
- On why this war happened, the speakers assert a simple answer: this happened because Israel wanted it to happen. The conflict is characterized as Israel’s war, not primarily for U.S. national security objectives, and not about weapons of mass destruction. The argument is made that the decision to engage was driven by Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu demanding U.S. military action and pressuring the U.S. through multiple White House visits.
- The speakers contend that many generals warned against the war due to insufficient military capacity, but those warnings were reportedly ignored as officials lied about capability and duration of a potential conflict. They claim there was no credible plan for replacing Iran’s government after a potential topple, highlighting concerns about Iran’s size, diversity, and the risk of regional chaos.
- The discussion suggests a history of manipulation and misinformation, citing a 2002 exchange where Netanyahu allegedly pushed for regime change in Iran and noting Dennis Kucinich’s account that Netanyahu said the Americans had to do it. They argue this war is the culmination of a long-term strategy backed by Netanyahu.
- On what the point of the war would be for Israel, the speakers say the objective is regional hegemony. Israel seeks to determine regional outcomes with minimal constraints, aiming to decapitate Iran to allow broader actions in the Middle East, including potential expansionist goals. They argue Iran’s nuclear program was used as a pretext, though they contend Iran was not imminently close to a nuclear weapon.
- The role of regional players is examined, including the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman—and their strategic importance as energy producers and regional influencers. The speakers claim Israel and the U.S. sought to weaken or destabilize these Gulf states to reduce their capacity to counter Israel’s regional dominance and to push the U.S. out of the Middle East.
- It is asserted that Netanyahu’s strategy would involve reducing American involvement, thereby weakening U.S. credibility as a security partner in the region. The claim is that the Gulf states have been left more vulnerable, with missile threats and disrupted energy infrastructure, and that Israel’s actions are designed to force the U.S. to withdraw from the region.
- The speakers argue that Europe stands to suffer as well, notably through potential refugee inflows and disruptions to LNG supplies from Qatar; Europe’s energy security and economy could be adversely affected.
- The discussion notes alleged Israeli actions in the Gulf, including reports of Mossad activity and bombings in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, though it is presented as part of a broader narrative about destabilization and its costs.
- The potential consequences outlined include cascading chaos in Iran, refugee crises in Europe, and a weakened United States as an ally in the Middle East. The speakers predict long-term strategic losses for Europe, the Gulf states, and the U.S.
- The discussion concludes with a warning that, if Israel achieves its aims to decapitate Iran, the region could destabilize further, potentially triggering broader geopolitical shifts. A final reference is made to Naftali Bennett portraying Turkey as the new threat, illustrating ongoing great-power competition in the region.
- The overall message emphasizes truthfulness in reporting, critiques of media narratives, and the view that Western audiences have been propagandized into seeing Middle East conflicts as moral battles rather than power dynamics between competing states.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So Tucker Carlson just released his statement on the war with Iran, and he was really the only voice going to Washington DC in a few days before this war broke out, meeting with president Trump as he did, and he implored him to not carry out this war. There, of course, are supporters of Tucker's position, JD Vance, and others within the administration, Tulsi Gabbard. But it seems like the president did not heed his warning. So the way I've been waiting to see what Tucker was going to say about this. So he just released this video, and I wanna go ahead and play it and watch it with you.
Speaker 1: So whenever something big happens, particularly something really big like a war that will change world history, the first four questions you have to ask are these. One, why did this happen? Two, what was the point of it? Three, where does it go from here? And four, how do we respond?
So let's assess the war in Iran now ongoing in its second day and try to answer those four questions. First, why did this happen? Now in this case, there's a really simple answer. This happened because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel's war.
Speaker 0: 100%. This is not our war. This is Israel's wet dream. Just remember, go back to 2002. Go back to 2002.
Dennis Kucinich in congress. Netanyahu's sitting across from him, and Kucinich asks him as he's trying to sell us the Iraq war, Netanyahu was. Any other things we need to pay attention to that you want us to pay attention to? And he tells him explicitly about Iran. Iran is next.
So, yeah, do Iraq first. We want Iraq. But then next, please do Iran. That's the next piece.
Speaker 1: This is not The United States' war. This war is not being waged on behalf of American national security objectives to make The United States safer or richer. This war is not actually even about weapons of mass destruction, nukes, chem bio. Now this war is waged purely because Israel wanted it to be waged. Now why say that out loud this early in the conflict?
Isn't that dispiriting for, say, American troops fighting this war? Yes. It is. And we thought a lot about whether it was wise or decent even to say something like that out loud and have decided that it is for the following reason. First, because the truth is always the only basis for wise decision making.
When you lie to yourself or you lie to your people, you not only commit, well, a kind of moral crime by lying, but you also tend to hurt yourself. Hubris is the product of lies, for example. You can get way over your skis if you're not honest with yourself and the people around you about what's happening and why.
Speaker 0: By the way, I should point out that there were a number of generals who spoke out and said, we're not equipped for this. We don't have the military capacity to carry out this war. We don't have enough missiles. These people, of course, were fired recently. They were being honest.
They were being truthful, but it didn't matter in the end because that that truth is not the truth they wanted to hear. So when Pete Hagsef gets up there at the podium and lies right to the American people that you, you know, this is not gonna be protracted war. How do you how do you know, actually? This is not gonna be a protracted war. And you're not listening to the people that you hired to tell you the truth, so then you're telling the president of The United States untruths.
You're telling him what you think he wants to hear instead of the truth. Colonel MacGregor on our show made that point. So these people are lying, and the president then is not getting accurate information because he's being lied to about our capacity to carry out this war. That's the truth.
Speaker 1: It's happening. But long term, that is also true. In other words, it's important to say why this war is happening because fifty years from now, people may not know. Your grandkids may learn that this war started because the Ayatollah showed up in Miami and started machine gunning people in a shopping mall, and so we responded. There was a kind of Iranian Pearl Harbor.
You don't know what the future will believe about the present. You don't know how history will be written. And if you're skeptical of that, if you're asking yourself, well, how could historians, popular historians, how could future culture so misunderstand something so big? How could people lie about something so obvious, so giant? Well, history is your guide.
A lot of the big events we think we understand, including wars from the past and not so distant past, are completely distorted in our memories. In other words, that's not actually what happened at all.
Speaker 0: Right. Like Pearl Harbor. We got into World War two because of Pearl Harbor. They teach us that in school. Never mind the fact that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen on purpose.
He knew it was coming and allowed it to happen, allowed American sailors to be killed as a false flag for us to enter World War two. Like that?
Speaker 1: And the truth is if enough people lie about something at a high enough volume and they do it for long enough, loudly enough, while threatening anyone who refuses to lie about it, over time, their lies become conventional wisdom. Everyone believes them. There was something about repeating a lie over and over and over again That's almost like a spell or an incantation. It's almost a form of witchcraft. It assumes reality or a version of reality, an ersatz reality, a fake reality, but reality nevertheless.
And if you're interested at all in history, going back thousands of years or even more recently, you know that the understandings of certain events that you grew up hearing about probably totally inverted. The opposite is true, but you didn't know that until you dug a little deeper, in some cases, a lot deeper to find out because they have been distorted in the retelling.
Speaker 0: For instance, sixty minutes yesterday published a tweet that went viral. And in that tweet and in their interview, they say that Iran had nuclear weapons, has nuclear weapons. Sixty minutes published that BS. Mean, these are the same kinds of things that, like, people like Mark Levin and whatever push the lie over and over and over against the American people just assume that Iran has nuclear weapons, and they don't, and nor do they want them. Finally, after, like, twelve hours of that tweet being up there, finally, sixty minutes deleted the tweet.
Only after millions of people saw it. How many people how many people who read that tweet didn't know the truth to Tucker's point?
Speaker 1: And because they have been, because a lot of our most basic assumptions are based on untruths, we wind up getting into the same messes again and again. So it's just important to tell the truth about this now in the early stages. This is, by the way, widely known. This is not a conspiracy theory. Everyone's saying it out loud now because it's true.
The United States committed troops to this conflict because the prime minister of Israel, not Israel's nation, but the guy who runs it, Benjamin Netanyahu, BB, demanded it. Seven trips to the White House over the last year. And the point of those trips never varied. The United States needs to commit to regime change in Iran. We need the US military to overthrow the government of Iran.
And Bibi himself has basically said that, that it wasn't that we thought Iran was gonna get nukes this week, and that's why we did this. Nobody's even saying that now. They will be in the future when our memories get all dimmer and they can manipulate us more. But right now, they're bidding. No.
Actually, they were not on the verge of getting nukes. BB himself said, you can pull up the video. I've been dreaming about this for forty years. We've finally done it.
Speaker 0: And it's worth pointing out congressman Dennis Kucinich who literally face to face with Netanyahu in 2002 and asked him that question. He he he admitted later he went to the hallway after that hearing and spoke to Netanyahu. And he said, why don't you guys carry out this regime change war? Why don't you guys do it? And Kucinich said that Netanyahu said to him, no.
No. We can't do it. It has to be the Americans. You have to do it. You you have to do it.
Speaker 1: So this is the culmination of a long time plan of strategy. And, actually, if you look at it backwards and try to assess recent events even in this country, the American political life over the past several years, certainly over the past six or eight months, you can see that a lot of what was happening here was preparation for where we are right now. In other words, people who wanted war in Iran were softening up the public for it, were manipulating the US government in order to affect it, and were doing their very best to silence anyone who doubted its wisdom. A lot of the things we have seen in the recent past are and now it's very obvious, they were all designed to get us to where we are now, war with Iran on behalf of Israel. Now just a caveat at the outset, just because the prime minister of Israel wanted a regime change war with Iran does not mean in any sense that it was a wise idea for Israel.
Certainly wasn't a good idea for The United States. That's no one just really disputes that. But was it a good idea for the country or for the prime minister who advocated for it? No. Probably not.
Actually, just because we want something doesn't mean it's good for us. Sometimes when we get what we want most, we're destroyed by it. Hope that doesn't happen to Israel, of course, or anybody, but it could. So when you get to the truth of things and you see who's pushing for them, that doesn't mean that person understands his own best interest or his country's own best interest. Often they don't.
Often we don't. But it doesn't change the fact that we got here because Israel lobbied for it. And virtually everyone in the US government, certainly in the Pentagon, understood the risks. The risks were obvious from day one. First, if you knock off a government, we have a long history of doing that.
It's not that hard. The, you know, individual bravery of The US military personnel, the soldiers who do it is laudable, impressive, amazing sometimes, but that is we have learned the easy part. Killing Saddam? Okay. Amazing.
What comes next? Etcetera, etcetera. This is all very, very well known, and it was very well known forty eight hours ago that there was no real plan to replace the government we were hoping to topple. At which point, what? Now you have a country, Iran, the size of Western Europe.
Speaker 0: Is it no plan?
Speaker 1: 2,000,000 people, a country that's, you know, only a little over half Persian that has its own internal divisions and dynamics and rivalries. You have that country potentially breaking apart. And what does that mean? Well, I mean, hard to see that as a good thing for the rest of the world on so many levels, which we pray don't become more obvious, but they're even now becoming obvious. That could be a true, true disaster.
So why would we want that? Well, of course, we wouldn't want that. The only country that seems to want that or the only leader, to be fair, once again, not speaking for every Israeli anymore than Joe Biden or Donald Trump or anybody else who runs this country speaks for every American, of course, but Benjamin Netanyahu wanted that. He thought that was his mission, but more than his mission, maybe his destiny. He suggested that in his remarks today.
And that's why. But nobody in the US government who I ever talked to or heard quoted on TV seemed to believe that this was primarily in America's interest. There might be ancillary benefits. I mean, you hear these analyses of how, you know, the world is changing, and it went from being unipolar to multipolar. All true.
The United States ran the world uncontested from the 1991 until, I don't know, pick a date, pretty recently, the rise of China. And all of a sudden, you have multipoles. You have more than one great power vying for control of the world and its trade routes and its resources, etcetera, etcetera. And that somehow knocking off the government of Iran would be good for us in that complex just game, and that's a real argument, I guess. These things are kind of hard to understand.
And any wise person looks at the world and says, okay. There's no stopping the rise of China. Their manufacturing capacity, their economic power is really the world's largest real economy, is not gonna end tomorrow, so there has to be a way to strike a kind of power sharing agreement with China, with the East. The United States doesn't rule the world uncontested, and for the foreseeable future is probably not going to. So how do we live in some semblance of peace and preserve our own interests?
And, again, you enter into some informal power sharing agreement with the other great power or powers. Probably can't stop that process. It's probably too late to stop China from controlling the East at this point. Killing the Ayatollah is probably not gonna do it, so there's probably a better way to do this. But, anyway, there are there are people who disagree and, you know, if we do this, it'll be better for us long term, and at least you have to give them credit for trying to think of a way in which this might benefit The United States.
But most people who assess this knew nothing whatsoever to do with us. This is Israel's war. That's what it is. It's not an attack. It's not an attack on Israel, by the way.
It's hardly antisemitism or Jew hatred. It's just it's a fact. Head of state came to our country. The head of state of 9,000,000 people came to a country of 350,000,000 people and demanded that we help them or in effect do it ourselves topple the regime in Tehran. Now how do they get the leverage to do this?
That's a complicated question, and it's something really worth thinking about. But how did this tiny country with no resources and 9,000,000 people convince the world's great superpower with the greatest military in history to do its bidding in a way that was gonna hurt it? Well, again, many layers to that question, but the most obvious and immediate answer is because Beebe told the president of The United States, you can join me or not, but I'm going. And the secretary of state Marco Rubio said this in a call to congressional leaders yesterday. He said Israel said they were going.
And at that point, you really only have two choices. You can get on board and try and help or contain Israel's war. That's part of the calculation here. Israel's going. Let's try and keep this within bounds.
Let's try to be a moderating force on this adventure, whatever it turns out to be, or you can tell Israel no, and they'll just do it. And if they did it, that would not protect us because there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in The Middle East, both in uniform and out, civilians and military personnel, and they're also the world's most important oil projects, oil, energy infrastructure, oil and gas, which has more than any other factor determining effect on the global economy. So everybody needs their oil and gas, period. You can't change that. Sorry.
And so if that infrastructure is damaged or destroyed, it affects all of us, all of us, everybody, but us. So, you can't just let Israel go and do this. Now, of course, there's a third potential theoretical option, which you you say to Israel, which is a client state, which we pay for, whose creation we made possible. You say, no. We're not doing that.
I get it. You don't like Yahitola. You don't like Iran, but this is bad for us, and we're not gonna let you do this. And if you do it, we're gonna, I don't know what, cut off aid something. We can apply the pressure that is inherently ours to apply since we're paying for all of this.
But that was not even on the table. That's never been on the table. No one has ever in the last sixty three years considered doing that. Really, the last president to do that was John f Kennedy in 1962 when he got in a, not as famous as it should be, dispute with the founding prime minister of Israel, then the prime minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, over Israel's nuclear program at Dimona. And then president Kennedy said, no.
I don't believe in nuclear proliferation. This is one of the pillars of my administration, and you can't keep testing, and I'm demanding inspections. And, of course, he was not able, to make good on those promises because he was killed in November 1963, and the person who took his place, his vice president, Lyndon Johnson, gave a green light to the Israeli nuclear program. So that was the last time an American president said no, a hard no to Israel, tried to restrain its core ambitions. Not
Speaker 0: And did you point out that Apollo, Pennsylvania, Israel stole all sorts of nuclear material and secrets from Apollo, Pennsylvania and stole it and took it to Israel, and no one did anything about it. People of Apollo, Pennsylvania are still very aware of how the Israelis stole our nuclear power, nuclear materials and secrets, by the way.
Speaker 1: Like, be nice to the Palestinians in the West Bank, but no. You can't have nukes or no. You can't, I don't know, bomb Lebanon or whatever. That was the last time. So that's not, for some reason, even on the table.
So the the choice was, do you go along with what Israel's doing, try to constrain it, or do you just sit back and then inevitably get drawn into it? So the truth is, and this is hard to say, as a proud American and as someone who wants The United States to remain powerful in the world, a force for decency and order in the world, but above all wants America to remain prosperous and peaceful at home in the country that we actually live in. It's hard to say this, but The United States didn't make the decision here. Benjamin Netanyahu did. And, again, it's important to say that not to discourage anybody or make anybody feel despondent or hopeless.
There's no reason for hopelessness at this point. But in order that it doesn't happen again, Tell the truth so people can learn, hopefully improve and grow, but tell the truth no matter what. So then the question becomes, we know why it started started because Israel wanted it and demanded the US military in order to do it. Why would Israel want this? We've already established that this may or may not be a good idea for Israel, but why would they want it?
What was their thinking here? If it was really about the threat of Iran building and deploying a nuclear weapon or a nuclear tipped ICBM aimed at Miami and New York as Mark Levin told his poor listeners the other day. None of that's true.
Speaker 0: None of it's true, of course.
Speaker 1: But if it was really about that, how could this threat have lasted for forty years? How could as Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday, how could Iran's nuclear program been on the very verge, the cusp of building and deploying a nuclear weapon for forty years. Well, of course, it wasn't. What we can argue about Iran's aims with nuclear weapons, they probably wanted one. Who wouldn't want one?
Look at what happens to countries that don't have one. Everyone wants a nuclear weapon. But were they actually about to get one?
Speaker 0: No. And by the way, this is probably the catalyst now. Right? We spoke to colonel Daniel Davis who said, you know, for those countries who were sort of sitting on the sidelines deciding whether or not they actually wanted to get a nuclear weapon or not, this pushes them in that direction because look what happens to countries that don't have a nuclear weapon. They get bombed.
So how many more countries will now say, you know what? We're gonna prioritize getting nukes to protect ourselves against the imperialists.
Speaker 1: So what was the point? What is the point of this from Israel's perspective? Well, the point is regional hegemony. Super simple. Israel has been around for almost eighty years.
Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel's got a pretty robust tech economy. But above all, Israel has big ambitions. And by the way, it's not an attack on Israel. Which growing country doesn't have greater ambitions and which megalomaniac leader of said country, and there are many of those around the world, by the way, wouldn't want regional hegemony.
Regional hegemony means you get to control your region, kind of a Middle Eastern Monroe doctrine. Israel wants to be able to determine, roughly speaking, what happens in its region, and it doesn't want constraints on its own behavior. In the same way, again, trying to be as generous and universally minded as possible here in this analysis because it's true. Who wouldn't want that? Do we want that?
Of course, do. We're not you know, we put up with a lot for Mexico and Canada, but if they all of a sudden started constraining our actual ambitions, we do something about it. I think, or the old America would have, a normal country would. And Israel wants to control the Middle East, and they are the only announced nuclear power in the Middle East. Are they the only actual nuclear power in the Middle East?
You could debate that. People can guess, but they're the only country we know for certain has a big nuclear arsenal. So they want to be unrivaled in their power in their region. Again, this is not a conspiracy theory or something weird to want. It's what every country wants, and they want it.
And Bibi wants it, and he sees himself as a figure out of history, not simply as a prime minister who's, you know, fighting to keep his job, which he also is, but as as a great man, as a modern Moses or whatever, as a as a figure. And men like that, men of destiny, change the calculation for their nation forever. They don't take small steps. They take big steps. They think big.
He thinks big to his credit or detriment, but it's a fact. And so this war is an effort, not not simply in in addition to everything else. No. No. It is exclusively an effort on the part of Israel to achieve regional hegemony, total control.
So what does that mean exactly? Well, it means you have to sweep away your enemies. And in the case of Iran, Iran was an enemy of Israel, by the way. And Iran was also funding insurgencies and militant groups in the region to kind of picket Israel and hassle Israel, kill Israelis. That's all true.
Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran funded, absolutely. Houthis are unfunded, absolutely. Iran was doing that. That's true. And Israel didn't like it.
Why would they? But it's also true that, and this does make excuses for anybody, but these are all dynamics. You know, one country does one thing, another country does another thing. I mean, like a marriage. No party's wholly responsible for what went wrong or what went well.
This is a relationship, and people act against each other with each other, but always on each other. Each action provokes a reaction. And so this history goes back a long way, and historians can untangle it, the few honest ones left. But if you want to control the Middle East and your Israel, you have to decapitate Iran. You don't have to rebuild it.
Probably don't even want to. It's too big. It has too much mineral wealth, has too much energy. That huge gas field they share with Qatar, etcetera, etcetera. You probably just wanna decapitate it and make it helpless.
You wanna turn it into a hellscape because it's better for you because you can dominate a hellscape. Now that may cause massive downstream problems for everybody else. You could have like a refugee crisis in Europe. Well, oh, that already happened when Israel destabilized Syria. You could have this open bleeding wound.
Oh, that already happened when Israel destabilized Lebanon, when Israel pushed The United States to kill Qaddafi in Libya. This is an ongoing thing. And Iraq? Biggest Yeah. On and final.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So getting rid of the Iranian government had one purpose, to give Israel the ability to do exactly what it wants in The Middle East without getting hassled. And what it wants among other things is territorial expansion. Small country. They want parts of Libya rather. Excuse me.
They want parts of Syria, parts of Lebanon. They're an expansionist power like most powers, actually. Let's demystify this. It's not about the Jews. It's about a nation state that is growing and trying to exert its power.
It's that simple. You can take all the spooky stuff out and just see it in terms of conventional geopolitics, and it makes total sense. And part of the reason we can't see this clearly is because we've been so propagandized in The United States to see every contest between nations as a moral contest in which we somehow have to pick a side and somebody's Churchill and somebody's Neville Chamberlain and somebody's Hitler and this absurd template which narrows our vision and prevents us from seeing that this is just what's always happened, which is a contest between powers for primacy.
Speaker 0: Right. So if it's just focused on the Jews and antisemitism, forgetting the fact that Israel really has very little resources in the ways of exports around the world, They have spy software that they sell. Right? But they don't have massive troves of oil and gas, natural gas, but who did? Well, the Palestinians did right off their coast.
So trillions of dollars worth of natural gas. Right? So they should that's why they have to kill so many Palestinians in order to get that natural gas. And Iran is, of course, sitting on massive, massive oil fields. Right?
So to exert yourself in that way to expand your power, your hemisphere, your sphere of influence, and to take over those resources. Right? Otherwise, Israel really can't sustain itself without all of this aid from The United States and other countries. That's at the heart of it.
Speaker 1: But there's another actually, two other components, two other speed bumps on the way to regional dominance for Israel. The first is something called the GCC. GCC is a an informal alliance, maybe a little more formal as of today, but, it's the six Gulf monarchies. It's the energy producing Gulf States, and those would be Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi. And these are some of the biggest, most important energy producers in the world.
They're all Sunni Arab states. They are all rich, and all of a sudden, they are all now internationally or some of them are internationally influential because they are the site of global diplomacy. They are filling the void left by Switzerland, which not to get too boring about it, but basically took sides in the Russia Ukraine conflict and is therefore kind of not really a place where people can negotiate in good faith. They are in a fact, controlled, by the EU and NATO. They would never admit that to Swiss, but they are.
They give up their banking secrecy. They're basically not not aligned anymore. But some of these Gulf states are as close to not aligned as you can possibly get. Certainly, Qatar is. And all of a sudden, every conflict around the world is being negotiated in Qatar or most recently in Oman.
And so they have a kind of moral authority on the global stage. Right? They have very effective diplomacy. People like them. People also go there on vacation.
They have the best airlines in the world. They are the obvious regional travel travel hub for the globe. They're literally where East meets West. So if you're flying from New York to Delhi, you're gonna stop in Dubai. And they have government subsidized airlines that are absolutely fantastic, so people have a familiarity, a firsthand familiarity with these countries, which were mysteries to most Westerners twenty five years ago when nine eleven happened.
It was the first time I went to The Gulf. Most Americans has never been there unless you were in the oil business or something. You've never been there, and you could imagine that it was all belly dancers and camels and slavery or whatever you thought. But all of a sudden, you know, like, every other rich person in America has been to Dubai because they're all traveling somewhere. They're going in safari in Africa.
So people it's been demystified to the West, and people like it. These are societies with problems, of course, but they're also orderly and clean and elaborately polite and welcoming to outsiders and rich and kind of a little less gaudy than you would expect. Actually, some of the most functional societies in the world, and people like them despite a lot of propaganda. And by the way, despite some complications, there are plenty of things about the Gulf States that Westerners won't like and or some things anyway and certainly parts of their foreign policy that make you wonder. But these are not North Korea.
They're the opposite. These are actually very civilized countries. And they're not all on board with Israel's programs because they've got populations that disagree with how Israel has treated the Palestinians. In the case of Saudi Arabia, they have Mecca and Medina, the two holiest places in Islam. Every Muslim who can is required to go to Saudi Arabia on the Hajj on to go visit Mecca.
So these are countries with inherent power in the Islamic world, growing power globally, and resources. And so they can't be ignored. And if they were ever to get together, if these six countries were ever to form, say, like, a real military alliance, they would be a massive threat to Israel. So Israel has spent decades fomenting dissent between them, of course. And that's not necessarily just an attack on Israel.
I mean, as anyone can tell you, we spend time in the Middle East. The Arabs, many great qualities, but love to fight with each other. It's like their favorite hobby. More than camel racing. Like, they it's very easy to get Arab nations bickering and fighting, and the distrust goes back a long time and it's impenetrable to the outsider.
But if you were trying to divide six countries from each other, it's not that hard, and the Israelis have worked really, really hard to do that. But the truth is if you really want control of the Middle East, you kinda have to degrade, if not destroy the Gulf States. And so the Israelis knew and the Americans knew as well, maybe not quite quite as realistic an assessment, but they had some sense. The Israelis definitely knew that if you start lobbying missiles into Iran and if you start killing the leadership of Iran and if you were to say kill the head of state slash religious leader of one branch of Islam, the Ayatollah, if you were to do that, it would provoke a military response that would hurt The Gulf badly and that it would in some countries like Bahrain, site of the fifth fleet, you could potentially stoke, like, a true revolution because that country is almost, I think, half Shiite. So you could cause massive chaos in The Gulf if you were to do this.
Now that wasn't a risk from the Israeli standpoint. That was the point. That was the point. They wanted to diminish the Gulf, and in two days, they have. And I think anyone who likes decency and order and cleanliness is hoping that the Gulf will recover.
The Gulf is not a threat to us. We have military bases in these countries. These are some of our closest allies. All of them are closer allies than Israel by far. They're our friends, but they've been really hurt.
And in a place like Dubai, which is basically part of a country, it's an emirate within The United Arab Emirates, but it's also a luxury brand, basically. People go to Dubai because it's beautiful and rich and clean and above all because it's safe and orderly. It's got the busiest airport in the world. You start seeing video on Instagram of smoke in the Dubai Airport, you're like, I think I'm going to Cabo this year. Oh, sorry.
Drug cartels. Whatever. Maybe you go to Sedona this year. It really, really hurts these countries, and Israel wanted to hurt these countries. That's the point.
Wanted to hurt these countries. Wanted to sow chaos and disorder because they are rivals of Israel. So it's probably not hasn't been reported, but it's a fact that last night in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, authorities arrested Mossad agents planning on committing bombings in those countries. Now that's weird. Wait.
Speaker 0: And I missed that. I didn't miss, however, that the Saudi Arabian oil field that was attacked today, Iran says, yeah. We bombed all these other spots, American bases and so forth. We did not hit. We did not bomb the Saudi Arabian oil fields.
That wasn't us. That was Israel that carried that out. Oh, shocking.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. Why would the Israelis be committing bombings in two Gulf countries, which are also being attacked by Iran? Aren't they on the same side? No. No.
Israel wants to hurt Iran and Qatar and UAE and Saudi and Bahrain and Oman and Kuwait, and they've succeeded. And the third thing you would have to do if you wanted true control over the region, which as we've established, Israel wants and shouldn't be attacked for wanting. It's a natural thing to want. But the final thing you'd have to do is get The US out of the Middle East. Since 1948, The United States, from Harry Truman till present, US presidents, and as noted with diminishing success, but have tried to constrain or shape Israel's policies, its foreign policy.
And we have a right to do that because we're the most powerful country in the world and have been since 1945, and also because we we pay for it. You know, Israel couldn't exist without us right now, and we give them the defense umbrella. We defend them in their wars. And so why would you want The United States out? Well, because The United States, while not doing a very good job of constraining Israel, has been issuing requests in any case to Israel for a long time, and that's very annoying.
Imagine if we were getting the same kind of communiques from, I don't know, Ottawa, and they were like, you can't do this. You can't do that. We'd say buzz off at a certain point. Back off Canada. We're doing what we want.
We're a great power. So you have to get The United States out, and this war is designed to do it. Because the Israelis who are very well aware of domestic American politics know that there is no appetite whatsoever for casualties among the American public, that this war did not have anything approaching majority support. In fact, it had small minority support, and that's shrunk even in thirty six hours, and that this would cause a political crisis in The United States, and that it would most critically convince our Arab allies in the region, meaning really the Gulf States and Jordan. Poor Jordan.
Wonderful country. It would convince them that The United States is a bad ally. Why? Because the second you hit Iran, and the Persians are not stupid at all, you know that they're gonna hit American bases in those countries, which they have, except Oman. But in the other six, they have, And, you know, those countries are not gonna be defended by The United States, and they haven't been very well.
Some of these countries are on fire right now, and they feel completely vulnerable, And they are low and not letting loose with any operational secret that you can't find on the Internet. They're running low on missile defense. And so a country like Saudi or UAE or Qatar, Bahrain or Kuwait, I mean, they're all right on the Gulf directly across from Iran. They live on their energy production, and that's being damaged, and no one's protecting them. A Saudi Aramco facility went up last night.
Saudi Aramco being the, you know, longtime joint US Saudi energy production company, biggest oil company in the world, and part of it's on fire today.
Speaker 0: That Israel
Speaker 1: is said they didn't do it. Why would they say they didn't do it? What possible Israel did it? Why wouldn't they?
Speaker 0: They said Israel did it.
Speaker 1: Because if you think about it, scaring our other allies in the region, letting them know that they can get attacked and The US will not defend you. You put up with all this crap for decades because you got American troops on your soil and your population doesn't like it, but you do it anyway because you've been told if there was ever a problem, The US will come rescue you. Well, guess what we just learned? The US is not coming to rescue you. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans, civilians caught in The Middle East.
You can't get out. And the governments of those countries are panicked and they're enraged, and the message to them is The US is not a reliable partner. What's the point of this partnership? What's the point of allowing you to have an air base in my country if when missiles come raining down or drones attack our airport or international airport? You're not gonna do anything about it.
That's how they feel, and you can understand why they do. So what's the message to them? There's no upside in dealing with The United States. There's no upside in foreign investment in The United States. You go to any of these countries.
You just go to the airport. Go to a restaurant. Who do you run to? American businessmen. And some of them have good ideas.
Some of them have ideas that are so stupid that they couldn't sell them in Silicon Valley. They couldn't go to VCs in The United States and raise the money, so they go to The Gulf. And it's not that the Gulf Arabs are dumb. In some sense, they're doing this because they see The United States as their only real ally. And so they're investing in American business ventures, a lot.
Hundreds of billions of dollars. And part of that is economic calculation. They think these companies are gonna grow, and they're gonna make money. Part of it is friendship. You're an ally and have been all these years since the British left.
What do they think now? Wow. They don't feel that way quite as much. Because for them, this is very serious. I mean, these countries don't grow their own food.
So if you close the airport and the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea are closed in effect, where do you get your food? Yeah. That's a real issue. These are countries that are supplied by, in some cases, desalination plants, pulling seawater through a membrane and then piping it to the urban centers. What happens if those pipes get blown up?
You have no water. There's millions and millions of people. So you can see without getting too into it just how vulnerable these countries, our strongest allies in the region now feel and how their calculation about The United States and the region has changed dramatically. The British lost their influence in the Middle East in 1956 in what is known as the Suez Crisis. It was a crisis that was so complex, it's hard even to understand it now seventy years later.
But the net effect was The UK was not able to restore order in the region. They had less power than people thought they did, and that was it. That was the true end of Britain's empire and certainly the end of its control over the Middle East. That's what this is, and it's on purpose. They did this.
The Israelis want us out, and they did this on purpose. And then as a last sort of footnote, there's another big loser in this war, in Israel's war, And this was obvious years ago, and that's Europe. Europe.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because Europe is about to be inundated with refugees if this continues.
Speaker 1: Who cares about Europe? Well, the neocons care about Europe for reasons that are not entirely clear. But you often hear the neocons, the war hawks, chills for Israel, whatever you call them, but people who supported what we're seeing now. And they're mad at the Shiites and the Ayatollah and the Arabs and, you know, of course, got it. But if you listen carefully, there is a deep hostility, hatred, in fact, toward Western Europe.
Now where does that come from? Someone should think deeply about this because it's had a big effect over the past eighty years. Doesn't even matter where it comes from. They hate Western Europe. And maybe the biggest loser of all right now is Western Europe.
So last night, Qatar shut down its LNG exports. LNG is liquefied natural gas. Without getting boring about it, LNG is essential to the global economy. It's essential to Asia, South Korea, subsists on Qatari LNG exports. China is a huge consumer of them and Western Europe.
Britain, 40% of homes in Britain are powered by Qatari LNG.
Speaker 0: I didn't know that. Wow.
Speaker 1: Lots of reasons for this. We blew up the downstream pipeline as one of them. Yeah. It doesn't matter. That's the truth.
So when you shut off natural gas from Qatar, and it's now shut down. It's 20% of the world's total supply is shut down. Well, you all kinds of effects on that. It crushes markets. It hikes inflation.
It can wreak havoc on the global economy. Say a prayer that it doesn't, but it could. But the first thing that it does is totally shafts Europe. And then here's the second order effect, refugee crises. Let's say that this operation achieves its only real stated aim, is to decapitate the government of Iran.
Doesn't seem to have happened yet. I mean, who knows what's actually going on? But the Ayatollah was killed. Government's still sending missiles, so someone's making decisions. But let's say over the course of however long this takes, chaos becomes the state of play in Iran.
The thing just falls apart. It's chaos. It's a huge chaotic country with no one in charge and lots of different ethnic groups and religious splinter groups fighting with each other heavily armed. And the normal things start to break down like food distribution and water, schools. What do you have?
Well, you have what we've had in Lebanon and Syria. Every country that Israel has destabilized on purpose, you have a refugee crisis. And where do they go? Well, of course, a lot will come here, of course, but a lot will go to Europe just as Syrians flooded into Europe ten or twelve years ago in the aftermath of that conflict, which was underneath it all fomented by Israel in order to destabilize its neighbor in order to increase its own authority in the region. That's a fact.
So if you think Europe's in bad shape now, oh, boy. Give it a year. So it's Europe, The United States, and The Gulf States. Those are the losers. And if you're trying to ascertain motive, which is hard and you probably should pull back from that most of the time, but if you're trying to understand, like, why this is happening, why would you want that?
Look at the effects. Don't look at the ideology they're telling you about or the whatever motive they're claiming they have or that you have. Shut up, K. Look at the effects. The point of the system is what it does.
And what does this system, what does this war do? Hurts the Gulf States, crushes the Western Europeans, and it hurts The United States. That's the point. And if you doubt that, if you doubt that that's actually what's going on, this is a long time Israeli politician leader, Naftali Bennett, explaining Israel's next step. Here's where they're going next.
Watch. A new Turkish threat is emerging. I want to be very clear. Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria. They're seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the region.
And from here, I warn, Turkey is the new Iran.
Speaker 0: Oh yeah. A smattering of opponents.
Speaker 1: Iran is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel. We can't close our eyes again. He's sophisticated and dangerous. It's hardly an endorsement of Erdogan or Erdogan, the Turkish leader, hardly an endorsement of him to say, when Bennett says he's dangerous, what he really means is he's sovereign. We can't tell him what to do.
We don't fully control him. We can influence him, and it's clear that
Speaker 0: Oh, exactly. Just like Libya. You mean Libya is energy independent, sovereign, want to give back the wealth of its oil and and resources to people and enrich its people? We can't have that. We can't have a sovereign country in the Middle East that's self sufficient, so we have to sodomize with a bayonet their leader, Gaddafi.
It's the exact same thing with Turkey.
Speaker 1: Israel and Turkey did have some kind of relationship, in the overthrow of Bashar al Assad in Syria last year, just a guess. But the real problem with Turkey is that it can't be controlled, so it is therefore a threat to Israel. And, again, not attacking Israel. That's true. That is true.
In the same sense that when we have hostile leaders in big countries in our hemisphere, it really bothers us, and sometimes we kill them, regime change them, and we make up this whole no. It's really important. The people of country x need to be free, but really we need to be unconstrained because we're a great power. That's what it is. It's important to say this, not to allege some sort of dark conspiracy by the Israelis, but to explain that it's not unusual at all.
It's the most usual thing in the world. What's unusual is to live in a country that is so controlled, whose media environment is so precisely constructed to keep you from knowing anything that matters, from seeing the most obvious things, and that it has been constructed, not a conspiracy theory, over the course of many, many years to keep you from not knowing. Barry Weiss may run CNN. Whoever thought that would happen? Okay.
Now but the, you know, the the point of these moves is to in the media, is to control the way things are described so you can't see things clearly and to muddy the conversation with anti Semitism, the Nazis. No. No. This is classic great power competition, and we just can't see it because we have been so thoroughly propagandized, we think that this is some sort of, like, effort to liberate somebody. It's not.
But then the question becomes, like, what is our role in this? So now that we know by the way, it's it's perilous that we know. And one of the reasons I almost didn't do this, not that I'm, like, saying anything that isn't obvious, it's all very obvious, but to say it out loud does not make things more stable. In other words, once you have a war going on and everybody knows that it's not being waged on behalf of the people who are dying in it or the families they leave behind, then, you know, things can things don't get more stable. So and no one wants to add to the present instability, but I just think it's important to know the truth and to know what our leaders have planned because, as you already know, they lie, and they have no scruples at all.
And there are very few people in Washington who have fewer scruples than senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas. I hate to say that. I know him well. But this clip from the yester from a Sunday show, which apparently still exists yesterday, really tells you a lot about how they're thinking and about where they'd like to take us next. So this is senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas yesterday.
Speaker 2: Good morning, Margaret.
Speaker 3: The president of The United States warned the American public that there could be casualties, American casualties. Does that mean The US is putting boots on the ground?
Speaker 2: No, Margaret. The president has been clear that what we should expect to see is an extended air and naval campaign that's designed not only to continue to set
Speaker 0: By the way, doesn't he look like a Pez dispenser?
Speaker 2: Back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but most importantly, to destroy its vast missile arsenal. Many more missiles in The United States and Israel have air defenses combined as well as the missile launchers and its missile manufacturing capability. Now obviously one risk of that kind of campaign is that an aircraft could be shot down and the president would never leave a pilot behind. So no doubt we have combat search and rescue assets in the region that are prepared to go in and extract any downed pilot. But barring that kind of unusual circumstance, Margaret, the president has no plan for any kind of large scale ground, force inside of Iran.
Speaker 0: But then we just heard from the president today say that he's not ruling out ground forces. Okay.
Speaker 1: The president has no plan for any sort of large scale, ground force large scale ground force, in Iran. Oh, really? So a small scale ground force. Is that what you're saying? Well, that is what he's saying.
And the secretary of war was just interviewed moments ago, and pressed on this a little bit, and he said it's it's possible because, of course, it's possible. By the way, shouldn't even attack people for telling the truth ever. You should attack people who try to prevent you from telling the truth, and and what secretary of war Pete Hegseth just said is, of course, obviously true and was always true. There's not one person who understands a situation like this,
Speaker 2: kinetic war,
Speaker 1: who thinks you can affect regime change from the air. That's no one's ever thought that. No one thinks that now. If you're sincere about changing the leadership of a country, it, by definition, requires you to get in there. Not well, of course, not you, but some young guy, some younger man, who's fighting for freedom to get in there and risk his life to do it.
You need troops, ground troops, boots on the ground, or whatever dumb euphemism they're using for putting young Americans, in the path of potential death. And so, of course, that's always been the plan, and shame on the rest of us for not just saying that out loud. Shame on the rest of us for being so cowed by their relentless incantations, whatever they are. No ground troops. This is not point is not regime change.
It's to stop their nuclear program. Some of us understood. Charlie Kirk understood back in June. That was a lie. The point wasn't Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.
Yeah. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Why does Israel have a nuclear weapon? Why does France have a nuclear weapon? Nobody wants nuclear weapons.
Okay? Nobody thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon outside of Iran, but no honest person believed in June. And now those people have been vindicated that this was about stopping and forgetting a nuclear. But it's regime change, and regime change requires ground troops. And, therefore, if you're serious about it, you're gonna get ground troops.
The only group left out of this calculation was the American public who probably had no idea and probably still don't have any idea that that would even be a remote consideration given everything that's going on in this country right now and given the tiny percentage, relatively speaking, of Americans who wanted this, who voted for it, who support it. The leaders of both parties support it. Chuck Schuber supports it more fervently than Trump. MSNBC just did a long segment on this, which I've watched about this war and the fault of the Gulf States. I mean, it's the Gulf States.
Yeah. It's they're all on the same page. They're all neocons. When it comes right down to it, they all support this. But the public doesn't support it, and it's terrible for The United States.
And by the way, if you think it's a good idea for The US to get out of the Middle East, which it might be, by the way, that's not a crazy desire. I do. This is not the way to do it. Humiliated with American dead. That's not the way to get out of the Middle East, but that's how Israel wants us out of The Middle East.
You won't come back. They can pivot to their new partner, China, and Israel can provide the tech that will even up the match against the Chinese tech that Pakistan used in their last confrontation scared China. They realized we need better tech. China's like, oh, yeah. We've got the better tech.
So it's it's a natural alliance, and there are other reasons it's a natural alliance. But Israel's moving on to India, and The United States is, if Israel gets its way, going to be humiliated and weaker, mourning its dead, and very resistant to getting involved in Middle East politics ever again. You wanna annihilate every last child in Gaza? Go ahead. You wanna kick the Palestinians, the Christians out of the West Bank and fill up full people from Brooklyn, go ahead.
We're not gonna do anything about it. That's the goal right there.
Speaker 0: Just to wrap your head around the idea that not only were have they never been our strongest ally, our greatest ally, but in fact, they're using us to rid the Middle East of their enemies, and they have every intention of ridding the Middle East of us at the heart of it. I mean, it's like it's like some battered girlfriend who just, like, keeps coming back for more. We'll just beat you up. We'll steal your nuclear materials from Pennsylvania. We'll, you know, we'll we'll take over your congress.
We'll we'll kill we'll kill your journalists. We'll spy on you. We'll we'll we'll take your technology and then sell it to the Chinese, which what they've done. So in no way an ally, like, in no way a friend other than in, you know, it being verbal only. And then we're gonna turn right around and kick you out of the Middle East.
We're gonna use you, which is exactly what they're doing, and then you will go home with your tail between your legs, humiliated as we take over the Middle East and the Gulf Arab states collapse and Western Europe collapses. When you hear it in those terms, it's absolutely shocking. And he goes on for another hour. I encourage you all to watch it. I'll have it linked up below.
But I think this was like a master class in understanding this this conflict and how all of these players are going to move forward with this, and The United States will be will will suffer greatly, and we will be humiliated. We'll see you soon. Thank you for subscribing.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🧨 Why is America at war with Iran? Col. @DanielleDavis1 has been asking that question since the bombs started falling. His answer is not reassuring. The genie is out of the bottle. https://t.co/Z6wX8ts8w1
Video Transcript AI Summary
- New footage from Tel Aviv is shown, including videos outside windows of what sources say they are seeing, with a claim that Fox News is not covering this damage in Tel Aviv. The discussion centers on the reality of buildings being hit near City Hall, and questions why it isn’t being widely covered by Fox News.
- The conversation shifts to missile stocks and interceptors. A comment references Keith Kellogg on Fox News discussing a Wall Street Journal report about running out of interceptor missiles within four to five weeks, and a claim that there is no problem because orders were placed and allies could supply missiles. The speaker notes that UAE reportedly has about a week left of interceptor missiles and says missiles from Iran are getting through “like a sieve.”
- It is argued that the U.S. has a limited stockpile because many missiles have been transferred to Israel and Ukraine over the past years, leaving the U.S. inventory low. The claim is made that continuing the war with depleted missiles would heighten national security risk and vulnerability globally.
- The transcript discusses potential international responses. The speaker contends that Europe’s mobilization rhetoric (France, Greece) should not be expected to deter Iran, noting that Greece does not have a major army and that NATO-funded contingents are involved rather than independent power. The assertion is made that Iran’s strikes in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Qom, and other cities show that Iran believes it can strike back effectively, signaling a preference to fight the United States and Israel rather than submit again.
- The central point is that the conflict is described as 100% about missiles and air-defense missiles, not ground forces. The speaker argues Iran likely has enough offensive missiles to prolong the conflict for months, possibly longer than U.S. capacity to sustain it, especially with Hormuz potentially shut or partially shut, which could hurt the western economy.
- Admiral James Stavridis is cited by Speaker 0, noting that as the U.S. and Israel expend hundreds of precision weapons, the focus should shift to logistics and stockpiles. The discussion emphasizes the need for inventory clarity, planning, and alignment between political objectives and military capabilities.
- Speaker 1 asserts that the planning should have assessed inventories, timeframes, and whether the means match the objectives. The argument states that risking all resources without sufficient offensive or defensive capacity is a dangerous gamble, suggesting the current course could be a “huge blunder.”
- The conversation touches on General Dan Kane, who reportedly told the president two weeks earlier that there were not enough ammunition and it would not be pretty to win. A reference is made to Trump’s Truth Social claiming Kane’s assessment was incorrect, with talk of whether Kane did or did not say the president’s characterization was accurate. The claim is made that there are concerns about integrity and whether senior leaders would publicly contradict the administration’s framing if necessary.
- A follow-up question is raised about whether admitting a ground invasion would imply insufficient missiles to sustain the mission, with Speaker 1 acknowledging that admitting ground troops would signal a lack of missiles for sustained action.
- The segment then shifts to a sponsorship note about depression treatment options, promoting Ataybekli and its lead program BPL-003 (a nasal spray psychedelic-based therapy) developed for treatment-resistant depression, with background on the company, its investors, and the roadmap toward Phase 3 in 2026. It emphasizes the potential for faster, more scalable treatment sessions and invites viewers to learn more at a website, with disclaimers about not providing medical or financial advice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's some new footage from Tel Aviv, and I was speaking to sources in Tel Aviv who were showing me videos outside of their freaking window of what what they were seeing, but you won't see this on Fox News at all. This is this is Tel Aviv. You know? And, of course, buildings being blown up, direct hits right next to City Hall. But why is Fox News, do you think, not really covering any of this damage in Tel Aviv, colonel?
Speaker 1: Well, look. I just saw a few minutes ago a, interview with Keith Kellogg on Fox News, and they were asking him about a, I think it was a Wall Street Journal report that said that we're gonna have to do something pretty quick because we're gonna run out of interceptor missiles. We don't have enough to sustain this over this four to five week period that president Trump talked about. And he says, no. No.
No. That's not the case. No problem at all. We obviously wouldn't have ordered something like this. Our commander wouldn't have ordered something like this unless he knew we had enough missiles in the stockpile.
And in any case, we can get some from our allies if we need to. And and I was just thinking, look. UAE, according to Bloomberg, has said that they've got about a week left of interceptor missiles, and they're gonna run out, and they're not even the primary target. Right. We're seeing you just showed a video there of the even what we have.
It's the these missiles that are coming in from Iran are just going through it like a sieve, and now that we may run out completely and then then that's that's something I think you and I have talked about before. We had a limited number of interceptor missiles because we've given so many to Israel over the last two and a half years and to Ukraine over the previous four years, and our inventory was already low. This is why I have been warning so emphatically for so long that these wars are making our own national security less, vulnerable or more vulnerable and putting us at higher risk. And now you're seeing it play out before your eyes, but it could get a lot worse because now they're there's nowhere else to get missiles from, and and we can't make them fast enough. And if we keep going on with this fiction that we're gonna win something here and we use all the rest that we have, our entire national security across our global requirements will be put at greater risk, and that is something that should be, it should never get to that point.
Speaker 2: Now some of the propaganda is, oh, Europe is mobilizing. Oh, we've got France. We've got Greece. They don't have a major army other than NATO funded armies. So do you think that Iran would be quaking in their boots that, uh-oh, here comes Greece?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, I'm I'm I'm thinking that the the mighty Greece Armed Forces is not exactly gonna cause a lot of trepidation in Tehran when The US and Israeli armed forces together are not causing them to quake. Look. This onslaught is is a tremendous amount of combat power, and for all the videos you were showing there in Tel Aviv, there's just as many in in, Tehran and some of the other cities in Qom and and in several other places throughout the country. They are getting just pummeled and hammered because a lot of our stuff's getting through as well.
But the fact is they knew this was coming and they have calculated and they they signaled this ahead of time that they felt it is less risky to have a war with The United States and Israel than it was to submit again because, otherwise, it was gonna eventually get to that point to where they would be destroyed anyway. And so they said, look. We're gonna hit you back in the face, and we're gonna give you a bloody nose. We're gonna give you a broken arm. And so far, that's exactly what they're doing.
And the question is, this is all about missiles. It's not gonna be about anybody's army or any ground force. There's no army involved here. This is all about missile forces and air defense missile forces, and it's a matter of who's got the most resources. And right now, I don't think we have enough air defense missiles, and I think that Iran does have enough offensive missiles to at least drag this out for multiple months longer than we can.
This is probably not gonna go like the Russia Ukraine war where it can go on for years. This is probably something that could go on for weeks or many months potentially. And if it does, we're in a world of hurt because we can't drag it out that long, especially if they completely shut off the Strait Of Hormuz and they have it partially shut off now. The whole western economy is gonna be in a world of hurt.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Former supreme allied commander of NATO, Admiral James, Stavridis, am I saying that correctly? Says, as both The US and Israel expend hundreds of precision weapons from, JDAMs to Tomahawks to Patriots, it is time to start focusing on logistics. How deep are the stockpiles? In wars, the true professionals are ultimately the logisticians stations.
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, it's time to start focusing on logistics. Right. Look, Blayton, this should have been done way back in the planning stage. The when the first day you ever got together in the the the tank or wherever they did this in the Pentagon or wherever, That should have been job number one.
You should have had all these charges that said, alright. Here's how much our inventories that we have, the the classified numbers. Here's what we think it would take to accomplish the objectives, the political objectives that the president wants, and here's how much time we think it would take to get that. And then you say, do the ways and the means match? Can we get this done?
The answer would clearly have been known because the only way it's a yes, and it looks to me like this is what we are literally gambling everything on. You think that you've bought into the rhetoric that they were saying before this that the Iranian regime is like a house of cards. It's never been weaker than it is whole forty seven years than it is right now. So you go and you throw a few missiles down, they collapse, they fall, game over, and yay, we win. We come out easy victory.
That's, I think, the only way that you could say that we're gonna take this action here because if they did the normal thing, which is to not collapse because with no threat of a ground force like there was in Iraq in 2003, then the only thing you have is missiles, and we clearly did not have enough offensive missiles in a country four times bigger than the country of Iraq to bomb them into the stone age. Just consider consider this. So important here. The tiny little Gaza Strip that Israel had complete mastery over for two and a half years have literally turned it into a moonscape, and they still have not some brought into submission the Palestinian people and Hamas even. Even Hamas in this tiny little enclave.
Now imagine in a country the size of Iran that you're gonna expect them to collapse overnight when almost nobody else does that in history. The Houthis didn't do it. Hamas didn't do it. Hezbollah didn't even do it even with all the damage they've caused. And you think that Iran is gonna do that?
And yet we have gambled everything, and now we're on a course to where we are using all these J and Ms, all these precision munitions, the air defense missiles, and there's no path to get out now. So this is a huge blunder of of enormous proportions.
Speaker 2: Now about two weeks ago, it was reported that general Dan Cain reported to the president that we don't have enough ammunition to win this war. It would not be pretty. We probably would not. And then president Trump took to his truth social and said, oh, no. No.
No. No. If we do it, it will be easily won. He promised. Easily won.
And now here we are, and it looks like we general Kane was probably right. He there were adults in the room who knew our capabilities. You know, they had assured us there would be no ground troops. Now president Trump is saying there may be ground troops if if that's necessary. I mean, I don't even know what the entry point would be.
In Iran, you're saying ground troops would not really do very much. So speak to the fact that this is not easily won, and anyone who believed that is a jerk.
Speaker 0: Can I also maybe just follow-up with that, colonel? Is that also to what you just said? An admission to use ground troops is an admission that we don't have the missiles to sustain the mission.
Speaker 1: Inadvertently, that's exactly what it is. And, you know, and I wondered at the minute, you you brought up that issue about the Trump's true social after the reports where the general Kane said that there was some enormous risk involved here. And Trump came out and said, no. That's not what he said at all. Fake news.
Actually, he said he said this is what Trump's he quoted Kane. He said we would win easily. Not that Trump said it. He claimed that that's what the general said. And I noticed and looked very carefully for it, it was not rebutted anywhere.
General Kane never came out and said he didn't say that. And I was thinking at the time, I'm like, I'm wondering how this is gonna play out in history. This is before the attack. Because if it goes the way I think it's going to, and he never said, he didn't refute that, then now that you're going out there and you're letting the president mischaracterize something you said, and you're going forward. So do you have the integrity to stand up and say, no?
That's not what I said. I did not say it was gonna be easy because right now, it looks like you're confer concurring with him. So now you're allowing by your silence for people to believe that, oh, well, that is what he said then because the president said it, and he didn't contradict it. And so now if you have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that told the president this is gonna be easy, then you got the wrong guy in that job. And if he didn't say that and if he believed that otherwise and yet he stayed silent and continued going on, you still have a problem because at some point, somebody's got to stand up and say, no.
You're given a political objective that we don't have the military capacity to accomplish. And if we try to get this accomplishment where it's impossible to succeed or improbable, then we will cost ourselves tremendously. We're already seeing that play out now. God help us if this continues on, if it even goes to this four week part, because we have already suffered so much loss, not just in the number of troops, but in our credibility and reputation among our friends and allies.
Speaker 0: Now I wanna tell you about today's show sponsor because depression is brutal. And for a lot of people, the standard options just don't work. We're talking about treatment resistant depression. People who've tried multiple antidepressants and still can't get relief. And that's the gap that our sponsor, Ataybekli, is going after.
Ataybekli is a clinical stage biotech which is developing new research driven treatments for mental health disorders, and their lead program is called BPL dash zero zero three. And here's their ticker on your screen. It's ATAI. It's available on the Nasdaq. And the team behind the company made me interested because one of the biggest factors I look at when evaluating investments is the team and the investors behind the company.
That's what initially drew my attention to ATAI founded by billionaire Christian Engermeyer and backed by early investors like Michael Novogratz through Galaxy Digital and Steve Jervison of Future Ventures. Now that level of backing made me wanna dive a little bit deeper into this company. And here's what they're building around psychedelic based therapies. Remember when RFK junior openly talked about the benefits of psychedelics and this new frontier of treatments for people? Yeah.
It could be a game changer. So BPL dash zero zero three is an investigational psychedelic based therapy designed for a controlled clinical setting with one big goal, help the brain reset out of rigid negative loops that traditional daily antidepressants often fail to break. What's different here is the treatment experience. A lot of psychedelic therapies can require long resource heavy monitoring sessions, six to eight hours. And BPL dash zero zero three is designed to work in roughly one to two hours, and it uses a nasal spray delivery method rather than an IV infusion or standard oral dosing.
And that matters because if the session is shorter and the workflow is simpler, then clinics could treat more patients in a day, potentially lowering costs, improving access, making this model more scalable. And here's the near term road map. The company reported positive phase two b top line results showing a single dose produced rapid, durable, antidepressant effects, meeting primary and key secondary endpoints. So next, OttiBeckle expects phase three program guidance in 2026 with phase three initiation plan for q two twenty twenty six pending the FDA end of phase two meeting outcomes. So if you wanna learn more about all of that and about Aitai Beckley on the Nasdaq, just check it out at their website, aitaibeckley.com.
That's ir.itaibeckley.com so you can dive more deeply. Do your own due diligence on this. I'll have links in the description below. A quick disclaimer for you, this is not medical advice and not financial advice. Biotech investing is risky, so do your own research.
Do your own due diligence. I'll have links in the description
Speaker 1: below.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The media is calling it a preemptive strike. Iran is calling it a declaration of war. At least 4 Americans are already dead. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. What happens next affects every single one of us. @RealScottRitter is with us. https://t.co/2jJFEvfMCJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the view that the United States has entered into a war with Iran on behalf of Israel, with the war framed as one that could be protracted and costly in American lives. The speakers contend that this conflict will not be resolved quickly despite assurances from the administration or Israel, and they warn of immediate economic and strategic consequences, including the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and potential damage to the US economy as energy infrastructure becomes a target.
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is cited as warning that the US and Israel cannot win against Iran and that Iran is prepared for years of conflict. He is cited as recalling his testimony about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and arguing that the pretext for the current war—Iran’s alleged uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons—lacks supporting evidence from the CIA and the DNI. Ritter is described as asserting that the war will not be short and that the United States will face a drawn-out confrontation.
Speaker 1 adds that the conflict is regional and will have consequences for the American public, noting the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as unprecedented and signaling an economic phase to the conflict. The claim is made that Iran has not experienced a popular uprising against its government; rather, there are rallies in support of the government. The war plan, initially predicated on a decapitation strategy, is described as having gone awry from the start, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly telling the president that there are insufficient resources to win, yet the campaign proceeded. The proximity of the initial strikes to a “decapitation” objective is emphasized, and the assertion is made that the war is already lost due to resource constraints and misalignment of the plan.
Speaker 0 references an operation named “lion’s roar” by the Israeli Air Force, describing it as the largest sortie in Israeli history with 200 jets and 500 targets, calling it the genesis of the opening strike. The expectation discussed is that the initial phase could involve using less advanced weapons to overwhelm air defenses, while Iran claims to possess capabilities not yet demonstrated publicly. Over the next 24 to 96 hours, the speakers anticipate continuous strikes aimed at regime change, destruction of air defenses, and suppression of ballistic missile launches, including production capacity near Tehran. The discussion suggests that Iran has prepared extensive dispersal of targets (creating thousands of additional targets) and that Iranian forces are likely to relocate to avoid interdiction, complicating intelligence and targeting efforts for Israel and the United States.
A key conclusion asserted by the speakers is that the conflict represents a war of choice, and they describe it as an illegal war of aggression contravening the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations Charter. They argue that Iran will respond forcefully and that the United States and Israel will face escalating resistance, with Iran viewed as likely to gain the upper hand and to pursue a diplomatic settlement favorable to Iranian objectives, including non-nuclear goals. The expectation is that Russia and China will push for a diplomatic resolution that aligns with Iran’s terms, particularly in avoiding a nuclear outcome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The United States has gone to war with Iran on behalf of Israel, doing Israel's bidding and dragging us into a potentially protracted war which could claim hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives. That's the reality. This is not gonna be over in four days, which is what the administration would like you to believe or that Israel would like you to believe with this massive sortie of American ships and Israeli aircraft. This is not gonna be over in short order. In fact, we are now seeing the fruits of that, the streets of Hormuz being closed, an energy infrastructure war that could be devastating to The US economy.
What will happen on Monday as the markets open and the US dollar continues to tank? All of those questions are on the table, and then, of course, at the heart of it are all of the lives that will be lost in this war. I just had a chance to sit down with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who says we will not win this war, and Iran is prepared for many years of fighting this out. This will not be over in just a few days, and Scott should know. He, of course, tried to warn all of us about what was what was going to happen against Iraq.
Millions of people ended up dead, And he warned all of us and sat in front of congress and and told members of congress, Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction. So, of course, the pretext for this war is that Iran is enriching uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. Our own CIA on multiple occasions have confirmed that that's not true. Even our own head of DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, said that's not true. And by all accounts, there's no evidence at all that that's true, but don't let facts get in the way of this.
So here now is a few minutes with Scott Ritter as he talks about the it's an impossible task for The United States and Israel to actually win a war against Iran. Watch.
Speaker 1: We're at war. It's a regional war. It's a war that, you know, is going to have consequences, that will impact the American public. The Strait Of Hormuz has been closed. You know, this is unprecedented, and, you know, it it it is the beginning of an economic phase of this conflict.
This is also a conflict that, it appears those who started it didn't understand what they were getting into. And, Iran has been fully prepared, for this eventuality. The decapitation strike did not decapitate. The Iranian people are not in the streets demanding the overthrow of the government, just the opposite. They're in the streets rallying in support of the government.
And the war plan has gone awry from the start. You know, this was a war that the, you know, the joint chiefs of staff told the president we don't have the resources to fight and win. They tinkered with the war plan, anyways, and they went forward. But when you're trying to accomplish a lot with limited resources, if if the war plan goes out of sync up front, which this one has. Remember, this war this mission that we're on is predicated on decapitation.
We have lost this war.
Speaker 2: In ten hours. Pardon? In about ten to twelve hours.
Speaker 1: We lost this war the moment we fired missiles against Iran because we don't have a plan that can be implemented, and we are gonna run out of ammunition. This is what the generals told. The admiral that was fired, from the joint chiefs of staff told the president, we don't have the resources to do this war. If you do this, we're going to lose.
Speaker 0: Intercepts have just named this operations lion's roar, 200 jets, 500 targets, the largest sortie in Israeli Air Force history, and they called it the genesis as the opening strike. So this is just the beginning of all of this. So maybe militarily, Sky, you can take us through what we see next. Speculation about using some of the lesser advanced weapons to sort of overwhelm air defense systems. And, you know, Iran saying that you haven't even seen what we have our capabilities yet.
What do you expect to unfold over the next twenty four, forty eight hours?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, there's some talk out of the US military that the initial phase of this campaign is a four day, campaign, day and night. So you're what if that's the case, what we're gonna see is just nonstop, sorties flying into Iran, to, you know, follow through on, regime change, on decapitation, to suppress, Iranian, security targets, to, take out air defense, and to suppress a ballistic missile launch capability, but according to the president, to strike ballistic missile production capacity. There are various facilities near Tehran that appeared to be being targeted by, the The United States and and by Israel. And so we're we're gonna be basically seeing, you know, seventy two hours of, or no. I'm sorry.
That's four days, the twenty four, forty eight, ninety six hours of, of strikes. And then there I ostensibly would be a pause in which, you know, The United States would be hopeful that the Iranian people would rise up and remove their government power while we rearm, re equip, and, and look for new targets. But I I I I I think we've got this completely wrong because it doesn't appear that the Iranians are are bulking, are hurt, are, are are confused, stumbling about. They are responding in a very forceful manner. And as you and, you know, pointed out, they haven't used their best.
I think tonight, there's some, video evidence that they may have fired a couple of their more advanced missiles. You know, we shall see. But the point is they have very advanced missiles, and these missiles will do extreme harm on the targets that they're aimed at. And, and Iran, I do believe, will be victorious in this war. The United States is going to run out of ammunition.
When that happens, we will have to withdraw from this conflict because we have no ability to continue this conflict, and we lose all leverage over Iran at that point in time. Israel is going to be physically defeated, in this conflict. This is a war of existential proportions. I don't believe that The United States is gonna be able to pick up the phone and have this war stop. I believe, Iran will has already gotten the upper hand and will continue to, apply force effectively against Israel, The United States, and the Gulf Arab states to the point that when a diplomatic solution, is arrived at and I do believe that Russia and China are going to be pushing for a diplomatic solution.
You know, peace will break out, but peace that are is acceptable to to Iran, which means that for the first time, people are gonna have to sit down, shut up, and listen to the Iranians and what they want, and they don't want a nuclear weapon. The Iranians are smart. They've been preparing for this conflict since 2005. Throughout Iran, there's a system of, caverns dug into the side of mountains and hills where this material has been evacuated. There are alternative evacuation sites.
You know, Israel's talking about hitting, what did you say, 500 targets or
Speaker 0: whatever? 500 targets was the yeah. 200 aircraft, 500 targets.
Speaker 1: Right. Operation. The Iranians have created an additional 1,500 targets by dispersing this, and they will continue to disperse. Now we're in an intelligence game where you have to collect intelligence and evaluate intelligence and identify targets and then put together a target strike package and strike the targets before the enemy actually reevacuates. The Iranians aren't gonna be staying in one place.
They're gonna be moving. Unless Israel controls the skies for twenty four hours, they won't be able to interdict. This is a losing proposition for Israel. Iran was ready for this. They, and the important thing is that in being prepared for this, they apparently prepared in a way that didn't tip-off their preparation to Israel and The United States because we would not have launched this strike unless we had a high degree of confidence that the the targets we were hitting would be, in fulfillment of the mission that we put forward.
We wouldn't waste all of these extremely high, value, very expensive precision munitions in the first wave of the attack just to strike empty buildings because that, it appears, is what we hit. A bunch of empty buildings with a significant amount of collateral damage for, Iranian civilians, but almost zero impact on the target sets that we're trying to, to eradicate. This is a war of choice. It's not a war of necessity, and therefore, it makes it an illegal war of aggression. And I'll just pound this point home all over again because people hear that term and they roll their eyes.
This is what we voted for. They said, you know, I don't really give a damn what you voted for. What I care about is the constitution of The United States Of America, and this war operates in total contravention of the constitution, in total contravention of the United Nations charter.
Speaker 0: By all accounts, he's absolutely right. I mean, some sobering news from a former UN weapons inspector who tried to warn everyone about Saddam Hussein and, of course, about the lack of weapons of mass destruction, But, you know, members of congress never paid attention to it. Those corrupt politicians didn't listen. Millions of people died as a result of it. And, of course, now we are facing the same reality in The United States with the Straits Of Hormuz being closed.
The US dollar collapsing, and we are right now on a precipice of disaster. But gold, silver prices surging as we speak today. Countries, by the way, in the Far East shutting down the ability to transact in gold and silver, like to, to buy gold and silver. In fact, here's an example. One bank in Thailand issuing this.
People trying to buy up as much as they can. This is a Thailand bank saying sorry due to the Iran Israel war. All gold transactions right now being halted due to this volatility. So things are about to get very real. So that's the news update part of today's video.
Now wanna tell you about today's sponsor, which is tied directly to the silver demand that we're seeing. I mean, silver was made for this moment with the US dollar collapsing and what is happening in this regional war right now. So gold and silver are reasserting their real roles as people are trying to acquire it. Silver is up 33% since February 6. When it bottomed at $68 an ounce after that massive liquidation, it was at a $121 an ounce.
Look at the mining sector right now. I mean, how can any hedge fund manager stay on the sidelines with this? We're gonna see some legendary wealth created in silver stocks in my view. Just look at companies we've featured on this channel in the past few years. Look at these breakouts, and they're hitting new all time highs.
Here are two incredible pieces of data right now that show us the potential upside that is still intact and remains with precious metals. You know, watch what happens this week. Gold still covers only 3% of government debt right now. To go back to the 1980 ratio, gold would need to be priced for over $25,000 an ounce. In 1968 and the year 2000, the two previous times The US equities were this overvalued, silver soared 25001200% in the decade that followed.
So what is gonna happen this time? One billionaire who called the 2000 silver market is mister Eric Sprott. You know him. He's a legend. He stands as one of the most legendary figures in precious metals investing.
Now to me, his name is synonymous with unwavering conviction in gold and especially silver. Now he founded Sprott Asset Management, growing it into a global powerhouse managing billions in precious metals focused funds, including some of the world's largest physical silver trusts. And he now predicts that silver could reach a $150 to $300 plus in this cycle.
Speaker 2: I can believe that the gold, silver, it should go back to 15. Okay. It's only mined at eight to one. Right. It's in the earth's crust at like 10 or 11 to one.
Why the hell should I, should it have traded at a 100 to one? And it's already down at what, 67, 68 to one? I think it's going right to fifteen, one to 15. Okay. So let's say if the gold price is 4,500, which is near, makes the calculation easy, silver should be at $300 That's where it should be.
That's what owed a physical shortage. Okay. Now we throw the physical shortage on top and the shortage of silver stocks to buy. I mean, it just, the runway is so wide open that I can see nothing but clear sailing for silver. It might have times when it gets beat up.
And I always find it hilarious watching a silver trade on the COMEX. And you know, they have these ten minute bursts to the downside. Yeah. Bang. Bang.
Bang. Bang. Bang. Yeah. And it happened an hour later, it's right back up there.
Speaker 0: So I looked at which companies that Eric Sprott is a shareholder of where the main metal is silver. I mean, a pure play on silver, and they're very few of those. Eric Sprott owns roughly 4% of Kootenai silver. So here is their ticker symbol on your screen right now. That's the sponsor of today's video, and that is the ticker symbol right there.
And this is our newest pure play silver for 2026, and Eric Sprott has been holding the position for seven years now. Seven years. So the ticker symbol is KOOYF. It's available on all the big brokerages like Schwab, Fidelity, Interactive Brokers, E*TRADE. Now back in mid twenty twenty five when silver's price was half of what it is today, these two analysts published these price targets for Kootenai Silver.
Research Capital had a Canadian dollar amount of $2.70 a share. Red Cloud had it with Canadian dollar amount of $3.20 a share. Now that's equivalent to roughly $2 US. Now today with silver up more than 100% since this was published, k o o y f, those shares are $1.40. So conduct your due diligence on Kootenai Silver, guys, which owns four silver projects containing one of the largest resources of any junior explorer.
Kootenai Silver is my number one pure silver play for 2026 because of the following catalysts. So Kootenai Silver owns four silver deposits. Quality silver assets are scarce, as you know, yet Kootenai Silver owns four of them, a staggering 223,000,000 ounces of silver equivalent in the measured and indicated category, and an additional 111,000,000 ounces silver equivalent in the inferred category. Now the physical shortage and the deficits are mounting as well. Right now, the global silver market has entered its sixth consecutive year of structural deficit, with the 2026 shortfall projected at 60 7,000,000 ounces.
So this is a chronic imbalance right now, and it follows that massive 2025 deficit of 149 to two thirty million ounces, contributing to an accumulated gap of nearly 900,000,000 ounces since 2021. Now James McDonald, Kootenai Silver's president and CEO, is definitely ready for this bull market in commodities. Check this out. James McDonald, now CEO of Kootenai Silver, played a pivotal role in creating Alamos Gold, which is a company that delivered quadruple digit returns during the early to mid two thousands gold bull market. Now from its inception in 2003 through 2012, the company's share price soared dramatically, rising from penny stock levels, sub $1 in 2023 '20 excuse me, 2003 to well over 10 to $15 by the early twenty ten's peak.
Multi thousand percent gains for early shareholders. Now Kootenai Silver is a pure silver play. The company is positioned so well for this bull market with James McDonald leading it, in my opinion. And in 2020, still a full two years before the company's most successful drill hole, which was done on 09/08/2022, Eric Sprott bought shares for $4 Canadian, double their current price, double the current share price. So today, the price is half of what he paid for it.
The legend, Eric Sprott. So in 2025, Eric added even more shares. So I'll show you the black and white mathematical valuations in a second. You know, these are this is information extracted from publicly disclosed filings. You can look them up yourself.
So as you can see, as of 01/01/2026, when comparing between various silver companies, their enterprise value divided by the size of their resource, we see that Kootenai silver is priced at only 36¢ per ounce of silver equivalent, where the average of these 15 companies is $2.18 an ounce. Again, this is information extracted from publicly disclosed filings in February 2026. Kootenai Silver with its market cap of $188,000,000 Canadian is scheduled to drill about 70,000 meters in the coming twelve months. That's $2,600 of market cap for every meter that it's drilling. I love that.
So as you can see, no other silver company has so much drilling planned and underway with that low of a market cap. So, guys, research Kootenai silver and do your own homework on it. Do your own due diligence on it. I'll have links in the description below so you can dive more deeply because we are in a silver bull market that is front and center right now. So and I know that this is my number one pure silver play for 2026 bar none.
So, again, we'll have links in the description, guys. Do your own homework on this company, and we'll see you next time.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🔥 For decades, Washington said Iran was "on the brink." The language changed. The urgency never did. Now we're at war. @DougMacgregor & @JohnKiriakou explained exactly how we got here. https://t.co/xCeEEQgGTA
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of a U.S.-led or Israel-led military confrontation, with a mix of arguments about intelligence, strategy, and public appetite for war.
- Recurrent warnings about Iran: The hosts note that for decades the U.S. government has warned Iran is on the brink of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. They reference claims of “fresh intelligence” and “new evidence” of a renewed program, contrasting them with past warnings during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The tone suggests these claim cycles reappear with each new administration or set of negotiations.
- Netanyahu and Iran timing: A compilation is shown of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stating over two decades that Iran has a nuclear program that could be imminent. One clip claims Iran could produce a weapon in a short time, with phrases like “weeks away,” “three to five years,” and even apocalyptic projections. The conversation then questions whether those warnings have come to fruition and whether media and public commentary have overstated the immediacy or impact of those claims.
- Stuxnet and sanctions context: The moderator recalls that during the Bush era the U.S. launched Stuxnet against Iran’s centrifuges, and argues that Obama continued those efforts with sanctions; they portray sanctions as bipartisan pressure intended to justify claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A guest mentions “demonic officials” and cites a book to underscore a harsh view of the two-term sanction era.
- Diplomatic vs. military options: The panel describes the Biden administration sending negotiators to address the nuclear issue, while noting that “other options” exist. They discuss the tension between diplomacy and potential coercive measures, including the possibility of coalition or unilateral strikes.
- Military balance and potential outcomes (Colonel Douglas MacGregor’s view): The guest emphasizes the complexity and risk of fighting Iran. He argues:
- Iran is capable and not a “backward desert” opponent, with an arsenal including roughly 2,000 ballistic missiles and significant, varied air defenses.
- Iranian forces could target U.S. bases and Israel, potentially inflicting substantial losses, though the duration and scale of any campaign are uncertain.
- The aim would be to “disintegrate the state” and induce chaos rather than secure swift compliance; the scenario could produce high casualties among both sides, potentially thousands for Iran and substantial American losses, depending on scale and duration.
- The long-term goal, he says, is to “make the region safe for Israel” and establish Israeli hegemony, noting the defensiveness and regional power dynamics in play, including rising concerns about Turkey as a threat.
- Intelligence reliability and sources: A CIA veteran (John Kiriakou) challenges the immediacy and reliability of intelligence asserting that Iran reconstituted a nuclear program. He contends:
- The Israelis and the U.S. have historically provided intelligence that may be biased toward aggressive action.
- The CIA has produced intelligence estimates stating Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program; he questions whether boots-on-the-ground intelligence would confirm otherwise.
- He emphasizes the risk that media outlets amplify “existential threat” narratives rooted in political calculations rather than verified evidence.
- The domestic political-media dynamic: The discussion highlights perceived incentives for hawkish messaging from certain U.S. and Israeli actors, including prominent commentators who push the threat narrative. One commentator argues that the push for war serves particular political or financial interests, suggesting that public opinion in the U.S. is not aligned with an immediate military conflict.
- Regional and alliance implications: The panel debates how a U.S.-led or Israeli-led strike would affect alliances, regional stability, and the global economy. They highlight:
- The possibility that Iran could retaliate with volumes of missiles and unmanned systems, inflicting damage on Israel and regional targets.
- The risk that a prolonged conflict could undermine NATO cohesion and Western diplomatic credibility in the Middle East and beyond.
- Concerns about the effect on energy routes, particularly the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and broader economic ramifications.
- Operational and logistical strains: They discuss the practical challenges of sustained conflict, including:
- Navy and air defenses, the need for replenishment of carrier groups, and the strain on logistics and maintenance after extended deployments.
- The impact of political missteps and controversial statements (such as comments linked to public pro-war stances) on alliances and military readiness.
- Speculation on timing and signals: The guests speculate about when or whether a conflict might occur, noting that political leaders may face pressure “between now and March” or around certain holidays, while acknowledging uncertainty and the potential for last-minute changes.
- Ending note: The conversation closes with a recognition that the set of actors—intelligence, defense officials, media, and political leaders—are collectively influencing public perception and policy directions. The speakers emphasize contrasting views on Iran’s threat, the legitimacy and consequences of potential war, and the stakes for the United States, Israel, and global stability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, for decades, the US government has warned that Iran is on the brink of reigniting its nuclear weapons and that they are a threat to America. We've heard this before in the early two thousands during the Obama years under the first Trump administration and again under president Biden. Now the language changes slightly. The urgency is always eminent, though.
It's always right there. Right? Like, right around the corner, you're gonna blink, and it's gonna be there. And there's always new proof. Here yesterday is vice president Jay Devance saying, again, he has fresh intelligence that Iran does have a renewed nuclear program.
We blow it up six months ago, but I have new evidence that it's back. It's like herpes watch.
Speaker 1: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon if they try to rebuild a nuclear weapon. That's that causes problems for us. And in fact, we've seen evidence that they have tried to do exactly that. So the president sending those negotiators to try to address that problem. As the president has said repeatedly, he wants to address that problem diplomatically, but, of course, the president has other options as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now fresh intel. This video is also going viral this week. This is a compilation of two decades of Israeli prime minister Netanyahu saying that Iran has a nuclear program, and it's weeks, if not months away. Watch.
Speaker 2: If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. They have the wherewithal, the stored up preserved knowledge to make a bomb very quickly if they wanted to. Iran is so dangerous. Weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.
They're very close. They're six months away from being about 90% of having the rich uranium for an atom bomb. Iran is gearing up to have to produce 25 bombs, atomic bombs a year, 250 bombs in a deck. Iran will be capable of producing alone, without importing anything, nuclear bombs within three to five years. Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons.
Next thing you'll see is a nuclear bomb in the World Trade Center. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.
Speaker 0: It's been so great.
Speaker 3: It's been amazing.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's been unbelievable how well it's gone. Can we hold him to that promise? Is that possible? No. You can't hold him to that promise.
No. And when is a journalist gonna actually vision. If I got to sit down with Netanyahu, that would literally be the first video I would show him. Of course, he would never do our show, but that would be the first video that I would show him. Like, you you've repeatedly said this, and you've led us into the you've led us down this this trail repeatedly.
Speaker 0: It's Right.
Speaker 3: It hasn't come to fruition. When is that going to change?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Is this your great vision of positive things in The Middle East? Is this it? We're here? I don't think this is so fun.
It's not fun for me. Now I wanna remind you that during the Bush administration, George W. Bush, The US launched the world's first cyber weapon Stuxnet on Iran's nuclear centrifuges, which were never proven to be for weapons, but they still did it. Bush left office, and Obama said, I got it. He took the baton and kept this cyber weapon going.
So this is bipartisan, the attack on Iran. And in fact, Obama's state department then went on to sanction Iran into oblivion while all the while trying to prove that Iran had a nuclear bomb to justify it. One of his demonic officials bragged about it in this evil book. If you'd like to, you know, get really mad, read this. In eight years, they inflicted suffering on innocent civilians in Iran.
They weren't able to get the same medicines as these demonic Washington livers who could order food and go to a CVS and get whatever they want, but they still were sanctioning Iran under the auspices that they may have a nuclear program. President Trump now seems to be sort of picking that up and saying, oh, yes. We know nuclear program. It's like a weed. It's like a nuclear whack a mole, basically.
Now on Tucker Carlson show this week, Clayton was his guest, and he said that the threat of this war alone is a sigh up. So if you are feeling that, if you're like, oh my god. Is it coming any minute now? Okay. Never mind.
It's not. Oh, wait. Yes. It is. Well, you're not alone, but this is the largest military buildup in The Gulf since the gulf war.
So joining us to break it down today are two men with a very different but deeply informed perspectives. We have, colonel Douglas MacGregor and former CIA officer John Kiriaku. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. Now I want to ask you this question, and I think we'll start with colonel Mack, if you don't mind. Given how unpopular this war is, how unwilling Americans are to go along with it, how much would it cost us in lives and money given all of that?
Politico is now reporting that the Pentagon wants Israel to strike first in order they they can't The US can't be first blood because it's so unpopular. Now this seems to me an admission that they know that Iran will not strike first. So why are we so trigger happy, colonel? What is the reality of how the US military would fare in an actual war against Iran?
Speaker 4: Well, obviously, this is more evidence that the people in Washington think Americans are incredibly stupid, because they think that somehow or another by encouraging the Israelis to, fire the first shot, that we'll understand or believe instantly that, oh, we didn't do a thing and now we have to because Israel's in the fight. Right. Americans aren't that dumb. And I think Americans actually know this is all about Israel. So we can sit around and debate the pros and cons of the whole thing, but, you know, this this is all about Israel.
And it's about, Israel's agents in The United States, the the collection of billionaire Zionists who essentially are dictating policy to, our government. And, you know, I I hope you remember that the only time the Democrats and Republicans all stood and cheered wildly was when, mister Trump talked about attacking Iran. That seems to have been the unifying force because that's where the money is. Who's paying these people? Where is it where is it coming from?
Well, those billionaires are pouring money into these people, and they all know that if you go along with it, you're gonna get more money. And if you don't, they're gonna give it to your, opponent. So now militarily, how will this goes? That's a real tough call. You know, I've been looking at Larry Johnson's work today.
Larry put together a great story involving all the various types of aircraft on both sides and the types of missiles and so forth and so on. The truth is this, this is a big country, very large. They have a lot of very bright capable people. This is not a backward desert waste disposal plant. This is a serious country with a long and distinguished history.
These people are not going to surrender. They're not going to submit to Israeli hegemony on the basis of our threats. So they're gonna fight. What have they got? They have an almost inexhaustible arsenal of missiles, and at least 2,000 of them fall into the theater ballistic missile category, maybe a few less, but it's close to 2,000.
Then they have a lot of other medium range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles. Some of these are of a relatively new variety from China, including missiles designed to attack and demolish or even sink ships. The range, though, of course, is an issue, and the radars are an issue. We know that the Chinese have provided some very new state of the art radars that theoretically can look out to 420, 430 miles and even identify stealth aircraft at that range. On the other hand, we have extraordinary aircraft.
There's no question about it. This is the largest, I think, collection of modern aircraft, fifth generation and fourth generation, that the world has ever seen. And this these aircraft can reach out far beyond the normal range thanks to the weapon systems they carry. We don't need to go through all of them, but they have the capacity to destroy a number of these radars at a distance, at a standoff distance. But we don't know the range of the missiles that will be fired at them in some cases.
Some of these are Russian in origin, but a lot of them are also Chinese. So to answer your question, worst case, we could have our bases utterly destroyed in the region. They may actually be able to go all the way out to nearly the Red Sea and beyond Israel. We don't know. We know that they see everything.
They have satellite based intelligence, from China and and Russia. We also know that they have agents on the ground who can pick up the proverbial cell phone and call. So there are a lot of people out there that are going to help them, and they've got lots of information. The real question is how tightly integrated are these air defenses? How much experience is on the ground?
I'm told there are hundreds, maybe as much as many as 2,000 Chinese on the ground in Iran helping the Iranians.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 4: I would think that that's necessary because you can't deliver some of the technology that's come in within the last few weeks and expect these people to be able to do it. Now we have Americans in f sixteens flying for the Ukrainians, not in US uniform, but they have gotten permission from the national command authorities to go over there and fly these aircraft on the West Side Of The Dnieper. I would not be surprised if there are not some Chinese pilots on the ground ready to climb into the cockpit and fly some of the new aircraft that have been delivered to Iran. Then, of course, you have the Russians, and the Russians have excellent intelligence. They've got lots of ships.
They've got lots of submarines. I think the Chinese have submarines and ships out in the area. I don't know how many of are currently stationed outside the Strait Of Hormuz, but there are several. All of this suggests that we could take losses. Could we have 500 casualties?
Sure. Could we have only three or 400? Potentially. Can we kill thousands of Iranians? Yes.
There's no question about it. So the losses the Iranians will take will be disproportionate because this bombing campaign, air and missile campaign, is is not designed to induce compliance with mister Netanyahu's demands. It's designed to disintegrate the state, to fragment the society, to induce chaos in the hopes that all of this will collapse like a house of cards. I don't think it'll work, but I think that's the real purpose behind it all. And the question is how long can we keep it up?
Ten days, two weeks, not too much longer. So Iran's principal mission is to survive. If they survive, they win. If they collapse like a house of cards, they lose.
Speaker 3: And what
Speaker 4: And we we look great if if they disintegrate and collapse, but if they survive, we look stupid because we've thrown everything in the world at them, and it hasn't worked.
Speaker 3: John, I wanna get to you in a second. I have a nuclear question for you here in the intelligence piece. But just, colonel, on that last part here, I mean, what is the endgame plan? This is something that Tucker and I talked about yesterday. Like, what what actually is the long term goal and plan?
I haven't heard I think you've said this before, but I haven't heard anyone in Washington say what the long term plan is other than, you know, Lindsey Graham saying, kill Khomeini and and regime change. Well, that's that's not a plan.
Speaker 4: The long term strategic goal is the same as it's been, I think, for almost thirty years, and that is to make the region safe for Israel. That means to establish Israeli hegemony over the region. Again, I I think it's gonna be extremely difficult to do that because just within the last few days, you had the former prime minister, Naftali, announce on Israeli television and to the whole world that if you think Iran is a tough problem, we think that Turkey or Turkiye is now the greatest potential threat to Israel, maybe greater than Iran. So I think the whole thing is about we've got to beat everybody into submission and and submit to Israel. That's it.
That's the goal. I don't think it's attainable, but I think that's the goal.
Speaker 3: John, I wanna ask him about this. So on the on the intelligence gathering piece of this, right, you heard J. D. Vance saying, we've seen evidence of this, and this is happening now. The nuclear program is back.
Of course, you'll recall, of course, that the White House issued a press release, on June 25. I'm reading it right now. Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated and suggestions otherwise are fake news. That was the headline from the White House on their you can read it right now on the White House's own website. So in eight months, John, like, they've completely reconstituted.
They're it's it's back. How do how would we know? Someone in the chat room said, how would they know unless they're there and their boots on the ground? From an intelligence gathering perspective, how would we know?
Speaker 5: Because this is what the Israelis are telling us.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: Yeah. We've been traditionally weak in terms of of boots on the ground in Iran, and we've long relied on the Israelis passing intelligence to us and then just treating it as as gold straight from the mouth of God. But the Israelis tell us what they what they want us to believe, and and we just run with it. I think that look. Starting at the beginning, Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, issued a fatwa decades ago saying that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb.
The CIA has published two, not one, but two, national intelligence estimates saying that the Iranians do not have a nuclear weapons program. The Israelis and The United States together released the Stuxnet virus, which destroyed Iran's centrifuges even if they were spinning to enrich uranium. The the bottom line is there there really is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. There never has been. They have a nuclear program, but I haven't seen any evidence even when I was still inside the CIA to indicate that they were trying to build a nuclear bomb.
And even if they had one, they don't have a delivery system for it anyway. So Iran is no threat to The United States. I don't believe Benjamin Netanyahu when he says that it's an existential threat to Israel. It's Israel that's the existential threat to Iran. Iran's not the country that has had a history of attacking all of its neighbors.
It hasn't attacked its neighbors. Israel certainly has attacked its neighbors. And so this is just one of those, you know, another in a long line of made up crises where the Israelis try to either talk us into or trick us into doing their dirty work for them.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you know, number of, you know, number of conservative commentators and influencers and otherwise otherwise have had their bank accounts shut down. They've been debanked. Friend of the show, Scott Ritter. Wyatt Reed, in fact, from the Grey Zone had his bank account or his, I think his PayPal was just, like, shut down. And the Grey Zone itself also just debanked, shut down, inability to access their their PayPal accounts.
That's unbelievable. Well, Rumble is the only company that has stood the test of time and deserves our support. They have rolled out Rumble Wallet, and they're challenging big tech big tech censorship right now. They have introduced something that will give us protection from the big banks shutting us off. Banks can cancel our accounts and freeze our cards.
With Rumble Wallet, you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future, your family. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on your Rumble channel, and you can use your Rumble wallet. Go to wallet.rumble.com. Download the Rumble wallet today, open an account, and step away from the big banks.
Wallet.rumble.com. Well, big medical hack of 2025 was several peer reviewed studies identifying the direct connections between anti parasitic medications having off label benefits fighting a wide variety of cancers. This makes sense the connection between tumor growth and parasites has been known for years. While the CDC remains silent about it, of course, they have finally admitted that millions of Americans suffer from parasitic infections that often go undetected or undiagnosed. That's why Doctor.
Peter McCullough, Chief Scientific Officer at The Wellness Company and the world's most published cardiologist, says these studies make clear that you should do at least one medical grade parasite cleanse annually. The Wellness Company's proprietary USA compound, which is ivermectin and membenzadol, is a doctor prescribed gold standard combination dose designed to help the body eliminate parasites and other incredible benefits. Each bottle contains ninety capsules, enough for a complete four-twenty one day cleanse. So this high strength formula can be found at your local pharmacy, but the the wellness company removes the red tape, making the process fully digital. All you do is you fill out a quick intake form, the doctor reviews it, and your medical grade parasite cleanse arrives in a week.
It's time for a new year and a new you. So head over to twc.health/redacted and use the code redacted to save $60 off plus free shipping. Again, that is twc.health/redacted to save $60 off plus free shipping.
Speaker 0: You know, I've been thinking about the sale of this war, and I'm old enough to remember the yellow ribbon campaign during the Iraq war. And that was brilliant, and it was funded by the Pentagon. So we thought that it was an organic way to support the troops, and people did. They had it on their cars. They had it on their clothing.
They had it on T shirts. And at the height of that wars, over 70% of Americans supported that. And if you didn't, you were called unpatriotic, and it was brilliant propaganda. Now we have the opposite. At least 70 or more percent of Americans do not support this war.
We are not gonna wear any effing yellow ribbons. We're not falling for that again. How are they gonna do this? And keeping in mind that the sale of that, the propaganda of that came from the Pentagon. That's why I'd like to ask you, colonel, how can they possibly do this now that we just see bullshit coming out of their mouth?
Speaker 4: Well, two things. First of all, Natalie, I'm shocked. I thought you were in kindergarten in the middime.
Speaker 0: I was in middle school during but I remember it.
Speaker 4: We wore
Speaker 0: it on backpacks.
Speaker 4: The way I heard it from Morris and how you met, you know, it's kinda scary.
Speaker 3: She's pushing 50. I'm telling you, man. She might look Oh, that's
Speaker 0: forty seven and a half, actually.
Speaker 3: She's a cherubic face.
Speaker 0: On Saturday, I'll be forty seven and a half. It's my half birthday.
Speaker 4: And another quick point, and John knows this from his experience, I'm sure presidents get the generals they want and presidents get the intelligence they want. We need to keep that in mind. If you don't like the intelligent assessment that was just delivered, you tell them to go back and do it again, and bring it back when it says what I want you to want it to say. So that that's a per permanent problem. Look.
This whole thing is a catastrophe, and I think president Trump is running an enormous risk. This is not something the American people want and are prepared to support. This country today is radically different from what it was in 1990. I remember when, you know, we deployed to the desert in 1990. We came back in 1991.
There there was this sort of outpouring of pride, satisfaction, and happiness that we had erased, frankly, the the stain of dishonor from Vietnam. Not because of the things that we did there, we did a lot of things wrong, but because people were disappointed that we lost. You know, Natalie, I don't see that here at all right now. People are saying, wait a minute. What happened in Minnesota?
You you went there. You were challenged by the governor. You packed it in. You surrendered. You left.
You can't do that. This is a war we have to win inside The United States. We must enforce federal law. You've done a good job thus far on the border, but you haven't stopped all the human trafficking and the and the drugs. Look at Mexico.
It's a catastrophe. We have to protect ourselves from that. What are we doing? You know, these are the things Americans voted for president Trump to do, and they they haven't done it. So I I agree with you.
I don't think this is marketable at all. And if we were to take sudden losses, substantial losses, I think the pressure would be to cut bait and get out. People say, what are we doing this for anyway? The danger is that we we suffer terrible reputational damage around the world, all on on in the belief that not only are we making the the region safe for the Israelis, we're also attacking China by attacking Iran. After all, Iran supplies all this oil.
And if the Straits Of Hormuz close, we're gonna destroy the global financial system. You know, I I don't see an upside to this at all, but it's very clear. I just got this recent bulletin in. These talks are over. There could be no compromise.
Well, gee, I I'm so shocked that Whitkoff and, Kushner could not bring the Iranians to their knees. This is absurd.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a bit of breaking news. So the talks are off now?
Speaker 0: Well, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that most of the conditions were rejected. But then we saw this from the crown prince of Oman who mitigated some of the talks saying that there will be technical discussions next week. Do we have that tweet? Yeah. Can we put that up?
They called it progress. The United States says they are disappointed. That's sort of what they're supposed to do. They're saying next week, we'll have more technical discussions in Vienna. So I mean, this is tedious.
Speaker 5: May I add something to that?
Speaker 3: Please, Jonathan.
Speaker 5: I just got off of an interview, with, Al Mayadin, the Lebanese network. And the person that was the other guest was the head of the Iranian nuclear negotiating team. And he said the same thing. He said that they are going to have to go to technical talks because The US just won't budge on what really is the Israeli position that Iran not be permitted to have any ballistic missile missiles at all and that they have to cut off all ties to the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Those are nonstarters for the Iranians.
So what these technical talks are gonna be are about how to to what extent the Iranians can enrich uranium. Will it be as low as 2.6% or as high as 35% or something in the middle? The Israeli position is no enrichment whatsoever. And the Iranian position is we're going to enrich to something below weapons grade, you know, for use in in medical research, for example, but that the enriched uranium will remain in Iran. It will not be sent to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Turkey, all of which have been proposed.
You know, I'm I'm usually an overly optimistic guy. I'm I'm not optimistic about this.
Speaker 3: So I wanna follow-up then, John, with what Natalie mentioned about the sale of this war because to the colonel's point, we're not buying it, you know, on the military side. And the American people aren't buying it. Oh, but close to 80 of Americans don't wanna have anything to do with a war in Iran. And so that's where your old group, the CIA comes into to play. And false flags work enormously well.
The propaganda, the it's an existential threat now to The United States that we're going to be attacked. I just wanna play an example of how the media and the CIA and the intelligence state works in tandem to kinda push this fake news on people. Here is, Mark Levin, on television, and here is what he had to say about the nuclear threat to The United States.
Speaker 6: That they must destroy civilization. They believe today that they must destroy the West. Most prominently, The United States Of America. Those nuclear ICBMs aren't aimed for Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. They're aimed for New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and everywhere in between and around The United States Of America.
They're working closely with the communist Chinese, Putin, and North Korea. And we are on the precipice, I believe, of finally addressing this so that we can have peace and security and prosperity. We haven't bothered that regime. That regime has been kidnapping, slaughtering, maiming Americans since day one. It seeks a nuclear weapon to destroy us.
And any terrorist group that runs a country that murders 50,000 of its own people and would murder a million of its own people will have no hesitation about firing nuclear warheads against us.
Speaker 3: So, of course, John, none of that's true. But that's
Speaker 5: really None of it is true. Like, Literally not a word of it was true. Is Edgar
Speaker 3: still on Fox News? Like, they didn't fire him because he's carrying he's carrying the water in the narrative for the propaganda campaign. I mean, nukes are about to hit us in Chicago. They don't even have a delivery mechanism that can go beyond 3,000 miles. We're seven anyway, go go ahead, John.
Speaker 5: His his intelligence must be so incredible. He should be the director of the CIA because the CIA didn't know any of that stuff. No. The the in all seriousness, Mark Levin is unhinged. He is an Israeli mouthpiece for all intents and purposes, and nobody should believe a single word that he says.
Again, the the Iranians have never attacked one of their neighbors. The Israelis have repeatedly attacked all of their neighbors. The the Iranians did not initiate hostilities with the Israelis. The Israelis initiated the hostilities with the Iranians. And so, no, there there are no nuclear weapons in Iran.
There are no delivery systems in Iran. It's the Israelis that have nuclear weapons and won't allow the international community to to inspect them.
Speaker 3: Well, how would a CIA propaganda machine then sell this, to Natalie's point? Like, how is this going to work? We're not buying it. So do we need some sort of a false flag attack that where we find this existential threat?
Speaker 5: If the CIA were tasked with doing that, yeah, it would have to be like just recruiting journalists to plant stories, you know, like they did in Italy in '48 or '49 and Guatemala in '54. But I keep coming back to the idea that president Trump hasn't gone across the country to try to win public opinion over. He hasn't done anything to try to sell this to the American people. And the fact that none of our European allies support this, none of them, tells me either that the CIA has failed in its efforts to sway public opinion abroad or the CIA hasn't tried to to swing public opinion abroad. I just can't understand the president's thought process here.
If you're gonna do it, do it. Don't fool around. Just do it. But if you're not gonna do it, then don't do it. If you wanna win the Nobel Peace Prize, if you wanna go down in history as being, you know, the Richard Nixon of this generation, then make peace with the Iranians and screw what Israeli, national interests are.
You know, I I took this whole America first thing very seriously. We should be putting America first, not Israel first or Canada or any other country, just The United States first. So let's do it.
Speaker 0: Hallelujah. Yeah. I want to circle back to the death eaters that are selling this even though the American people are not buying it. Number one is the ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Here's a clip of him earlier talking to a rabbi saying, you know what?
Even the Israelis are excited about this. They don't care if they have to go into their bomb shelters. Now, you know, public support for Israel is low, but we have to remember that these are families living there. It is scary for them to go into a bomb shelter. I don't think they are, in fact, raising their hand and saying, come at me, bro.
It's their government that is, but watch this rabbi say exactly the opposite.
Speaker 7: We we spent two days here now, and almost everyone we've met with across the spectrum within the Jewish community, that's where we've been meeting. None of them have expressed any fear about going into bomb shelters or ballistic missiles from Iran. Every one of them universally has said to us, you must be excited to be here. You're gonna have a front row seat to the miracles that are about to happen. When you speak about the resilience of the Israeli people and what they've been through for two years, they're not in fear.
At least those we've met with across the spectrum have all expressed this faith and almost, I don't wanna describe excitement, but they've had a front row seat to miracles for two years, and they feel like they're about to see the next chapter of it. They ask you, aren't you excited to be here for it? You must be a Okay.
Speaker 0: This goes on for about
Speaker 3: three They're like laughing.
Speaker 0: They're laughing about we absolutely could have a front row seat. A lot of our civilians could be killed, but that's funny to them. It's joke. And that they all want it. Now I know for a fact that they don't all want it, that this must be terrifying.
It's terrifying for me in the middle of America. It must be really scary for parents, for real humans that do actually live in Israel. So, colonel, can I ask you, what is the possibility of damage to Israel? We saw them get pummeled last summer when Iran did unleash limited strikes. What do you think can you give me worst case scenario for for the civilians of Israel?
Speaker 4: Sure. I I just wanna say one thing just back to Morris because you were talking about the media. And it strikes me that the Soviet Union really had one major outlet called Pravda. And that was the source of the information they wanted everybody at home and abroad to consume. I think we have a thousand equivalents of Pravda in The United States.
Yes. And they're all being fed the same nonsense and they're passing the nonsense onto the rest of us. It's been enormously successful. And that's why even though a lot of people are opposed to this, there's still a lot of conventional wisdom out there that's rooted in complete lies and fiction. Oh, they killed our soldiers.
They did this and so forth. It's tough dealing with that. It really isn't. The fact that you exist and other outlets like you are are preaching to the extent that you can the truth by by going out and getting it from others is incredibly important. How is this gonna turn out for Israel?
I think that it doesn't matter what we do to Iran. The after the initial strike or, in fact, even before the initial strike is over, the Iranians are going to fire volumes of missiles and rockets and unmanned systems on a scale that is hard for us to imagine. We're going to do everything we can with the fleet, the Aegis class destroyers that are out there as well as the aircraft ashore, the f 20 twos, f 30 fives to stop it. But I think large numbers of these ballistic missiles in particular are going to get through, and they're going to do enormous damage. And if this continues for any length of time beyond, say, ten days, Israel could very well be completely destroyed.
Speaker 3: Israel could be completely destroyed.
Speaker 0: And they are and they want it according to Mike Huckabee.
Speaker 3: They're all in
Speaker 0: same way. With it.
Speaker 4: There there's an important reason for that. I think and this is one of the reasons that I think you're hearing Levin make the outrageous statements that he's making. This is these are statements of desperation. They'll say anything to get this war going because they regard it as their last best chance to drag us into the battle area and to destroy their enemies for them. If they can't get it this time, I think they probably believe it will never happen.
And so they're going to pull out all the stops, anything they could possibly do to silence critics, to to conceal the truth, and to hound everybody into this war. And I I think they're gonna get their wish. I just don't think it's gonna work out very well for Israel.
Speaker 3: John, your thoughts on that?
Speaker 5: What Doug said. Yeah. I mean, that's that's it right there. These these are These are people with a messianic view of the modern world. The rabbi that was in that clip didn't use the word miracles by accident.
He meant that they believe this will hasten the coming of the Messiah. That the end times are upon us, that nuclear war is good, and that finally we all get to see the savior and go to heaven.
Speaker 0: He's volunteering people to die.
Speaker 5: Yeah. They don't care. They don't care how ugly this gets. But Doug makes a very important point here. Doug, I wish I had thought of it, but I might steal it and claim it as my own.
That is
Speaker 4: Everybody else does.
Speaker 0: We're sharing.
Speaker 5: That is that they're desperate. I think they are desperate. And I think that's why they're all screaming so loudly about this. I think that's why Benjamin Netanyahu has made, what is it, seven trips in the last eleven months to The United States.
Speaker 3: So
Speaker 5: yeah, I think that's what we're seeing here. It's desperation. They're seeing public opinion in The United States slipping away from them
Speaker 4: And there's another region.
Speaker 5: And in Western Europe as well. Where so many of us were just knee jerk pro Israel or pro Zionist Now people are saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, this doesn't smell right to me. What does The United States get out of it? As Doug correctly said, we could lose hundreds of people, we could lose thousands of people in a protracted engagement with the Iranians. This is a giant country.
It has 92,000,000 people and a five thousand year history. It's not gonna go quietly.
Speaker 4: There's another issue with this matter of desperation that we shouldn't ignore. People that desperate, if this goes badly, will seriously consider and maybe just use a nuclear weapon against Iran. And that's my major consideration. I do not think that anyone in the Trump White House would do it. I see no evidence that we have anybody that beyond reason in the Pentagon.
But I think there's a real danger that if the Israelis are desperate and they don't think they've won and are not getting what they want, that they could turn to that. I hope president Trump is aware of it and has a way to stop it or neutralize it.
Speaker 3: Well, that's what I wanna talk about. We're gonna take a quick break. I wanna talk about president Trump and the reporting that's come out, just over the past twenty four hours about his thought process and decision making here. And is the mainstream media trying to push him in a direction of war? I mean, you see that with what's going on with Fox News and otherwise.
So wanna talk about the Trump piece of this and a talking point that's been going viral over the past twenty four hours as well. So just, give us thirty seconds, colonel and John, and we'll be back here in, in just a few seconds. But first, I wanna tell you about our friends at Lear Capital because I don't know if you see what's happening right now with the collapse of the US dollar. It's happening in real time. And by the way, it's intentional.
We've been talking about it for years here on the show, and it's it's now here. The country is $39,000,000,000,000 in debt, and your dollar is not going anywhere nearly as far as it once could. Are we talking like $30 Big Macs at some point? That's what Peter Schiff said on our show a few weeks ago, that that's where we are heading in this deflationary period that we're in. So I don't know if you saw silver was up to a $120 an ounce, dropped down to about 70, has bounced back.
Gold now over $5,100 an ounce. So we are big advocates of owning real tangible things, real estate, gold, and silver, not fake US dollars, which are backed by nothing. Really? Air, debt, And the promise of war? That's really what the US dollar is backed by.
So our friends at Lear Capital can actually help you start investing today. Just and it just give them a phone call. They're an American company. You're not gonna be talking to some, like, you know, call center in India somewhere. You're gonna talk to Americans, and they work with our our viewers of our show every day to learn how to start investing in gold and silver.
And just call give them a free phone call, and then they'll send you a free gold kit so you can actually just sit down with your spouse and have a part have a have a discussion about it. Just call them. 1806133557 is the place to go. Give them a call or go to the website leerredacted.com. That's the other place you can go.
Again, have a phone call with them, and you could receive up to $20,000 in free bonus metals with a qualified purchase depending on how much you buy. If you end up buying gold or silver, have it sent to your house, stored in your gun safe, or stored in a twenty four hour guarded facility off-site, which is what we do in Delaware, you can do that as well. So it's totally up to you. 1806133557 for your free guide, or go to leerredacted.com. Alright.
We are back with former CIA whistleblower, John Kiriakou and Colonel Douglas MacGregor, to discuss this impending war with Iran and how it comes together. What will its effects be on The United States? What will its effects be on Israel and Iran and the entire world economy? I wanted to play for you just a quick sound bite here. This is Jennifer Griffin from Fox News, gentlemen, where she was doing a report on all of the massive military buildup that's hit the region, all of the aircraft carriers, and everything that has now arrived in the region.
And as she was tossing it back to Brett Baer, this is what she said. It's it's it's just pay close attention. Watch.
Speaker 8: It's hard to imagine the president backing down from the military option. The amount of military hardware the Pentagon is positioning in the region signals it is not a question of if, but when. Brett?
Speaker 3: Not a not a question of if, but when. Last night, I sat down with Tucker Carlson. We had a lively discussion about the impending Iraq, Iran war. And Tucker just called it out and said, she's lying. I just spoke to the president.
Like, she's what what she's saying is factually incorrect. Watch.
Speaker 9: That's not true, by the way. I mean, just in point of fact, that's not true. I I do think we're likely to go to war with Iran. I grieve that. But in point of fact, Trump makes the decision, and he hasn't made it.
So it's just it's just a fact. So if you're reporting that we're going to war, you're lying. And it does feel like they're trying to create this sense of inevitability.
Speaker 3: I think her point was the military buildup is like you can't put that genie back in the bottle at this point. That there's so much of a military buildup. We've moved so many expensive pieces of equipment to this region on not unlike the Gulf War. In fact, I've talked to sources in Tel Aviv who told me they haven't seen this type of buildup since the Gulf War. So I think her point is, oh, well, you know what, mister president?
Maybe you just sort of sit back and let let other people deal with this. We're gonna build it up to such a degree where you just can't put this genie back in the bottle. And I wonder how much agency you get. We'll cut that guy off. Cut that guy off.
Speaker 0: But I guess In favor of this guy.
Speaker 3: In favor of this guy. In favor of, Thursday, Clayton. So colonel, colonel, when you look at when you look at that, you see Jennifer I'm just so struck by this. You have a a Pentagon reporter for Fox News basically saying
Speaker 0: It's a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 3: Foregone conclusion. The the military buildup is so large here that really Trump has no choice in the matter, and yet he hasn't even made a decision.
Speaker 4: Well, there's president for that. And in, August 1914, when the Germans finally decided to mobilize, this is after it became clear that the Tsar had mobilized the Russian forces, the French were mobilizing, the Austrians had declared war. And trains were running in Germany, and the soldiers were boarding them, headed to the western border. And the Kaiser was very upset because he didn't want a war. And he said to the chief of staff, who was with him at the time, he said, can I stop this?
And the chief of staff said, well, sire, I I think it's it it can't be stopped. Well, that was the wrong answer. Kaiser was the commander in chief. If he had said, I want this to stop, it would have stopped. If president Trump is listening, that's what I would tell him.
Don't be misled. Nothing has to happen. You are the commander in chief. You can call a halt to this anytime you want. You can end it.
You can also change the conditions for an agreement. You can alter it. And I agree with John. If he were to do that, that would be a a strategic leap into rationality and and future peace in the region. I I don't expect it, but that's what I would tell him.
Speaker 0: You know, this is a constant assault on my psyche because I'm constantly following it. So it's like, we're gonna do it. No. We're not gonna do it. Yeah.
We're gonna do it. Oh, these assholes, they have a lot of power. They're at the White House. Oh, no. Netanyahu's back.
And what you had said earlier, John, is that this may be one of their last best hope to get the war that they finally want. But if they don't get it, then we have to keep living like this because they're gonna keep screaming for it, And they will breed more people like the Ben Shapiro's to keep screaming. What do we do? I mean, what I do is I I marinate myself in this Monday through Thursday, and then I go to Costco on Friday, and I pretend it's not real because otherwise, I will crack.
Speaker 5: Let me let me really ruin your day. Let me really ruin your day.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: What happens if the Iranians do fall apart? So the Israelis got the chaos they wanted in Iraq. They got the chaos that they wanted in Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that the real threat is Turkey. Right?
He said it this week, it's Turkey. What happens if there are hostilities between Turkey and Israel? Turkey is a NATO country. We are compelled by treaty to defend Turkey. Alright.
Would we? I doubt it. And that's gonna be the end of NATO.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't care about that. I'd be happy to see the end of NATO.
Speaker 3: I'd be so happy. Yeah.
Speaker 4: The NATO's already dead man walking.
Speaker 0: Right. I guess my point is, like, how do we whack a mole these war lovers so we don't have to hear it, and we can go to Costco every day? I don't wanna live this way. It's incredibly excitizing, and they are not gonna stop.
Speaker 3: Well, maybe I we'll expand on that. So the Jennifer Griffin clip that I played here, I mean, these are like, these are the forces at play. Right? The intelligence, Pentagon adjacent forces, John, that you know so well from having worked at the CIA. And so that's what and the neocon forces and the Lindsey Graham forces, but the more nefarious behind closed door forces are the ones that I'm worried about.
Right? It's not the Lindsey Grahams. It's the people that are giving that bit of information to Jennifer Griffin, then she goes on Fox News and pushes it. And then Sean Hannity goes on his show and wears a CIA lapel pin, which he wears on his show. So, like, what forces are at play here really pushing us inside Washington right now for this war?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, by all accounts, and I think Larry Johnson would, would say the same thing, There are factions at play right now. You've got the state departmentNSC all in, the DOD civilian leadership all in And you have Tulsi Gabbard and the chairman of the joint chiefs and apparently vice president J. D. Vance saying, wait a minute, this is a mistake.
We shouldn't be doing this. Now couple that with the fact that Donald Trump really has done literally nothing to swing public opinion in support of an attack on Iran. And I just don't understand the policy. I don't understand why you would even have conversations where people could be quoted as having said, we've made a decision to attack Iran. How is that in the American national interest?
It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask colonel oh, go ahead, colonel.
Speaker 4: I was just gonna say that don't overlook the people that elected, Donald Trump to the White House. And when I say elect, I say it tongue in cheek. Who are the billionaires that spent the money? One of the things that's very striking to me in 2024 is that someone like Zuckerberg, who put a 250 plus million dollars, into absentee ballots in major cities across the country, and bringing in people to vote, and register their votes. What did he do in in 2024?
That's what he did in 2020. In 2024, that didn't happen. It was called off. Now why was it called off? Because I think the other billionaires that had historically opposed Trump had sat down with president Trump and made it clear, look, we'll make sure you get into the White House.
We'll we'll put you there. We'll support you. But you've got to do some things for us. This time around, you're gonna have to deal with Iran. Remember back in June 2019, we came very close to a war with Iran.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: Trump ultimately walked away. Said we're not gonna allow that to happen again. Now I don't know what these people may have from mister Epstein on anybody in Washington. I imagine there's a lot out there, and that may be part of this. I have no way of knowing.
Anything is possible these days, But I'm afraid that's a very important decision factor for president Trump.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I wanna ask about these reports that are sort of viral right now about clogged toilets on the USS General Ford that the soldiers are suffering. They're in long long bathroom lines. It just smells horrific. That seems like a recipe for disease.
But there were reports. So now some are surmising that the soldiers are are sabotaging or that the sailors rather sabotaging the ship in order to be sent home. But there were reports of this ship having plumbing issues since as far back as 2022. So we can either chalk it up to low military morale or aging infrastructure. Now, colonel, neither of those show confidence or readiness for a major global conflict.
What do you know about that?
Speaker 4: I know from my sources in the Navy that sailors actually took undershirts and stuffed them into the toilets to cause them to back up. Wow. I know that the That's true. Very, very unhappy with being at sea now for what, ten months. And before this is over, it will have been a year.
They went to Souda Bay. I think they tried to address some of this. And now they've pulled out of Souda Bay after what? Forty eight hours or a little more than that to repair things. But you're talking about something else that's that's hugely important.
I don't wanna go into great detail, but logistics in the region is very problematic right now. Places we formerly were able to utilize, we can't because of the Huckabee interview, frankly. That that particular revelation has turned almost everybody against us in the region. So the navy is now looking as far away as India and ports there that they can go to as required. There are limited quantities of missiles and ammunition.
And at some point, you have to break away. You have to go reload everything. And then finally, a lot of these ships have been at sea for long periods of time and need a lot of retrofitting. Now supposedly, there are three carrier battle groups currently being prepared right now that could be surged out to the region. They wouldn't be ready for at least another two weeks.
Some people say three, but we may see them surge shortly in order to relieve these two carrier battle groups. This is this is tough. You know? People think, well, these ships just go to sea, but they have to be replenished. The people have to eat.
You know, you have to have repair parts. You you have to make make things work that are no longer working after months of use. So there's there are a lot of problems with this. This is not an easy task. We all forget.
Iran is a continental power. We are not. We're a maritime aerospace power. We have to fly or sail everything in. Now one one quick correction.
I I do know that the RAF has sent their f 20 twos to the region to fly with us along with their aerial refueling assets. But everybody else is, as John say says, has said no thanks.
Speaker 3: Well and I can just tell you from the military source that I've spoken to separately about the USS Abraham Lincoln that this is, I think, the third now deployment. They were supposed to come home months ago. They've they just found out, I think, about a week ago that they were now extended again. So as you to your point, ten months, and they're, like, they're furious about it. Ten months?
So, John, this is troubling. But on on the colonel's point about Huckabee
Speaker 0: That's huge. Clint and I both looked at each other off camera like, what what an amazing cell phone from that dickhead. So he has made it so that we cannot use those bases for a war we don't even want. We gotta thank him for that.
Speaker 5: He's such an unhinged clown. He should have been fired for allowing Jonathan Pollard, the traitor Jonathan Pollard, into the American embassy to be feted and for a formal meeting. He should have been fired just for that. Now he's essentially sabotaging our diplomatic relations with long standing friends all around the region just because Jesus told him to. It's time for him to go.
It's well beyond time for him to go.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, I just I'm still reeling though from the sabotage of these sailors who are saying, you know, we we're done here. We what are we doing here? And that speaks to also, you know, these other 50,000 or if it's now more than that, colonel, forgive me on the numbers that are sitting there as as sitting ducks. And as president Biden said, you know, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when they will be hit and attacked.
These aren't fortresses in the region. These aren't like massive, you know, fortresses. A lot of them are just outposts. So many Americans, rightly so, are probably furious about this, but many American soldiers are going to could potentially be killed as a result of this.
Speaker 4: Well, most of our troops have been evacuated from, as you say, these outposts and forward operating bases. Okay. We've tried to get them out of harm's way. There there are not people in Southern And Eastern Syria anymore. They've all left.
We do have the capacity for point defense in a number of different places, but we don't have air and missile defense coverage on a large area. I mean, one of the things that we don't really have is something that you hear referred to all the time, which is integrated air defense systems. We don't have it. That's another problem. We have limited air defense at sea and limited air defense at shore, and I think we'll we'll concentrate where we're going to protect Israel.
We'll protect some of the bases where we have a lot of aircraft, and the rest of it will be involve aircraft flying forward to destroy missiles before they reach Israel. That's the best we could do. And as far as the morale is concerned, we tend to forget people are human. I think the the navy has a big problem remembering that, and the admirals have been really pushing the fleet very, very hard for a very long time. And many of them are not nearly as well trained as they were twenty five or thirty years ago.
I can tell you that.
Speaker 3: John, final thoughts.
Speaker 5: Know, like I said a few minutes ago, I try hard to be an optimist all the time. But every time I see us take a step forward, it seems we take two steps back within twenty four hours. And I'm just not optimistic about this. If we make the decision to attack Iran, no good will come of it for The United States. It will it will damage our international reputation more than it's already been damaged.
People will die unnecessarily. We'll further strain relations, diplomatic relations with our partners across the Middle East, not just in the Persian Gulf, but across the region. There's there's no upside to doing this for The United States. If you're Israeli, sure thing. Let the Americans do your dirty work for you.
But as an American, I think this is a grave mistake.
Speaker 3: And, colonel, finally, do you think that we are going to attack Iran? And if so Yes. When do think this this timetable might happen?
Speaker 4: Well, let's put it this way. February is the full moon, and we have more than a few lunatics inside the Beltway. So I'm gonna vote for some time between now and two March.
Speaker 3: Well, also
Speaker 4: That's supposed to be the Jewish holiday
Speaker 3: of Purim. And according to my sources in Tel Aviv, that would be an ideal date for them to claim victory over the enemy during the Jewish holiday of Purim. So March 2. March 2. That's what I've been hearing.
You've been hearing. There you go. John Kiriak.
Speaker 4: I just know that it's a full moon, you know. It's a Yeah. I'm a druid at heart, you know. Yeah. Given my kind of background.
What can I say?
Speaker 3: He was out there at Stonehenge.
Speaker 0: D Day happened on
Speaker 3: the floor.
Speaker 4: A little further north.
Speaker 3: Colonel MacGregor, John Kiriaku, great to have both of you here to do a deep dive on this. You know, I I don't I don't think there's a more important story right now in The United States and what what this could bring to the world. So thank you for your perspectives, both of you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. God bless.
Speaker 4: Bye bye.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🔥 While you're reading Epstein files, the entire global financial system is being restructured. Rubio drew the line with NATO. Trump is tanking the dollar intentionally. And China is ready. @ProfessorWerner breaks down what's really happening. https://t.co/7SPXGK1C4Q
Video Transcript AI Summary
Marco Rubio traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference and delivered what the program calls the most important American speech in the last thirty years, calling on Europe to join Trump's new world order or face the consequences. He told NATO allies that playtime is over and that a new world order is being written by the United States; Europe is asked to join, or face being left behind. Rubio framed NATO as a transaction between countries and said it is only worth defending if you are worth defending, accusing European leaders of managing Europe’s decline and warning that if Europe continues on a liberal, destructive path, the United States will be done with them. He criticized a liberal globalist agenda of a borderless world and mass immigration, and argued for reform of the existing international order rather than dismantling it.
Rubio asserted that the old rules of the world are dead and that the West must adapt to a new era of geopolitics. He indicated that these are conversations he has been having with allies and other world leaders behind closed doors, and that these talks are accelerating. The speech conveyed a clear ultimatum: the US wants Europe with us, but is prepared to rebuild the global order alone if necessary. Rubio stated that the US would prefer to act with Europe, but would do so independently if Europe does not align.
The discussion then ties these geopolitics to currency and economics. The US dollar’s role as the reserve currency and its strength are central to the old world order. The Trump administration is signaling that the strong dollar religion is over, with the dollar weakened in Trump’s second term to make US exports cheaper. Reuters is cited as reporting that China’s treasury holdings have dropped to their lowest level since 2008 as banks are urged to curb exposure to US treasuries, suggesting China is stepping back from funding America and that the burden may shift to US funding via domestic sources. The narrative contrasts this with China’s push for a stronger yuan and global reserve status, including potential expansion of currency use in trade, while Europe sits in the middle, invited to join the US-led shift or be sidelined. There is mention of a possible April Beijing trip by Trump to meet Xi Jinping.
The segment also notes internal GOP dynamics, describing Rubio as a neocon favorite and predicting a contest between Rubio’s hawkish approach and JD Vance, who reportedly does not want broad war expansions. The speaker frames Rubio’s speech as a signal flare indicating a real-time reorganization of the West, with the dollar at the blast radius.
The sponsor segment follows, tying the topics to critical minerals and a program named Project Vault, a $12 billion strategic reserve for precious minerals to protect the private sector from supply shocks. At a Critical Minerals Ministerial, JD Vance and Marco Rubio delivered a message to China about preventing market flooding from killing domestic projects. The sponsor promotes North American Niobium, a company exploring for niobium and two rare earths (neodymium and praseodymium), describing niobium as critical for aerospace and defense applications, with no domestic US production and 90% global supply controlled by Brazil. The company’s base includes Quebec, Canada, and it highlights leadership from Joseph Carrabas of Rio Tinto and Cliffs Natural Resources fame, and Carrie Lynn Findlay, a former Canadian cabinet minister. The ticker symbol NIOMF is provided, with notes that shares are tradable on major US brokerages, and a reminder for due diligence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome, secretary of state Marco Rubio. You have the floor.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Marco Rubio just dropped a bombshell. While all the mainstream media has been focused on that Savannah Guthrie kidnapping story, the Trump administration basically just unleashed an earthquake, and no one covered it this weekend. Secretary of state Marco Rubio this weekend traveled to Germany for that Munich Security Conference and delivered arguably the most important speech in America, at least the most important American speech in the last thirty years, in my opinion. Calling on Europe to join Trump's new world order or face the consequences.
You're either with us or you're against us. He was nice about it, but he was not ambiguous. Rubio admitted to NATO allies that playtime is over right now. A new world order is being written by The United States, and you're either with us or you're against us. He previewed the speech when he landed on the tarmac.
Speaker 2: The world is changing very fast right on Earth. The old world is gone, frankly. The the world I grew up in, we live in a new era of geopolitics, and it's gonna require all of us to sort of reexamine what that looks like and what our role is going to be.
Speaker 1: Rubio is saying, look. When we look at the world, we want the West to thrive again, and the leaders that you've elected here in Europe are total losers who are managing the decline of Europe, particularly in Germany. Right where he was, like talking right to their faces. You're doing it on purpose here in Germany. We'd like you to join us in this new world order, but of course, if you wanna continue on this liberal, destructive path that you're on, then we are done with you.
He's telling them that NATO is a transaction between countries, that NATO is only worth supporting if you are worth defending. And right now, you're not worth defending. You're you're declining fast under stupid policies, and NATO as a transaction isn't worth paying for. We recently spoke to Richard Werner, one of the most brilliant economists in the world who said that, oh, it's not a fallacy. Germany is collapsing.
Speaker 3: I mean, the economy is collapsing. It is really in dire straits. Other European economies are not much better. And so, you know, this all adds up to really policy imposed, self imposed disaster upon disaster.
Speaker 1: Rubio went on to slam the liberal globalist agenda of a borderless world, a globalist's dream of mass immigration, countries handing over their sovereignty to these globalists in Brussels.
Speaker 0: It was foolish. It was a foolish but voluntary transformation of our economy that left us dependent on others for our needs and dangerously vulnerable to crisis.
Speaker 1: And look if Nancy Guthrie is truly missing and this isn't just some Jesse Smollett story all over again, then prayers to that family for sure. But the media obsession, like all over Fox News wall to wall coverage over Savannah Guthrie?
Speaker 4: Law swarming a Tucson home overnight just two miles from Nancy Guthrie's place.
Speaker 1: Really? Like, how does that affect Americans at all? It doesn't. Meanwhile, Rubio's speech is the story. Rubio's point isn't subtle.
The rules that govern the world are dead. He told the room that the old world is gone and that we're in a new era of geopolitics, and he admitted that these are the same conversations that he's been having privately with allies behind closed doors, other world leaders behind closed doors. And by the way, I've been hearing the same thing from sources to the White House that these talks are accelerating, that Rubio and Stephen Miller really driving this big posture change.
Speaker 0: We can no longer place the so called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations. We do not need to abandon the system of international cooperation we authored, and we don't need to dismantle the global institutions of the old order that together we built. But these must be reformed.
Speaker 1: But now here's where this gets real. When Rubio says the new world order, he's talking leverage. He's telling Europe your free ride is over. If you want American protection, you're gonna have to start acting like a civilization that wants to survive. And he wasn't hiding the ultimatum.
In Munich, Rubio said The US wants Europe with us. But The US is prepared to rebuild the global world order if necessary and will do it alone.
Speaker 0: And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, It is our preference, and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what does any of this have to do with your money? The US Dollar and China, well, has everything to do with it. Because the backbone of the old world order wasn't just NATO. It was the US dollar as the reserve currency, the thing that everybody settles trade in, parks savings in.
Right now, the Trump team is signaling the strong dollar religion is over. The dollar has weakened in Trump's second term. The Trump world is treating it as a feature, not a bug, because it makes US exports cheaper. Now The Wall Street Journal this weekend highlighted Trump's plan that a strong US dollar is essentially killing us. In order for us to compete, we need a weakened US dollar.
That's the message coming out of the Trump administration. So here's the uncomfortable part of this story. That that looks like copying China's playbook, which is exactly what it is. China kept the yuan cheap for decades on purpose, Turns itself into an export powerhouse, pulled industry out of The United States, used the surplus to build power, build up their massive military, and Washington let it happen. So Trump and Rubio come in and say, fine.
We'll devalue strategically as well. We'll force reshoring of manufacturing in The United States. We're gonna treat supply chains like national security. But the second you start signaling you don't care about a strong dollar, then the world hears it. Reuters reports China's treasury holdings have dropped to their lowest level since 2008.
Look at the sell off. It's crazy. Chinese regulators have been urging banks to curb exposure to US treasuries. The translation here, they're stepping back from funding America. So now it's on us to fund ourselves for those treasuries to come back home and for those to go into American pension plans.
But it is a mess. 39,000,000,000,000 in debt in The United States. So China's not going to do what we did for them under Clinton, Obama, and Bush. We subsidized them. We moved our manufacturing overseas, helped them build up their massive military.
Speaker 4: Honestly, it built their military. We built China's military with the money that we lost for so many years getting ripped off.
Speaker 1: He he's absolutely right. I mean, however you feel about Trump, he's correct on that. At the same time that Trump and Rubio are pushing this weaker US dollar, Xi Jinping is pushing the opposite message. He wants the yuan treated like a real reserve currency. China is now publicly talking about a stronger currency with global reserve status, and they're already implementing it.
So this isn't just talk. And analysts point out that the trade offs here, China would have to loosen capital controls, deepen markets to pull this off. But the direction is clear. More trade settled in yuan and less dependence on the US dollar. And the Chinese are reading The United States like a book right now.
Top Chinese commentators on television are laughing at Trump's foreign policy this weekend, and the people are sharing this on social media, making fun of Trump, saying Trump is pretending to be strong, but really The United States is incredibly weak inside. They say we lost the trade war. They say we lost the tech war. We failed in Ukraine, and now we're grasping at straws invading Venezuela for their oil. Basically, the Chinese are saying, you lost.
And here's the part that everybody should be freaking out about. This week, China started accelerating its dumping of US treasuries. Not a rumor, not hyperbole. Multiple reports say Chinese regulators have been telling big domestic banks to curb their exposure to US government debt. Get rid of it.
Limit any kind of new buying. And if they're overweight in any kind of US debt, start trimming it. Cut it. Lose it. And this isn't happening in a vacuum.
China's treasury holdings have already fallen to around 682,000,000,000. That's the lowest level since 2008, and it's been sliding for months and accelerating. And remember, currency is only one weapon. China is also tightening its rare earth export controls. The inputs for magnets, defense systems, high end manufacturing.
Control the inputs, and you control the factory floor. Now you zoom out, and Rubio walks into Europe and says, pick a side. You with China? You with us? Reuters reports Trump is planning a Beijing trip in April to meet with Xi Jinping.
That appears to still be on at this point. Could get canceled, but right now it's on. And the currency war is sitting underneath all of that. A weaker dollar on purpose, a stronger yuan by design, and Europe squeezed in the middle right now being invited to join us or get the hell out of the way. You wanna go with China, or you wanna go with us?
And, yes, inside the GOP, this becomes a knife fight because Rubio is like a neocon favorite. He is a neocon by all accounts. Right? I don't I don't trust the guy as far as I can throw him. He's likely to become the nominee for the GOP.
JD Vance is a problem. Neocons don't like him because he's not eager for a new war. He doesn't wanna have a war in Iran. So the neocons hate J. D.
Vance. I know he pretends to kinda go along with Trump on a lot of issues, but I happen to know behind the scenes he does not. And so they do not like that guy. So watch this internal battle folding out right now because it tells you where this new world order goes next. Is it going with Rubio and neocons, or is it gonna go with J.
D. Vance and no more wars and not a massive expansion of the military industrial complex? Bottom line, Rubio's speech wasn't just rhetoric. It was a signal flare. The West is being reorganized in real time, and the dollar is right in the blast radius.
So we better buckle up for what's next. So that's the news update part of today's video. Now I wanna tell you about today's sponsor, which is tied to everything that we just talked about in this new world order that is changing right before our eyes. Now as we just mentioned, critical minerals are one of the top concerns of the United States government. For both the Trump administration and the Chinese Communist Party, critical minerals and rare earth metals are viewed as the primary ammunition in this twenty first century geoeconomic conflict right now.
So on February 2, the global critical minerals market was hit by a seismic event that will be remembered as the turning point for North American resource independence. Trump launched what he called Project Vault. Now it represents the first time in The United States, in our history, that we've created a strategic dedicated reserve specifically to protect the private sector from supply shocks in precious minerals. Basically, it's a $12,000,000,000 bombshell strategic stockpile designed to function as the strategic petroleum reserve for the age of AI and high-tech defense. At the Critical Minerals Ministerial on February 4, JD Vance and Marco Rubio delivered a direct message to China.
The US will no longer allow market flooding to kill domestic projects Project Vault creates a strategic petroleum reserve moment for the minerals industry, shifting The United States from a passive consumer to to an active market participant. There are currently zero zero operational mines of the mineral called niobium on US soil. None. So niobium is a rare earth mineral, and it's imported 100% from foreign countries. Niobium is used in reaction control thrusters, thruster mounts, leading edges for spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon capsule.
There's only one active mine in Canada, and 90% of the global supply is controlled by Brazil. So discovering Niobium is a national security issue, so I wanted to bring this to your attention as soon as possible. The sponsor of today's video is North American Niobium, US ticker symbol right here on your screen, NIOMF. It is exploring for three minerals as we speak, two of which are rare earth minerals, which are super magnets. So shares of this company are available on Schwab, Fidelity, Interactive Brokers, E Trade, any of the big brokerages out there you can find it on.
Now the metal's strength to weight ratio and thermal resistance make it vital for modern weaponry and advanced military platforms. It is indispensable for the super alloys that are used in jet engines, rocket nozzles, hypersonic missiles. With zero domestic production in The United States and 90% global supply concentration in Brazil, niobium is a top tier security priority and a major opportunity for us. North American niobium is in the same region as North America's only niobium mine in Quebec, Canada. The company has requested drilling permits from the local government, and once they're obtained, they are basically cashed up to begin drilling, just as the world's largest governments are fighting over niobium and access to critical minerals right now.
Now the deficits in niobium are no longer just a risk. They can become a profit engine. North American niobium is looking to begin its exploration programs in a region where North America's only operational niobium is located. On top of niobium, which China has restricted to export for America's military uses, North American niobium is also focused on two super magnets: neodymium, the primary ingredient in NDFeB magnets, the strongest permanent magnets ever created, so neodymium and prasiodinium are among the most strategically important materials for space and defense, and yes, they are hard to pronounce. Praziodinium is vital for high strength magnesium alloys used in aircraft engines, high performance robotics, and praziodinium is also used as a dopant in fiber optic cables.
Both of these are considered the magnet rare earths and they are the heartbeat of missile guidance systems. There's an enormous opportunity here because you don't have a country without them, and North American Niobium is exploring for both of them right now. For decades, globalization has blinded politicians, and one firm from Brazil has become the dominator of niobium. 92% of global supply comes out of there. I believe there has never been a better time to hold North American based niobium and rare earth stocks right now.
North American niobium is securing drilling permits in Quebec, and it could begin exploration in the coming weeks and months. And by the way, these minerals are considered so critical because there's no viable commercial substitute that offers the same weight to power ratio. A big part of North American niobium's upside potential is tied to the people heading the company and on its board. Few names carry the weight of Joseph Carrabas. For over two decades he was a key leadership force within Rio Tinto, one of the big three global mining conglomerates.
His most legendary stint was as Chairman, President, and CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources, which is now Cleveland Cliffs. He guided the industry's giant as a director for Newmont Corporation, the world's largest gold mining company, Newmont. His presence on the board is a big signal to the market in my view. Then you have the honorable Carrie Lynn Findlay is a powerhouse in the Canadian legal and political landscape. She's a former federal cabinet minister, distinguished king's counsel.
She served in several high impact roles including minister of national revenue, associate minister of national defense. More recently as chief opposition whip and shadow minister for national defense, she also has remained as the forefront of Canada's strategic security conversations. So this is my first ever rare earth stock that I featured to you, North American Niobium. Again, here is their ticker symbol on your screen, and it's available on US exchanges. Guys, do your own due diligence on this company, and we'll see you next time, everyone.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
✷ BREAKING: What if Michael Jackson wasn't the predator? What if he was the distraction? The Epstein files suggest the real abusers framed him to keep the spotlight off themselves. He was acquitted on all charges. @IanCarrollShow joins us. https://t.co/Qlr9yMdX2o
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the Epstein files’ implications for Michael Jackson, Hollywood power, and international intelligence networks. The speakers present a narrative in which Jackson is portrayed as a target of a smear campaign by those who themselves were implicated in abusive behavior, and where financial and institutional interests—labels like John Branca, Sony, and broader music-industry power structures—played a decisive role in shaping public misperceptions and legal outcomes.
Key points raised:
- Michael Jackson faced multiple accusations in the 1990s: one civil settlement for sexual abuse claims and a criminal trial in which he was acquitted. Jackson maintained his innocence, asserting that he had only tried to help children and that the accusations were a nightmare used to condemn him.
- Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman provided counter-narratives about Jackson’s character, with Culkin stating that Jackson protected him from going to Epstein’s island. Aaron Carter recounted how FBI agents and his mother pressured him for statements about Jackson, which he resisted, arguing that Jackson was hospitable and kind.
- Ian Carroll, an independent journalist, argues that the smear campaign against Jackson was sustained by media and industry interests, and that the FBI’s decade-long investigation found no credible evidence, despite persistent public narratives. He suggests the timing of accusations aligned with Jackson’s challenges to industry power.
- Cui bono (who benefits) framing is used to trace Jackson’s fortunes to John Branca, Sony, and the broader record industry. Jackson’s contested revised will, signed while the family claimed he was not in Los Angeles, is cited as evidence of manipulated assets and power dynamics after his death. Carroll and others propose that Jackson’s death may have involved murder or entrapment tied to financial and industry interests.
- The group discusses how Epstein’s network intersects with major power players, including Ehud Barak and Leslie Wexner, and how Epstein fostered a web of influence spanning entertainment, finance, and intelligence communities. They propose that blackmail—often leveraging sexual proclivities or drug use—was a tool used to control powerful figures, with Bill (Jackson’s long-time head of security) and Faheem Muhammad (who later joined Diddy’s security) highlighted as examples of how security teams can serve as leverage points.
- The conversation connects Epstein’s trafficking network to Hollywood and music executives, arguing that the industry routinely uses celebrities and talent-disposition toward manipulation, entrapment, and blackmail to protect vested interests.
- The panel raises questions about the role of media silence and biased reporting. They critique headlines and coverage (such as claims of Jackson being a pedophile) as sensationalist, arguing that some outlets published prosecutors’ opinions as facts and that this feeds broader misinformation.
- They discuss the broader Epstein ecosystem—its links to Israel’s intelligence circles, transhumanist funding, Palantir and other surveillance technologies, and the potential for a global intelligence-driven “blackmail economy” that intersects with corporate and political power. They emphasize that Epstein’s network extended beyond celebrity abuse to technological and geopolitical frontiers, including genetics, cybersecurity, and digital governance.
- The conversation also touches on how some public narratives attempt to shift blame or reframe individuals (for example, via racial framing or antisemitism accusations) to obscure the underlying structural abuses and blackmail networks. They caution against easy judgments based on identity politics, urging careful examination of the documented connections and the evidence.
- Towards the end, they debate who might still benefit from reviving allegations about Jackson, noting that the Epstein materials resurfaced in late 2020s-era reporting and that some outlets used salacious Epstein-Jackson linkages to repackage old stories. They stress the difficulty of disentangling truth from manipulation when powerful actors have incentives to suppress or distort information.
Additionally, the speakers highlight:
- The existence of a broader, ongoing intelligence and corporate machinery behind Epstein’s operations, suggesting that the real story lies not only in salacious accusations but in how such networks influence media, politics, science funding, and technological development.
- The importance of transparency and deeper investigation into the layers beneath public celebrity scandals, including the roles of security personnel, gatekeepers, and financial controllers who may shield or advance these criminal networks.
Overall, the dialogue emphasizes a pattern: prominent figures in entertainment and business become targets of complex, multifaceted suppression and manipulation by powerful interest groups, with Epstein’s and Jackson’s cases presented as illustrative of a wider system of control and blackmail rooted in money, media influence, and intelligence contacts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the major revelations from the Epstein files is that Michael Jackson appears to have been framed by the very people who actually were doing the abusing of children. If you don't recall in the nineteen nineties, Michael Jackson was accused of sexually abusing specifically young boys. One case led to a civil settlement, which Jackson later said he wished he had not done. He wished he had fought it in court. Another did lead to a criminal trial, and he was acquitted on all charges.
Here was his statement at the time asserting his unequivocal innocence.
Speaker 1: I ask all of you to wait and hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don't treat me like a criminal because I am innocent. It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare. But if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it. Throughout my life, I have only tried to help thousands upon thousands of children to live happy lives.
It brings tears to my eyes when I see any child who suffers. I am not guilty of these allegations. But if I am guilty of anything, it is of giving all that I have all that I have to give to help children all over the world. It is of loving children of all ages and races. It is of gaining sheer joy from seeing children with their innocent and smiling faces.
It is of enjoying through them the
Speaker 0: Okay. I get emotional watching that because I too was raised a Jehovah's Witness. So I have this connection with Michael Jackson about sort of a different type of childhood. So Clayton warns me not to get emotional about it. Now the press used his friendship with child actor Macaulay Culkin as proof that he was this weirdo who had an inappropriate obsession with young boys.
But recently, this clip of Culkin is going viral where he says that Jackson actually protected him from specifically going to the island.
Speaker 2: Never forget that. Michael Jackson saved me from getting on a plane to that tiny island.
Speaker 0: Alright. Aaron Carter also said something similar. Here he is in 2016. Now recall he died in 2022, but he laid it out clearly that the FBI and his mother were trying to get him to say something because he was a child and he refused to watch.
Speaker 2: I have to tell you this. Okay. So after I left the party, and the next day I smoked weed with Michael, and then I get I get in the limousine, I leave. I get back to the Sheraton Hotel at Universal over here. There's four FBI agents waiting for me in the hotel room.
And my mom's there and she's like, tell them what happened. And I'm like, what do mean tell them what happened? And I sit down with them and they all ask these super sexually exploiting, you know, questions, back, back sided questions. And I knew that at my age already. And I looked at all four of them and I said, I said, are y'all crazy?
I said, what you think I'm gonna do? Tell you that Michael did something bad so that we we can sue him for money? That's what I told him. I was like, you're and I looked over at my mom and I was like, are you serious, mom? I was like, what is going on here?
Why are you letting this happen? And she goes she goes, well she goes, well, I think something happened, you know, I think something I'm like, really? That man did nothing but be hospitable, kind, loving, giving, everything you can think of.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, the person we wanted to talk about this to was Ian Carroll. He's a researcher, independent journalism, or an independent journalist. He went viral. It's been two years now since this video, this eight minute video about Michael Jackson connecting him to Diddy and the Diddy trials and Epstein.
It was brilliant. And that's why people trust you. So we wanted to bring you in and talk about what you already knew, what the connections you made with Diddy, and now the connections we can make with Epstein. So let's go. Let's do it.
Thank you for coming.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for having me on. It's good to talk to you guys again. And it's wild how Michael Jackson, these ghosts that they prop up, for sort of their propaganda narratives keep on they keep on trying to replay it because they it it almost feels like they invested so much in the smear of Michael Jackson that they're trying to just milk it for all it's worth.
And fortunately, independent journalists, not just myself, lots of people are kind of digging open these old lies that, that no longer quite hold the water that they used to carry for these people.
Speaker 4: Before we get into all the Epstein pieces of this and how this connects, I just wanna say it seems like all of the signals were there for all of us. Right? But most people, the mainstream media, they wouldn't pick them up. They were intentionally looking the other way. When you heard from people like Corey Feldman or or Macaulay Culkin, and they were saying, no.
He was a good person. He was trying to protect us. And no one wanted to hear that. Or at least of all the mainstream media, they wanted to go with the angle that was being pushed.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean, during that whole era of smears and, accusations, the FBI investigated Michael Jackson for ten years and found no credible evidence. You can read those reports online. You can even read it on Michael Jackson's Wikipedia page. They confiscated all of his hard drives and found absolutely nothing.
It it really it shows you it's one of the most explicit examples of how the media can create a story out of nothing and how they they can do that in parallel to actual law enforcement investigations that show the direct opposite of what the media is painting. And it also shows it's a perfect example of how, especially in Hollywood, those sorts of smears and paparazzi and, and attack narratives always seem to parallel the timeline of someone going against the industry or someone speaking out about what's really going on behind the scenes or someone being threatening to the powers that be. And Michael Jackson checked all of those boxes from his investments in his own music and in Sony at large to his, speech and speaking out to his power as a pop star. And so it it's no coincidence that the timing is is a direct one to one match of as Michael Jackson started to speak out and take, you know, take kind of moves towards his own power and and against the industry. And all of a sudden, this narrative explodes out of nowhere largely based on accusations of, let's just say, actors that were at a point in their career where they had everything to gain by working with the industry and that subsequently gained from the industry just coincidentally, right as they started making all these accusations that everyone else denied and and all the other children like Macaulay Culkin, all the people that didn't need anything from the industry that had already had their fame or, or I guess had souls, like the two clips you just played.
All of them flatly denied anything of the sort, and, no evidence was ever able to be attained. But that didn't stop the media from just running the narrative.
Speaker 0: Now I think one of the things that I learned from your video two years ago that I did not know, and I think that this is a linchpin on Cui Bono, who benefits from his death, is that his revised will was notarized in Los Angeles on a day that his family could prove that he was not in Los Angeles. He was in New York, and his estate was then willed over to a person he had already fired and accused of stealing from him. And then all of a sudden, why did this stand? And can you explain who benefited from his death, which is why we're thinking it was so mysterious? And then we'll back up into the accusations as well and the various I wanna touch on Oprah.
I wanna I wanna go there. I wanna go on all of it. So let's just start with, like, they did steal from him.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So, it's no secret that Michael Jackson started speaking out about, the Jewish producers in the industry and sort of a, like, a cabal or or, like, mafia within the industry that was exploiting people and robbing him. And he specifically, talked a lot about John Branca. And that's the man that he fired, that and accused of stealing from him, then mysteriously popped up in a revised will right before he died. And that whole story you just said totally checks out.
The family called them out on it. And later, the story sort of was revised to say, oh, no. It was a mistake. We just like it was misremembered where the will was signed, which is, you know, pretty transparent. But, Cui Bono is always a follow the money.
It's always follow, the paper trail, whether it's assets, whether it's actually cash, or whether it's power and influence. And Michael Jackson had all three. And so in in some ways, his his death, which I more and more suspect was a murder, not a death every day. It it not only is about what he was saying and what he was speaking out about, which was damaging, but it was also about the actual assets and power that he was accumulating on paper. And when you follow that trail, in Michael Jackson's case, Ki Bono was John Branca and his associates, Sony, the record industry at large.
And when you follow that trail in Diddy or in other, you know, music industry, scandals, it it tends to be a similar story. And when you follow that in Epstein, when you follow that in, Hollywood in general, it always kind of traces back to the the managers and controllers of the various industries, which tends to trace back to the money, the big money, and and ultimately to bankers. Yeah. Bankers and people that pull the strings.
Speaker 0: Right. Can I tell you a story?
Speaker 4: The ball for sure. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I wanna tell my Sony story.
Speaker 4: Your Sony story? Because
Speaker 0: okay. So in 2011, I left CBS and I was an independent journalist and I was hired by Sony to do what's called a media tour. Michael Jackson had just died within the last year or two and they wanted to re release his catalog because what I didn't understand until your story is that they he still had the rights funneling to certain places. They now had full control and they needed to re release that music so that they were getting all royalties from his estate. And so they hired me as an independent journalist to do what's called a media tour.
So I sat in a dark room, and I would just go local station to local station across the across the country and talk about this re released Michael Jackson collection. Collection. Why they needed to do it? I didn't understand. I was paid, you know, for the day, just a day's work of being a journalist and talking about how great it is that they have this new Michael Jackson collection.
And now I realize that I was paid by these people who needed to relaunch his music for their own benefit. Strangely enough, when I was doing this, I was in a dark room. There was no one in there. There was, you know, behind the room was a control room, but I was alone. And as I was doing this, equipment started falling off the shelf where no one and I was strapped in it to my was so weird.
And I was like, what is this? And now look, I'm getting goosebumps. It feels like I was I didn't know. Right? I wouldn't take that job now.
But it's an interesting story for anyway, I'm I'm
Speaker 3: very instructional about how the industry works Yeah. Where the industry is full of good people. And I mean, I'm saying like the industry, I mean, all industries. All of these industries that are mechanisms of control, they're largely staffed by regular people, good people. Most journalists are genuinely good people trying to do their job.
But it's so easy when the information flow is controlled, when the narrative is skewed, when, the command structure is sort of, segmented in a way where you're just clocking into work to do your little piece. And it's like, yeah, you're you would think you're supporting Michael Jackson by talking about, like, you know, his memory and his legacy. But then, you know, subtly behind the scenes, the story can come out. And it actually makes me think about Taylor Swift who sort of used a similar strategy, in her split with Big Machine and Scooter Braun and all of that, you know, everyone can have their own opinions about that. But a similar strategy to rerelease music to sort of, alter and control royalties and, rights.
I almost wonder how much she how much she knows about the Michael Jackson story and what she learned from history in that regard.
Speaker 0: I'm sick about it now, you know, looking back, but I didn't know.
Speaker 4: Let's talk about Epstein. And what do we now know from these documents? And what do we know from the breadcrumbs that had been laid over the years? We can start to unpack this. I mean, it's it's pretty damning to hear from, like, Macaulay Culkin about being protected of going to Epstein Island.
I mean, to see these connections of these children, I mean, he's just one example. And maybe there's hundreds of examples of this where Michael Jackson definitely knew what was going on. He wasn't very social. He kept to himself in a lot of ways, but he was very aware of being plugged in about what was happening to these children. And people like Corey Feldman were pretty outspoken about it.
So maybe we can just start to pull the threads on Epstein and what Michael Jackson knew about him.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Inherently, this conversation is largely speculative because there's not a lot there like, there's not a lot of physical hard evidence of these things. There's, you know, witness testimony, for example, like two the two clips we saw earlier. But, a lot of this, which is very important to do, I think, in the modern journal space is sort of, contextualizing what we do know for sure and then putting yourself in these various people's shoes and thinking what logically follows from this setup with this these these players and and this world that we live in because that will show us where to look. That will show us what to investigate.
That'll show us where the next clues might be. And it's it's no secret that Hollywood is a world of gossip. Hollywood is a world of if you know, you know, and who you know is how you, you know, how you get where you're going. And so you have to think about if there's this whole world that has an entire industry built around children, child actors, pageants, all all these things that are involving children in largely, compromised situations already in terms of their legal rights, in terms of their guardianships, in terms of their custody. And if and we know now very well that there's a lot of trafficking happening.
There's a lot of abuse happening. There's multiple different studios that we're doing, let's just say, questionable things. Nickelodeon comes to mind. Then that means that in that industry, there's a lot of children that have a lot of messed up stories. But if you know anything about working with children, especially children with trauma or abuse, you know that they are often very scared or reticent to share said stories.
They're often they, they don't have the context to know who they can trust and who they can't. And if most of the men or adults in general that they know are either abusers or seem to be a part of an abusive structure, you have to imagine that a lot of them would be very guarded about those stories. And even in many cases, it seems like their parents tend to be at least in some way complicit with these sorts of things. And so my mind immediately goes to, well, who would they share with? And it doesn't seem like a far fetched idea to say that they would share with the one adult that seems truly loving and caring and that, like, creates a safe space for them.
And Michael sits in this really unique position in the industry where he was both a child star that came up in the industry and had a whole lifelong career in the industry and was so famous that he had access to everybody to everywhere from royalty all the way down. And he also made a point of, you know, intentionally socializing with his fans and intentionally trying to, like, kind of retain that base humanity. And then he also develops this interest in protecting children and in creating Neverland Ranch, which got smeared obviously as being like an abusive thing. But when you actually rewind the narrative and think critically about the facts that have come out and you actually take him a little more at his word, it starts to paint a picture of a man that would have been actually the exact kind of person that these children would have confided in. The exact kind of person that these children would have seen an ally in and that could have understood what they were going through because he went through it too.
And so it actually becomes no mystery in my mind that Michael Jackson would be the exact kind of person that would hear all these rumors and that would be able to put the story together in the background before and more than just about anyone else. So it's a story that has very little physical documentation. And unfortunately, Michael is gone. But all of the, associated, like, pieces of evidence to suggest that are right there.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Right? 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 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. +1 806133557 or go to learredacted.com and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. You know, every bit of focus and clarity that you feel begins inside your mitochondria, the tiny power plants in your cells. And when they weaken, your thinking slows, your energy drops, even simple tasks feel harder.
That's why researchers are so interested in methylene blue. Doctors have used it for more than a century to treat malaria, blood poisoning, cyanide exposure. In a recent year, scientists have discovered something even more In small, controlled doses, METHELINE BLUE can support healthy mitochondrial energy production, especially in the brain. Doctor. Anna Jaroslavsky from the University of Massachusetts calls it a cellular reboot because it helps the brain produce cleaner, more efficient energy.
In 2025, the hype gained traction. People now use methylene blue to support mental clarity, sharper thinking, healthy aging without relying on stimulants. But purity matters. Many products online are aquarium grade blue dyes or unregulated powders that are not meant for human use. The wellness company's Recharge is in the league of its own.
It's a pharmaceutical grade methylene blue. It's paired with PQQ and NAD, the ultimate brain hack hybrid. So get 10% off plus free shipping. So head over to TWC. Healthredacted and use that code redacted to get a nice discount.
Feel the difference. Think clear. Recharge. Talk about, like, the physical evidence or, like, the documented evidence. Maybe there is.
And among the 3,000,000 documents we don't have or the black holes that we don't have, and you hear, of course, from into like, what we played at the very beginning about FBI agents specifically being sent in order to and perhaps try to get these, you know, interviews with witnesses and putting all of this documentation together trying to build a case against him. Maybe it does exist on at least on the FBI side, and we haven't seen it yet. What do you make of that FBI move to really try to pigeonhole him over that ten years specifically? There's gotta be a voluminous amount somewhere.
Speaker 3: Well, where my brain a, I think you're absolutely right. And I think it is no coincidence that we were told there was a lot more files than we have now been provided with and told that's all of them. But my mind immediately goes back to the founding of the FBI and J Edgar Hoover and his blackmail, specifically the blackmail that the mob had on J Edgar Hoover, compromising photos of him at the very least with his assistant Clyde Tolleson and very likely voluminous more based upon what we know about the blue sweet parties that were being used to collect blackmail at that time. Cross dressing, gay orgies, etcetera with lots of powerful people. And J.
Edgar Hoover was right at the center and heart of that. And J. Edgar Hoover served as the director of the FBI for forty nine years, both when it was the Bureau of Intelligence and then when it was rebranded as the Federal Bureau of Intelligence.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 3: And so that blackmailing, to me, that that represents rot at the core. And and that's a direct partnership with the mob. And the mob is very infused into the music industry. In many ways, the mob founded the music industry and has been using it for money laundering for untold decades. And so the it's really just like those are two parties that are directly beside each other in many ways.
And I cannot help but wonder what types of influences or communications incited those FBI investigations and what the real like, it it seems hard to imagine that they weren't investigations that were explicitly asked for and intended to to accumulate evidence on behalf of, Michael Jackson's enemies, essentially.
Speaker 4: Entrapment in a lot of ways. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Right. And I think of the the people that we know that surrounded him, he had to have it would have been very useful for them to entrap him in something like this, whether he was had a proclivity of for this or not. It's clear that they pushed this on a lot of people for useful blackmail or leverage or what have you. So, you know, Oprah has said many times that she was good friends with Michael Jackson. And she impugned him in interviews and then said nothing about John of God, who is allegedly, you know, a sexual abuser.
She was totally fine with that. It does seem to me now there was a story about his sister Latoya indicating that he was an abuser of children and then later backing that up and saying that she was under duress. Didn't she say it in Israel? She she gave a press conference in Israel, I believe. I'm gonna have to look into that.
Yeah. Know. I'm where it was. And then later retracted it. Let me look into that while you respond to that.
But this idea that he he had to have a peripheral vision of this abuse because so many people that were close to him have very suspicious connections.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You bring up such an important point that in these industries, it's it it seems it's pretty well evidenced that it's not just that the people that are already sickos get entrapped in blackmail. It seems very clear. The Diddy story really highlights this, that they purposefully attempt to dangle every possible vice and proclivity in front of you, every possible sin in front of you just to sort of fish for any potential road into blackmail ability. Because, the thing that was the most instructive for me in digging into the Diddy story, the entire, his entire life and the the evolution of his blackmail scheme or at least what looks an awful lot like a blackmail scheme is that there's two types of artists.
There's artists that are good and there's artists that suck. And Diddy had a penchant for artists that suck. And I suspect my interpretation of it based upon the evidence is that the industry realized over time that it's a lot easier to control artists that suck. Because nowadays, you can make any artist a star. If you control the billboard top 100, you control the hits, you control the radio stations, you control the concerts and the tours.
Like, collectively, the the industry controls basically whose music hits the top. And they have the producers, and they have the writers. And so, really, it's not hard to stand up just some pretty person on the stage and turn them into a star. When you do that with someone that has no talent, you have complete control over them. They are nothing without you.
And if you cut them off, they go right back to the streets they came from. And and that alone is powerful enough incentive to control most people completely. And then probably to entrap them into more and to give them the lifestyle and the drugs and the girls and the parties and all that. Yeah. The problem comes when you have an artist that's actually good.
Because an artist that's actually good doesn't need any of that. An artist that's actually good can succeed on their own. They could even go independent. They can buy their own music back. And so it's the artists that are actually good that start to have these stories emerge around them of of attempted control and leverage.
And Michael Jackson's the perfect example. Justin Bieber is another very good example. Taylor Swift is a complicated example because her dad was a banker, and so there's some complicated savvy involved on all sides of that equation. But when you look at the various stars that truly have talent and star power, that's where you start to see really unique story lines. And when you look at the ditty blackmail kinda networks, you see a whole bunch of talentless nobodies, so to speak, that were made stars because they're actually much easier for the music industry to sort of milk for all their worth and control, down to, like, every fiber of their existence.
Does that
Speaker 4: make sense?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I did go back. So the Latoya piece is really strange because she did give a press conference in Tel Aviv in 1993. Yeah, saying yes, my brother does have these proclivities. He is a pedophile.
She later retracted it and said I was under duress. I had an abusive marriage. Her husband was Jack Gordon, who is a music Jack Gordon, who was a music industry insider, major music producer. And she has said, why would she why would she do that? Under duress.
Speaker 4: What does duress actually mean?
Speaker 0: Why there? Why couldn't she give that here? So that's an interesting piece, and I don't know exactly why she did that in Israel. But you're right. You know, it it makes sense to assign these people handlers.
Right? And and then and so that you control them. And Michael Jackson seemed to be, incorruptible in that way, at least. It that's our assertion.
Speaker 3: The conversation about handlers is so important and so relevant. It's very complicated, and it feels very, like, it feels very, like, Hollywood James Bondy. It feels almost unbelievable. It's hard to it's hard to unpack it and accept it if you're just a regular person trying to go about your life. But more and more and more, we get really hard, like, concrete evidence of it happening again and again and again in the music industry, in Hollywood, in politics, all all over all around.
And, the one of the most famous and initially and and, like, earliest examples that was extremely concrete, at least in my lifetime, was around Kanye West and his, personal trainer, Harley Pastrnack, who Kanye posted a text message that he received that is now infamous about how Harley Pastrnack was threatening to send him back to La La Land and to drug him up and to make sure make sure he never saw his kids again unless he started playing ball and not being, you know, antisemitic and all these things. That the publication of that text message was so important for the disclosure of this conversation. But you bring up another point in the security teams and, handlers and security teams. Because when you look at Michael Jackson, there's this thread of his security team. His head of security was a man named Bill that was like a father figure to him that was with him for his entire life.
And, and there's all sorts of photos of Michael with Bill. There's a letter that Michael wrote to Bill thanking him when Bill finally had to retire deep into his seventies, just being like you were the father I never had. I love you deeply. Thank you so much for the crazy ride. I don't know what I would have become without you.
The moment that this man Bill retires because he's getting really old, Michael Jackson starts cycling through different security teams, and it's only like a year and a half later that he winds up with Faheem Muhammad as his head of security and then mysteriously dies. And Faheem Muhammad is second on the scene to that that death, that tragic death, and then immediately goes and gets hired as Diddy's head of security. And this man is just a couple years out of college with a business and, marketing or real estate degree. I forget the specifics. Nothing related to security.
He was like a 21 or 22 year old kid. It's a little unclear exactly how old he was, but but somehow he becomes the head of security for the king of pop and then immediately becomes the head of security for Diddy who we find out is running a giant, like, trafficking ring. And so that's like, oh, well, that that is really sketchy. And then, I mean, my brain could go a million directions, but the last point I'll connect is Charlie Kirk. And right now, a lot of people have questions about Charlie Kirk's security team and what exactly was going on with them.
And more and more, I'll just say let's let's just say that people in our industry, in the journalism industry, that are very connected and in the know, more and more are are kind of talking and whispering about that security teams are one of the most common ways that you get handled. They're one of the most common ways that you get surrounded by, let's just say, maligned forces because they inherently are people that are trained in violence that need to have access to your every move, that need to know everything about your schedule. They need to know everything about what you're doing. And often, they're people that you don't actually know past the point like the line where you hired them. And usually, the before you hired them, they were in some sort of military or violent career path, where they made who knows what kinds of friends with who knows what kinds of allegiances with, you know, who knows what kind of morals.
So I just wanted to bring up that security team thread and highlight it.
Speaker 4: Well, it's so dirty, and you brought up, like, the trafficking ring for Faheem Mohammed who then finds himself, like, in Michael Jackson's orbit there right at the end. Like, who else, you know, can you possibly put in place if you're trying to build a narrative around him being, a pedophile and a child trafficker or whatever else, you put a guy who actually is maybe involved, with child trafficking. And, of course, you and I know we've talked before about this, but, of course, he bought land, Faheem Muhammad did, like, right on the border with the border fence right on his backside Yeah. Where we just bought this land because it was cheap and really, but then the kids
Speaker 3: are riding my kids. Out here to ride ATVs. And it's it's like, no. They don't.
Speaker 0: In the junk. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. They're doing they did an interview with the local news station, and the border wall is right there in the back of the of the, like, interview. And anyone that knows anything about the border wall around Tijuana is like, no. There's people hopping over that fence all the time. That's not a place where you go and, like, send your kids to camp to just, like, hang out.
Obviously, there's something going on there. It's like, you don't just have a dude that's associated with Diddy's trafficking ring randomly buying, you know, hundreds or even thousands of acres of land right on the border wall outside of San Diego. And that works.
Speaker 4: And, you know, the Epstein part of this, of course, with the the flow and you're you're you're bill you're a billionaire. You're you're you're tapped into these networks of child trafficking. So they're flowing to you at Zoro Ranch. They're being brought out of Turkey at spas. They're being, you know, they're being basically groomed in order to be the great masseuse flying into Zoro Ranch.
So there's this entire network around Epstein that was working on his behalf. And then you have this, like, mysterious, well, the murder of Michael Jackson. Let's just call it what it is. And in the the like, right around that death, right around his death, he has this mysterious phone call where he basically says, you know, they wanna get rid of me. They want to get rid of me.
And it seemed we weren't really hearing from Michael at that time. That we knew about this comeback tour was about to happen, that this is it. It was all about to come back. He was obviously rehearsing like crazy. They made a film about it, which we've watched like like 80 times in our family.
Speaker 0: I watch it every time I get sick. Yeah. How my family knows I'm not feeling well is I'm in a dark room watching this is it in tears.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And so ready to do this massive world tour again, but we really hadn't heard about him. We heard about the tour. But then he's really concerned at the end that they are trying to get me. And we have that phone call where he's openly admitting that they're coming for me, and then suddenly he's murdered.
Maybe you can pull the thread in pieces there at the end.
Speaker 3: This my brain hasn't gone here before, but the way you just sort of recall the story immediately made me think about Charlie Kirk. I hate to say it again. But once again, you have a person in this position of power that's got a lot of, let's say, control networks around them that's getting ready for, you know, the tour that's that's sort of changing their stances or not being hurt. You know, things are happening. And then we get communications from right before they die saying they're gonna get rid of me.
They're gonna kill me. You know? And and it I think a little bit, you have to put yourself in their shoes where suppose you're a famous person like a Charlie Kirk or a Michael Jackson or any of these people, and you are starting to wake up to some really dark stuff in your industry, in your world, and you have direct insider knowledge of it. You're suddenly in a very complicated position because it's not as simple always as just coming out and saying it because you know Michael Jackson, for example, knew intimately how effective the smear machine is at taking your words, twisting them, attacking you, discrediting you, doing whatever to you. And but it's also not as you know, so like how do you come out with the truth?
And then also, if you're even gonna consider coming out with the truth and you let anybody in your orbit know what you know and what you plan to do about that, how do you know who to trust? And how do you know that they won't kill you for for exposing them?
Speaker 4: Especially having a new security detail.
Speaker 3: Exactly. Right? And so it's like, where do you turn? How do you proceed with that? Who do you even talk to?
Suddenly, it's a very paranoid line of thinking. And, it it becomes no mystery why we get these weird sort of cryptic communications or secret communications, or in Charlie's case, very direct communications that were just, you know, in private text messages right before they wind up getting killed because you'd have to imagine there would be signs. There'd you have to imagine that there would be, you know, weird conversations, weird subtle things you might pick up on. And the thing about human trafficking and child trafficking is you can't help but look at, like, if you're trying to expose that and you're an insider that's that knows about it, you you inherently know the the deepest level of evil. These people are capable of doing the most evil deeds in the world, the most evil deeds imaginable to the most innocent people on the planet.
And so they are inherently the most capable of violence of any criminal organization on the planet. And so if you're gonna expose drug cartels, we all know that drug cartels are very capable of violence. But like human traffickers inherently even more so. And so it becomes, a really tied up thought process when you put yourself in the shoes of someone like Michael Jackson and you try to think how would you even speak about that? How would you even come out with that?
And then you start to I mean, my brain immediately wanders to sort of the, like, urban legend or the conspiracy theories. There there's some evidence to back it up that various other strange deaths in the music industry, like Chester Bennington, Chris Cornell, Anthony Bourdain. There's a lot of rumors about a documentary exposing child trafficking that was being worked on right before a lot of these men died, strange deaths. And it's I I haven't ever really seen convincing evidence to sort of put that story into concrete or to bed. But, but it starts to be the same thought process of how do you actually expose this.
You need evidence. You need corroboration. You need documentation. But the problem is in collecting all that, you expose yourself massively. And I think the Epstein files, if they show us anything, it's that this is not an isolated small criminal faction.
This is actually the organizational structure of our world. This is the primary organizational structure behind our government. This is the intelligence agency networks. This is organized crime networks. It's all tied together.
And so by by going after one note of it, you're going after the entire network. And, and there there's kinda no limitations on what they can and will do to protect themselves is what it looks like to me. Wow. Right?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, I think about Sound of Freedom, right, whereas Yeah. The massive, you know, we're doing interviews before that movie launched, and boy, the smear campaigns began in earnest. And it was a concerted effort to try to shut down theaters to go after to go after the, you know, Jim Caviezel once again, Tim Ballard, to go after all the infrastructure around that movie exposing child trafficking, and they did a good job. They really tried
Speaker 3: to to discredit everyone involved and to try to flip the narrative on them that they're actually traffickers themselves, that it's actually a psyop to it's like, what and then after it had come out and people like us were all talking about its, reception, that was actually the first time because I was pretty new to the media at that point. I was new on TikTok. That was the first time I got a concerted attack from multiple angles, multiple creators, like multiple different pieces all coming after me. That was kinda wild. And I I think some of it's probably just partisanship, but it's a lot of these smear campaigns, a lot of these propaganda campaigns to try to, like, silence things and shut things down and create infighting.
Often, they're they're cleverly designed, kind of cointel pro style to, have bad actors in the mix that are starting the allegations, like, against Michael Jackson. Like, he was a pedophile. But then it's designed in a way that it gets other people to jump on the bandwagon. And you get other voices, genuine voices, be they independent media or independent or, like, just journalists or regular humans out there in the world, start to believe the story and parrot the story and jump in on that bandwagon narrative. So it becomes very complicated to decipher what's true and what's not in any of these sort of, stories that are an attack vector or stories that are a potential exposure of a a piece of this bigger narrative.
Speaker 4: Also, silence is pretty deafening too. People like Laura Loomer, Mark when Epstein documents come out in this massive story, total silence. Right? So silence is deafening from the mainstream media. Ben Shapiro.
Yeah. Where are you at? You know, where are you at with, like, the largest story in the world right now with this massive international tentacles, this deep state supra government that's over all of it, all of these tentacles into the government and the Mossad and the CIA and MI six, you're totally quiet about it. You're not even talking about it. And Fox News mainstream media, totally silent on it as well.
So there's a lot to be seen in the silence.
Speaker 3: Those influencers are very busy, talking about the people they truly care about, which is the citizens of Iran. They're very busy advocating for the rights of the regular citizens of Iran who are being killed by their fascist dictator government, which, you know, I'm being facetious and sarcastic because, obviously, those commentators care nothing for the citizens of Iran if they can't even bring themselves to care for the children of their own nation, America, being raped and abused like this. And so it's like this you're so right to point out the silence and these these moments where, narratives shatter, these moments where document sets like this come out, where these hard truths are being exposed, that's the time to look around and see who's distracting from it, who's obfuscating it, who is misconstruing it intentionally, obviously, and who's silent about it. Because those are the people that are on the wrong team, whether that's intentionally and knowingly complicit or whether that's just, bad interests, misaligned interests, whether their sponsors don't want them talking about it, whatever it is. Anyone right now that is trying to pretend like we don't know who Epstein worked for or trying to pretend like he actually worked for the CIA and not Israel or, you know, any of these obfuscation narratives, or that are just silent about it, that is a pretty sure sign that that person is not a journalist that at least that I would be trusting ever again.
Speaker 4: And running cover. Yeah. Running cover for people.
Speaker 3: Yeah. There's no story more clear than the giant international sex trafficking cabal, that's trafficking children to billionaires on behalf of Israel, trying to control and subvert our our nation and all sorts of nations all around the world trying to implement things like weird genetic and, eugenicist sort of transhumanist agendas, weird techno fascist kind of, digital control networks. All all of these things are are tied into those Epstein files, and have these abusive sort of blackmail structures at the core of how they were functioning. And and so there's no story right now that's more clear cut, good, and evil than the Epstein story.
Speaker 4: I think a bigger story is an Nancy Guthrie story.
Speaker 3: I mean, we probably should devote the rest of our interview to it if you think about
Speaker 4: it. Yeah.
Speaker 3: No. Let's not.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you about who do you think in power right now still has an interest to revive the Michael Jackson pedophile story? Because we saw in late two thousand twenty five, the Department of Justice released Epstein related photos. Michael Jackson was in it with the faces of children blacked out, and the Internet was too quick for them. And they said these are his own children. So why would they give us this decoy photo?
Who still needs this? And and what are they diverting us from, do you think?
Speaker 3: It's a good question. And I don't know, I I don't know how far to run with it because, I did find actually when I dug into it, I found that photo, if I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure of this. I'm pretty sure I found that photo in one of the sleeves of one of the bind so there's photos of these binders of photos
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: That were in Epstein's, mansion that the FBI took photos of all the pages and almost all of them are redacted because of the contents of what was in them. But, I believe that that photo appears inside of one of those binders implying that Epstein had it in one of these collections. And so that's that to me does explain how it wound up sort of in the general collection. But then it got reproduced larger, and not all of those photos did. And it got, let's just say, salaciously redacted in a way that was a little suspicious.
And so I don't know whether to run away with that and think that there is maligned interests trying to promote this Michael Jackson narrative as an obfuscation tactic or to revive the concept that he was a pedophile or anything like that, or whether it's just a funny coincidence and the Internet naturally runs away with salacious stories and, like, you know, those big names and such. Regardless, it's backfired because the Internet is more and more developing its truth sense a little bit where often we'll get things wrong momentarily, but often the the collective mind, we're getting experienced enough now that we do a good job of sort of, unpacking the the truth of a thing and then actually narratives that are trying to deceive. Often, the strikes and effect takes hold, and then the opposite of the deception actually spreads like wildfire. Hence, why we're talking now about this and exposing even more to the world that the Michael Jackson pedophile narrative was completely hollow from the start. Right.
So I I don't know if it was intentional or not. I I do think that it's easy to run with various things in the files that seem either hypersalacious or hyper incriminating or hyper suspicious. And in many cases, they are. But I also think that for all of our sake, everyone that's view that's a viewer that's that doesn't have the time to really do all the digs for themselves should just, you know, take take take it slow and pump the brakes on coming to any strong conclusions because there's a lot of people, you know, pumping out stories for good and, you know, monetary reasons for all kinds of reasons. And, all of these stories deserve deep the deepest investigation and the deepest, exposure, which unfortunately, I think is up to us because the FBI seems to be asleep at the wheel.
Right. But it's gonna take time. Right? It's gonna
Speaker 0: take time to get to the Because I believe we have concluded that that was a public setting that Epstein was given access, you know, because he had so much high profile access. And that there probably were a lot of Epstein related characters circling someone like Michael Jackson and others. And I'm sure that, you know, it it's always a fishing expedition. Let's see how close we can get to this person. Let's see what we can, you know
Speaker 4: And take a photo.
Speaker 0: Let's what we can do.
Speaker 3: 100%.
Speaker 0: And so we should not fool ourselves that this is a one off, that people like that are not constantly surrounded by these nefarious fishermen. That's that's what this suggests to me. And it's speculative.
Speaker 3: Actually, you bring up such a good point, Natalie, in this sort of the gray area of trying to decipher who is, like, who's a fish being, like, hunted. Yeah. Like, as in a target of Epstein that was being hunted and which targets actually crossed the line into being abusers and, blackmailed. And to my great chagrin, the most obvious example of this gray area in my mind is Elon Musk. And I don't want the audience to take this as me defending Elon and saying he's a great guy that you should trust because I don't trust him, and I don't think he's a great guy.
And I think he has he's been caught lying about all sorts of ridiculous things like his rank in video games. Not to mention everything else that's far more important. So I'm not saying trust Elon Musk, but when you actually look at the correspondences with Elon Musk over time, it's very instructive if you if you read them yourself and you kind of trace Epstein's contact with him over time. It shows you this progression of the fishermen approaching the prey. And, obviously, there's no larger target than than Elon Musk.
Elon is, like, target number one, maybe aside from Donald Trump, you know, except that they already were, you know, very acquainted with Donald Trump in the past. So Elon Musk is the richest man in the world. He runs all these companies. He has all these defense contracts. He's huge celebrity.
And Elon and he gets, Epstein starts approaching him about visiting his factories and and sort of these professional associations. And then there's a section in there where he which Elon lied about, to be clear, where they the emails make it apparent that they did it a factory tour at, I think, SpaceX. Because the next email after they're trying to coordinate it is thanks for the tour. That was great. And Jeffrey Epstein drops in a little sort of sexual joke into that follow-up email.
That sort of implies, at least by my read of it, that before he had met Elon, it was very, like, professional. I'm just a normal billionaire that's just trying to support, you know. Then they spend some time together in person and they probably have some boy talk and Epstein probably has some cute girls with him. And and so he gets a sense for what is this guy's, line around the weird stuff. And suddenly, he feels comfortable making a, you know, a little sexual joke.
And then later, it starts to progress into, oh, you should come to the island. Oh, the ratio is insane. Oh, Tallulah would be uncomfortable at the ratio. Oh, the girls like, I wasn't talking about coming to the UN dinner to see diplomats. My my party is all young girls.
These sorts of emails start to pop up. And then Elon Musk starts to cross a line where he is no longer just like, you know, yeah, let's try to do something. Yeah. Let's meet up. Yeah.
Let's do a tour. It crosses into holy shit. It's Christmas morning, and I need to go to the wildest party of my life. I don't wanna go to a, like, chill island vacation. Give me the raging party.
You know, I'm I'm being facetious here. Yeah. But that's where then that email comes up. And so you see this progression of the blackmailer getting in and getting a read on the target and then starting to seduce them into, like, Elon Musk may or may not have known what was really going on. It's unclear.
He should have known something was weird. Hopefully, in the future, everyone will know that something's weird when a, you know, billionaire comes up with a bunch of 17 year old girls around. But that's where then it's a little gray area exactly what lines Elon crossed because we don't have evidence that he ever made it to island, but we do have evidence that he was desperately trying to go to the island, and lord knows what he would have done if he had gotten there. But Jeffrey Epstein actually appears to have bailed on him, which is a weird twisted turn of fates here. But but that whole storyline sort of elucidates that it's kind of a gray area, and it's not always clear how, like, how much someone got hooked.
And it's not always clear how you should morally feel about them because just because they did commit a crime doesn't mean that they were always that monster. Just because they didn't commit a crime doesn't mean that they're not that monster. It's it's all very complicated.
Speaker 4: I think you're right about that. And, you know, the the reason why I think he well, my mind goes to the CIA, piece of this whole thing, which is he's one of the largest defense contractors. You know, he's one of the largest, you know, you could argue one of the most important CIA assets, so to speak, from, from from that perspective. Maybe the CIA calls up one of their their friends, Jeffrey Epstein, and says, hey, back off. We need him for other p for other reasons.
I don't know. My mind goes to that immediately. But
Speaker 3: That's a fair point. My only question becomes would he actually back off or would he take a different angle. Right? Right. Because you can only imagine, like, if you play that out, Massad and Epstein's direct mentorship was the promise software scandal.
Robert Maxwell deeply involved with the promise software scandal, which is one of the earliest but certainly not the last examples of bugging a software, on behalf of Israeli intelligence. And you can only imagine what kinds of things you could get done. If you had enough blackmail on Elon Musk to force him to put a bug into some SpaceX software, maybe into some Starlink software. Suddenly, you're you you can start to imagine how powerful blackmailing someone like Elon Musk could be. Right.
So I I think that's a very wise thing to bring up that there's probably other intelligence games happening in the background kind of arm wrestling for authority over what people can and cannot do.
Speaker 4: Right. Like, we need him to be somewhat clean here. So back off this. Back
Speaker 3: off this. You better believe that the the CIA was not running the operation, but you better believe they knew about it. I'm sure the people in the CIA knew about it.
Speaker 4: Right. I wanna go back to something Natalie asked, which is about who benefits from these new narratives that are starting to emerge. And one of them popped up. And to me, the easiest play for, like, a news organization is just to drag up some old story and go back and, like, re interview someone from, like, years ago. Nothing new.
But because it's Epstein related, let let's just remind people that Michael Jackson is a pedophile in the New York Post. About two weeks ago and I'll just put this up here on the screen. This was the New York Post story that went kind of viral. And then you have Taz Jackson as as the nephew of Michael Jackson coming to the defense and slamming the New York Post. So here was the New York Post headline, Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
Like, they just put it right there. Michael Jackson was, quote, a pedophile who could abuse children almost with impunity, claims prosecutor who tried the king of pop.
Speaker 0: Well, duh. You were the prosecutor. You already brought that case. We know that you think that. So why this bullshit headline?
Speaker 4: Out of the blue. And then here's Taz's response. Taz Jackson, are you still using my uncle as a smokescreen, New York Post? We see you. The more the public talks about Epstein, the more you post about Michael Jackson.
The public has caught on. I suggest you read the room.
Speaker 3: Right now is the time to especially for older people, especially for anyone sort of 40, 50, and up that that grew up in the era where publications seemed or maybe were trustworthy. The mask is fully off now. And that is a perfect example of, publications that are just doing the most bad faith journalism you could ever do on one of the most obvious clean-cut, good versus evil cases you could ever have. And it it takes zero journalistic capability to read these files and understand what Jeffrey Epstein was, what his network was, what was happening. Not to mention, to think, like, they are publishing a report that is literally just the prosecutor stating his opinion despite it having not held up in court and then saying it as though it was a fact and then covering their ass by saying prosecutor says.
Right?
Speaker 4: Well, and that's why they hate x. This is why they
Speaker 0: hate x.
Speaker 4: Because I wanna put this here's the here's the reader's context note. Didn't sorry. Didn't mean to cut you off there. Prosecutor, readers added context. Prosecutor, Zonan's claims are based or biased due to his role in the trial and remain unproven despite the fact that Jackson faced one of the largest criminal investigations ever and was cleared of any wrongdoing while his accusers were found to have major credibility issues.
So, you know,
Speaker 3: source Internet How does It's completely changed journalism because no longer can you sort of purchase or control just a few corporations and sort of control the dissemination of information. And you bring up such a good point around Michael Jackson that is directly paralleled by the other narrative that's going around lately. Epstein worked for Russia. And
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes. In fact, one
Speaker 3: of the reporters or one of the experts that they got to write one of these stories that was published that was getting parroted around on all the mainstream media was actually the dude that authored the steel dossier that was a part of Russia gate that was completely discredited already around Russian accusations. They got that same dude to weigh in as an expert that Epstein worked for Russia.
Speaker 0: Did you know that before he wrote the Steele dossier, he had been involved in a made up story about how Russia was subverting the World Cup that he had a similar assignment.
Speaker 4: The FIFA story?
Speaker 0: The FIFA story. So his whole thing was to prove that Russia had been perverting its power in FIFA. He was not able to do that, and then he was hired by the Clinton campaign. They're like, we like what you do in your blaming Russia. That's your whole gig.
Can you do it for us politically? So he did that. That's literally all he does is come up with a way to blame Russia for shit. And so
Speaker 3: it says on his LinkedIn.
Speaker 4: Right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's official Russia blamer. I'm a framer of Russia. That's what I do. It's Russia Russia.
Speaker 3: And Apple just to clarify too what's in the files because I've looked through them extensively. I've developed an app that lets you AI through them. Like, I've I've been in these files very deeply, and this was obvious before these files came out too. He he was targeting Russians. He did have friends in Russia.
A lot of his friends in Russia were organized crime figures that were, let's just say, they were organized crime. So they were kind of adversarial to the main to the government there, you know, but also corruptly involved with them in some ways. He was targeting Putin and Putin's associates. But the level of connection to Russia is very similar to his level of connection to Ivory Coast. In fact, it would be probably more accurate to say that he worked for the Ivory Coast than that he worked for Russia because in the case of the Ivory Coast, which is a tiny African nation that no American has ever heard of, he actually helped install a dictator in the Ivory Coast that the Ivory Coast new dictator.
Their his niece was in Epstein's circle flying around with him. They provided weapons to this guy. Him and Ehud Barak had a whole intelligence operation targeting the Ivory Coast with all sorts of And so the Russian narrative is basically taking one little tiny branch of Epstein's operation where he had connections into one country and sort of inflating it as though that was his, like, whole whole network. When when you actually look at the files, when you actually read the story, that those branches existed into all sorts of different countries from Mongolia to Ivory Coast, obviously, America, all around the world. And so it's this weird obfuscation game where they think that they can just, you know, tell you a story because they're the mainstream news and we're all gonna believe it.
But that that ship has sailed. And, anyone that still is reading the mainstream news for their information, just look at how many of them said Epstein worked for Russia and then, you know, throw that whole publication in the trash and burn it because clearly, there's there's no journalist that could ever report on this story that had, like, that passed the seventh grade that would ever come to that conclusion at this point with how much evidence we have. And so that leads me to to think that if a journalist is publishing a story that says that, either they're still in the sixth grade or they are literally a bad actor that is trying to deceive you.
Speaker 0: Right. I wanna just bring this back around one more time to Michael Jackson, and then we'll let you go soon. The racial framing of Michael Jackson, as he was a self hating black man, you have found medical records showing that he actually did have this skin disease. You can see it on his hand in very early childhood photos.
Speaker 4: He talked about it openly. Yeah. He said, I wish I was black. I wish I was black.
Speaker 0: But this idea that he was an antisemite trumps his work as a black American. So not only was he not a racial minority because he hated himself and bleached his skin, but he was an anti Semite, which and a lot of his work, his music is dedicated to racial injustice specifically for black people. You know, I was just telling my kids the other day giving them a lecture about how the Rhythm Nation album is about literacy in black communities. But that narrative is largely buried because they could frame him as an anti Semite and a self hating black person. So can you comment on that?
Speaker 3: Yeah. It's, it's one of those narratives they recycle over and over and over, because they've learned. And by they, I mean, sort of the media cabal, the the controlling networks in Hollywood, music industry, land, etcetera. They've learned that there's almost no better way to control people's image and narrative than to inflame these culture war identity politics narratives. And in particular, especially in America, we have built up this sort of legacy of caring about the underdog and the underprivileged and the underserved, especially among, like, liberal white women, but really among everybody.
And so when you can build someone up as being evil towards a minority, being evil towards an underserved population, being evil towards basically anyone except for children, you know, funny thing. That is a great way to smear someone. I mean, I guess in some ways, they do try to flip it and, you know, frame him as being a child muster when it's all their buddies, but they they take all these different tactics, not just the antisemitism tactic, but they pile other things on as well. And with Michael Jackson, it wasn't just that they were saying that he was a self hating black man. There was also this whole campaign of calling him wacko jacko and and calling him, like, psycho and crazy.
And the tragic irony is that wacko Jacko, they framed him as, like, that was his that was his nickname, and it was, you know, parroted all over all the tabloids despite him repeatedly saying, don't call me that. That's I I hate that. That was actually the name of a monkey from an old cartoon that was, like, clearly, like, a racist black reference. So it's like there's just racism in every direction, and they, like, try to strip him of his race while being racist towards him, while accusing him of being racist towards them themselves. And so it just becomes this pile of of slop that is all completely irrelevant to the factual, like, or in factuality of the claims that he was abusing children.
And so in in my mind, it just becomes a bunch of mud that gets piled on top of the story. And it's not dissimilar right now to when I'm, you know, talking about the Epstein documents and talking about Ehud Barak and Leslie Wexner and all these names associated. And then someone jumps in and just says, you're being antisemitic. It's like, well, a, I'm not. And b, that has nothing to do with the argument here.
C, you're just obfuscating and calling people names and trying to get people inflamed around these identity politics layers that are not relevant to the actual information layer we're talking about. Stories are true or not true. It's not that stories are, like, racist or antisemitic. They're just they're just what happened. Right?
Speaker 4: Before we let you go, Ian, I mean, you've been deep deep diving these documents, as you mentioned, built an app to, like, go through all of them. And and and where's the biggest blind spot do you think right now for people? What what has you most interested?
Speaker 3: I think the biggest blind spot for the for the general public, is sort of the deeper layers of the intelligence operation because the and I'll I'll just briefly explain what I mean by that. Because, obviously, the abuse of the kids and all the celebrity and wealthy billionaire names, that's taking the highest, the highest step on the ladder of what people are paying attention to because, obviously, it's salacious. And then there's the next step down that he actually worked for Israel, and it was an an Israeli blackmail operation. For a long time, that was kind of disputed and and sort of covered up, I guess. But now that is largely being talked about as well, thankfully.
Very important to talk about that. But then when you step beneath that layer into what were all the things that this intelligence network were doing on behalf of Israel other than just the blackmail of celebrities? That's the layer that is deeply significant to our modern world. That is hard to understand. It's extremely complex and it's not getting the airtime it deserves because Jeffrey Epstein was funding and courting with all of these scientists, particularly in genetics, and transhumanist types of fields and particularly in technology and technocracy and cryptocurrency types of fields.
And when you look around at the world today at the Palantirs, for example, of this world, at the digital surveillance state architecture that's getting built in all around us to control us, a huge portion of that industry was either direct friends with, directly connected to, or directly funded by Epstein and his network, or they are branched out from that. And the same is true for a lot of sketchy kind of transhumanist, genetic and other scientific technologies. There's also a lot of communications about COVID nineteen and associated viral stuff. And and so that is this subtler layer of, not so salacious topics, but topics that deeply connect to our future and that we need to expose as quickly as possible because Palantir is getting integrated into everything in our American government right now. And Peter Thiel is all over these files.
His he was deeply connected. Epstein was funding more than one of his ventures. And, and it's not just Peter Thiel. There's all sorts of other people in the industry associated. So that's one of the most pressing and important threads to pull on, I think, for everybody to understand that is just inherently hard to understand, and it's not as salacious.
So, so it's important for journalists to expose it, stay loud about it, and, try to make it understandable to the average person.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I think you're right about that. The focus is on these names, but they're slowly moving us to a fully integrated AI biometric future where everything is run run, you know, through these, these cutouts, the CIA cutouts like Palantir and so forth, and, the AI fusion with brain technology and oh, yeah. So you're right about that. That's a huge blind spot for people right now, everything and will be tracked.
And then when six g runs out rolls out Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. We'll be doing.
Speaker 4: Yeah. They'll have our full movements down pat, and president Trump was talking about it openly a few weeks ago that that's they'll be able to know everything right through the walls, how we move and move.
Speaker 0: Alright.
Speaker 3: It's a crazy world.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Let's
Speaker 0: think and talk while we still can.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. Ian Carroll is the host of the Ian Carroll Show. Where where can people find the show? How often are you live and all of that?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I, you can find me on YouTube, Twitch, and Kick. I'm live sporadically. I don't hold a schedule. I'm completely independent, have no sponsors or support or any like, anything like that, so I can do what I want.
And I tend to just kinda go live off and on. Kick is the best place to follow all those livestreams, but YouTube as well. And you can find me at Ian Carroll Show on YouTube or cancel Ian Carroll on the other platforms. And if you wanna keep up with everything that I'm doing, I've got a website, cancelingcarol.com. So thanks for having me on, guys.
I really
Speaker 0: appreciate it. It's great to talk to you.
Speaker 4: Our pleasure, man. Great to see you again. Thanks, Ian.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
EPSTEIN connected to 9/11? 🤐 Everyone's asking who was on Epstein's island. Nobody's asking where Epstein and Ghislaine were on 9/11...Until now. @JasonBermas is with us. https://t.co/xM3G97fyjW
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on a big gap in the 9/11 story: where Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their networks fit into the 9/11 narrative and why a large tranche of related documents is missing or redacted.
Jason Bermas is invited to unpack why information about Epstein and Maxwell is largely absent from the DOJ’s released documents around 9/11 and what the missing documents might reveal. He points to a notable gap in the late 1990s and suggests it may be connected to an Epstein-related FBI involvement in 1996, evidenced by Maria Farmer’s report to the FBI in 1996. He highlights that, despite the DOJ releasing about 3,000,000 pages and claiming two and a half million more, there are “gaps” in the late nineties and in the pre- and post-9/11 periods, including “15,000 ledger lines from the financing… completely gone.” He notes Epstein’s alleged involvement in arms dealing dating back to the Iran-Contra era and claims Israel’s role in arms dealing—“Israel actually bought the weapons from Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and then shipped them down”—as part of a broader network referenced in a New York Times piece described as “scam schemes, ruthless cons, the untold story of Jeffrey Epstein and how he got rich.” He cites two major relationships from that piece: Stanley Pottinger and Douglas Lease, who were involved in arms dealing.
Bermas references a hard-to-interpret, highly redacted document about a possible grand jury on 9/11 in Epstein, noting that “Berman knows they connect,” given that Jeffrey Berman (SDNY prosecutor) worked on many 9/11 cases. He mentions an email from Lord Mandelson to Epstein regarding the EU bailout of 500,000,000,000 and asks what kind of leverage such information could provide. The conversation then shifts to Epstein’s pattern of influence and narrative management, including Epstein’s relationships with Maxwell’s circle (Leslie Groff, Sarah Kalin) and efforts to plant favorable stories with media outlets (Harvey Levin at TMZ; Faith Cates with Newsweek). A short reference is made to a shadow 9/11 commission organized by a figure named Edward J. Epstein (J. Edward Epstein), described as someone who had “put together a website” about a shadow commission and who “was big into the JFK assassination.” Bermas notes Epstein’s claimed interest in writing a book on the 9/11 Commission, which apparently never materialized.
The Shadow Commission is discussed as potentially parallel to the official 9/11 Commission, with Henry Kissinger reportedly considered as chair and George Mitchell as co-chair; Mitchell later stepped down and has Epstein connections. Bermas says many pages and redactions leave open questions about how deep Epstein’s influence went and what would be revealed if the remaining 2.5 million pages were released.
The conversation ends with Bermas inviting listeners to watch his own work (Fabled Enemies, Loose Change, Invisible Empire, A New World Order) to understand the Epstein network and 9/11 narrative, and with contact points to his YouTube channel and films.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Let's talk about nine eleven. This is a big sort of gaping hole in the entire story right now. We've covered Zoro Ranch. We've been covering, the royal the royal families.
We've been talk I mean, how many different angles have we been talking about as it relates to the Epstein story?
Speaker 1: For weeks. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Everything. But one big gaping hole, of course, missing is where was Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their involvement on nine eleven? And why are there so many documents missing from the tranche of documents that were was released during the time frame, like right before, during, after nine eleven. Nearly according to some reports, upwards of 25,000 different documents just not released by the Department of Justice as it relates to nine eleven. Does it have anything to do with Israel?
Does it have anything to do with the CIA bringing down those towers? Does it have anything to do with the cover up? We do know about the shadow commission that Ghislain Maxwell was apparently invited to, whatever that is. So we wanted to unpack that today with Jason Bermas. He is an investigative journalist and independent journalist who's been looking at this closely, of course, of truth teller in the 09:11 space.
Jason, welcome to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 0: So a lot to unpack here. First of all, just your thought at a high level of why this information is just critically left out of the tranche of documents that we got from the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: Well, getting into the gaps, there's also a very odd gap in the, mid to late nineties. And, I would imagine that that gap may be there because, we now have confirmation that Maria Farmer went to the FBI in 1996 on Epstein. So there's a possibility there was some kind of investigation there. As far as getting into what you're talking about, we'll bring up just a little visual since you've got me full screen. These are the large gaps.
Now we know that although we have 3,000,000 pages, they've announced that there are two and a half million more. Now there's that gap in the late nineties, and there are the financial gaps in that period, pre 09/11 and post 09/11. And here's another graph for you right here to break down the fact that it seems like there are 15,000 ledger lines from the financing completely gone. Now a lot of this would be speculation, but the truth of the matter is that Epstein was very, very involved in the arms industry. It's one of the things that is not discussed widely about him and all the way back into the Iran Contra network that was never really broken up.
And you just mentioned Israel. Well, Israel actually bought the weapons from Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and then shipped them down. They were part of that network. And there was actually a really, great piece by the New York Times, although they tried to whitewash it. I would encourage people to read it.
It's gonna take you a while. But they did this just as the first trove of documents came out, and it's called scam schemes, ruthless cons, the untold story of Jeffrey Epstein and how he got rich. Well, in that article, they talk about two major relationships, Stanley Pottinger and Douglas Lease. And these people are intrically involved in what arms dealing. Now we're gonna get into that shadow nine eleven commission document in a moment, but there is another document.
Now this one is a lot harder to break down because we don't really have the names of who sent it and why they got it. And quite frankly, a lot of it seems unhinged, but they certainly took it seriously. And if you look at this highly redacted document, towards the bottom, if there is a grand jury on nine eleven o one in Epstein, then Berman knows they connect. And, of course, they're talking about the SDNY prosecutor, Jeffrey Berman, who obviously worked on a lot of the nine eleven cases as well. We know that Epstein not only worked in finances, but got financial tips on a global scale.
For instance, we have that Lord Mandelson email where Lord Mandelson is telling Epstein about the 500,000,000,000 bailout for the European Union before it happens. Can you imagine types of things that you would be able to do with that information?
Speaker 1: The weather is still cold. We know the winter. We have another six weeks at least because of the groundhog. So you need to make sure you've got your warm weather jackets at the ready. Now the Bearscan hoodie is one of our favorites because it is incredibly versatile.
It can be layered, but it really doesn't need to. It's insulated from water, wind. We have a terrible windstorm here in the Rocky Mountains. You wouldn't know it under your bearskin because it is really that good. So, you know, it's also really good for the types that don't like to wear big jackets.
I drive in it because it's it's thin enough that I feel like I can move. You know how you're not supposed to drive in a puff coat? That's not this. So we wanna encourage you to check out the Bearskin hoodie today and all of the Bearskin offerings because we are such big fans of it. It's really kept us warm this winter even in the coldest days.
If you text redacted to 36912, you'll get 60% off the Bearskin hoodie today, or go to Bare, that's baer,.skin/redacted. One more time. That's baer.skin/redacted. Check them out. I am seeing people wearing these all over the place.
So, yeah, if you want one too, and I'm gonna tell you you do, then text redacted to 36912.
Speaker 2: And getting back to the arms dealing angle with Khashoggi, you know, that was one of the people's, Pottinger, Lease, Khashoggi. I don't think he ever stopped arms dealing. In fact, if you go to this interview right here, and I encourage people to go check out this clip as well, with Lewis Black of all people. He talks about a dinner that he went to at Epstein's house, and he actually went there with Bobby Slayton, who is now becoming notorious for being one of the, quote, unquote, pizza emails there. And he talked how Epstein took him into a room, and he had a whiteboard up, and he talked about discussing weapons systems with the Israeli defense minister.
You see, Yahud Barak, other than being the prime minister, was also the defense minister. So big time arms and weapons deals there. You know what prince Andrew did for the for The UK? He was their arms dealer as well. So if you have a time period pre nine eleven, pre DHS, where maybe Epstein is moving and shaking in these arenas with other people's names that may come up, that's something that you would like to keep from the public.
And just to kinda discuss how we celebrate our arms dealers in this country, especially ones with Israeli connections, and I know this sounds wild, but we do, both Arne and Milken, big Hollywood guy, huge arms dealer, along with Sidney Pollock, another actor director from Hollywood, that a lot of people that are now becoming hip to this will know as the villain in eyes wide shut of all movies. So I think the reason that a lot of these things are being kept under wraps is because that network has literally been going through the eighties, nineties, February. We've had no real criminal accountability except for in Iran Contra where everybody got what? Slap on the wrist, pardons after the fact, and the face of that operation, Oliver North, got book deals, became a TV star, and made millions of dollars. That should let everybody know how these people are actually treated.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Fox News show and a Fox News contributor. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. Okay. So whatever is in that tranche of missing documents would be very telling. But I have to imagine he didn't just stop in, let's say, 2002, talking about this kind of stuff. So we have to surmise that there are probably documents withheld in the other 3,000,000 that would pertain to this because it would be sort of proof positive of what he had already been capable of doing, what he knew.
There has to be more that we just don't see. And we we are being forced to fill in the gaps because it's so suspicious. But I guess let's spitball what we think, you know, he may have done to continue to leverage his knowledge of something that, you know, was perverted in the 09/11 commission?
Speaker 2: Well, certainly, if he had foreknowledge and then he let others know of foreknowledge, he could have hung that over their head. But let's get into that shadow commission email because I think that's really important because it's not addressed to Epstein who very much was involved in narrative management with his associates, the Leslie Groffs, the Sarah Kalins, etcetera, contacting people. We have, for instance, the Harvey Levin email where he's trying to get favorable stories in TMZ. We have the Faith Cates emails where they're talking about Newsweek and paying for stories and planting stories. So that's why when Ghislaine Maxwell, gets contacted by this gentleman, Edward J.
Epstein, is not related by the way, and it's a very short email, but you see he also has a website there. This is in the beginning of two thousand and three before the official nine eleven commission is put together. Any interest on the shadow commission on nine eleven, the membership list is secret. So it was tough for me to find anything on this, but he had actually put together a website on this, asking some of the questions that in my mind are a bit limited hangout. For instance, in this piece, I was be able to pull up.
He's questioning whether or not box cutters were used. Now I know that you guys have dived deep into nine eleven. I've made, two films on it myself. And when you talk about this gentleman, he was big into the JFK assassination. Okay?
He literally not only put books out on it, but then, like, he would he would make some questions. But for instance, in this, New York Times piece from 2008, he basically said after forty years, none of the theories have panned out. However, in regards to nine eleven, and this is also interesting, he did a really great piece, unraveling some of the inconsistencies in the anthrax attacks. Another interesting note is that in 2010, it said that this guy, mister Epstein, is currently completing a book on the nine eleven commission.
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: Book never came out. On top of that, he, he is part of this little piece. He seems to defend Israel quite a bit. So in, the Epstein emails, we have this email, and this should show you this is a global network, between Sultan bin Salim and Jeffrey Epstein. And he says, I am attaching to media clip regarding the Israeli operation in Dubai.
I will call you around 7PM eastern. What happened doesn't help anyone. So what they're actually talking about there is they're talking about an assassination that had taken place from the IDF or the Israeli Mossad on this Hamas member, and Epstein, it seems in both cases, is basically running PR for that campaign. You know, your next segment is going to be on professors. It just so happens that this j Edward Epstein, also a professor at MIT just like Noam Chomsky.
So Okay. These circles sometimes are a little tighter than you think. I would imagine, again, this was about narrative management. You know, in one of these pieces that they have, the six myths of nine eleven, not only do they get in the box cutters, but also the mythos that the hijackers may have wanted to use crop dusting planes for bioattacks, etcetera. But at the same time, he always goes back to essentially the mainline narrative, and that's why I think he was contacting Ghislaine Maxwell because although she likes to portray herself as a victim, if you dig just the slightest bit deep, you know her and her family have been a part of narrative management on behalf of intelligence for years, especially with her father, Robert.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. Jay Edward Epstein. What maybe you can unpack just before we let you go here, Jason, just what this shadow commission would have done. If you can explain that. I mean, it's sort of like an alternative in many ways to, like, the the fake nine eleven commission, which, of course, was a whitewashing, critical pieces left out on purpose.
Total, you know, total hack job was the nine eleven commission. Is that run-in parallel?
Speaker 2: Well, I I would imagine so especially because some of the context. Now this email is from January. Right? And, one of those pages, that website's from March. So he absolutely gets this thing going.
But when you're looking at whether or not there's another Epstein connection, turns out that although they tried to get Henry Kissinger as the chair of the commission, his cochair was going to be George Mitchell, the politician who had already been in a bunch of the Epstein files and accused of some of the abuse of these young girls going back, I don't know, a decade plus. Now it wasn't obviously out at the time of that commission, but George Mitchell stepped down and certainly was connected to Epstein. So I would imagine that if we actually get these other two and a half million pages, there will certainly be other information in there. But as you know, because of the massive amount of redactions that we really don't know what they're taking away, I'm unsure as to exactly how much we're going to get. But certainly, there are major connections that we can already make with what's going on now.
Speaker 0: Gosh. Jason Burmiss. Man, love having you on the show. Jason, thank you so much. And as this as we get more documents here, hopefully, if we get any more information, we'd love to have you back on here for sure.
Where can people find your show and what you and what you cover on a regular basis?
Speaker 2: Yeah. You could check me out on YouTube. We're finally remonetized after almost six years. Took my channel five times. Got it back every time.
But go to my playlist section there. It's at Jason Bermas everywhere, and go check out my documentary films for free, especially on 09:11. Fabled enemies, loose change, final cut. And then if you want the bigger picture, you wanna see about who these people in the Epstein network are, my films invisible empire, a new world order to find and shade the motion picture.
Speaker 1: Alright. Very good. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Great
Speaker 1: to I've have never seen you that that tidbit about Epstein writing a book on 09/11. That's gold. I I can't believe it.
Speaker 0: By the way, just real quick, Jason. I mean, the guy couldn't even if you if you read his emails, he doesn't even like punctuate his emails. Reading his sentence structure is just absolutely painful. This is, like, pre AI. How the guy how's this guy gonna write us put a book together?
Speaker 2: Well, it well, Paul, that's J. Edward Epstein.
Speaker 0: That OJ Edward Epstein.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Oh,
Speaker 1: okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: And that's why I'm wondering because that's the guy that was putting the shadow commission of nine eleven together. He's connected. He's asking Ghislaine Maxwell. You know, as far as Epstein's communications, I would say this. You know, a lot of people out there have said he was a dupe for years and years and years.
I watched the two hours of that fifteen to eighteen hour Bannon interview. That's not what I saw. What I saw was a very intelligent guy that was connected to these same people I've been talking about for years and really somebody that looks like a Kissinger or a Brzezinski behind the scenes in the financial arenas and beyond.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And the guy who here. He just doesn't take the time to write emails well, and he just he's so he's so busy. He's just sending fast emails, thoughts, stream of consciousness kind of stuff. But I think he's he was definitely a genius.
That's for sure. For sure. Jason, great to see you. Thank you so much for this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I just wanna say I've I've seen the loose change, the cut that you did, and it's really good. People should check it out. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Awesome. People go check it out on his channel at Jason Burmas on YouTube. Jason, great to see you, man. Thank you so much.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🧨 The media is feeding you Epstein crumbs while the entire global financial order is being rewritten in real time. @SecRubio just drew a line in the sand with NATO. Trump is tanking the dollar on purpose. And China is waiting in the wings. https://t.co/UJ5wWF3E2M
Video Transcript AI Summary
Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference and delivered what the speakers describe as “the most important American speech in the last thirty years,” calling on Europe to join Trump’s new world order or face consequences. He told NATO allies that “playtime is over right now,” that a new world order is being written by the United States, and that “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” He previewed the speech on the tarmac, then argued that the West must thrive again and that European leaders are “total losers” managing Europe’s decline, particularly in Germany. He framed NATO as a transaction: “NATO is a transaction between countries, that NATO is only worth supporting if you are worth defending,” and claimed Europe is “declining fast under stupid policies,” making NATO a questionable expense. Rubio criticized a liberal globalist, borderless agenda of mass immigration and sovereignty transfers to Brussels, calling the transformation of the economy foolish and voluntary, leaving the U.S. dependent on others and vulnerable to crisis.
The discussion notes that Rubio’s rhetoric is not subtle, stating that “the rules that govern the world are dead” and the old order has ended, with these conversations already ongoing with allies and world leaders behind closed doors. The segment connects Rubio’s speech to broader strategic implications: the United States wants Europe “with us,” but is prepared to rebuild the global order alone if necessary. The commentary emphasizes a leverage play: pick a side—join the U.S. or face consequences—and links this to economic policy and currency strategy.
On economic and currency policy, the program asserts that the dollar’s reserve status and the old world order are being challenged. Trump’s team reportedly signals that a strong dollar is no longer the default; a weaker dollar would help U.S. exports and reshoring, mirroring a Chinese approach that kept the yuan cheap for decades to build export power. The segment cites Reuters that China’s treasury holdings have fallen to their lowest level since 2008 as banks are urged to curb exposure to U.S. Treasuries, with pressure to bring holdings home to fund their own needs. China is also tightening rare earth export controls, aiming to influence the “factory floor.” The discussion suggests a currency war with a weaker dollar in the U.S. plan and a stronger yuan as China seeks global reserve status, while Europe is squeezed in the middle, invited to align with the U.S. or step aside.
The synthesis notes a GOP intra-party knife fight: Rubio aligns with neocon perspectives; JD Vance is viewed as problematic for expansion of military conflicts, potentially contrasting with a no-war stance. The overall takeaway is that Rubio’s Munich speech is framed as a signal flare indicating the West’s reorganization and the dollar’s vulnerability.
Sponsor segment: The host discusses critical minerals and North American independence, highlighting Project Vault, a $12 billion strategic mineral reserve designed to shield the private sector from supply shocks in essential minerals. At a Critical Minerals Ministerial, JD Vance and Marco Rubio delivered a message to China that the U.S. will no longer allow market flooding to kill domestic projects. The segment focuses on niobium, a rare earth mineral with no domestic US production, currently sourced abroad, and vital for space and defense applications. North American Niobium (ticker NIOMF) is exploring in Quebec, with drilling permits planned; the company also targets neodymium and praseodymium magnets. The leadership includes Joseph Carrabas, former Rio Tinto and Cliffs Natural Resources figures, and Carrie Lynn Findlay, a former Canadian cabinet minister. The sponsor emphasizes the strategic importance of niobium and rare earths for U.S. security and manufacturing resilience.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome, secretary of state Marco Rubio. You have the floor.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Marco Rubio just dropped a bombshell. While all the mainstream media has been focused on that Savannah Guthrie kidnapping story, the Trump administration basically just unleashed an earthquake, and no one covered it this weekend. Secretary of state Marco Rubio this weekend traveled to Germany for that Munich Security Conference and delivered arguably the most important speech in America, at least the most important American speech in the last thirty years, in my opinion. Calling on Europe to join Trump's new world order or face the consequences.
You're either with us or you're against us. He was nice about it, but he was not ambiguous. Rubio admitted to NATO allies that playtime is over right now. A new world order is being written by The United States, and you're either with us or you're against us. He previewed the speech when he landed on the tarmac.
Speaker 2: The world is changing very fast right on Earth. The old world is gone, frankly. The the world I grew up in, we live in a new era of geopolitics, and it's gonna require all of us to sort of reexamine what that looks like and what our role is going to be.
Speaker 1: Rubio is saying, look. When we look at the world, we want the West to thrive again, and the leaders that you've elected here in Europe are total losers who are managing the decline of Europe, particularly in Germany. Right where he was, like talking right to their faces. You're doing it on purpose here in Germany. We'd like you to join us in this new world order, but of course, if you wanna continue on this liberal, destructive path that you're on, then we are done with you.
He's telling them that NATO is a transaction between countries, that NATO is only worth supporting if you are worth defending. And right now, you're not worth defending. You're you're declining fast under stupid policies, and NATO as a transaction isn't worth paying for. We recently spoke to Richard Werner, one of the most brilliant economists in the world who said that, oh, it's not a fallacy. Germany is collapsing.
Speaker 3: I mean, the economy is collapsing. It is really in dire straits. Other European economies are not much better. And so, you know, this all adds up to really policy imposed, self imposed disaster upon disaster.
Speaker 1: Rubio went on to slam the liberal globalist agenda of a borderless world, a globalist's dream of mass immigration, countries handing over their sovereignty to these globalists in Brussels.
Speaker 0: It was foolish. It was a foolish but voluntary transformation of our economy that left us dependent on others for our needs and dangerously vulnerable to crisis.
Speaker 1: And look if Nancy Guthrie is truly missing and this isn't just some Jesse Smollett story all over again, then prayers to that family for sure. But the media obsession, like all over Fox News wall to wall coverage over Savannah Guthrie?
Speaker 4: Law swarming a Tucson home overnight just two miles from Nancy Guthrie's place.
Speaker 1: Really? Like, how does that affect Americans at all? It doesn't. Meanwhile, Rubio's speech is the story. Rubio's point isn't subtle.
The rules that govern the world are dead. He told the room that the old world is gone and that we're in a new era of geopolitics, and he admitted that these are the same conversations that he's been having privately with allies behind closed doors, other world leaders behind closed doors. And by the way, I've been hearing the same thing from sources to the White House that these talks are accelerating, that Rubio and Stephen Miller really driving this big posture change.
Speaker 0: We can no longer place the so called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations. We do not need to abandon the system of international cooperation we authored, and we don't need to dismantle the global institutions of the old order that together we built. But these must be reformed.
Speaker 1: But now here's where this gets real. When Rubio says the new world order, he's talking leverage. He's telling Europe your free ride is over. If you want American protection, you're gonna have to start acting like a civilization that wants to survive. And he wasn't hiding the ultimatum.
In Munich, Rubio said The US wants Europe with us. But The US is prepared to rebuild the global world order if necessary and will do it alone.
Speaker 0: And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, It is our preference, and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what does any of this have to do with your money? The US Dollar and China, well, has everything to do with it. Because the backbone of the old world order wasn't just NATO. It was the US dollar as the reserve currency, the thing that everybody settles trade in, parks savings in.
Right now, the Trump team is signaling the strong dollar religion is over. The dollar has weakened in Trump's second term. The Trump world is treating it as a feature, not a bug, because it makes US exports cheaper. Now The Wall Street Journal this weekend highlighted Trump's plan that a strong US dollar is essentially killing us. In order for us to compete, we need a weakened US dollar.
That's the message coming out of the Trump administration. So here's the uncomfortable part of this story. That that looks like copying China's playbook, which is exactly what it is. China kept the yuan cheap for decades on purpose, Turns itself into an export powerhouse, pulled industry out of The United States, used the surplus to build power, build up their massive military, and Washington let it happen. So Trump and Rubio come in and say, fine.
We'll devalue strategically as well. We'll force reshoring of manufacturing in The United States. We're gonna treat supply chains like national security. But the second you start signaling you don't care about a strong dollar, then the world hears it. Reuters reports China's treasury holdings have dropped to their lowest level since 2008.
Look at the sell off. It's crazy. Chinese regulators have been urging banks to curb exposure to US treasuries. The translation here, they're stepping back from funding America. So now it's on us to fund ourselves for those treasuries to come back home and for those to go into American pension plans.
But it is a mess. 39,000,000,000,000 in debt in The United States. So China's not going to do what we did for them under Clinton, Obama, and Bush. We subsidized them. We moved our manufacturing overseas, helped them build up their massive military.
Speaker 4: Honestly, it built their military. We built China's military with the money that we lost for so many years getting ripped off.
Speaker 1: He he's absolutely right. I mean, however you feel about Trump, he's correct on that. At the same time that Trump and Rubio are pushing this weaker US dollar, Xi Jinping is pushing the opposite message. He wants the yuan treated like a real reserve currency. China is now publicly talking about a stronger currency with global reserve status, and they're already implementing it.
So this isn't just talk. And analysts point out that the trade offs here, China would have to loosen capital controls, deepen markets to pull this off. But the direction is clear. More trade settled in yuan and less dependence on the US dollar. And the Chinese are reading The United States like a book right now.
Top Chinese commentators on television are laughing at Trump's foreign policy this weekend, and the people are sharing this on social media, making fun of Trump, saying Trump is pretending to be strong, but really The United States is incredibly weak inside. They say we lost the trade war. They say we lost the tech war. We failed in Ukraine, and now we're grasping at straws invading Venezuela for their oil. Basically, the Chinese are saying, you lost.
And here's the part that everybody should be freaking out about. This week, China started accelerating its dumping of US treasuries. Not a rumor, not hyperbole. Multiple reports say Chinese regulators have been telling big domestic banks to curb their exposure to US government debt. Get rid of it.
Limit any kind of new buying. And if they're overweight in any kind of US debt, start trimming it. Cut it. Lose it. And this isn't happening in a vacuum.
China's treasury holdings have already fallen to around 682,000,000,000. That's the lowest level since 2008, and it's been sliding for months and accelerating. And remember, currency is only one weapon. China is also tightening its rare earth export controls. The inputs for magnets, defense systems, high end manufacturing.
Control the inputs, and you control the factory floor. Now you zoom out, and Rubio walks into Europe and says, pick a side. You with China? You with us? Reuters reports Trump is planning a Beijing trip in April to meet with Xi Jinping.
That appears to still be on at this point. Could get canceled, but right now it's on. And the currency war is sitting underneath all of that. A weaker dollar on purpose, a stronger yuan by design, and Europe squeezed in the middle right now being invited to join us or get the hell out of the way. You wanna go with China, or you wanna go with us?
And, yes, inside the GOP, this becomes a knife fight because Rubio is like a neocon favorite. He is a neocon by all accounts. Right? I don't I don't trust the guy as far as I can throw him. He's likely to become the nominee for the GOP.
JD Vance is a problem. Neocons don't like him because he's not eager for a new war. He doesn't wanna have a war in Iran. So the neocons hate J. D.
Vance. I know he pretends to kinda go along with Trump on a lot of issues, but I happen to know behind the scenes he does not. And so they do not like that guy. So watch this internal battle folding out right now because it tells you where this new world order goes next. Is it going with Rubio and neocons, or is it gonna go with J.
D. Vance and no more wars and not a massive expansion of the military industrial complex? Bottom line, Rubio's speech wasn't just rhetoric. It was a signal flare. The West is being reorganized in real time, and the dollar is right in the blast radius.
So we better buckle up for what's next. So that's the news update part of today's video. Now I wanna tell you about today's sponsor, which is tied to everything that we just talked about in this new world order that is changing right before our eyes. Now as we just mentioned, critical minerals are one of the top concerns of the United States government. For both the Trump administration and the Chinese Communist Party, critical minerals and rare earth metals are viewed as the primary ammunition in this twenty first century geoeconomic conflict right now.
So on February 2, the global critical minerals market was hit by a seismic event that will be remembered as the turning point for North American resource independence. Trump launched what he called Project Vault. Now it represents the first time in The United States, in our history, that we've created a strategic dedicated reserve specifically to protect the private sector from supply shocks in precious minerals. Basically, it's a $12,000,000,000 bombshell strategic stockpile designed to function as the strategic petroleum reserve for the age of AI and high-tech defense. At the Critical Minerals Ministerial on February 4, JD Vance and Marco Rubio delivered a direct message to China.
The US will no longer allow market flooding to kill domestic projects Project Vault creates a strategic petroleum reserve moment for the minerals industry, shifting The United States from a passive consumer to to an active market participant. There are currently zero zero operational mines of the mineral called niobium on US soil. None. So niobium is a rare earth mineral, and it's imported 100% from foreign countries. Niobium is used in reaction control thrusters, thruster mounts, leading edges for spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon capsule.
There's only one active mine in Canada, and 90% of the global supply is controlled by Brazil. So discovering Niobium is a national security issue, so I wanted to bring this to your attention as soon as possible. The sponsor of today's video is North American Niobium, US ticker symbol right here on your screen, NIOMF. It is exploring for three minerals as we speak, two of which are rare earth minerals, which are super magnets. So shares of this company are available on Schwab, Fidelity, Interactive Brokers, E Trade, any of the big brokerages out there you can find it on.
Now the metal's strength to weight ratio and thermal resistance make it vital for modern weaponry and advanced military platforms. It is indispensable for the super alloys that are used in jet engines, rocket nozzles, hypersonic missiles. With zero domestic production in The United States and 90% global supply concentration in Brazil, niobium is a top tier security priority and a major opportunity for us. North American niobium is in the same region as North America's only niobium mine in Quebec, Canada. The company has requested drilling permits from the local government, and once they're obtained, they are basically cashed up to begin drilling, just as the world's largest governments are fighting over niobium and access to critical minerals right now.
Now the deficits in niobium are no longer just a risk. They can become a profit engine. North American niobium is looking to begin its exploration programs in a region where North America's only operational niobium is located. On top of niobium, which China has restricted to export for America's military uses, North American niobium is also focused on two super magnets: neodymium, the primary ingredient in NDFeB magnets, the strongest permanent magnets ever created, so neodymium and prasiodinium are among the most strategically important materials for space and defense, and yes, they are hard to pronounce. Praziodinium is vital for high strength magnesium alloys used in aircraft engines, high performance robotics, and praziodinium is also used as a dopant in fiber optic cables.
Both of these are considered the magnet rare earths and they are the heartbeat of missile guidance systems. There's an enormous opportunity here because you don't have a country without them, and North American Niobium is exploring for both of them right now. For decades, globalization has blinded politicians, and one firm from Brazil has become the dominator of niobium. 92% of global supply comes out of there. I believe there has never been a better time to hold North American based niobium and rare earth stocks right now.
North American niobium is securing drilling permits in Quebec, and it could begin exploration in the coming weeks and months. And by the way, these minerals are considered so critical because there's no viable commercial substitute that offers the same weight to power ratio. A big part of North American niobium's upside potential is tied to the people heading the company and on its board. Few names carry the weight of Joseph Carrabas. For over two decades he was a key leadership force within Rio Tinto, one of the big three global mining conglomerates.
His most legendary stint was as Chairman, President, and CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources, which is now Cleveland Cliffs. He guided the industry's giant as a director for Newmont Corporation, the world's largest gold mining company, Newmont. His presence on the board is a big signal to the market in my view. Then you have the honorable Carrie Lynn Findlay is a powerhouse in the Canadian legal and political landscape. She's a former federal cabinet minister, distinguished king's counsel.
She served in several high impact roles including minister of national revenue, associate minister of national defense. More recently as chief opposition whip and shadow minister for national defense, she also has remained as the forefront of Canada's strategic security conversations. So this is my first ever rare earth stock that I featured to you, North American Niobium. Again, here is their ticker symbol on your screen, and it's available on US exchanges. Guys, do your own due diligence on this company, and we'll see you next time, everyone.
reSee.it AI Summary
I claim the Epstein-Rothschild link is real; emails show deals beyond a legate role, tracing centuries of intelligence operations by this elite banking dynasty that shapes national states and Hollywood, and I ask, are they operating in plain sight?
@RedactedNews - Redacted
BREAKING: The Epstein-Rothschild connection is REAL. Emails confirm business deals beyond a 'legate' role. This elite banking dynasty's intelligence operations go back centuries, influencing everything from national states to Hollywood. Are they operating in plain sight? https://t.co/ZvTV5vfb2o
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that Epstein is, or is described as, an agent, an attache, a legate of the Rothschilds, with emails confirming this involvement in business deals beyond a mere legate role. The claim rests on a long-standing connection they allege between the Rothschilds, intelligence networks, cults, and the history of the nation state of Israel going back to Moses Hess in the 1860s. They emphasize the Rothschilds as an elite, powerful European banking dynasty, noting that intelligence essentially originates from banking.
According to the speaker, this view of intelligence goes beyond popular depictions of espionage and assassination; the core origin of intelligence, even per mainline Rothschild biographers like Morton, is the story from the early chapters of the famous Waterloo narrative, in which the Rothschilds allegedly had advanced intelligence that enabled them to buy up the collapsed stock market in the UK and London. The speaker states this as true and highlights that the ability to do that came from advanced intelligence.
They further connect this lineage of intelligence to the broader power structure: when David Rockefeller built his banking empire, it followed from his claim of coming out of military intelligence, a point he reportedly brags about in his memoir. The argument then ties together intelligence, cults, networks, and Hollywood, asserting that they are all interlinked and that there is no better example of this than Epstein.
The discussion concludes with a pivot to Eyes Wide Shut, asking what the film was trying to convey—whether it was a warning or if telling truths is part of the ethos of these groups to reveal information in plain sight. The question of Eyes Wide Shut serves to illustrate how the themes of elite networks, secrecy, and openly displayed signals are perceived as interconnected with the broader claims about intelligence, power, and cultural institutions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now the reason I say all that is that, again, this is as Epstein himself says, and a Rothschild operation. He is a agent, an attache, a legate of the Rothschilds. Many emails confirm this, including business deals beyond just being a legate. And, again, that's because they have this longtime connection, not just to intelligence and to, apparently, cults as well as the history of the nation state of Israel going all the way back to the eighteen sixties according to Moses Hess. It's also because they're a an elite, powerful European banking dynasty, and intelligence really comes out of banking.
This is something a lot of people understand. They think, it's it's James Bond. It's assassinating people. It's this or that. That's a lower level.
The the real origin of intelligence, even according to the mainline Rothschild biographers, like the Morton text, is an official biography of the Rothschilds, within the first few chapters, the famous story about Waterloo that they had advanced intelligence that allowed them to buy up the collapsed stock market in The UK and London. That's true. They all brag about that. They're yeah. Absolutely.
And the way we were able to do that was advanced intelligence. It's not an accident that when David Rockefeller sets up his banking empire, it's because he comes out of military intelligence. He brags about that in his memoir. So we gotta understand intelligence, cults, networks, and even Hollywood all tie together. There's there's no perfect example than this.
Wow.
Speaker 1: So what do you think Eyes Wide Shut was trying to tell us? What do you think Eyes Wide Shut was trying to tell us? Were they trying to warn us or it's because it's part of their ethos to tell us to do it in plain sight?
@RedactedNews - Redacted
💣 October 7th wasn't a surprise. It was a business plan. Destroy Gaza. Remove the Palestinians. Rebuild beachfront property. Extract billions in natural gas. The receipts show this was in motion long before that day. @BergerPosts is with us. https://t.co/uAwyX42jTf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on allegations that October 7 was a preplanned false flag designed to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and then rebuild Gaza for vast profits. Speaker 0 asserts the plan predates October 7 and points to a confession by Jared Kushner on 60 Minutes, implying a two-year master plan developed before the attack with Steve Witkoff and Kushner pushing it. The speakers claim this is part of a broader orchestrated narrative where “the whole world is a stage.”
Key claims and details include:
- A “master plan” existed before October 7, with Jared Kushner “pushing this” and Kavner (Steve Witkoff) admitting advances two years prior. The implication is that October 7 served as a justification to implement the plan.
- The rebuilding of Gaza is framed as a profit-driven project: billions of dollars from beachfront property and trillions from offshore natural gas resources.
- There is explicit concern about the treatment of Palestinians vs. Gazans, with a critique of terminology used by Kushner, who is said to refer to the people as Gazans rather than Palestinians, signaling a shift in framing of a people’s national identity.
- Three journalists were killed by Israel, including a CBS freelance reporter, and the coverage is described as being muted or “crickets” from CBS News, especially given Bari Weiss’s position at CBS News. The segment notes that over 300 journalists have been killed in Gaza, more than in any modern war, and highlights a disparity in media attention.
- At Davos, Jared Kushner unveiled a plan for rebuilding Gaza under a who’s-who of international stakeholders, including a new governance structure and a “demilitarization” condition, with emphasis on a process that would be implemented in phases and under a new government in Gaza.
- A “master plan” envisions zones in Gaza, previously floated ideas like a free zone and a Hamas zone, but the eventual framing is “New Gaza” aimed at employment, industry, and a destination for Gazans to thrive, contingent on security and governance.
- The board of peace is described as a body that would study and publicize best practices in education, health care, and governance, with the aim of peace implementation. The plan emphasizes demilitarization and notes that without it, Gaza’s reconstruction cannot proceed.
- The discussion notes that cooperation involved multiple regional actors (Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE) and encourages aid and private investment, with a call to calm down and work together for peace.
- Critics question whether Kushner’s plan aligns with Israeli interests, referencing biometric scans, surveillance, and concentration-camp-like measures already in place in Gaza, and noting long-term plans by settler groups to reoccupy rebuilt areas.
- There is concern that appointing President Trump to a permanent role on the Board of Peace could insulate Israel from American political shifts, effectively “future-proofing” support for the plan.
Participants identified include Harrison Berger from the American Conservative and Drop Site News, Laura Loomer expressing skepticism, and a reminder that media coverage has been selective in condemning or highlighting violence against Palestinians and journalists. The overall tone is that the plan is a coordinated effort involving international and corporate actors to reshape Gaza while advancing Israeli expansionist objectives, with a focus on governance, demilitarization, and economic redevelopment as prerequisites for reconstruction.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, October 7 was, of course, the ultimate false flag designed for two purposes, to ethnically cleanse and destroy all Palestinians. And then after that was accomplished, the plan was, of course, to rebuild Gaza in order to make billions of dollars off of beachfront property and trillions of dollars off of all of the natural gas resources that sit off the coast. This has been the plan all along. Remember, this was planned before October 7. Watch Jared Kushner's face when Steve Witkoff admits this on sixty minutes that this was all a plan and it predated October 7.
Watch.
Speaker 1: We're working with a group of people who have been working on master plans for the last two years.
Speaker 2: So there are plans already?
Speaker 1: We have plans already. We have a master plan already. And by the way and Jared's been pushing this, and we're working together.
Speaker 0: I love Jared's face. You just admitted. You just kinda let the cat out of the bag that we've been working on this for two years before October 7? We needed October 7, of course, to carry this out. It's a great false flag for us to be able to put my master plan in place.
And you can't make this up. We're all right. The whole world is a stage at this point. Right? Kushner was like, damn you.
You just you just admitted it. More on that part of the story in a minute. But first, three more journalists killed by Israel last night. And the world is notably silent, of course. But this time, it's a little different because among the three journalists killed by Israel was a CBS freelance reporter.
Yes. The same CBS News that is now run by Israel first and wild Zionist, Bari Weiss. But if you go to CBS's news website that she runs, she's in charge of CBS News. There is and you can look at it right now, and I did just a few minutes ago, zero mention of it. There's plenty of stories about, oh, the house voting this, Trump's, you know, whatever.
But body of a swimmer found somewhere, You can order a new indoor pizza oven if you want. No mention of one of their own journalists being targeted and killed by Israel, of course.
Speaker 3: CBS was all over the Evan Gershwitz story when he was imprisoned in Russia for spying on the Russian government on behalf of the Wall Street Journal. That was a scandal, and he came back alive. This is someone who was unalived. This is permanent. Who was a CBS affiliate.
Crickets.
Speaker 0: Medics also said three people, including a 10 year old boy, were killed by a tank. Remember, there's a ceasefire going on. So a 10 year old boy was killed by tank fire as well. 13 year old boy and a woman were killed by Israeli gunfire separately yesterday. So three journalists and civilians killed, including little kids once again.
That puts the number of journalists killed in Gaza by Israel over 300 journalists now, more than any modern war combined. So but CBS News crickets on that. Meanwhile, at Davos.
Speaker 3: President the president Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, unveiled a sleek new plan for the rebuilding of Gaza at the World Economic Forum. So interesting to note who is releasing this, a real estate investor, who is not an elected official, and who is he launching it to, the globalists at the World Economic Forum. Okay. So that's that tells us a lot. We can surmise a lot.
Now he openly acknowledges that Gaza has been reduced to rubble, but he says we are we're getting it out of there. No mention of who did it, who caused that destruction, but don't worry. We're clearing that out. We got the bulldozers. We're working on it.
And pay a pay close attention to the language he uses here. He only once refers to the people of Gaza as Palestinians. He consistently, though, calls them Gazans. Who's gonna live there? The Gazans.
I feel like that is not just a semantic choice. As you watch this clip, consider what happens when a people with a national identity are reframed as just residents of a territory and why that distinction matters for this plan going forward. Now we're gonna watch it. It's about three minutes long. And don't worry, though.
Don't get upset. He warns us at the end. Calm down. Watch.
Speaker 4: So we did a master plan. We brought in, think, Akira Gebai, who's one of the the most successful real estate developers and brilliant people I know. He's volunteered to do this not for profit, really because of his heart. He wants to do this. And we've developed ways to redevelop Gaza.
Gaza, as president Trump's been saying, has amazing potential, and this is for the people of Gaza. We've developed it into zones. In the beginning, we are toying with the idea of saying, let's build a a free zone, and then we have a Hamas zone. And then we said, you know what? Let's just plan for catastrophic success.
We Hamas signed a deal demilitarized. That is what we are gonna enforce. People ask us what our plan b is. We do not have a plan b. We have a plan.
We signed an agreement. We are all committed to making that agreement work. There's a master plan. We'll be doing it in phasing. In The Middle East, they build cities like this in, you know, two, three million people.
They build this in three years. And so stuff like this is very doable if we make it happen. Roth will start with this will show a lot of workforce housing. We think this could be done in two, three years. We've already started removing the rubble and doing some of the demolition.
And then New Gaza. It could be a hope. It could be a destination, have a lot of industry, and really be a place that that the people there can thrive, have great employment. Once this starts going, we think there should be a 100% full employment and opportunity for everybody there. And, we have a lot of data on what can be, but we think that this really gives the Gazan people an opportunity to to live their aspirations.
But it all starts with security, and it all starts with governance. Final note I'll just say on the board of peace, which is that, all the lessons we're doing is we're basically studying the best practices from all over the world, and we're watching who does education the best, who does health care delivery the best. All these things are are it's not, secret IP. All this is IP that the board of peace is gonna make public, and we wanna encourage all the countries to be able to follow these best practices. A lot of the things that president Trump is doing in America, if they're working, we should all be copying them.
If we find what's working in other countries, we should be copying them too. And so what the board of peace will have the ability to do if we're successful with with Gaza is really show how do you do peace implementation, which is something that when we got this deal done, we didn't really find too much expertise or or know how on how to do it. So as we're creating this system, hopefully, it's something that we can just document these learnings and make them available to all else who wanna use them in the future. So, demilitarization, this is something, we're starting now. We have a new government, in Gaza.
This government will be working with Hamas on the demilitarization to really take, the principles that were agreed to in the document to the next phase, and and hopefully that will be successful. Without that, we can't rebuild. So, if Hamas does not demilitarize, that will be what holds back Gaza and the people of Gaza from achieving their aspiration, and that's very important. So the next hundred days, we're gonna continue to just be heads down and focused on making sure this is implemented. We continue to be focused on humanitarian aid, humanitarian shelter, but then creating the conditions to, to move forward.
So thank you. Final point I'll just make is this is really only possible because of the work of so many people and president Trump's great leadership. But a lot of you have been asking how can how can we help? So the countries have all been incredibly generous. We'll be doing, the first conference, where we'll announce a lot of the contributions that will be made, in a couple weeks in Washington.
From the private sector, there'll be amazing investment opportunities. I know it's a little risky to be investing in a place like this, but we need you to come, take faith, invest in the people, try to be a part of it. And then finally, I'll just talk to people on the media and on the social media, which is this deal only happened because we worked with Israel. We worked with Turkey. We worked with Qatar.
We worked with Saudi. We worked with Egypt. I mean, everyone worked together. We worked with UAE. We all worked together to make this happen.
I see a lot of people trying to escalate, you know, criticizing Israel or or Israelis criticizing Turkey or Qatar. Just calm down for thirty days. I think that the war is over. Let's do our best to try working together. Our goal here is peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.
Everyone wants to live peacefully.
Speaker 0: Okay. Laura Loomer's Laura Loomer's flipping out. Criticize Qatar. That's my whole shtick. I I'm gonna calm down.
Are you kidding me?
Speaker 3: Oh, we women love to be told to calm down. That's our favorite. Well
Speaker 2: and he finally didn't even mention that they he said he had worked with all these places, and Palestine wasn't listed as one of them. And I and I also wanna mention that in one of the aid packages that they were sending to Israel in 2026 and 2027 were a bunch of caterpillar bulldozers. So, you know
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Exactly. They've had this planned.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We covered that a few years ago on the show. Yeah. Exactly. So this was all part of the
Speaker 3: interesting who he's pitching to be an investor. Right? You too could become an investor, he says. Come and meet with us. Harrison Berger from the American Conservative joins us to discuss this.
He's been writing. He wrote about Gaza extensively. He continues to do that for the American Conservative. So what do you make of this? What are what is not being said?
Let's read between the lines.
Speaker 5: Well, I can first comment on the murder of these three journalists today. And in your intro, I think what you said is spot on as usual, especially about Barry Weiss who, if we can remember, yeah, she said nothing about this journalist who contributes for now the outlet that she is editor in chief of. But if you remember, as David Ellison told the Financial Times over the summer, she was hired because of her slavish devotion to the foreign government of Israel. So I think it's just unsurprising that she has not commented on the death of or murder, I should say, by the government that she's slavishly devoted to. But these journalists, they were traveling in this vehicle to document aid transfers to Gaza, which, of course, have barely progressed for the sole reason that Israel doesn't allow them to.
And the reason why these journalists were murdered, of course, was because Israel does not, one, allow foreign journalists into Gaza. They do not want anyone in the outside world to see what they have done to that territory, the genocide that they've committed. We've relied as a result upon the work of Palestinian journalists like the ones murdered today to tell us exactly what Israel has done to Gaza. But even after the supposed ceasefire, as you said in your intro, Israel's mass murder has not ended. It slowed down a little bit, but, again, they do continue to murder these journalists like the one today.
We've seen, as you said, up to 300 killed so far.
Speaker 0: It's horrifying. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And and no mention of this. And so this idea in Gaza is like, hey. It's a wasteland. No mention of how it got that way. Who continues to do it?
Who's still there? It's almost they're pretending they've got a blank slate. Look what we found. A wasteland. Look.
We're gonna rehab this.
Speaker 0: Isn't that great? And Kushner tells everyone just to calm down. Don't criticize Israel. Don't criticize Qatar. Just calm down, Harrison.
Speaker 5: You made the point about Evan Gershkovich, in your intro too, which I think is an important one. If you remember, every journalist on CNN from Jake Tapper, to I I don't even know what names of the other cable news anchors anymore, to be honest, because I don't watch it. I don't watch cable news, and most Americans don't either. But they were all obsessed with the release of this Wall Street journalist reporter, Evan Gershkovich, as they should be. He's an American citizen.
They've all been silent about the murder of these three Palestinian journalists today. They've also been silent about all the Americans who've been murdered by Israel in the course of their genocide, like Shereen Abu Aklai. They've been silent about American citizens like Muhammad Ibrahim from the state of Florida who were abducted, tortured, and starved for nine months in a dungeon in that country. And so they are absolutely selective, as you said, about who they advocate for and who they abandon.
Speaker 3: Now I want to ask you about this board of peace because president Trump has selected himself as the chairman, and he he is irreplaceable unless he voluntarily resigns or is incapacitated. So this is a permanent role, whether or not he is president of The United States. What do you think his intention is there? And can we point out the irony that he's saying we're gonna implement the democracy and things that work in The United States, but the people of Gaza don't get a democracy, they get president Trump.
Speaker 5: You know, frankly, I haven't really been focused too much on what his intention is. I've been focused on what Israel's intention is, and that's been telegraphed since the start of this genocide, which is to ethnically cleanse Gaza and move brand new Jewish communities, into that beachfront property. And they've had lists all throughout the genocide of families that are basically, they've they've purchased lots or they've reserved them for once they've cleaned up Gaza from all the debris. They estimate it'll take ten years at least, tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up. But then it'll be ethnically Jewish communities from Israel who will likely be moving into there, not Palestinians.
The Palestinians
Speaker 3: like, put a deposit as an Israeli on a future bill.
Speaker 5: Well, you can reserve. I I don't know about exact deposit, but there are lists made by settler groups in coordination with different offices of the Israeli government. They have all sorts of festivals where Hasidic rabbis go out and look upon the ruins of Gaza, and they celebrate their plans that they have to reoccupy. So this has all been out in the open, and I say that it's it's more important to focus on what Israel has planned for Gaza rather than Trump, what Trump has planned because so far in this genocide, we've pretty much done everything that Israel wants, put Israel's interest before ours, before before the interest of the Palestinians, of course.
Speaker 0: Is there anything that's better. Is there anything for to play off of what you just said? Is there anything of Kushner's plan here, this master plan that Israel is not on board with?
Speaker 5: I mean, not really because they obviously helped him design it, Wittkoff and and Kushner. They're they're lifelong Zionists, very close to, different Chabad linked organizations. And so they are very sympathetic to the Israeli settler and expansionist project. I think they obviously, rhetorically, are are tamer than a smoke rich or bengavir, but I think their commitment to expanding Israel, is just as well documented.
Speaker 0: Can I can I follow-up on that real quick? Just because we we've we featured, general David Petraeus on the show maybe about two years ago where he was talking about basically setting up mini Boca Raton in Gaza, where they would be sort of under he he sold it as this idea that it would be this utopia, but they'd be under basically twenty four hour surveillance. So if any Palestinians live in these properties, they'll be under total security surveillance state. Is that where is that how you see this progressing?
Speaker 5: I mean, they've already introduced the biometric scans. That's already active in Gaza. It came from us actually that we deployed it in Afghanistan, of course, under David Petraeus. He developed this coin insurgency theory where we were just murdering people based on photographs that we found in someone else's home. And so Israel has adopted those so called war on terror strategies, the ones that people like David Petraeus himself developed and are using it in Gaza.
In terms of constructing concentration camps, we've seen the images of them doing that already. They've been doing it since the summer. And so that's absolutely part of the master plan. And Dropsight, I believe, has brand new reporting on that as well.
Speaker 2: Well, and remember, I don't know if you know Anthony think it's Aguilar or something. He was said that in the IDF posts and stuff, they had posters of the new Gaza, you know, in there.
Speaker 3: Right. I wanna ask I wanna circle back to president Trump's role in this because there is a growing political movement inside The United States to decouple our politics from Israel. Now putting president Trump as a permanent member of the Board of Peace insulates Israel from American politics. So we could, in theory, elect the next president who does not want to support this, but now they've got president Trump as a permanent member. And so it feels like they've future proofed themselves against Israel resistance, which is growing inside The United States because president Trump has been so willing to do to do whatever Israel wants.
How do you feel about that assessment?
Speaker 5: It absolutely does solidify our long term relationship, with Israel, the special relationship that we have that's completely one-sided. We give them everything. They give us nothing. They're a complete liability to us. Every action they take in Gaza, every war that they start puts American servicemen at risk of terrorism overseas.
It puts us at risk of terrorism in The United States. Like me, if, you know, you're Jewish, you go to synagogue, thanks to Israel's actions done in the name of Judaism. People are scared now. So I think that, yeah, this is absolutely part of, establishing that permanent relationship that is at risk. The polling shows that, younger generations, especially, are sick of, this basic basically, this leech of a foreign government that is just draining taxpayer resources while people are dying of fentanyl deaths at home, while people can't afford houses who are my age.
In addition to other actions that Israel's taking, such as this proposed twenty year memorandum of understanding with The United States to finance that foreign government's defense industry to give those people in Israel health care while ours don't have any. They want to make it twenty years for three to four billion dollars a year rather than just the ten year that we have now. That's coming in 2028, it was announced.
Speaker 0: Harrison Burger. Read his great work at the American Conservative and Drop Site News as well. Thank you for thank you for your honest assessment and great journalism as always. Thanks, Harrison.
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 This interview is breaking the internet, and the GOP doesn't know what to do about it. Trump's biggest defender just became his biggest problem. @mtgreenee goes SCORCHED EARTH on the Epstein cover-up. https://t.co/0fDBjEJVoZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The unredacted Epstein files have been shown on Capitol Hill, with Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey beginning to view them. The discussion centers on why large portions of the documents were redacted by the DOJ and why Pam Bondi may not have complied with the Epstein Transparency Act. An ad aired during the Super Bowl urging transparency and truth about the victims and the case is referenced.
Ghislain Maxwell, Epstein’s associate, appeared before Congress and pleaded the fifth when asked direct questions. Ro Khanna summarized his view of Maxwell’s deposition: after listening to her refusal to answer questions about the men who raped underage girls, she should be sent back to maximum security rather than stay in a country club setting. The conversation then returns to why the DOJ did not release the names of clients and coconspirators, with Massey highlighting the failure to release those names as a core issue.
Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on Redacted to speak about the Epstein files. She emphasized the victims’ desire for transparency and the public’s right to know the truth, noting the files illustrate violence and possible murder, far beyond what initial perceptions suggested. Greene stated that the release of the files has shown the American people more than many can handle, and she argued that the DOJ is breaking the law by redacting certain names and deleting or redacting information in ways that protect the powerful. She also asserted that the files reveal a vast cover-up involving rich and powerful elites, and she tied the issue to a broader theory of an international deep state.
Greene claimed that the problem is not just with individuals like Pam Bondi, but that “the man at the top is Donald Trump,” who she said initially opposed releasing the files and labeled the release a “democrat hoax.” She argued that Bondi works for Trump and that the FBI and other agencies operate under the president’s authority, making independent action difficult. She asserted that the president’s stance has influenced the pace and scope of disclosures, and that those who press for release face political backlash. She also described her confrontation with the two-party system as a “political industrial complex” that punishes dissidents, detailing how Massey and others have faced political and professional retaliation.
Greene reflected on the personal cost of pushing for disclosure, recounting the pressure and the “knife in the back” she has felt from colleagues across the aisle. She described the political environment as a “blood sport” in which those pushing for transparency are isolated, while the system rewards conformity. She criticized neocon Republicans and asserted that governance is driven by fear and fundraising rather than principled action. She indicated that, for her, the Epstein issue underscores broader frustrations with Washington and the perceived inability of independent actors to enact change within a two-party framework.
Regarding potential remedies, the discussion touched on the possibility of an independent counsel. Greene suggested that the American people themselves are the independent counsel, explaining that trust in politicians to appoint such counsel is limited. She expressed skepticism that the Epstein files will yield accountability, noting that the president warned that “his friends would get hurt.” She stated she does not expect significant resignations or indictments of major figures, including those connected to Israel, but underscored the desire for full transparency and justice for the victims. When asked about listing the names seen in the documents, Greene clarified that the list is held by the women involved and that reading it publicly could expose them to costly lawsuits; she did not have the list herself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the unredacted Epstein files have made their way to Capitol Hill today. Congresswoman congressman Ro Khanna, congress congressman Thomas Massey got a chance a few minutes ago to start viewing the unredacted Epstein files. You know, the ones where someone says they love the torture video or they love that 11 year old girl. Let's do it all again. Yeah.
All of that really disgusting stuff that has been redacted by the DOJ. It wasn't supposed to be. Why was it? Huge portions of the files they did, and Pam Bondi didn't comply with the Epstein Transparency Act, which may be why they've been shoving Todd Blanche out there in front of the cameras. I don't know.
You might have also noticed this ad last night during the Super Bowl. Watch.
Speaker 1: After years of being kept apart, we're standing together. Standing. Standing. Together. Because this girl deserves the truth.
Because she deserves the truth. Because we all deserve the truth.
Speaker 0: Ouch. Absolutely. Also early this morning, Epstein's child sex trafficking girlfriend, Ghislain Maxwell, was on Capitol Hill to appear before congress. When asked direct questions, she plead the fifth. Of course, Rokana's response to this was, here was my conclusion.
After sitting through Maxwell's deposition with her refusing to answer a single question about the men who raped underage girls, saying she would do so only for clemency. She wants to be let out, of course. She must immediately be sent back to the maximum security prison where she belongs. Of course, not in that cushy little, like, country club that she's currently hanging out in. So what questions?
Why did the DOJ fail to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act? Of course, congressman Massey on our show last week spilled the beans about it. He was asked about this yesterday. What answers does he want? Listen.
Speaker 2: But the one thing I want is the one thing the DOJ is not releasing, which is the names of the clients and coconspirators in this sex trafficking ring. So they've either over redacted the files in some cases or just completely omitted files in other cases. The, unfortunate thing that they've also failed at is they have released victims' names.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Someone who knows just how dark and deceitful and satanic these Washington pedophiles can be is former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who thankfully got out of that disgusting swamp. And but she is a truth teller, and she has been all along. Congresswoman, great to see you. Thank you for joining us here on Redacted for the first time.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me today.
Speaker 0: It's our pleasure. So just at a high level, I wanna get your response to this first of all, the Super Bowl ad calling on the Department of Justice to actually release what they said they what what they are compelled to release under the law that the president signed into law, and they still have failed to do this. And your former colleagues are still begging for them to to, you know, provide these files.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know, when I watch a video like that, it hits home in a very different way because I met most of those women and, spent time with them, heard their stories, watched them tremble and cry as they told their stories in front of the world at several press conferences in Washington DC last year. And my heart goes out to them. They have been fighting for so long. And they've worked very hard to join together, finding each other over all these years.
And all they want is transparency. They want our government to do the job that it's supposed to do that the American people want it to do and our taxpayer dollars pay for it to do. They want the truth to come out. And it's just shocking that even after the big fight we had in late twenty twenty five, after passing a law, the the Epstein Transparency Act is still shocking that this is still such a battle.
Speaker 4: I you have a lot of knives in your back from people you thought were your colleagues for continuing to push for disclosure. Now, originally, when we saw ads like this, I thought that this was a matter of sexual abuse and sexual assault. After reading the files for over a week now, it appears that it's violence, possibly murder. So a survivor is not just someone who got away having been abused, but got away with their lives when it seems like there were many who did not. So I wanna offer you an opportunity to take a victory lap because you were right that the American people need to see this.
And also let you sort of maybe I wanna ask you, did you know that it was this violent? Did you know that it was this far?
Speaker 3: I I didn't know it was that I'd say, first of all, thank you for that. I very much appreciate it. Yes, I do have many knives in my back. I've also got them in the front as well. I went through quite a battle And what people need to understand is nothing changed about me.
I didn't change any of my views, my policy views. I very much still firmly believe in the things that I always said and the things I campaigned on in 2024. The problem is that in 2025, the president and many Republicans that I served with in Congress, they're the ones that changed their views. And that's unfortunate. But the release of the files has proved to me, it's proved more to the American people than I think they can almost handle.
I think people are in overload right now because it's so shocking, the things that we're reading in these files. And remember, there are millions more files to go. This is not all of them. And they're being held back. But when you see the DOJ breaking the law, they're breaking the law because they're redacting the name of former president, secretary of state, members of the government.
They're redacting those names. That's breaking the law. Every name has to be revealed. They're also deleting files that they release. Files should not be deleted once they're released to the public.
They're redacting names that should not be redacted while they're letting out information on the victims, which they're supposed to redact personal information about the victims. And they're not. They're not covering that up. They're releasing that. And I think what this shows to America is that our government has betrayed victims, innocent victims, in ways that we can't even comprehend to the point of child sex trafficking, satanic rituals, maybe cannibalism, and rape, and trafficking of women.
And that felt almost inferior to some of these other things. But it's the vast cover up for the rich, powerful elites. It's really the international deep state. And it's the people that live in some sort of sphere that the common man can't even comprehend and doesn't walk in. And it's also pulling back the veil, which sadly wasn't surprising to me, that many of the things that the people have had to endure, such as COVID, such as things that happen in our economy, businesses that get supported, industries that get supported, others that get torn down, seems to be planned years in advance by this gigantic network of the international deep state, the international elites.
And it's the stuff that they called people like me and probably you and many others conspiracy theorists and made us think, that we were all crazy, but yet here it is, it's coming out. It's not a random person saying they were saying things like they're eating babies or they're eating human flesh. It's not a random person saying that. There's a lot of people saying it. And then there's not a random person accusing some of our top government leaders of being associated with one of the most disgusting people, Jeffrey Epstein, who is a convicted pedophile, but also fully intertwined in foreign governments, specifically Israel.
And these aren't these aren't one offs. Right. These are all throughout the files, and and this this can't be people are not gonna let this go. As much as the president wants and and and the speaker of the house want people are not letting it go. I understand.
Yeah. Absolutely outraged.
Speaker 4: If I may respond to that little bit, because you're right. There's so many people who are implicated, and they're giving us these little bread crumb excuses. And I'm like, no. No. I'm not done with you.
But I gotta get over here because this and so how can we act on any of it when we're all so crazed, and it's so vast? I I just wanted to Yeah. Validate that. Please go ahead.
Speaker 0: Well, I wanted to ask you because behind the scenes right now, congresswoman, I mean, what is happening? You know, you've got Massey, you've got Ro Khanna, congressman Massey on the show last week. He's he was furious. I mean, why I'm sorry. He wasn't on the show.
Spoke to him on the phone, and he said he said, Clayton, I like, these coconspirators, why are their names redacted? These people who were saying the torture video, this and that, like, these names were not under the Transparency Act supposed to be redacted. It seems like Pam Bondi, all of these people are actively covering up. Is there any other way to read it? Like, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
But it seems like they're actively covering up for these people, these pedophiles.
Speaker 3: Well, it okay. I'm I'm gonna say it like this, and a lot of people are have a hard time with me telling the absolute truth. And it's hard for people to understand. Look, I fought for President Trump more than most any elected Republican in Washington, D. C.
January 6, after that, they all turned their back on him. And I was one of the few, me and Matt Gaetz and a few others, that were out there on the front lines for him. And we stayed out there by ourselves for a very long time until he won the primary. And that's when everybody else came on board and said, Okay, we'll put on the MAGA hat, and we'll play the game. Well, here's the reality.
These things that are coming out in the files, these are actual FBI forms. When it says that an FBI agent took out the DVR in the prison where Jeffrey Epstein was supposedly killed, that that is that's on an FBI form. That's not somebody calling in an anonymous tip or writing it on some deep, you know, dark place in the Internet. That's an actual FBI file stating what happened. And people are gonna have to completely take in what they are seeing with their own eyes, what they're reading, and what they're being told.
The reality is the Trump administration is not releasing the information. And I got you look. I got yelled at by the president over this. He this is why he called me a traitor. He called me a traitor because I would not take my name off the discharge petition because I stood firmly and said, no.
I we're going to release the Epstein files. I'm standing with women who were raped as teenagers. I'm not standing with the government. I I don't support I don't support the cover up of of all of this stuff, whatever it may be. And the president got mad at me, and he's told me, and I've said this multiple times, he told me his friends would get hurt.
And that's what he told me. And and then we're seeing a continued slow walk and cover up of a lot of this information. And I know that is why. I firmly believe that that's why it is being covered up. Look.
Pam Bondi works directly for Donald Trump. She she is not out there an independent attorney general. She can't just run out and do whatever she wants. She works at the pleasure and approval of the president of The United States. Everybody in the administration does.
So does the FBI. They're under the very same, pleasure and approval of the president of The United States. So when you're when everyone's getting mad at Pam Bondi or everyone's getting you can name anybody you want. The the man at the top is Donald Trump. He's the president.
And he's the one that was completely against releasing the files when we started fighting to get them released. He's the one that called it a democrat hoax. He's the one that you know, he invites everybody to the White House, but he will not invite these women that that have defended him, by the way. They have defended him and said Donald Trump did nothing wrong. They have defended him, yet he doesn't bring them in the White House, and and support them.
What you're saying is if it looks like a duck, it and if it if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it's a duck.
Speaker 0: Or it might be a Lutnick. Or it might be a Lutnick duck.
Speaker 4: Early onset dementia and Alzheimer's are on the rise. Reports show that a three seventy three percent increase in diagnosis among young people 44. When doctors treat brain disease, they often focus on the brain itself, addressing the symptoms but not the root cause, which of course is chronic inflammation and oxidative stress. These factors damage brain cells and lead to the buildup of these toxic proteins, amyloid proteins, which you which are an indicator of oncoming Alzheimer's. But like much of the body, many brain tissues track back to the gut microbiome.
There is a direct communication line between your gut and your brain where gut bacteria influence inflammation, mood, memory, and cognitive function. That's why what you eat matters. Now you might know the health benefits of kimchi, but you're not used to eating it because it's not really a part of the American diet. Kimchi contains 900 probiotic strains and includes bioactive compounds that help reduce inflammation, protect your brain cells, and even improve memory and cognitive function by preventing amyloid beta plaque buildup. That's why Brightcur created kimchi once.
You don't have to eat it every day if you're not quite used to it or you don't like it. You can take a supplement and get all of these benefits. There's no taste, no smell. It's just swallow a pill. It's no GMOs.
Made in The USA. So check out the benefits of adding kimchi to your daily supplement routine. Go to my brightcore.com/redacted or call (888) 404-6312 for 50% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's my brightcore.com/redacted. Use the code redacted at checkout and get 25% off.
This idea of protecting his friends versus protecting because I am not at all convinced that this is not still happening as we speak. You're a mother of three, I'm a mother of three, we serve at the pleasure of this role we've been given as protectors of our children and their generation and their peers. And I don't think that there's anyone else to protect. So I don't care about Howard Lutnick. I don't care about protecting anyone else who might be associated with something that I once validated.
I really don't. And so Massey just called for, the resignation of Howard Lutnick, who clearly told us lies about his association with Epstein. And so I want to ask you about, yeah, the domino effect, and who's being protected and who's saying children are not important. And again, how do we know that they're not still being hurt? Because in one of the depositions, it seems that, at least Lex Wexner did name a predecessor to Jeffrey Epstein.
How do we know? Like, aren't we here to protect children? I've asked you nine questions. I guess you can choose. I'm sorry.
I'm upset.
Speaker 0: Pick which one you
Speaker 4: want. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right. No. I fully how do we know it hasn't stopped? We only got a glimpse into a moment of time and that's in the past. So how do we know what has happened since then?
I mean, people are even questioning if Jeffrey Epstein is still alive. And that's I don't think that's a bad question. I think we should ask every question. At this point, in this time, after what we have read in these files, every question is valid. And you know how I really feel about it?
Look, my parents are baby boomers. I'm generation X. I'm 51 years old. And I love my parents, and I love many people in their generation. But I am sick and tired of the baby boomers that are in charge of everything right now.
That's across both sides of the aisle. They are responsible for so many of the bad things in our lives. They're responsible for the nearly $40,000,000,000,000 in debt. They're responsible for all the foreign wars that our military has had to fight for decades now. They're responsible for our Social Security is going to be completely broke in just a matter of years.
The baby boomers are responsible for this. And then what are we seeing in the Epstein files? A bunch of gross, disgusting, evil, corrupt, lying, piece of crap baby boomers are all in there. So how I feel about it is they all need to resign. They all and and many of them should go to jail because I'm honestly sick and tired of the whole entire group, both sides of the aisle.
Speaker 0: Do you think we're gonna get any answers? You know, one of the things that Ro Khanna had talked about and Massey too, is about having, having really sort of an extracurricular special counsel, I guess I guess you could call it a master. Forgive my forgive my ignorance on the the procedural piece of all of this. But
Speaker 3: An independent counsel.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And so being able to have that outside of this process with the DOJ. And unfortunately, unless they're bringing some sort of a court case, that's not gonna happen. The judge in this has said that. So they're really right now at the mercy of Pam Bondi.
I mean, they're at the mercy of these people.
Speaker 3: No. You, the American people, are the independent counsel. That is you. You're the independent counsel. Are do you trust your politicians?
Do you trust anybody anymore to to appoint an independent counsel to provide justice? I don't. I worked in Washington for five years. I'm gonna tell you flat out right now, you can't trust hardly anyone up there. They will not do it.
They will not do the right thing. The American people are the independent counsel, and you have the 100% sole power to end all of this stuff whenever the American people get finally fed up with it. And you you vote, you donate, you support candidates. You can also choose to not vote, support, donate. You can choose to say, we're not having anything to do with any of you.
Or you can figure out a way to beat them. But it's pretty hard. Look at what's happening to Thomas Massey right now. And I 100% support Thomas Massey. He's a dear friend of mine.
I endorse him, and I really hope that Kentucky four reelects him because he's one of the few honest good men in Washington DC. And I can say that because I know every single one of them, and and Thomas Massey is stands above pretty much all of them. And what is happening to him is outrageous. But I can tell you right now, do I believe that this administration is going to going to provide justice for anything in the Epstein files? No.
Absolutely not. Because the president told me that his friends would get hurt. So I have that to go on, and that was the president's words directly to me. So I don't think anything's going to happen. Are we gonna see people resign and step down outside of people over and, outside of the royal family?
No. I don't think so. Will we see Israel held accountable and and questioned for their their part, their role, maybe what Jeffrey Epstein was doing with Mossad? No. I highly doubt it because Netanyahu is coming to the White House tomorrow to to make sure that that his friend Donald Trump delivers on this war, in Iran that that Netanyahu wants to happen.
So I I hate to be the bearer of extremely honest but depressing bad news. No. No one's going to be held accountable. No one ever no one is ever held accountable except the innocent American people. Think about it.
The people that were forced to take a COVID vaccine. The parents that couldn't control their school boards so their kids were Yeah. Taught all kinds of crap. The pro lifers were sent to prison when they prayed outside of abortion clinics. People that walked in open doors at the Capitol, they went to jail.
But no one else goes to no other kind of political protester goes to jail. I mean, no, it's on and on and on. Time and time again, the American people are the ones that that pay the price. But never ever ever, the rich, powerful elites, they never ever go to jail. Only.
Yeah. But not unless not unless they're being taken down for a reason.
Speaker 0: I mean, you have I mean, you have, like, Lindsey Graham like, the president tweeting a picture of him in, warmonger warmonger Lindsey Graham yesterday during the Super Bowl as if anyone voted for this at all. And then you've got the demon I mean, literally a demon Satan incarnate Netanyahu coming to Washington DC, as you pointed out tomorrow to push for us to go to war in Iran. And then we're still sitting on waiting for 3,000,000 documents to be released that were all supposed to be released. Have you had a chance? Have you gone through any of them at all to know that, like, why are we waiting on these 3,000,000 other documents?
Do you have any idea from your experience in congress on why they would be stonewalling that chunk of documents?
Speaker 3: It's totally on purpose. They're not they're they're being directed to not to be very careful about what they release. So I'm I'm sorry. I'm one of those I've I have seen behind the curtain way too many times and for too long. It's all intentional.
Yeah. That's just a fact. I'm sorry. I wish I had a better answer.
Speaker 4: I wanna ask you maybe a personal question. So I think there probably are adults in the room in the government that maybe wanted at some point to do the right thing and show us behind the curtain of this shadow government. And then they get into office and they are unable. So can you tell me without giving into specifics, are there forces that tried to influence you to stop doing what you're doing now? And what did it take to leave there intact?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Oh, 100%. Yeah. There's a lot there's a lot of good people that go to Washington with great intentions. And and still, they really wish they could do the right thing.
But the system is is not set up that way. You're watching it. What happened to me and what is currently happening to Thomas Massey, we are great examples of how you cannot operate independently just purely working and representing your district. You're not allowed to because it's a two party system in Washington, DC. I call it the political industrial complex.
And you're either on the Democrat team or you're on the Republican team. And if you cause a problem for whichever party is in power, well, they're coming after you. So no, you cannot go unscathed if you go against the party in power or the administration, even if you're doing the right thing. Such as saying, no, I'm going to stand with women who were raped at 14 years old. That's the right thing to do.
I don't care who the president is. I don't care who the speaker of the House is. It doesn't matter. No. Here's what happens is, well, number one, it's hard to get a bill passed.
If you are bucking the system, so to speak, even if the system is corrupt and they're you're giving them a hard time and doing things like I wouldn't vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding. So I got on the bad side of a bunch of the neocon Republicans. And they got mad at me. So they wouldn't vote for some of my bills or some of my amendments, even though ideologically they agreed with a bill or amendment of mine, say, on some other issue. But they were mad at me because I was like, no, I'm not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever.
Or no, I think Israel is doing just fine. We don't need to give them a penny, not a single penny. Nor nor do we need to give it to any other country. But they get mad at me for that. And then there's there's other ways that they pressure you.
They will really do it'll go to the extreme. So what did I do? I stood up against the president. I wouldn't take my name off the discharge petition when he was telling me to. And so he put out a post, called me a traitor, and said that he was going to primary me, which is absolutely absurd.
I voted with the man 98% of the time. Many of my bills in congress are literal identical reflections of his executive orders. There is hardly any daylight between my policies and supposedly his policies. Right. Except when you come down to the Epstein files fighting wars on behalf of Israel.
I refused to support one of his bills that opened the back door to a central bank digital currency. I said, no, I'm not gonna vote for that. That's something I'm afraid of. So there was only a few little things. And then look at what they did to me.
And then you look at Thomas Massey. So had I see, I can't play for a team that refuses to win. I I I cannot fight for a team that doesn't do the right thing. And Republicans are pathetic. They promise one thing during campaigns, and then when they finally get power, they turn into the worst weak men you've ever seen in your life.
And they're straight up uni party. I mean, look at Lindsey Graham. He's the ultimate example. Look at Mike Johnson, the ultimate example. All of them are so weak and pathetic.
I can't fight for that team. I can't have anything to do with it. Now Thomas Massie, god bless him, he's a lot more stubborn than I am. And he said, no, I'm I'm gonna stay in here, but you know what they're doing to him? They they told every political consultant that worked for him that you will never we will make sure you never get hired by any other political campaign in politics.
So three political consultants of his quit. They they quit because they go out of business. Lucky, he's got a couple of others that stayed in there with first off, they make it almost impossible for you to hire people to run a campaign. So they basically blacklist you and make it hard for you to do the the most important part, which is get your message out to your voters, defend yourself from attacks, and raise money. And so no.
It is politics is a blood sport, and that's what people need to understand. It is 100% a blood sport. And the rhetoric you hear on the campaign trail, it's mostly bullshit. Mostly bullshit for most Republicans. Because as soon as they get your vote and they get back into Washington, it's business as usual.
It's back to they step in line and make sure they're doing exactly what they get told because they're terrified of something happening to them like what happened to me, or they're terrified of what's happening to Thomas Massey. Even if they even if they wanted to fight, they won't do it because they're too scared. They're honestly too scared. Many of them walk up to my face, say, hey, Marjorie. How are you doing?
They'll text message me just, you know, seeing you know, being my friend. They'll say hi to Thomas Massey. Call him. They'll say, Thomas, you're a good friend of mine. But have you seen any of these people?
Not one of them come out and defend us. Not one of them have anything nice to say publicly because they're too scared of the machine. And that's what's absolutely wrong.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Cheese stands alone.
Speaker 0: They are weak uni party. Yeah. That's all they are. We have, you know, 35, 40,000 people watching right now across all the platforms. Are you gonna run for president?
Speaker 3: Oh gosh. No. Everybody keeps asking me that. No. I don't have any plans to run for president.
I'm not running for governor. I'm not running for senate. And honestly, after everything I've seen in Washington, especially the past few years, I really don't think it's a system that I want to be a part of. And again, it really boils down to I honestly couldn't go all out and fight like I did for a team that refuses to win. And they refuse to do the right thing.
So for me, I feel like I gave it all I had for five years and stood on the issues that really, really mattered. But I don't see it's not a point in America's history where a normal American like me, can actually go to Washington and make the changes that need to be made.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, if you go back
Speaker 4: to 18 you 30 for being somebody who is willing to break down partisan lines because that's extremely useful right now. If the Epstein documents don't show us that now, that partisan politics is a ruse, And you as somebody who was a partisan loyalist, who is now willing to say, we're gonna do better if we break down this binary. I feel like that's extremely useful. So I wanna cheer you on for that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yep. A lot would have to change in the system. I think the American people can fix it though. I really, I go back to that. I see that as, it feels like a movement that's happening right now where many people on the and the right are just so tired of being divided.
It's like, why do we have to hate each other? It's really horrible. It's destroyed families and relationships. I mean, even marriages. People have gotten divorced over this.
Parents and adult kids stop talking to each other. Neighbors, coworkers. We're not supposed to hate each other because I really truly feel like the key issues that affect all of us, like for example, health insurance is too expensive. We're all worried about the future as far as jobs. I know for my kid's generation, it's just the cost of living.
And are we gonna be dragged into some foreign war that pulls us into World War III? Those are pretty common issues across the left and the right. And those should be the issues that our government should be working on. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. It's nonstop.
It's an outraged machine. And it's intentionally built that way. They drive votes and donations based on fear and hate. And so they drive the left and the right to be afraid of the other side and hate the other side so they can drive donations and votes against the other. And I think a lot of Americans are really fed up with that.
And they're fed up. They have outrage overload. It's just like it's too much. I can't be angry and upset every single twenty minutes over something else. So I feel like there is some sort of movement of change happening, but it just hasn't peaked yet.
But I think that it will.
Speaker 0: We got a super chat. I don't know if you can answer this. We'll get you out of here on this, Congresswoman. But angryhotdog asks in our chat room. Please ask her to tell us some of the names that she saw on the list.
Is that even possible? Is that even possible? Is that classified?
Speaker 3: Actually, that's misinformation. I don't have the list. I said at a press conference with the women there, I offered to them they have a list. So just so you know, there's a core group of these women. They have a list of the men that they keep to themselves.
And I offered to them when I was in Congress, I said, I would read that list of names on the House floor because we, as members of Congress, have something called speech and debate. So we have protection over our speech on the House floor. That's not they don't have protection over their speech. If they just go out and read that list of names without proof, these are billionaires and powerful people that will probably sue them into basically homelessness. And these women, they're not rich women.
They're just average people. They can't afford high end attorneys to defend themselves like that. So the people on the internet said, why didn't she just read the list? She should just read the list. Well, I can't.
That list is held by the women. And what they want, and it's completely reasonable. This is why they're fighting so hard for the FBI and the DOJ to release. And the CIA, by the way, has files. These files need to be released so these women don't have to go out there and risk extremely expensive lawsuits by naming these names because they're all in the files.
So I think there's that's been a misunderstanding for many people. Same with Thomas Massey. He doesn't have the list either. Ro Khanna doesn't have the list. It's only the the women have the list.
Okay.
Speaker 0: Gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up. And thanks to our viewer for asking that. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, great to finally have you here on the show. Yes.
It's been a real pleasure. Thank you so much for your time, and hopefully hopefully, you'll come back.
Speaker 3: Love to. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thanks, congresswoman. Great to see you. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
ALIEN Collaborations? 🛸 This former soldier is ready to break his silence about secret Government Alien Collaborations. https://t.co/ppV0xrW77o
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jorge Pabon, known on air as JP, reveals his identity on national television after decades in shadow. He describes a career in the United States Army focused on special classified UFO and space programs, including work related to moon bases and underground ocean bases. He states his full name, rank, and service details, sharing documents (redacted in parts) to verify his background: he was a 91 Juliet quartermaster of chemical repairs, dealing with water purification, and he also served as a translator in the Army. He explains he knew three languages (Spanish, Portuguese, and another) and that he was a paratrooper attached to the 7th Special Forces Group, though not a Green Beret. He clarifies his rank as E-4 during that period.
Discharge and disclosures: Pabon left the Army in August of the previous year. He signed non-disclosure agreements, with certain restrictions remaining; he has received a “green light” to talk about some topics from contacts connected to Washington, though the channels and specifics are not fully disclosed. He notes growing calls for disclosure, including videos and officers’ testimonies, and he anticipates more soldiers like him coming forward in documentaries about their experiences.
Prior encounters and witnesses: Before enlisting, Pabon was approached by individuals in tactical gear who urged him to take photographs of unusual aircraft (including TR-3B-type triangular craft). He was repeatedly approached by “white hats” who told him when to look up and photograph ships. He faced two opposing forces: one encouraging disclosure and another urging secrecy or intimidation; at times he and his family were pressured or harassed as a consequence of his disclosures. He states that hundreds of thousands of soldiers worldwide have seen similar phenomena and that others in his network are cautious about coming forward due to security and spiritual implications.
UFO sightings and military projects: Pabon describes a range of experiences, including a significant pre-military sightings period with cigar-shaped craft observed in Tampa and Orlando, often near helicopters. He sent photographs to Dr. Michael E. Sala and other outlets; the Tampa Bay Times and others discussed his work without naming him. He recalls being approached by both supporters and suppressors of disclosure, with some encounters including armed individuals in tactical gear who questioned or escorted him.
Underwater arcs and extraterrestrial bases: A central claim is the existence of massive, ancient arc ships—underwater “arcs” or cities—scattered around the world, including near Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, near India, and Antarctica. He describes arcs as immense, city-like structures with multiple levels, capable of movement between air and water, and reportedly housing diverse personnel from multiple nations and even other species. He asserts the arcs are ancient, far more advanced than current human technology, and contain departments for different regions (e.g., Pacific arcs). These bases purportedly facilitate collaboration among humans and various extraterrestrial groups, including Nordics and other beings.
Transportation and operations: Missions to arcs involve multi-branch and international collaboration, with personnel from the Army, Navy, and other services, sometimes deployed via Osprey, Black Hawk, or C-130 aircraft, to water-adjacent sites where ships lower into the water and reveal arc facilities. He describes landing on a navy-type ship that houses arcs and can extend underwater; ducts and elevators move personnel to arc interiors with unfamiliar materials and technologies. He emphasizes that the arcs are self-contained bases with the ability to move rapidly underwater.
Beings and contact: Pabon reports encounters with Nordics, “ant people” (ant-like beings with large eyes and distinctive hair-like projections), and occasional gray entities observed at distance. He claims some beings can change appearance to blend with humans. He suggests a hierarchical structure among ETs, with Nordics involved in training or coordinating certain activities with human forces, including pilots and Artemis Accord participants. He links interdimensional and spiritual dimensions to the phenomena, describing experiences of consciousness, presence, and a sense of ships as living or alive.
Personal perspective and beliefs: He discusses the intersection of faith and ufology, noting his Christian background and the complexity of interpreting these experiences as spiritual or demonic, but maintaining openness to a broad spectrum of phenomena, including interdimensional aspects and ancient AI-like technologies. He mentions the Monroe Institute and gateway experiences as contextual references for understanding interdimensional communication. He asserts a belief that the United States has access to advanced technologies—potentially borrowed through collaboration with Nordics and other groups—and that global cooperation among nations is part of these programs.
Locations and additional claims: In addition to Puerto Rico, Bermuda, and Atlantic sites, Pabon mentions Antarctica as a locus of high technology and space-relevant radio-frequency systems. He references Alabama as a site where Nordics allegedly trained pilots connected to Artemis Accord activities. He recounts Brazil as an early personal contact point where an arc allegedly appeared near Cardos Novas, leading to a transformative personal experience. He claims a Brazilian arc has been publicly recognized as the Arc of Brazil.
Closing perspective: The interview underscores a belief that disclosure may occur in phases, with multiple arcs and interactions across nations and a variety of ET groups. Pabon emphasizes the personal risks he and his family have faced, the complexity of the network surrounding disclosure, and his hope that public exposure will advance understanding of these phenomena.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The man you're about to meet has never revealed his identity, his face, his rank, or his name on television before, and he's doing so at great personal risk to him and his family. Now he spent years in the United States Army working on special classified UFO and space programs. And yes, he's worked on both the moon base and the massive underground ocean bases. So what you're about to see I believe could have massive implications for the future of UFO disclosure on many levels, from the advanced technologies that we have in our possession like those med beds. Remember that Donald Trump even tweeted about these med beds and then he suddenly deleted the tweet?
Yeah. They can heal human bodies within hours. Or about those secret bases on the moon. Or what about the secret bases beneath the ocean? You know, or the aliens that are currently working with our government.
So what you're about to see in this interview could move us towards full UFO disclosure. This is part one of our two part interview. Enjoy. JP, thank you so much for doing this.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it, Clayton.
Speaker 0: I know this was a lot for you. There's a lot of there's a lot that goes into an interview like this. So I wanna thank you. A lot of people maybe don't understand behind the scenes how difficult it is for somebody who is trying to come out and and and share the story to to be brave enough to do it. So thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it, Clayton, rather than me here.
Speaker 0: So j we call you JP. So I guess for the first time on national television, on a national show, you're gonna reveal your name for the first time. You've been in the shadows for a couple of decades now, really. Yeah. And you've been involved in a lot of these special programs for many, many years coming out and then sharing your name for the first time.
So can you share with our audience your full name for the first time?
Speaker 1: My name is Jorge Pabon. Jorge Pabon.
Speaker 0: And let's maybe just get the official stuff out of the way. Talk about your rank, when you left the military, what you were doing in the military, and we have some documents that you've shared with us. They've we have certain parts redacted, but we
Speaker 1: will share those here so people can know what your service was to The United States. I was a '91 Juliet as a quartermaster of chemical repairs. I deal with water purification. And I also In the army? In the army.
Speaker 0: In the army.
Speaker 1: I also do, translation. They use me as a translator as well Okay. To translate different languages.
Speaker 0: Could pick up How many languages do you have? Do you know?
Speaker 1: I know three three languages. Spanish, Portuguese. Falo Portuguese? Falo Portuguese. Falo Portuguese.
Speaker 0: Okay. Sorry. That was duck rice, one of my favorite so so a number of languages as a
Speaker 1: translator. And understand a couple other languages as well.
Speaker 0: So you were an air can you you were also an air trooper. Is that right?
Speaker 1: A paratrooper. Paratrooper. Paratrooper. And I was, stationed this is the first time I'm saying this as well. The best unit in the world, seventh group special forces unit.
So you
Speaker 0: were stationed with the seventh group special forces unit. Mhmm. You were not in the special forces. Right?
Speaker 1: No. I wasn't. I was attached.
Speaker 0: You were attached to the special forces. Yeah. Okay. Just so everyone's clear about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Everybody, to be clear. Okay. I'm not I'm not a green beret. Okay.
I'm a Red Beret.
Speaker 0: So what is that? A Red Beret. And here's a photo. We'll share some photos of you, wearing the Red Beret. And, and what rank were you?
Speaker 1: I was e four. E four.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I was e four. It's a it's lower rank. It's a e four close to a corporal. It's in between a corporal and e four. You know, it's interesting you say that.
Speaker 0: I wanna talk more about your official capacity in a second. But I've heard others who who've who've been involved in the things that you've been involved with and seen the things that you've you've seen, they're typically a lower rank. The the individuals I've spoken to, whistleblowers I've spoken to, we're not talking to generals necessarily. We're they typically are lower rank, and they remain a lower rank for a longer time. Do you have any insight into that?
Speaker 1: We are told what to do. People that are higher ranks Mhmm. They sometimes go to the missions, but their job is to lead, and they have to stay secure, a secure facility. So the people that are lower enlisted, they go out to do the missions. So I don't know if you're familiar with that documentary that just came out called Age of Disclosure.
Speaker 0: Age of Disclosure. Yes. I am.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of higher ranks there, and they're telling a lot of truth in that documentary. I'm not trying to push it,
Speaker 0: but Right. But they're higher ranking because you're lower. Right? You were you were doing the grunt work. Let's be honest.
Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. We were doing the the grunt work. When I say we, it's it's not only me. It's it's more soldiers like me.
Speaker 0: How many would you say than your experience in your group that have also had this experience?
Speaker 1: Nationwide and worldwide? Hundreds of thousands. That have seen what you've seen?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Wow. Yeah. That's the first time I've really ever heard a number associated with it. Yeah.
And do you know of any other individuals that have come forward from your group, like your
Speaker 1: I do. I do. I'm connected with a couple of soldiers, but as you know, they're scared to come out and talk about this. Why are they scared? It goes beyond, it connects to the the spiritual and the interdimensional realm of things.
Clayton, it it goes way beyond. I I can't really talk about it because of national security. Okay. And because I love this country a lot, and this is the best country in the world for me. You know, I got the opportunity to join the military, and I always tell people in my channel to join the military.
It changed my life. Yeah. You know, it taught me a lot. I joined when I was 34, so I was already older. I got pushed to join the military.
And when I got pushed, I experienced these missions.
Speaker 0: So I I know a little bit about your story, but I wanted you to really tell it today, and I and I want you to kinda go through it all. But before we get there, so in official capacity, you shared with us your your discharge? Yeah. Documents. And this is redacted so we can put this up here on the screen as well.
What does this show us here?
Speaker 1: The DD two fourteen shows you my what I did in service and where I was stationed and all that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And you left in what when did you when did
Speaker 1: you leave? When August of thirtieth of last year.
Speaker 0: So you left the military August of thirtieth of last year.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Did you have to sign any nondisclosure agreements, anything like that when you left?
Speaker 1: I have to sign certain things that I can't still talk about. Okay. But I got the green light to talk about certain things. And who's giving me the green light? I can't really talk about.
Who's giving me the green light. Oh, I know he's connected to Washington.
Speaker 0: Which is interesting to me. I don't wanna dwell too much on that. But in the times that you and I have spoken over the past few months or through an intermediary that we've been speaking with, I've heard that you've gotten the green light. So there are people in Washington. There are people in the military who want this out there, who want disclosure.
Is that would you say
Speaker 1: that's accurate? People want disclosure. That's why people are pushing, showing more of these amazing videos that are coming out.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Proof of officers talking and experiencing these. But I think it's it's it's gonna be in phases, Clayton. Soon, soldiers like me, we're gonna come out and probably do a documentary about what we felt and what we went through. You know? Yeah.
I chose to join the military. They approached me. Hey. You wanna join? You know?
You've been through a lot, so we'll take care of you. You join. So I joined, and they did take care of me. I love the military. I'd never talked negative about Mhmm.
The army. Yeah. It's the best place that I ever and, you know, some people might hear this and say, oh, you know, he's he's pushing, you know, the army and all that. But it's just, for me, what I experienced, it was the best thing ever in my life.
Speaker 0: Let's go back then to when they approached you because I find this fascinating. So you were you had just moved to Orlando, Florida. Orlando, Florida. And you were not involved in the military at all at that point?
Speaker 1: I was not involved with the military. I was working actually for a a pool company. So you're cleaning pools? I was cleaning pools. And I dealt with music too because I go to church.
Uh-huh. You know? And my wife, she sings. So I'm sorry. I'm tearing up a little bit.
It's just
Speaker 0: And there's tissues right there.
Speaker 1: Things things change in life Yeah. For the better. You know? So when I joined the military, it changed the way I lived. With your family and everything?
With family and everything. Yeah. So in all of
Speaker 0: this, JP, I mean, your family has been must have been incredible, a rock a rock for you. Right?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. My family have been supportive. My father, my mom, my my my beautiful wife. I've been married eighteen years, Clayton. Eighteen years.
Wow. Eighteen years in it's tough. It it's been tough on her. You know? But she stood by you in all of this?
Yeah. Yeah. She stood by me. She's a, you know, she's my spiritual. She she prays for
Speaker 0: me a lot. So Does is she aware of a lot of the stuff that's happened? She's aware.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She's aware. But we don't really talk about it at home.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Try to keep it separate. Yeah. Kids live a normal life.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Have the kids live, I don't know, after this show. But, you know, it's the truth has to get out there playing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Has she have your kids ever seen anything?
Speaker 1: Yeah. They talk about me on stage, and my little one says in school, my father talks about aliens. I'm like, no.
Speaker 0: Does your has your wife ever seen anything, like, when you've had these experiences?
Speaker 1: I'll share a video that we've seen together of a cigar shaped ship that she spotted first. Another video going to UK. She was in the side of the window. I got that video as well. And we saw a UFO following the plane, and it changed colors, and it turned into wings.
And we both started crying. Wow. It's like, wow. They're protecting us. You know?
Flying to UK for a conference. And then that same conference, these ETs came back and thousands of people saw these ships, and it was all over Eastbourne. You're cleaning pools. I mean,
Speaker 0: were you I mean, I hate to ask this, but were you, like, in the middle of cleaning a pool and suddenly the military shows up and says,
Speaker 1: Jorge, what do like? I lost my job. You had just lost your job? I I shared I shared a a picture with doctor Sala with t r three b.
Speaker 0: What is a t r three b?
Speaker 1: It's a antigravity type of ship that we know of. Right. I'm not gonna say where it's from or or who's operating it, but we know of these t r three b's. They're triangular ships. And I took a picture, I shared it with doctor Michael E.
Sala.
Speaker 0: A friend of the show. Michael Sala has been on many times.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I shared it with him. And after that, I just lost my I lost my job.
Speaker 0: So sorry. How did okay. We're gonna show the the photos here. This is a triangular shaped UAP, UFO. I hate the term UAP with a passion.
UFO. I I think it's like yeah. Anyway, UFO. When did you take this photo? So this was before you ever joined the military.
Speaker 1: This is before. I took multiple multiple pictures of UFOs.
Speaker 0: Where did this happen, and how did this happen?
Speaker 1: This happened in Tampa. This happened in Orlando. In Tampa, I was taking pictures of cigar shaped UFOs and UFOs interacting with helicopters. I got these pictures I could show you as well.
Speaker 0: So you were just at were you, like, cleaning pools at the time, or you just, like
Speaker 1: I was I was working. I also installed cameras for certain companies.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So, you know, I was just making money. You know? Life, you have to move around to make money.
Speaker 0: Blue collar, hardworking. Yeah. Just making money for your family.
Speaker 1: Making money for the family. And on top of that, working in studios, doing music. I am I love music. You know, I play piano, guitar, drums, whatever you gave me, I I could play.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: And you use the same part of your brain for languages. So if you're a good musician, you could pick up in different types of languages. So it's it's kinda cool in my for me. When I joined the military, they asked me about translating. They asked me about because once you join the mill you join the military, it's not just one job.
It's not just one MOS. It's it's more than one jobs. Yeah. As you can see in my DD two fourteen, I did more jobs than usual.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You had a lot on there.
Speaker 1: Post station in the special forces unit. So you have to keep up with these guys. These these green berets, they're really good. They're the top of the top. So they do things that I don't even know.
So So you
Speaker 0: were doing these different jobs. And then when did you see these triangular shaped craft?
Speaker 1: So cars used to approach me, like, white pickup or a white van. And the guy in uniform, in tactical uniform says, hey. In this time, just look up and make sure you take a picture. I'm like, what the heck is this guy talking about? He's he
Speaker 0: just would drive by you?
Speaker 1: Drive by me. And, hey, this time and I consider those people the white hats. You know, they they want this information out. And I took pictures, and then the Tampa Bay Times, they start talking about doctor Michael Esala in my picture, and and they talk they talk about McPhill Air Force Base. I'm like, oh, man.
Oh, man. They're talking about me in coast to coast and, all this. And I'm like, doc, what am I gonna do? And he says, don't worry. You're anonymous.
Nobody knows your name. Nobody knows who you are. So they always told me, don't give your name out. Just give this information. Doc was the only one that knew my name Yeah.
And knew my family. And I shared my information with Doc. He he's been documenting. I call him the librarian of disclosure.
Speaker 0: He is. I mean, he's written so many books, and your your name, JP, you know, appears in his books many, many years. So you were a guy I just I can't believe I mean, it's I mean, I can believe it because I've heard this now from multiple people. But you just get a white hat, just drives by, and just says to you does he yell out your name? Does he know who you are?
Speaker 1: They approached me and says, hey. This doesn't say my name. They approach you, and this happens to a lot of people.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've heard it multiple times. You're not the only one.
Speaker 1: They they approach you and they say, hey. This is this time, this hour, we're gonna see a ship. So start taking pictures with your phone. And those times, there was no AI. These pictures are you can put them in tests or whatever you wanna put them.
Speaker 0: They're like from 2007.
Speaker 1: Yeah. 2008, 2007.
Speaker 0: Okay. The photos you're seeing here on the screen are old. These are pre this is even pre iPhone, I believe, at the time or right around.
Speaker 1: Pre Android.
Speaker 0: Pre Android and pre iPhone and, right around that time. So you're just taking these photos. How many times did people approach you telling you to look up?
Speaker 1: Dozens of times. Dozens of times.
Speaker 0: Did you try to, like, stop them? Because I you know, for me, I could just picture me. I'm just walking with my dog and somebody pulls up and says, hey, you. At in an hour and a half, look up at the sky and take photos, I'm gonna say, wait, wait, wait. Who are you?
Did you try to do that?
Speaker 1: You got other people picking me up and interrogating me. What? Yeah. So you got people saying stop, and you got people saying go.
Speaker 0: At the same time?
Speaker 1: At the same time. But I kept with the go and it went on from there. So I got a collection of U A UFO pictures.
Speaker 0: Were other people seeing these photos or, craft at
Speaker 1: the time? I'm sure other people were seeing these craft, and I'm sure they took pictures, but I don't know why they haven't
Speaker 0: registered them. So you had people telling you go, take these pictures. Then you had other people pulling over. You're just walking along. You're a big guy.
Yeah. You can see on the you know, you're a big guy. So these guys are coming and they do they just stop you on the street and and pull you aside and take you someplace to interrogate you? Yeah. How did that
Speaker 1: go? Like, three people get inside the truck, get inside the van. And I'm like Are they armed? Yeah. Sometimes they're armed with cigs.
And, you know, they were in tactical gear, so you're like, okay. I'm done today. I'm done. Well, that this happened to me a couple couple dozen times when they when when I posted the TR three b in Orlando, I got picked up saying, hey. You can't be posting stuff like that.
Speaker 0: So you you do you feel like that there were two separate forces at work
Speaker 1: Yeah. The entire time? Totally.
Speaker 0: And you you're still experiencing that because you have people who said green light, and there are other people who don't want you talking. Yeah. Which is consistent with everything that I've heard. So you're posting these photos, you're sending them to doctor Sala, the Tampa Bay Times, Tampa Bay Tribune or whatever is posting them or revealing this information. They never named you, though.
Right? They just No. JP. JP. JP.
So from that point, you're still not in the military. No. You're still cleaning pools. You're still doing music. You're still doing installing cameras.
You're still doing all of these other things. When did that change? I'm not asking you for a specific date, but, like, what what was the impetus then? How did all that shift from the go and stop guys coming and bothering you?
Speaker 1: When I joined the military. How did that happen? So I went they approached me, the good guys. Hey. You have to join.
If you don't want the people to keep bothering you no more, you have to join.
Speaker 0: So the guys that were telling you to take the photos, did you recognize them? Did they look the same?
Speaker 1: They're always different. It's always different. But it's like they they knew me. It's so weird. It's like they look different, but they they it's like I felt like I had a relationship with them.
So sometimes they come with mask. What kind of masks? It's like a ski mask. People will be scared.
Speaker 0: Like some like something you see with ice skies right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like a Yeah. Similar.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Similar. Like a Baka what would you call it? Balakava or whatever over the face? Yeah.
Do they have helmets on?
Speaker 1: No. No helmets.
Speaker 0: Tactical gear?
Speaker 1: Tactical gear.
Speaker 0: With, like, a SIG on their hip. Were they also armed, the good guys? Yeah.
Speaker 1: They were also armed.
Speaker 0: Were they kind of saying, hey
Speaker 1: They looked like similar to what sheriffs wear when they're undercover. Okay. Gotcha.
Speaker 0: Were you intimidated by the good guys?
Speaker 1: Sometimes. Sometimes. There was only one there was always one guy that was always serious and not talking, always just studying me and just looking up and down and always looking around and always looking over my shoulder and always and and that had me look. That had me always you know? So the other two guys were always talkative and, like, you know Yeah.
Like, if they were agents or something like that.
Speaker 0: Did they and they told you
Speaker 1: Don't know what agency, though. Don't know. You
Speaker 0: never knew if they were were they military? You don't know?
Speaker 1: Their their their personnel is military, but I never knew, like, if they were strictly military, military, or if it was a different agency that was hired, you know Yeah. To talk to me or to lower me into the military. So then you joined the military. I joined the military.
Speaker 0: Was it a long was it a long thought process or no? Pretty much instantaneous?
Speaker 1: It was a long thought process because I go to church. And when I went to Brazil, I used to preach all over the place and all that. And I was really into church. Yeah. You know?
That's why this these UFO things and You Catholic? No. I'm Christian. Christian. Christian.
The the these UFO things for the Christian community or for the religion community, sometimes they think is spirits. Demons. Demons. Angels. And and I kind of lean towards that way as well.
Speaker 0: There are people in congress who will say to other members or disclosure and whistleblowers, etcetera, like, why don't even deal with this. No. Don't even deal with this because it's demonic. Right? And so that kind of puts up a wall, and maybe it is.
And maybe there are with the interdimensionality, and maybe there's things we don't understand, so we label it demons. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. In life, we always always say this. We have a yin and a yang. You know? There's always a good.
Yeah. There's always a bad. I think there's good. Yeah. If you wanna call them ETs out there or angels.
We got good angels that can guide you to do the right things. And if you read the Bible, yeah, throughout history, angels have been guiding people for a long time.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And then you got demons. You have to be careful with demons. Yeah. And so lower vibration. And, you know, if you study about the Monroe Institute, the Gateway Projects, and all that, you can study how these people have the ability to connect with the interdimensional realm and the spiritual realm with outer body type of experience and all that.
So it the the study is out there. The documents are out there that all these programs exist.
Speaker 0: So it wasn't just jumping into the military like anybody else might and decide to to join the military. It was you realizing that there are ETs or there's craft that you're taking photos of. There's guys that show up at your house or they show up and ask you to join the military. This is a different experience than most people go through. So you wrestled with it for a little while, and then you ultimately
Speaker 1: I was trying to walk away every time, Clayton. Was trying to walk away, but out of nowhere, I see these ships. So sometimes I go outside and pray, and these ships showed up these ships show up. I'm like, why am I doing different? What type of praying or meditating or state of mind I get into that these things come down?
So every conference that I do, these ships, they they come down. And I have proof. I can show you the videos. We show it to Redacted. And these ships, they show up.
I did one in The UK. I did one in France. I did one in Charlotte, even here in Colorado. And we we call down these these shit. Sometimes they use people like us, you know Right.
In the military, including, implementing the dog whistle type of technology that have psionic abilities that can bring down these ships. You know, I I didn't realize I I had something like that, an ability like that. But when they were started approaching me to join the military, I'm like, okay. They need something from me. You know?
They they they need help.
Speaker 0: They need a way to communicate or train
Speaker 1: these beings. Yeah. They need to communicate with these beings.
Speaker 0: Was it your sense that when you were seeing these craft coming that they were they were not man, they were not humans, that these were did you have any idea that whether these were, you know, US military vehicles or these were ETs?
Speaker 1: They were ETs. They were extraterrestrials. Well, we could say that They are from parts of our oceans. That's as far as I I can go, Clayton. Parts of our oceans.
Speaker 0: And this has been a long conversation or the idea about Hope I
Speaker 1: don't get in trouble because of that, but it's the first time I said that here. So
Speaker 0: But you're not the first who you have admiral, Gudrill as well talking about these underwater UFOs or USOs. And I could tell
Speaker 1: you the locations for the first time if you want. Plea please. The north and part and South part of
Speaker 0: Puerto Rico. North and South of Puerto Rico, underwater. Underwater. One of
Speaker 1: the deepest parts of the Atlantic Oceans is there. And you've been there. Right? Have you been to these spots? I have been to these spots more towards the Bermuda part of the location where I have been.
Now I know
Speaker 0: I'm kinda jumping ahead because I wanted to get to that, but I just wanna talk about it now. So you you went to can you describe what you saw? A massive underground facilities, underwater facilities, underwater bases? Something
Speaker 1: like that, Clayton. Yeah. Yeah. I saw these things that we call arcs. Arcs.
Arcs. Can you describe to our audience what that it would be? Massive, massive ships or huge, like like three stadiums or even bigger types of ships. And it's ancient.
Speaker 0: Ain't so this is this is unbelievable to me. And we've
Speaker 1: heard about these ARC ships. I've heard from different individuals that they've been here for, what, millions of years? Hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of years. Yeah. And they're scattered around our earth, these types of arcs or v manas or whatever other people wanna call them.
And you've been there in a military capacity. So you were US Army during this time. How were
Speaker 0: you transported there? How did you how did how did those missions come to be? I guess you could I need I need some coffee for this part. Yeah. Just take a sip of coffee because this is like Sure.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be yeah. A lot of people are gonna get our holiday mugs
Speaker 0: out here.
Speaker 1: Start start asking questions Yeah. After this
Speaker 0: video. Well, that's why we wanted to have you on because we want to
Speaker 1: Well, the books have been out there for a while, you know, so people do know about these. But now
Speaker 0: To put a face with it. Yeah. Because every time you've been at a conference or you've spoken, you've used, like, I think, voice modulation. You've worn masks. Yeah.
I wear a helmet. You wear a helmet.
Speaker 1: Wear a mask.
Speaker 0: Like a face.
Speaker 1: Yeah. A funny looking helmet. Yeah. And everybody's like, take the mask off. Take the helmet off.
So I took it off for the first time in in Charlotte for the first time. Yeah. I took it off, and it was a big deal for me because after that, I had, like, dozens of cars parking. At your house? My house.
I had people following me all over the place, checking me out. And, you know, I got a family, so I I do have to protect my family.
Speaker 0: Well, now millions of people are gonna see this, so stop parking at JP's house. Like, the cat is out of the bag. Like, knock it off now. Enough. Enough already.
Speaker 1: Well, I am protected. You know? Yeah. My whole neighborhood is military.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So Don't mess with JP. Alright. So I I wanna go back. I wanna go let's let's I wanna go talk about the underwater piece of this, and then we got a lot to unpack here.
But so in a military capacity, how how were you transported there? How did those missions come up? Like, you just wake up one morning and JP, we're going to we're gonna go see, a massive UFO that's hundreds of thousands of years old, so get your rain gear. Like, how does that unfold?
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's through through the phone, or sometimes is just straight up, hey. They want you in this area. You know? I'm working. And and so the group, they, hey.
They need you in this area. So I leave. I meet up. They make you change into black tacticals. You're with other special forces at the time?
It's it's weird because it's it's civilian. Special forces. You got rangers. You got airborne troopers. You got reek marine recons.
You got I don't know. They wanna call themselves Delta Force. You got it's like a mixture of people with different talent. It's not just army. Yeah.
So most people say, oh, it's just one. No. It's all branches. And then you got international people from different countries involved. Well, that's
Speaker 0: the real story here too is that we're all you know, we talk about these boogeyman, like, oh, we have to hate Russia. We have to hate China. We have but we're all working together. Right? We're all working together.
Russians, we're all on the same page with this stuff, right,
Speaker 1: a lot of times. Well, the thing is we have to, Clayton, because these are things that we don't understand. Yeah. It connects to the you know, when you get to the quantum entanglement part of it, quantum physics, it connects to the spiritual consciousness. And these these beings, they show up and they disappear.
We can have one in this room right now. We we won't realize it. You know? It's it's it's spiritual, and the spiritual realm is real. I want people to understand that.
And that's why I wanted to walk away so many times and not even talk about this. Even talking about it, I get not scared, but I get the the shivers because imagine you knowing that there's something listening and knowing that everything that you do in every moment.
Speaker 0: It's almost like consciousness.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, it's like you there's no way to hide. There's nowhere to go. They know every step, everything we say, everything that we do. It's like that type of that type of
Speaker 0: And they're far more powerful than us. Right?
Speaker 1: Yes. That's the thing too. And you don't wanna mess up.
Speaker 0: You don't wanna mess up with them. So you you get called as Delta forces, all of these guys, you're wearing black tactical gear. What happens next? What type of a ship, boat do you get where were you? Were you at, Eglin Air Force Base at the time?
Miguel, where were you when you get this call? And then you went to Puerto Rico?
Speaker 1: Eglin. Well, in Puerto Rico, that's the locations of these these things that we have.
Speaker 0: Do you get on a ship, a battle cruiser, or anything like that?
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's Osprey. Sometimes it's Black Hawk. Sometimes it's c one thirty. You know?
Speaker 0: And then just describe to me the layperson coming into this. Are you landing on something,
Speaker 1: being transported there? We're landing on a massive ship that I don't feel comfortable talking on your show. I'm sorry about that, Clayton.
Speaker 0: So it's like a classified
Speaker 1: I know it says it in the books. It says it in the books of doctor Sola. It's a it's a massive navy type of ship that we have.
Speaker 0: That we don't even know about, really? I mean, we know because of people like yourself, but other
Speaker 1: We probably know about it because of movies. Yeah. But we we do have
Speaker 0: My brain goes to, like, the Avengers movie and, like, some of the helicarriers.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. We got technology that is can manipulate space and time.
Speaker 0: So you're landing on one of these manipulating of space and time craft. Well, whatever you can say. I just
Speaker 1: Yeah. It looks like it looks like a I don't know if you've seen the Star Wars, that doughnut shaped ship that they have in the Star Wars of, series they have. I I'm not familiar, but I'll text it to you.
Speaker 0: I'm a big Star Wars fan, so we'll we'll put it up here on the screen from Star Wars.
Speaker 1: Well, they made a movie of him.
Speaker 0: Andor, the Star Wars show Andor.
Speaker 1: Have a similar ship that when I looked at it, I was like, oh, crap. My my heart sank. My jaw dropped. I'm like, oh, crap.
Speaker 0: We have that type of ship. Yeah.
Speaker 1: We have that stuff. We have
Speaker 0: that. So it's floating, flying? It's floating. Using antigravity technology?
Speaker 1: No. Not using antigravity. It's a regular ship. But it's floating on the ocean? It's floating on the oceans.
You land on it. It has the capability, I think, with the hydraulics. It it it drinks it it takes in water, and it turns to a sub depending. Lowers And down just a little bit. It doesn't go all the way down.
Speaker 0: Just enough to be hidden.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just enough to be hidden.
Speaker 0: And then you're in this ship as it lowers down. And then how do you find yourself near these giant arc ships?
Speaker 1: So there's certain banks that are in higher altitude that is not as deep that pressure wise would not pressure will not harm you. So these ships are located in those locations that it's it's good enough for us to visit down. It has like a elevator with a different type of metal that doesn't it contracts and
Speaker 0: Like, stuff that we're not used to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We're not used to seeing this technology.
Speaker 0: So this is, like, alien technology?
Speaker 1: I I can say it's type of ET technology that we probably implemented in no. But we're so smart plates, and we have stuff that is probably four or five hundred years more advanced, and people will know that.
Speaker 0: Like the craft that we yeah. Antigravity technology, quantum technology, all of that. Course. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: like to say we're the best country in the world. We have a lot of stuff that
Speaker 0: And that's why people, I think, when they think, oh, they're gonna, you know, you're gonna mess with The United States. Like, the stuff that we have that if if push came to shove and we needed to use it, I mean, forget nuclear weapons. Those are like I mean, that's like a joke at this point. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Forget about now we have to worry about certain things.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So take me down in this craft. Let me not interrupt you, but you can just take me how how do you get from how do you get from the water to the these things? Where are you? I just I wanna be in your shoes and see what you're seeing down there.
Speaker 1: So the first time we went down there, it was like a multinational kinda event. So I saw Chinese. I saw Russians. I saw other scientists. I saw we even brought people from Mexico.
These these guys that look Indians. Mexicans, the Aztecs. Yeah. They look Aztec.
Speaker 0: Like Mayan. Yeah. Yeah. Looking.
Speaker 1: I'm like, where the heck these guys come from? Uh-huh. You know? How they got picked up? You know?
Wow. And we we were all down because it has things are connected to to Mexico and to South America and even India. Things are even connected to India, these crafts, and they have it has different departments of rooms. So each arc is like if you have a scientist in the Pacific, there's an arc in Pacific as well. Where?
South from Hawaii near California. That area over there. Over there, also, there's Massive Ark. Massive Ark. And a massive something massive that is alive.
When I say mass, cities or something like that, people that live down there. Humans? It could be a mixture of humans and other things. Yeah. And these Working together.
Working together. Yeah. These ETs or other Nordics. They look like us. They could be walking among us.
Speaker 0: But they're, like, tall, blonde hair.
Speaker 1: Well, they they could be our height. We got, certain programs that can change them to look like us.
Speaker 0: And they're working with humans in these underground cities. We're talking
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: These cities, like, how big are they? Are we talking, like, the size of Philadelphia, New York?
Speaker 1: No. No. It's but it's multiple layers. So it's huge.
Speaker 0: Do they have vehicles down there? How do they get around? I don't know, Clayton. Do they have to pick their kids up at dance class in the afternoon? Maybe.
Speaker 1: But I'm I'm just trying to think of the, you
Speaker 0: know, the infrastructure, the food, like restaurants, like, how are they, you know, how are
Speaker 1: they living down there? I think it's more like a base type of city. So it's people that work there. I don't think there's kids down there, Clayton.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Provisions are brought in. Yeah. They're operating and working. Did did they come off regularly?
Like, are they down there for a few months, a few weeks, and then they're
Speaker 1: Basically, the same thing that how they do in in in the space station or similar. Like that. Yeah. And, you know, Eglin Air Force Base is the biggest air force base in The United States Of America, and a lot of things are done from there.
Speaker 0: So a lot of transporting is happening from Eglin to to these different arcs.
Speaker 1: And and it's not just that base. It's a lot of base around the worlds. Yeah. That includes different governments. You know?
Reagan said one day, hey. If there's a massive force that comes, would every country unite and attack or would we would we would be still attacking each other? Brought together. Brought together.
Speaker 0: He knew. Well, he knew. Yeah. He knew. And he also had before he became president of The United States, Reagan had things that happened to him in California as governor of California.
So he knew. He was fully aware. So you arrive at this base. You see these different departments in Puerto Rico, under the water near Puerto Rico. Were you just blown away at how massive this thing is?
Speaker 1: I was blown away. The the places where I went was more by Bermuda. Okay. Off the shore of, you know So we talk about,
Speaker 0: like, the Bermuda Daytona. When we talk about off of Daytona?
Speaker 1: Off to the a little bit more off from Daytona. Wow. Like, that same location. I don't wanna give the exact location, but somewhere around there.
Speaker 0: And just to be clear, like, these arcs aren't moving?
Speaker 1: Well, they are moving now. They are moving now. Yeah. They're moving now. Now there's a massive arc in between Venezuela and Puerto Rico.
Speaker 0: On purpose because of what's happening right now? I don't
Speaker 1: know what's happening behind the scenes, but I don't I don't think that buildup is for a reason.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. So we can I know my conspiracy minded brain goes, oh, we're we're hearing that we have regime change operations happening in Venezuela? But really, the reason we have 15,000 members of the military in that region has nothing to do with Maduro. It has other things.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't wanna speak above the commander in chief. Whatever he says goes. Yeah. Whatever he's saying is happening and I believe is happening.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: If that's happening with Venezuela, but there's things, other things that because of national security, that's happening behind the scenes that a lot of
Speaker 0: people can't talk about. The Orenco belt of oil that sits off the coast of Venezuela. Okay. The Chinese are there.
Speaker 1: Everybody's there. Everybody's there. The ETs are there.
Speaker 0: The ARC is there. One of these ARCs is nearby.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Where does this oil come from?
Speaker 0: Where well, that's a great question. Where does this oil come from? Are you I mean, can you talk about that?
Speaker 1: No. No. I can't. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: No. I mean, I understand. I mean, alright. So the the size of these arcs Mhmm. Like, what do they look like?
I mean, you
Speaker 1: say It's ancient looking. Plated.
Speaker 0: But the technology is more advanced than anything It's more advanced. Than anything we have, but it's hundreds of thousands of years old. Yeah. But it's more advanced than what we have now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, throughout history, you know, you've seen the show ancient aliens. They we have cultures that have built the pyramids. What? We have cultures that built these temples that are magnificent in in India, that they're they're carved out from the stone with laser, precise precisions.
You got Machu Picchu, those precise cuts rocks that are up there in Machu Picchu. You got Yeah. Stonehenge. I'm sure things in Portugal, like ancient ruins in Portugal that people don't know how.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Giza. Yeah. And the list goes on, of course. So describe to me these arcs.
I just wanted can take me through what how long you were down there? What were you doing? What were you seeing?
Speaker 1: It's like an off and on type of memory type of thing,
Speaker 0: Clayton. Do they wipe your memory when you come back?
Speaker 1: It's not that they wipe. It's certain techniques that they do that make you not remember.
Speaker 0: You're not alone. I mean, I've heard this from other whistleblower. I've heard this from other individuals who've been to these bases that their, you know, their memories their memories are are are scattered. But what do you remember?
Speaker 1: I remember the smell. It smell like you know, when you go to a farm Mhmm. And you you smell the hay? Yeah. When you first enter the ark, that's how it smells.
But it's like a algae with vanilla mixed into it. And it's like a pleasant smell. So you sounds you you you feel like the the ship is alive. That this ark is alive. Wow.
You you felt you feel like a heartbeat, like a presence of is is is a it's the most beautiful feeling that you ever feel. Is it alive? I think it's alive. I think all these ships that we encounter, the militaries around the world, not just the government of the United States, these ships are consciousness. They they have consciousness.
It's like a type of old school I think this is so much, Clayton. Like, if you get to the nitty gritty, like, how we're getting this AI right now and where we're getting the ideas of the cell phone, where we got the idea of you know? So I think these technologies have a type of ancient AI.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That we we piggyback off of it. Well, we see major advancements in technology that seemingly come out of nowhere, like right after the Roswell crash. Yeah. You know, suddenly we have incredible technologies.
Velcro. Yeah. Yeah. We have all these things that we've never seen before within a short amount of time. Computer, you know, transformers, things like that, after the sightings like this.
So okay. So you're down there. How long are you down there? Do you remember?
Speaker 1: I don't remember the time. It it fizzles in and out. Do you
Speaker 0: remember what your mission was while you were there?
Speaker 1: I was there to activate certain things.
Speaker 0: From your because you have a the technology background.
Speaker 1: Well, the ability of bringing these ships down.
Speaker 0: Oh, to activate to to communicate with them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. To communicate with whoever whatever being is in charge of these. But now the Nordics aren't in charge of it. The Nordics. The ETs.
Yeah. The Nordic ETs are in charge of it. And I know people might hear this, and and they might think, you know, certain things.
Speaker 0: But by the way, this is now part of congressional testimony. Yeah. Nordics, multiple races. Like, this is now on the congressional record from other individuals, from the military, whistleblowers. So you're not some crazy guy just saying this.
Like, this is you've seen them. Yeah. This is other people have seen them. Other people have reported this. Not to give you cover for it, but all I'm saying is this is now part of the congressional record.
Speaker 1: Yeah. What you say? You know, and and the reason I'm here now is because of that whistleblower protection. You know, I'm allowed to say certain things, hopefully. Yeah.
You know? But I, you know, I got the
Speaker 0: green light to come here and talk about this, so I feel peace. So now there are multiple arcs. We talked about the one in The Pacific near Hawaii, maybe off the coast of California Mhmm. Near Puerto Rico, near Bermuda. Now one near Venezuela, they're moving.
Speaker 1: South South Of India as well. There's a location there. It's, like, scattered around our oceans.
Speaker 0: What about in the Arctic Circle?
Speaker 1: We got something there, and we also got something in Antarctica. Antarctica is insane. The stuff we got. I know you had Brad Allison also. I was with him the other
Speaker 0: day. Okay.
Speaker 1: In New York, and we were talking, and it's a lot of things that we have in Antarctica that is
Speaker 0: Have you been there?
Speaker 1: I have not quite been there.
Speaker 0: Not quite been there? Yeah. That's like when I when my wife asks, did you take out the trash? I haven't quite taken out the trash.
Speaker 1: You took it out before,
Speaker 0: but Right.
Speaker 1: I didn't take it
Speaker 0: out this time. So what can you talk about with Antarctica that you know for sure?
Speaker 1: There's certain locations there that involve high technology, that radio frequency that can connect to space.
Speaker 0: Now we've heard from, Eric Hecker, who's a, a whistleblower as well. And, by the way, when he came forward and tried to speak to members of Congress, they essentially tried to ruin his life. Yeah. But he he worked at the what he called the ice cube neutrino detector at the South Pole Station. I would encourage our audience to go back and watch that full interview with Eric.
He's been on a couple times, but he's he's laid out the technology there. He worked in that facility. Oh, wow. And saw
Speaker 1: Wait. Is that the guy that wears a jacket that has Antarctica on it? Yes. Okay. Cool.
Yeah. I heard of him.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So he worked he worked real deal. Yeah. He worked at that station. But in talking about the communications technology that exists there, he talked about it as like a giant air traffic control center
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: For off world vehicles. Yeah. Interstellar vehicles. Is he correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I think he's correct. It's not that also, some plasmoid type of creatures that we're communicating with that live within our oceans. I don't know if I I could say that. But
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think the plasmoids, that's another big piece of this. And so whether it's does our government have the ability to manipulate and work with these plasmoids for teleportation? You know, we see flight MH three seventy, plasmoids zipping around in flight MH three seventy in these plasmoids. Because we talk about, like, nuclear weapons.
Right? Again, I talk about it like this.
Speaker 1: I can't talk about that, Clayton. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: That's Classified? Yeah. Okay. Well, it's it's out there. You know?
People talk about it, but just me. I
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I I know certain things about certain things that has been Reported? Reported, like the boogoosphere. You know? Everybody's talking about that. What?
It's 14,000 years old, and people are still investigating it. Yeah. You know?
Speaker 0: Is it is it a real the boogoosphere? Is it real? Or is
Speaker 1: it a hoax? I I can't talk about it. But there's different sizes. I can say that. Okay.
And we found a way to connect with them and probably control them, maybe. That's what I can say. Okay.
Speaker 0: Can you talk about some of the technologies that we've never seen before? Is there any, the technologies that you know the US military, the US government is now using, antigravity propulsion technology. So how much of a relationship do we have in the United States government, the Chinese government, the Russian government, etcetera, with these Nordics, with these ancient technologies that we are now using? So I guess my question is when people look up in the night sky and they're like, I saw a UFO. Mhmm.
They're really seeing a UFO. Are they seeing all of this advanced technology that we've borrowed from them mostly flying in the skies?
Speaker 1: It's a mixture. It's a mixture of collaboration. Like, you know about my experience in Alabama. I don't. Where I went inside a cavern and I saw
Speaker 0: Oh, right. Right. Right. Right. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Nordics training different military pilots from around the world that I think are involved in the Artemis Accord.
Speaker 0: So the Artemis Accords, you saw Nordic aliens training other members of the US military and other members of the military from, what, Russia, China, other places?
Speaker 1: I didn't see Russia and China.
Speaker 0: Okay. Who did you see?
Speaker 1: I saw other nations that are involved with the Artemis Accord.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Sorry. And they were training in what capacity? Aircraft?
Speaker 1: They look like flying saucers, Clayton.
Speaker 0: When we talk about Alabama, what are we talking about? Are we talking about in what part of Alabama?
Speaker 1: I I never gave the location, but I think doctor Salah, he has he probably knows the location.
Speaker 0: Does it have anything to do with the moving of Space Force to that location? That's something you have
Speaker 1: to ask the president of The United States. K.
Speaker 0: Well, we know that there are massive there's a massive I
Speaker 1: know I know that The United States have the best capability in the world. That's what I know. And I don't wanna you know? Well, because of the connection that we have, I think we have the best.
Speaker 0: Because of the connections we have
Speaker 1: with the Nordics and and others? Yeah. And I'm sure other governments have their connections as well, and we probably don't know what they have. So we do have to be careful.
Speaker 0: How many races of aliens ETs have you seen?
Speaker 1: I seen Nordics. I seen these people that look like ants. Well, they call them ant people. They got big eyes. Like, I tell people, you can confuse these with with gray aliens.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Like, if you see the gray aliens, they have big eyes. Well, these guys that I see, they live under the ground and they have, like, a it's not antenna. Was like an a hair looking like a dread that comes out their head. And throughout history, you know, I don't know if you heard the Hopi Hopi Indian? The Hopi Indian stories about them connecting with the inner earth and inner Yeah.
The inner earth. The ant people and all that, and then they taught them. So we connected with these.
Speaker 0: So the Hopi Indian working with these ant people. So you've seen you seen Grays?
Speaker 1: I've seen Grays from a distance. That was a a mission that I went to that was really weird as well. We went to this castle looking place, and these other people were giving us a lot of gold, a lot of gold, plates of gold. And we were transferring these gold to different containers. And this was somewhere in United States, but all I saw was, like, snow.
But I don't know what location it was. I I remember falling asleep on the craft that was on, and I woke up, and we were in this location, and we're just doing security. And because of my past experiences and past missions, they took me to this. And then from a distance, I saw a gray one gray alien. Well, it looked like gray.
It had the big head. It had the black, small
Speaker 0: like,
Speaker 1: really small, big head. I don't know if it was a costume or whatever the heck it was. But I I it was talking to two, like, recon marines far in the distance, and he was just pointing different ways. Were they
Speaker 0: communicating with language or telepathy?
Speaker 1: I don't know how they communicated. I was too far away. I don't know if it was a costume, Clayton, or something. Hopefully, it was a costume, but he looked like a gray alien to me. He was he was short, big head, big eyes.
And and I think they were arguing or something like that. That's what it looked like. I don't think we have a connection with the Grays. I think they want a connection with us. So when you look
Speaker 0: at these arcs under the water, I just wanted to go back to that a little bit. Are they are they treated as bases? Right? Are they sort of self contained bases? Would you describe them that way?
Speaker 1: There's there's cities that are self contained bases, but the arc, they can be movable. They they have the capability of moving out the water and moving into the water and moving really extremely fast.
Speaker 0: And so have they are there any eyewitness reports of them coming out of the water as massive as they are? I mean, it would be
Speaker 1: I know people talk about, what, things the size of football fields moving 200 miles per hour under the oceans. I know there's people talking about that.
Speaker 0: Well, there's a well, and it's not just people, it's admirals. Yeah. These are credible, credible members of the US military talking about that. Admirals mentioning the size of football field craft moving, underneath the ocean and other craft moving at speeds that we don't have, you know, in our, like, current 2025, 2026 life, we would not know any speeds that these crafts craft
Speaker 1: could move. Yeah. They they go really fast underwater, Clayton. These UFOs, I think they have the capability of breaking matter in a certain way and using some, like, Tesla technology. I don't know what the hell what the heck they use.
You know? But, yeah, let's talk more
Speaker 0: about the technology and the propulsion technology. Have you ever witnessed I mean, you've seen them in motion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I've seen them in motion. You you feel them. My first experience in Brazil, this is when I was a civilian plane.
And this is what started it all? This was started it all. Okay. I went to Brazil. Right?
My wife invited me. You know, I was preaching in all the churches. I was preaching in cathedrals and churches in Brazil. You know? Christian.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I didn't know what UFO was or ET was. You You know, they always say demons because the the farmers, they interact with these beings, and they always say it's something spiritual. But when I went there, I went to this farm, you know, no light pollution, beautiful place. We went to eat, Chulhasco in Brazil. When you invite me to out to eat, I'll go anywhere.
Yeah. So the day prior, I was feeding the cows. They were showing me how they feed the cows. All this was because of the lifting up the bags of salt. It was, like, bloody and all that.
I was like, oh, I was sore. I woke up at 03:00 in the morning with a humming noise. I walked out, and I saw something that was glowing, like a bluish white color in the distance. So I start walking towards it. I didn't have no shoes on.
When I start walking towards it, it was probably, like, a six minute walk, and it kept getting bigger. I'm like, what the heck is this? I'm talking to myself. Like, what is this? This is crazy.
So when I get close to it, I touch it, And I feel the hairs of my body that go up, and I feel like a metallic taste in my mouth. Like, if I had, like, man, pennies. I know you were small once. Mhmm. Put pennies in your mouth.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. So you
Speaker 1: felt feel or or, like, blood or something like that. Right. I closed my eyes. I opened my eyes. I'm back in the farm.
You can see my footsteps. Over there, the dirt is red. You can see my footsteps back. I'm like, what the heck happened to me? So I told my wife the next day, and they're like, something spiritual.
Don't worry about it. I'm like, what the heck is happening to me? You know? I'm like, yeah. I wanna get out I wanna get out Of Brazil.
And this happens really close to Cardos Novas. Cardos Novas is a national park that not too long ago, Google there's an ARC there, and I can show you the location of this ARC. Google recently posted the ARC of Brazil. There's an Ark,
Speaker 0: a giant alien craft.
Speaker 1: Name that they just posted, you can look it up, is called the Ark Of Brazil. It is a similar shape to Oleski Sands in in Crane. The size of Olesky Sands that there's probably an arc there as well. Under I know. Yeah.
There's probably an
Speaker 0: arc there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Underground? Underground. Thousands of feet underground. Similar to what they're finding under the Pyramids Of Giza.
All these things that they're finding under the Pyramids, they're confirming with other companies that they found these things under Giza. But these arcs, they're under there as well. And then you got scattered, like in South Korea, China, Russia, Japan. Scattered, you got these small ships that the Indians, they used to call V Manas, that they look like massive spacecrafts. But sometimes there's temples on top of them or the governments, they know about it.
They don't wanna talk about it Yeah. Because it could change this is the thing. This can change religion if we talk about what's happening. Right. It could change a lot about Catholics, Christians.
Speaker 0: I know the Catholic church has tried to come out and try to get ahead of this
Speaker 1: a few a
Speaker 0: few years ago. They've tried to start talking about this because I think it could, yeah, it could undermine a lot of these religions.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Right? And so they're trying to get out in front of it now and trying to admit, I mean, what does the Vatican have in their archives? You know?
Speaker 1: We got American we got American
Speaker 0: Pope. Pope now. So Maybe we'll get some answers about what's hidden in the Vatican. We could probably go to
Speaker 1: Roman, interview him if you want. I would like to.
Speaker 0: Yes. I would like to.
Speaker 1: I'd to. Would be first for a reason, Clayton. That's what I know. Everything happens for a reason.
Speaker 0: The reason the pope is there now is an American. It's not just by chance.
Speaker 1: Disclosure's around the corner. Look at Steven Spielberg. He's about to what? June? He's he's gonna drop a new film saying that?
Yeah. About disclosure. So the I think 2026 is the year, Clayton. I sure hope so. I heard there's so many
Speaker 0: people that we say this, and then we take we take two steps forward, one step back. You know? We have Well, like
Speaker 1: I said before, there's always two fashions. Yeah. One, don't want it to happen because they wanna be safe. Yeah. And the other one, they just want it to happen because we need to know.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, you have somebody like I mentioned, like Eric Hecker who came forward, reached a actually connected with, congressman Nancy Mace's office. And she said, yeah, I wanna speak to whistleblowers. I wanna speak to individuals. I thought it'd be protected.
So he he reaches out. And then within days of reaching out to his her office, he loses his job. Yeah. You know? That's how this stuff happens.
So you've got these, like, dark forces. Mhmm. You have people that, you know, say they wanna protect whistleblowers. They say they wanna help and move towards disclosure, but then they're secretly shaking another hand over here. Whether it's so maybe you can talk about some of the dark forces, the people that don't want disclosure.
Is it the military industrial complex that doesn't want it? Because it makes don't think
Speaker 1: a lot of people think it's the military. I don't think it's the military.
Speaker 0: I don't mean military. I mean, I mean, like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, the the the military industrial
Speaker 1: fund I don't think it's dumb either.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: A lot of people think it's probably connected, but there's I think there's, how can I say, contracts that can't be broken that a long time ago was put in place? And because of these contracts, a lot of people can break contracts. You know? You know how contracts work. Right.
If you break it, something else happens. But the military, I don't think they're the bad guys for me. Yeah. Some people might say, yes. Oh, the military treat me bad.
The military did this. If you're signed to be part of the military, you are told what to do. That's the mentality I came in in the military.
Speaker 0: But we've seen from other military whistleblowers who've said the same thing as you, US marines and so forth, who when they were on certain off the books missions, they came across other human individuals who were the bad guys and who were using some of these craft for nefarious purposes, some of this technology. Mhmm. The US militaries were guys were the white hats. These other individuals were not.
Speaker 1: I I I encountered certain situations, gunpoint. At gunpoint. They could throw me off. They say, don't talk about this. Certain things that I still don't talk about because of those situations.
Speaker 0: So you as a US military came head to head with these other
Speaker 1: These other people. These other people.
Speaker 0: Don't talk about it. And this were in the field?
Speaker 1: Like, this was In the field. In the field. But I don't think they're connected to the military. I think it's something else. It's not the military.
It can't be the military. It can't be the people I serve with. I I just it doesn't cross my mind because when you go into the military, you come in with a beautiful heart to serve and all that. If if it's if it is the military, I I don't know what to say. But I don't think for me.
I think it's a different part. Yeah. It's connected in some ways.
Speaker 0: Right. Dark forces, though. I again, I I US marines who've witnessed these UFO craft being used
Speaker 1: And they're evil. They could be evil. So evil. Yeah. They'll they'll kick you in the face.
Well, threw got kicked in the face.
Speaker 0: You got kicked in the face.
Speaker 1: I got kicked in the face.
Speaker 0: For what? Just for looking? Just for looking. Where and can you say maybe where this was or what you were looking at?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Sorry. No. I understand. You've gotta protect you know, I mean, I I don't want, I don't want anything to well, I can just tell this other story, not your story, but a US marine. We've covered it on the show before.
I think it was in Indonesia after the tsunami.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And often, as our audience knows, after major natural disasters
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: There are people that come in
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: For the selling of human beings, trafficking of human bodies, all of that. Are there other reasons why they come in?
Speaker 1: That you Yeah. There's other reasons. Certain things are unveiled because of the tsunami
Speaker 0: are brought up. Unearthed?
Speaker 1: Unearthed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And then need to be covered back up again?
Speaker 1: Maybe. Or taken? Or taken. So
Speaker 0: these individuals
Speaker 1: I don't know nothing about the human. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, these human beings front face to face with a marine corps unit
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And threatened to kill them all for what they were seeing happening. And it was only by the grace of God that they weren't killed. Yeah. But they were transporting human bodies in some sort of crates and then using advanced propulsion technologies to fly off. And these US marines were threatened at gunpoint and nearly killed.
Wow. So, again, we've covered that on the show, but I just wanted to say that's not your story. That's somebody else's story. But it it sounds similar to
Speaker 1: what They can be aggressive. The bad guys can be aggressive. They're more cocky. They're more, you know, we don't give a
Speaker 0: Yeah. F who you are. Because they don't follow any laws
Speaker 1: at all. Like, we don't Yeah. I think they're like I don't know. I don't think they have a heart by the way they act. Yeah.
It's just I think you know what it is? They they seen so many things. That's what I think it is.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
👀 Everything in Eyes Wide Shut was real. The Epstein files just proved it. @Jay_D007 has been researching Hollywood's hidden signals for years. What he found will change how you watch every movie. https://t.co/KHu3lPeHPE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jay Dyer discusses Eyes Wide Shut as revealing real elite rituals and networks, tying the film to a long history of Hollywood signaling and covert influence. The host notes the Epstein files as lending psychological plausibility to the film’s depiction of elite sex rituals that solidify hierarchy, power, and control. Dyer says his 2011 academic-style analysis of Eyes Wide Shut highlighted Kubrick as an anti-establishment filmmaker embedding messages about propaganda, deep state ties, and elite circles into his work. He cites academic literature on the CIA’s intimate relationship with Hollywood and suggests the film’s narrative—Tom Cruise as a wealthy New York doctor invited to a hidden, higher-tier party where a tier above him engages in ritual sex and possibly murder—reflects a network that compromises the wealthy and wields intelligence-agency-like capabilities, including media manipulation and assassinations.
Dyer emphasizes a recurring motif: the mask ball as a mechanism of compromise. He notes a line in the film where a costume-store owner, a trafficker connected to the network, says the protagonist will need a special cloak worn by European royals, implying a lineage of aristocratic ritual and underage trafficking. He asserts the film presents a “black mass”–style rite with Crowleyan influences, with a Hierophant figure depicted as running the cult, suggesting the network operates with the power of an intelligence apparatus. The Rothschilds’ masked balls are framed as a historical precedent for elite sexual blackmail and power. Dyer connects Epstein-era revelations to earlier Rothschild ball imagery (Audrey Hepburn among attendees) and argues that such gatherings served as a method to compromise prominent figures, aligning with broader tactics of intelligence, finance, and sex-cult networks.
On the question of Eyes Wide Shut’s intent, Dyer cites Vivian Kubrick’s view that her father was genuinely anti-establishment and used film to convey hard truths he believed people did not understand. He describes the film as an initiation or ritual in itself, with Bill Harford’s immersion into the elite world revealing how sexuality is used as currency to control the masses. He notes the film’s ominous music and hints of satanic or inversion symbolism, linking them to Crowleyan inversion concepts. He also mentions Epstein and Bannon’s discussions, suggesting overlap between occult interests and real-world power structures.
The discussion broadens to the role of intelligence and celebrity in film. Dyer references Operation Hollywood, the CIA–Hollywood relationship, and MK Ultra-adjacent programs (like Midnight Climax) to illustrate how sex, trauma, and manipulation have historically been used in intelligence operations. He cites Kinsey’s funded research on underage sexuality and the promotion of a spectrum of sexuality, framed as a cultural influence that could be leveraged by elites and intelligence communities. He connects this to broader patterns of using sex, drugs, and ritual to shape political and social outcomes, noting that prominent figures (queens, kings, billionaires) purportedly participate in such networks and that Epstein’s emails allegedly positioned Maxwell as a Rothschild operative with ties to Mossad and Soviet intelligence.
In relation to Kubrick, Dyer discusses the film’s cut and the unreleased final edit, suggesting that the published version may omit explicit child-pedophilia elements present in Kubrick’s later thoughts or earlier cuts. He recounts Vivian Kubrick’s stance on the director’s intention and the possibility that the final version strips out more explicit material.
The conversation also touches on predictive programming and the idea that pop culture prepares the public for forthcoming disclosures. Steven Spielberg’s role in predictive programming is discussed, including his involvement in pro-military propaganda in the 1980s and the potential interplay with ongoing disclosures about aliens or UFOs. The speakers note that filmmakers across genres—some with occult or Kabbalistic influences—may embed ritual or occult themes, while others pursue more overt exposure of secret histories. Jay Dyer promotes his work Essential Tark Hollywood and JaysAnalysis.com, inviting listeners to explore his three-volume analysis of Hollywood, propaganda, and elite networks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the release of the Epstein files shows us that elite sexual rituals depicted in the film Eyes Wide Shut are real. Our guest today is Jay Dyer. He's been researching this for years, showing how Hollywood has been signaling this to us for decades. Now if you haven't seen the movie Eyes Wide Shut, I'm not suggesting you go and do that. It's about elite sex rituals that are meant to solidify hierarchy, power, control.
When the film was released, it was dismissed as kind of boring and unrealistic. Now in light of the Epstein files, it reads as psychologically accurate, honest, and maybe even restrained. The film's director Stanley Kubrick died, after he made the final edits, so he was never able to be asked about it. So the question is, why did Hollywood elites allow this film to be shown? What are we seeing here?
How do we know? What what are we looking at? So, Jay Dyer, welcome back to Redacted. Thank you so much for joining us. You wrote this on X the other day, and I thought we would have you explain it.
You said this is real. It puts the famous Rothschilds mask ball photos in a new light. This has been going on for a long time. So I'm just gonna hand you the floor and explain to us what the hell.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Glad to be back with you guys. Yeah. I wrote, a really in-depth analysis of Eyes Wide Shut, kind of a academic style essay maybe in 2011.
And I got a quite a bit of attention from it because people started noticing, hey. You know you know, this aspect of the ritual, this aspect of the tie into Hollywood, there's actually history behind a lot of this. And Kubrick, as a, you know, somewhat of an a counter, establishment figure was putting a lot of messages into his films. And so I was studying film at a at a graduate level as well in terms of propaganda at the same time. So the deeper I dove into this, I started realizing that in the academic literature, which, you know, most people don't actually read, not that they would.
I mean, it's just for a bunch of nerds. They started coming out with books ten, fifteen years ago about the relationship of the CIA to Hollywood at an academic level. Right? So, normal people aren't reading this. This isn't really in the media.
You had, even right after nine eleven, there was, academic texts like Operation Hollywood. And what these books were describing was this intimate relationship between high level, a listers, producers, directors, the Pentagon, the the NSA, the FBI, as well as other foreign intelligence agencies, obviously, the Mossad and British intelligence. And so turns out there's always been this really close relationship between film, propaganda, the deep state intelligence agencies, and it turns out sex cults. And so I thought that Kubrick's film was just so profound in that it ties in all of that stuff together because if you don't recall or if you're not aware, the narrative of the story is that Tom Cruise is a sort of, you know, wealthy mid level New York elite doctor who gets invited to a very, say, higher tier billionaire level party. And and the invitation is sort of mysterious.
We don't exactly know if he's supposed to be there, if he's not supposed to be there. But what he stumbles upon is essentially there's a tier of people above him that are engaged in international or ritual sex type stuff, including murders, assassinations, probably suggesting other things with the Lily Sobieski character being underage, underage trafficking of girls and so forth. And there's even a curious line in the film where when the Tom Cruise character goes to the costume store and he says, what do I need for a a masked ball, you know, a renaissance style masked ball? And the director the owner of the costume store who's a, trafficker himself connected to the network, he says they say, you're gonna need this special cloak. And so that is a cloak worn specifically by royals in Europe and in The UK.
And so when Tom Cruise stumbles upon this and gets to this big event here, he sees this mass ritual orgy. It's a black mass, essentially. It's very Crowley in terms of Alastair Crowley style rituals. And ultimately, we find out this this is a network that is compromising and is essentially controlling the wealthiest people, in this case, in New York, probably the East Coast as well. The guy has a British accent that sort of runs the cult, the Hierophant.
So long story short, I think, the the phrase eyes wide shut is essentially describing the fact that back in the late nineties when when Kubrick did this film, most people's eyes were wide shut. They were open, but they're shut to how the world really works, which is what this film is about. And if you go back to my book, the very first chapter, I talked about how this is describing the strategy and the techniques of the Rothschild masked balls. Yeah. So, just the masked ball essentially is was a, I think, a perfect setup for how you could compromise people.
And that's kinda what we get with Tom Cruise and and his character in this sequence is that he's brought in. He's perhaps being inducted. It's it's unclear, but he's definitely in the position of being compromised. And we noticed throughout the film's narrative that this cult has all of the powers and abilities of an intelligence agency at their disposal. They're able to fake the news stories.
They're able to assassinate. Right? And and there's this cult element where the other model who takes the place of Tom Cruise says, don't kill him. I will be the sacrifice for him. I will redeem him.
And that has to do with earlier in the film, Tom Cruise's character is a doctor. He saved her life at that first party. So look. This is, high level stuff. This is telling us everything about how the world really works.
It's based on an older German novel called Tramnovella, and I think that novel was updated by by Kubrick on purpose to tell us they're really into this underage stuff. And that's also a theme in many Kubrick films. Lolita, Barry Lyndon, on and on and on. Doctor Strangelove, you have this idea that the elite want younger people to abuse, to traumatize, and they run the world through these cult networks.
Speaker 2: Can I so I wanna get into Stanley Kubrick in a second because, yeah, I've studied his films for years? And when I went to film school back in the day, I wanna get into that piece of this and his mysterious death and, of course, the edit that we never got to saw that I never got to see. So just put that on the back burner for a second. But you mentioned the Rothschild's balls. Forgive the way of saying it.
Speaker 0: Well, he has pictures if we could put them up. They're incredibly
Speaker 1: Don't put pictures of their balls up.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Don't put the Rothschild's balls up. I don't wanna see those things. But Let's
Speaker 0: call them galas.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Let's call them galas. So, Jay, can you what happens at these galas? What exactly are we looking at here, and what is is the history of these things?
Speaker 1: These are older, images from the sixties and seventies where they were inviting very prominent people. In fact, some of the pictures include people like, Audrey Hepburn being at these balls. And, you know, this is this is, I think, an old European tradition, so the ball itself is nothing new. I've done research in my grad studies on Renaissance era mass balls, and and what the elite would do is you bring all these people to these sort of Saturnalian parties where you have o r g I e s, shall we say. And that goes back to, like I said, medieval Europe.
And for a long time, it could be a a very excellent, a very it's a perfect setting to compromise people. So, if you go into the history of of sexual blackmail and and these kinds of operations, the Rothschilds were at the front, front of this for many, many centuries. In fact, in terms of Epstein himself, the, Robert Maxwell was a front for, the Rothschild operation, and I think you guys have talked to Whitney Webb. The first few chapters of her book detail how, Maxwell was brought in as a frontispiece, a kind of a, you know, facade for the Rothschilds to be a corporate takeover artist, to be this, you know, publishing magnate that was a front to cut out. And that was all at the behest of both British intelligence and Israel as well at the same time.
So the Rottos seem to really be, perfect at this. They've it's a it's a science that they perfected. In fact, there's some, information and indications. People have written some books theorizing that if you go back to the Cambridge spy ring and the famous story of the the Soviets that defected, many of whom were, by the way, homosexual, the reason that matters is because they were very close to Lord Victor Rothschild, who many people suspect was the key in a person behind that Cambridge spy ring because he was playing both sides, both British intelligence and playing the side of the Soviets. And there was that famous email that came out from Epstein, a few days ago explaining that, well, the reason that Maxwell was assassinated was because he tried to extort the Mossad whom he worked for, appointing himself as an attache for for Israel to the Soviets.
And the KGB actually had translations that my friend did where they were during the Cold War, they had the exact same assessment of Maxwell. He's playing both sides. He's trying to feed us secrets as he's trying to extort the Mossad. And that was supposedly, according to Epstein, the reason why they took him out. Now the reason I say all that is that, again, this is as Epstein himself says, and a Rothschild operation.
He is a agent, an attache, a legate of the Rothschilds. Many emails confirm this, including business deals beyond just being a legate. And again, that's because they have this longtime connection, not just to intelligence and to apparently cults as well as the history of the nation state of Israel going all the back to the eighteen sixties according to Moses Hess. It's also because they're a an elite, powerful European banking dynasty, and intelligence really comes out of banking. This is something a lot people understand.
They think, oh, it's it's James Bond. It's assassinating people. It's this or that. That's a lower level. The the real origin of intelligence, even according to the mainline Rothschild biographers, like the Morton text, is an official biography of the Rothschilds.
Within the first few chapters, the famous story about Waterloo that they had advanced intelligence that allowed them to buy up the collapsed stock market in The UK and London, that's true. They all brag about that. They're like, yeah. Absolutely. And the way we were able to do that was advanced intelligence.
It's not an accident that when David Rockefeller sets up his banking empire, it's because he comes out of military intelligence. He brags about that in his memoir. So we gotta understand that intelligence, cults, networks, and even Hollywood all tie together. There's there's no perfect example than this. Wow.
Speaker 0: So what do you think Eyes Wide Shut was trying to tell us? Were they trying to warn us, or it's because it's part of their ethos to tell us to do it in plain sight?
Speaker 1: So I've gotten to know Vivian Kubrick, Kubrick's daughter since writing my books and doing all this, and, we've had a lot of conversations. And the way Vivian describes it is that she says her dad was a genuinely anti establishment person. She thinks that he did have some spiritual sensibilities about him even though he was kind of agnostic. He did believe in, you know, inexplicable mysterious types of phenomena. So he wasn't like a total rank materialist per se, but she said that his perspective was that, you know, he had seen a lot, done a lot.
When he was younger, he was a little more naive when it came to Spartacus and films where he was perhaps more so on the the socialist communist side. And after many years, as he got, you know, more mature and older, the themes in his films, I think, really are accurate. So I don't think Kubrick was intentionally part of a conspiracy or trying to cover things up. I think he really was saying, look. Here's what's really going on.
People don't understand it. I don't know any other way to convey it other than the art form that I've chosen this medium. But I would say in terms of the film itself, again, it's almost like the film is a ritual itself. It's kind of an initiation process because the character Bill Harford is, you know, totally eyes wide shut at the beginning. He doesn't know how the world really works.
He thinks he's at the elite top of, you know, the the power structure. He's a very successful, wealthy, multimillion dollar doctor in New York, and then he meets this whole other class of people who live a totally different, untouchable, you know, free from any legalities, doing whatever they want, do what thou wilt worldview, and he's totally mystified. He has no what no idea what to it just totally destroys his world. And one of the themes throughout the film is Freudian, you know, sexual, you know, psychoanalysis type stuff. I won't go too deep into that, but the point of that is that just like he's struggling with his own sexuality in his marriage, he realizes that the elite, they use sexuality as a currency to control the masses.
So I think that those are those are the key elements of what Eyes Watch Out is trying to tell us is that we're actually ruled by, elites who have no morals, no moral compass whatsoever. They're absolutely satanic. And even though the film doesn't explicitly mention, you know, satanism or Crowley, the very ominous sort of reversal music that's played is actually, something that Alistair Crowley was into, which was taking music or taking speech and reversing it to teach people the principle of what he called inversion or taking good things and and proper things and then inverting them to their opposite. A lot of people have a satanic worldview or or a very dark, hermetic worldview. They think that you can actually gain power by doing that.
And perhaps if the film is portraying this ritual perspective, that would explain a lot, especially if you think about the Epstein Bannon interview, which we just livestreamed on my channel yesterday or a couple days ago. Epstein basically seems like he's into, you know, Kabbalism and and into the occult. So I think there is an overlap there.
Speaker 2: We wanna tell you about Rumble Wallet. Oh, man. When they rolled this out a few weeks ago, there you felt the earthquakes. A lot of the big banks not happy with it. You've seen the conversations happening online.
Right? Censorship is back. It's happening everywhere. Platforms controlling narratives, pushing the stuff they want us to see. We we need to fight back, and Rumble is the only company that has stood the test of time and deserves our support.
On one side, Rumble is challenging big tech censorship, but now on the other side, they just introduced something that will give us protection from big banks shutting us off. You saw what happened to the gray did you see what happened to our friends at the Grey Zone last week? Yeah. They shut down their PayPal account. They shut down their PayPal account.
The Grey Zone, one of the great journalism, teams in America in the world, frankly, and they just shut them down. And again, that's exactly what's happening to these conservative commentators. They will just shut you down. With Rumble Wallet, you control your money. Not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it.
It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future and family. So that's why they launched Rumble Wallet, a wallet that no one can cancel and a wallet that supporters can use to instantly tip creators like ourselves without any middleman taking any cuts. So it's not only a way to buy and save, but it's also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them with the click of a button. Also be no fees when you tip our channel or anybody else you wanna support on Rumble, and they receive that tip instantly, by the way. So you can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, all in one place on Rumble Wallet.
Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars. So you can support our show today and other creators just by going to wallet.rumble.com. Download Rumble Wallet today, open an account, and step away from the big banks. Wallet.rumble.com. Kubra co wrote if I if I remember correctly, he co wrote the movie Eyes Wide Shut.
And it's based on, like, a nineteen twenties. Right? Nineteen twenties novella.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Trauma novella.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like a German novella at the time. So it's clear, like, this has been happening for for many decades. Right? So this wasn't like a new idea.
He's he's trying to, you know, expose Hollywood. This had been going on for decades, and this was this was a modern adaptation of something that's been happening for more than, you know, hundreds of years.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. We did a for example, on my channel, we did a a lecture through a book called, sexpionage by a just a mainline historian, Walter Boer. And in that book, he says that, one of the elements that most people don't realize that has brought down kingdoms, destroyed civilizations, and ended wars is sexpionage, which is the art of sexual compromise, honey traps, blackmail, etcetera. We've all seen this in movies.
If, you know, you saw the Jennifer Lawrence movie Red Sparrow, that was about Stalin and the NKVD techniques of training operatives and make them into, you know, sex honey traps. But the CIOs always supposedly has this line of, well, we don't do that in the West. That's something that, you know, China and Russia do, because we're moral. But the reality is that just simply they don't do it under the cover of the CIA. They use other things.
If think about Operation Midnight Climax, that was a an MK Ultra adjacent program that's declassified where the CIA was wanting to study the effects of LSD on Johns in the midst of sexual things, liaisons. And so they dosed the Johns using, mafia, brothels. And and so that's that's Operation Midnight Climax right there. So what does that tell you then? You know, when they say, oh, we don't use, you know, sexual operatives.
Well, no. They just farm it out to, you know, brothels run by organized crime, which has always had a close relationship with the CA and the OSS going back to World War two. So, yes, you're absolutely right. In fact, there's a famous guy you can look up, Kenji Doihara, as an example. He was the Japanese Jeffrey Epstein back at the turn of the century in the the Japanese Chinese war.
He got this idea to set up a bunch of brothels in China and put the prostitutes, strategically in the locations near where the Chinese generals lived, and he was able to defeat China through opium and prostitution, networks, and the prostitutes were all spies. And, so I think that you're starting to see the picture come together. Like, this is a known technique. It's just not known to people unless you've studied, you know, history or military history. Like, this is how the world really works.
Speaker 0: So it's it's like a buffet. You have sexual perversion, sexual rituals, drugs, like, just choose whatever we can do to control. There's no there's no rules for for this kind of thing, although it seems to be there are rituals. How much do you think the rituals that as we see in the Epstein files were organized in these ways? So we see things like thanks had fun at the hunt.
What else do we see? The one that you brought about, MK Ultra grooming this sex kitten about like, this is she's smart. She is Yeah. Wounded in this way. We'll we'll try and, like, groom her and and manipulate her in this way.
Is it willy nil? Is there a schedule? Do you get calendar invite? What do you think?
Speaker 1: Great question. You know, some of that domain is still a little, ambiguous and unknown. However, I've got several books from MK Ultra doctors themselves up there on my shelf. I can get them if I need to. For example, John C.
Lilly's book, programming and metaprogramming in the human bio computer, that's all about LSD in human programming and m MK Ultra operations. So, Jose Delgado has a book up there, physical control of the mind. So these are all real and Caldra adjacent doctors who were studying these things. And if you think about Alfred Kinsey, his research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to study underage sexuality. He's the one that, of course, was a notorious PDF, with those disgusting experiments that he did on kids.
And he's the one that promoted the idea that everybody is, on a spectrum gay. So we're all Skittles. We're all rainbow. According to Kinsey, he was a big promoter of, you know, the sixties counter countercultural sexual revolution type ideology. So when you think about at an academic level, you've got these so called academics and scientists and sociologists studying the sexuality and then promoting these ideas that become, you know, sort of toxic culture.
I think you're spot on when you've when you when we consider the possibility that the the deepest that we can go into the public information on MK Ultra does include fracturing personalities. It does include attempts, at least, at using LSD, according to Lilly, even on young children to program various alters in in them in experiments. He explicitly says that at the end of the book. So I suspect with that email, it looks like a person who was spotting or recruiting for Jeffrey Epstein looking for people who had, according to him, sexual trauma, which would make them more susceptible to being developed or being, you know, programmed, so to speak, into being some sort of operative. It even gets into weird sort of I don't believe in X Men stuff, literally, but it's like that where it's the person can develop abilities or or techniques, and we don't know what that stage three means, but it does sound like the type of process that you read in some of these MK Ultra doctors in terms of traumatizing and programming people to be operatives.
And we see, like, heads of state, queens, kings, billionaires, they're offering their daughters to Jeffrey and saying, hey. Take her. Program her. Hey. My son, he's, 15.
How do I program him to, you know, interact with women? Like, could you give me advice on parenting? Like, just insane. Like, who in the and would ask Jeffrey Epstein for parenting advice. Well, apparently, the children of the royals and the elites throughout the world do.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. I wanna circle back to Stanley Kubrick here. And by the way, just some great super chats. Any questions we have here for Jay?
Greg Pye says, all the systems of society have been fully infiltrated by an invisible enemy, family, education, religion, media, government, technology, government. Thanks, Redacted, and keep up the great work. Thank you. So Stanley Kubrick, you know, he died, I think, was it two weeks after he had submitted his final edit? Was it do I have that timeline?
Speaker 1: I forget the exact day, but it was it was soon.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And so the edit that he submitted of the film, we've never seen. Right? To my unless you've seen it or maybe I'm sure maybe No. I've not.
Maybe Vivian has seen it. I want I'm curious if his daughter has seen it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've asked Vivian about that because, of course, this is a this is a question that's asked a lot. And, she says and claims that she doesn't have any information on that. So she doesn't
Speaker 2: Reportedly, was destroyed. Right? I mean, apparently, according to reports, it was destroyed. And so the the cut then, Jay, maybe you can talk about this, the cut we ended up seeing in the film removes, like, a huge swath of the child pedophilia stuff that he was in. I guess, does Vivian be able to believe that he was exposing it?
Like, the child pedophile rings? And that's why, like, the Hollywood edits that they when we got it finally released, they removed that edit of the film.
Speaker 1: My suspicion would be that it was removed because it suggests all of that. And that actually explains some of the details in the cuts that we do have that don't kinda make sense, some of the little, nods, for example. Clearly, that's what's going on with the the over the rainbow, you know, costume store because the the guy that runs the costume store, you know, sends Lily Sobieski out who's intentionally underage. She's, like, supposed to be, like, around 14 or so. And then she's coming out flirting with Tom Cruise when he's trying to buy this cloak, and then she says, you're gonna need an Irmine cloak or or or something like that.
And you can't even hear the line because she whispers it unless you have the subtitles on. But that's suggesting that he needs a cloak that European royals and nobility wore. But it's also suggestive that she's been there already. She's been to these parties. So this guy is connected to the parties, and he's a kind of networking fixer.
If you remember, when Tom Cruise gets there, he walks in and he sees these two Japanese businessmen that are all dressed up like women, and they're partying with Lily Sobieski, who's, you know, underage running around in her underwear. So those details, which are kinda odd and not really they don't really come up elsewhere in the film, make a lot more sense if the cut of the film, was suggesting what you're saying.
Speaker 0: Now sometimes I see, you know, the algorithm serves me things about Illuminati type symbolism in, say, a Taylor Swift concert or Beyonce concert. My sister went to a Beyonce concert and left absolutely convinced that that was all Illuminati symbolism. And what, you know, these theories say is that they have to show us what they're doing, that that's a part of it. And so you can never tell if something is a warning or a part of this. What do you think of that?
And not just this film, but other pop cultural consumptive products.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Great question. I mean, there's, probably all the above because we have a lot of history of evident or evidence and declassified documents, for example, about a lot of a list actors being spies. You go back to the, World War two era, and we had people that were suspected of being spies, like Marlene Dietrich, who people thought she was a Nazi spy, but she actually worked for, or wanted to work for the OSS. We have Jimmy Stewart was a an informant for the FBI, for example.
We have Cary Grant was informing on Errol Flynn for the OSS. Yeah. We have a lot of famous people like Julia Child who were were spies for the OSS, and then onwards up into today where you've got people like Ben Affleck, for example, who openly has talked about working, consulting with the CIA on several films, including Argo. Argo. Which is ironic because Argo is a film about the CIA doing a fake film during the Iranian revolution.
So It's all so meta. Yeah. Yeah. It's super meta. Exactly.
It's getting into reality, which is also odd too with Tom Cruise being so heavy in Scientology and then
Speaker 0: Fronting this film. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. So there there's a lot of meta stuff going on with, with social control.
Speaker 0: Indicated that he believes this as a social warning? I I don't watch, like, I don't watch People Magazine or anything like that.
Speaker 2: The only thing
Speaker 1: I could come up with Tom Cruise in this, and I put this in the third book, was that, back right after 09:11, there were some public, news articles discussing Tom Cruise wanting to be a kind of a PR, consultant type person promoting the CIA. So I don't know if Tom Cruise is in the CIA or anything like that. The only thing I found is that there were articles right after nine eleven saying Tom wanted to do CIA promotional type stuff. And we've actually seen if you if you go watch clips on YouTube, there's Jennifer Garner has CIA promotionals that she did as a PR operative working for the CIA as well because she was on the show Alias with JJ Abrams, who Abrams says the CIA consulted on Alias. So a lot of consultation and this, you know, a lot of propaganda has gone on in films that just people just don't know about.
But Wag the Dog, by the way, is a film that's actually about the CIA producing films. Anyway, long story short, I think probably all the above. You've got a lot of blockbusters tend to be heavy with the propaganda, because they know so many people are gonna be watching those. But there's a lot of arthouse films, a lot of independent films where the directors really do have a desire, I think, to know, expose truth and and get the truth out there. I've done interviews with Sean Stone.
I think several Oliver Stone films had the intention to to expose things and get the information out as far as Oliver Stone knew at that time, you know, with JFK or with, you know, the the Snowden films. So, I think it's all the above.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Chili Pepper in our chat says, Jay, do you believe in the protocols of Zion?
Speaker 1: That's a good question because that document pops up in Russia, and you have a Russian monk named Sergei Nilas who discovers it. And we don't know the provenance of it or where it came from, and it describes a pattern of how to subvert governments, how to sort of infiltrate, take them over, deracinate the people, and eventually sort of erect a world government around Zion. Earlier documents prior to that, like Adam Vyshop's real documents and plans, he was the founder of the order of the Berberian Order of the Illuminati. His documents describe similar types of plans of erecting a sort of a world socialist Jacobin style revolutionary communist government. Those ideologies of Weischop, for example, played a a heavy role in influencing the French revolutionaries who did want especially the Jacobins.
They were the left wing of the right wing dialectic in the French revolution. They wanted a full on communist, atheist, socialist world order. And what you see in the protocols is something very similar. So whether or not that document is 100% accurate or authentic, it does express a real historic plan for a socialist world order. And whether that one's true or not, like, you already have documents like Moses Hess' book from, Rome and Jerusalem where he says, we're gonna, you know, set up a kind of a socialist order.
The Rothschilds are behind it. They are supporting what we wanna do, and we're gonna we're gonna start buying up the land in The Middle East. And that was in the eighteen sixties when he says that in his book. So Gosh. I would say there's there's a real plan for a socialist order.
Speaker 0: Talk about playing the long game.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I know. And planning and programming. I mean, I that's you mentioned something at the very beginning I wanted to circle back on, which is like this predictive programming. And they're sort of setting us up. Many people on our chat room are saying like, this is all like, they they lay the groundwork for us through Hollywood, right, in books.
And we saw that, of course, with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Steven Spielberg reportedly saw one of the the famous, film actually from the United States military where a craft did land. That's why we got Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And now we get his new disclosure film, which is coming out this summer. Steven Spielberg's disclosure disclosure day.
And as we're moving towards disclosure, we I'm hearing reports from different sources that president Trump's team has already written, like a UFO disclosure speech that the president is prepared to give. So it's, like, all coming out now. We're getting, you know, congressional hearings and testimony and documentaries, and now Steven Spielberg is about to launch his big film. It just smells weird to me. It's like he's he's in on it.
We know this well, anyway, we just I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but what do you think about the predictive programming? They're about to have a big disclosure moment in The US, and Steven Spielberg is helping with it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There's a whole section in the first book, A Star of Hollywood one where I covered the role of Spielberg, I think, in predictive programming and propaganda. He's definitely a long time, propagandist at a very high level when it comes to, you know, stuff, especially back during the Reagan era. Reagan actually appropriated quite a bit of money and focus on, in the nineteen eighties, getting Hollywood to produce very pro military, you know, pro USA propaganda, not just for the Cold War and and the the collapse of the Soviets, but the reinvigorating of the American imperium, which we later see in the nineties, you know, that's the PNAAC document ends up being, the same ideology of the neoconservatives to have the the rebuilt American empire. So, you know, you saw in the eighties a lot of movies like Top Gun.
Again, Tom Cruise is there. Top Gun is a huge military promo film. In fact, it was very successful in getting a lot of people to go into the military, including my dad. My dad thought, Top Gun made him it it made him wanna go into the Navy. So, it worked.
And there was other films that came out, Navy Seals and others at that time. So predictive programming has that one level, which is just pure propaganda, but you've also got things like subliminals that's you know, people have been studying that since the sixties and seventies. That does exist to a degree in advertising and film. You've got the element of, perhaps an occult connection where some directors explicitly believe that their films are ritual workings. I think if you look at people like Darren Aronofsky, he's an open, Kabbalist.
A lot of his films have a very sort of dark Kabbalistic vibe to them. You've got directors like Robert Eggers, one of the, you know, top directors out there now. He's openly interested in, you know, Satanism and the occult. He talks about reading grimoires and whatnot and requiring the actors to read grimoires to understand how to, sort of instantiate that sort of dark ethos in in their acting, the Stanislavsky method, that kind of stuff. So there's a lot of layers to predict a program, but another element, I think, is in terms of psychological warfare, one thing that has been studied is that fiction has the ability to sort of, prepare you, condition you, and maybe even anesthetize you to the things when they really happen.
So you have these dystopian films for many years that talk about things to come, and then lo and behold, they come about. Right? Philip K. Dick's stories have been very well noted for that tendency. Isaac Asimov Foundation.
You know, you've got Yeah. You've got text from the sixties and seventies that predicted the Internet, Silicon Valley, tracking, tracing, you know, all these dystopian texts. But are they also conditioning? I would say in the part of Hollywood, yeah, there's a lot of, conditioning that they want to, you know, get get the public to accept the stuff when it comes out. And probably, I would say with the alien mythos, and in my per my opinion, the aliens are more demonic.
The it's a demonic phenomena. In in in that regard, probably what they're doing is preparing the people for the announcement of some disclosure that I don't know if you guys have ever read Arthur Clarke's childhood's end, but childhood's end is a text written by a guy who was into Crowley, he was a PDF. Right? Arthur C. Clarke, the famous sci fi guy.
And, you know, he d co wrote 2,001. Well, Clark says that it's basically a demon. It's this hoofed cloven hoofed, you know, character that's behind the alien phenomena when the aliens arrive and announce their disclosure. You know, I covered that in in my my first book too, I think, covering the film Signs, the Mel Gibson film, which I think hints at it being demonic.
Speaker 0: Gosh. I mean and I I am also sensitive because my grandfather is a survivor of the Japanese holocaust, that Asians are not allowed to use that word, Holocaust, and that all of the Spielberg programming is only about the Jewish Holocaust and ignoring all of the peripheral tragedies that happened at the exact same time in greater numbers, in fact. And so that seems to me very purposeful that we are programmed to think of only one group's suffering. So when you tell me that Spielberg is part of a CIA co op, that makes a lot of sense to me. I guess, you know, I was talking to my mother about this the other day.
My mother, she likes to read books that Costco put out, you know, so she likes Michelle Obama and Meghan Markle because of Harry. You know, she's just basically she's programmed by these this various and I'm like, you have to be really careful, mom, about celebrity worship because you don't know what's behind it. And she was very after the Epstein files amenable to this message where she hasn't been before where she's like, don't talk bad about Meghan Markle, which is a hobby of mine. And so, you know, I think that it's helpful that we can see it now. It's important to know it.
There's a great, comment here. They're supposed to show us what they're doing, because it's the sin to ignore it. And I love that framing of it. So, you know, we're here now. We can talk about this in polite society.
I think that that's progress.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. This was something that was absolutely taboo. I I read the first, my first text on this subject in 2004. I went and dug this out of my library, and it's, it's a now out of print book, but it's written by a Catholic journalist.
And it's called Lucifer's Lodge, and it's the history of SRA in the Catholic church up to 2004. That was my introduction to this, and I was kind of, you know, shocked obviously at the time because I was in my twenties and had no idea that the world was this dark. But you start to realize it's not just one institution. Right? It's not just Rome or the Vatican that's that seems to be tied into these things.
You start reading about the history of British intelligence when I was doing my grad work on Ian Fleming. And, well, Ian Fleming turns out he's writing into his stories, you know, real things that he saw as a high level British intelligence operative. He's he's putting it into films that, you they're actually involved in international crime, trafficking, blackmail, all of this. So James Bond is actually more of a villain than he is, you know, the hero if you get into the real history of this stuff. And when I think about, for example, Epstein, right, like, he doesn't seem to be a he's not a a top of the pyramid kinda guy.
He's more like a mid level fixer crime consultant kind of guy. He's like, you know, let me help you figure out how to do more crimes. Yeah. And then, I'm I'm expert at crime. And then I think about well, if you remember inspector, and this is one example, and, obviously, that film included some propaganda.
But, you know, the recent James Bond with Daniel Craig and Christoph Waltz, Spectre, who's Waltz is playing Blofeld. There's this great scene where he's infiltrating Bond is infiltrating one of their international meetings, and it's I think it's happening in Rome or something, which made me think of the club of Rome and, you know, that that whole document with Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers. But, he gets in there, and they're they're having this giant, you know, elite tabletop meeting, and the criminals are all we're gonna they're all like, sir, we have had an upwards tick in $40,000,000,000 money launder this year. Yes. I would like to add that we've had thirty thousand more cases of human trafficking, up from last year, 30%.
So they're, like, listing all their crime stats as, like, how profitable they've been. Yeah. And I'm like, this is literally the Epstein. Like like, the the emails are literally like Spectre.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
And they're putting it all out there. Like, how well, how do we skirt laws? How do we go around The United States legal system in order to carry this out for human cloning? It's like you're literally reading like an Ian Fleming novel.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 2: It's crazy. I know. Truth is stranger than fiction. Strange yeah. We we live down the street from where Ian Fleming worked when he was in Portugal and at the Hotel Palacio there and, just crazy what he was doing at that hotel and, you know, during the war and all that.
Just fascinating stuff. Jay, thank you for your encyclopedic knowledge of this, and it's been absolutely fascinating. And we hope you'll come back. And and obviously, we're gonna continue as we go through the other 3,000,000 documents if we ever get our hands on those. And I'm sure there'll be so much more to talk about.
But thank you so much for your your great work. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, man. Appreciate it. And, yeah, if anybody wants, you can get Essential Tark Hollywood at my website, jays.com in the shop.
Speaker 2: What's the name of the website again for people to go to?
Speaker 1: Jaysanalysis.com and in the shop there is so you can get any of my books. One, two, and three. There's three episodes now. Three installments of Essential Tark Hollywood. So I just put the third one out covering basically everything that we covered today, but in three different books.
Speaker 2: Awesome stuff. Jay, thank you so much. Great to see you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🎸 It’s been 31 years since Kurt Cobain’s death, & the official story says suicide. But what if that story is wrong? A new book argues he may have been murdered. Investigative journalist Chris Todd joins us to break it down. https://t.co/jhX2vvte7r
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kurt Cobain’s death is presented on the show as not a suicide but a homicide, a claim the hosts say was covered up for decades and “the Daily Mail has come forward and confirmed those reports that it was in fact a homicide.” The discussion centers on a book and investigative work by Joseph Burns, presented on air by investigative journalist Chris Todd, who is described as the writer behind the project and the investigator on the case. The book is titled To Kurt, I'm Sorry: My Thirty Year Journey of Regret, Pain, and Disaster. Burns is portrayed as having provided a firsthand confession and testimony about what he witnessed the night Cobain died and in the days surrounding Cobain’s death.
Key participants and relationships
- Kurt Cobain: Nirvana frontman, whose death in 1994 is officially ruled a suicide.
- Courtney Love: Cobain’s wife, mentioned in the context of the immediate aftermath and media narrative.
- Dave Grohl: Cobain’s bandmate, referenced in the immediate post-death drama.
- Joseph Burns: Seattle rocker, drummer and singer connected to Cobain’s circle; described as a lesser-known musician who witnessed events at Cobain’s house the night of Cobain’s death and who provides the central eyewitness account in Burns’s book.
- Dylan and Mark: two of Cobain’s friends in the Seattle music/party scene, described as central figures in the alleged crime; both are connected to Cobain’s circle and to the alleged perpetrators in Burns’s narrative.
- Danny: another person connected to the group, named as a potential participant or associate, who has since died.
Core claims and narrative
- Official story: The show reiterates the widely known narrative that Kurt Cobain died by suicide, with the shotgun suicide method described and the associated posthumous handling of the case.
- Burns’s account: Burns and his collaborator (Chris Todd) present Joseph Burns’s testimony as the primary evidence for homicide. Burns reportedly witnessed an assault on Cobain by three men at Cobain’s house, which led to Cobain’s death.
- The house and timing: Cobain returned to his Lake Washington home in the early hours of April 2, 1994, after a failed rehab attempt in Southern California; the events that Burns describes unfold over April 2–3, with Cobain allegedly dead by Easter Sunday (April 3) in the early morning hours, and the body later transported to a greenhouse and left there while guests remained at the house for days.
- The nine people at the house: Burns states there were nine people in Cobain’s house that night, with Cobain not present for all of the subsequent actions. Burns asserts that three men, including two named individuals (Dylan and Mark) and a third unnamed or less clearly identified person (sometimes referred to as Danny in conversation), were involved in the alleged homicide.
- The assault and death: Cobain is alleged to have been assaulted and forcibly injected with heroin in the basement by Dylan and Mark (with a third man involved). Burns states the men were on a mission, not there to party, and that Cobain was dragged to the greenhouse where he died.
- Evidence and staging: The interview details alleged inconsistencies with the official suicide narrative, citing:
- Absence of thorough fingerprint analysis on the gun, shells, and related items.
- The suicide note handwriting reportedly differing from Cobain’s known handwriting, with multiple handwriting experts consulted.
- The presence of a receipt for the gun and shells in Cobain’s pocket and near his feet, which Burns argues is unusual for a suicide.
- The positioning and handling of the gun (including the shell ejection side) as inconsistent with a straightforward self-inflicted shot.
- Barq’s root beer and a box of needles in the scene, suggesting deliberate staging.
- The note’s content and its bottom four lines allegedly not being Cobain’s writing.
- Post-death timeline: The coroner and Seattle PD’s handling, the delay in toxicology results, and the assertion that the case was closed the same day the suicide was declared, with ongoing questions about why certain evidence (fingerprints, toxicology) was not thoroughly pursued.
- Motive and circle: Burns acknowledges the complexity of motive, noting jealousy, small-time fame dynamics, and possible coercion or abetted actions by those in Cobain’s circle. He emphasizes focus on what Burns claims to have witnessed rather than speculative motive details.
Current status and aftermath
- According to the interview, the case is described as closed and not likely to be reopened, though Burns says there is a 2% hope that an investigation could be reopened as in other famous cases (e.g., the Tupac/Biggie investigations).
- The book presents Burns’s perspective as a firsthand account of the events and the people involved, with Burns noting that he is recounting what Joseph Burns personally witnessed and heard over thirty years.
The program closes by encouraging viewers to read the book to obtain Joseph Burns’s firsthand perspective on the nights and days surrounding Cobain’s death and the alleged events at the Cobain residence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain didn't die by suicide, he was in fact murdered. Those are the claims that we made here on the show months ago when interviewing investigative journalist Chris Todd about his mysterious death. We concluded that in fact he was murdered on that night. It was covered up for decades, of course. Well, now the Daily Mail has come forward and confirmed those reports that it was in fact a homicide.
So we thought it was important to maybe reexamine that initial interview that we did with Chris Todd where he laid everything out right there on video. And so now we want to replay that video for you right now. Chris Todd and his investigative work that discovered that in fact Kurt Cobain was murdered, and it wasn't a suicide. Watch. Well, it's hard to believe it's been thirty one years since the death of Kurt Cobain, the lead singer of Nirvana.
I remember it well. I remember where I was standing in school when we got the news about Kurt Cobain's death, and many of us who were fans at the time were devastated. Of course, the official story is that he committed suicide. End of story. Case closed.
And we're all sad about it. But what if that is not true at all? What if he didn't commit suicide? What if in fact he was murdered? Well, that is the heart of a new book out now called To Kurt, I'm Sorry.
Investigative journalist Chris Todd is really behind this book. Really the writer behind this book and the investigator on this book, and he joins us now. Chris, great to have you back on the show. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Clayton, good to see you. Hope you've been doing well.
Speaker 0: I've been doing well. I have to admit when you first reached out to me a number of months ago about this project, something you've been working on for many, many years Mhmm. That I I was blown away. Wait a minute. Kurt Cobain, of course, he committed suicide.
That's the official narrative. Right? I mean, that's the official story we've been told. Maybe you could just sort of set the stage there for us. What is the official story that we've been told all of these years later?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I I live this too. You know, this is my generation in the nineties. This happened in 1994. Kurt's body was found on April 8, around eight a.
M. On that Friday. And I was fed the suicide angle also and I believed that for many years. I knew there were a couple things that were a little strange that had come out right away. Some of the toxicology, some fingerprint results.
There was some stuff that looked a little sketchy, but I never looked into it. I mean, literally probably for twenty eight years. So, the narrative is that Kurt Cobain took a Remington Model eleven twenty gauge shotgun and put it inside his mouth, and took his own life.
Speaker 0: So that's the official narrative. End of story. Case closed. And we're all sad about it. There were some interesting things that sort of unfolded though in the weeks and days and months after it as it related to, to his long time long time, I guess, girl.
Were they married?
Speaker 1: They were married. Courtney they were married. Courtney Love. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And then, of course, David Grohl and all of that. Maybe you can unpack a little bit of that drama that was unfolding in the in the months afterwards.
Speaker 1: Sure. And that drama continued for a year to two years and even almost to this day, and I know that sounds weird, there's some people that still are on the Courtney thing and Dave and Krist and the Nirvana and Geffen records and all that stuff. In the very immediate aftermath, there was a private investigator. I don't want to say his name. I'd rather just people know who he is.
He had recorded Courtney. He worked for Courtney. He did documentaries, radio interviews. He really kind of spearheaded the theory that he didn't think it was a suicide. Okay?
That's encompassed his whole life, even to this day. So he was really pointing a lot of fingers at Courtney but in Joseph's book we never point at Courtney. And in my investigation I never say her name and never point anything at her. And that's for a few reasons. And that can be discussed possibly another time.
But Joseph's book is really about his experience, what he witnessed, his journey on the entire situation.
Speaker 0: All right. So let's talk about this Joseph Burns. So if we look at the cover of the book, To Kurt, I'm Sorry, My thirty Year Journey of Regret, Pain, and Disaster, how did you first learn about Joseph Burns? How did you come to to make his acquaintance?
Speaker 1: Yeah, was an interesting journey. I was brought the story by another pretty well known private investigator by the name of Jason Jensen. I can say his name. He's a great guy, does great work. He's helped me out a lot on other cases.
You can see him a lot on Fox and he's in Court TV News Nation. Great guy. I have a lot of respect for Jason. Jason asked me to look at the Kurt Cobain case and story. Someone had reached out to him, I think through Facebook, and I eventually got to meet these other authors, sleuths, kind of, I won't call them witnesses, let's call them investigators in their own way.
And then we finally met Joseph. And there was another gentleman that we met also who has recently passed on and that guy is described in the book and everyone kind of knows who that is. So there were a couple witnesses but I basically honed in on Joseph and some other people honed in on this other gentleman. And at first I love the story because it was '94. It's right before OJ.
It's the Tupac biggie stuff. It's JonBenet. It's Waco. There's so much River Phoenix. There's so much in the 90s that are really nostalgic to me.
So I immediately said I'm all in. I'm all in. I will do whatever it takes. If Kurt was murdered, I will prove it and I will do it. You know what I'm capable of.
And he said, absolutely, man. That's why we want you to run. And so I spoke to Seattle PD a couple times in the beginning, top detectives from the cold case unit. And I also went to the media and I was shut down. And I knew that was gonna happen.
And I said, look, hey, I told Jason, said, here we go again. You know, we've been on through this with these other cases. He goes, I know, just do you. Just do what you do. And so we're here.
And Joseph's been interviewed by some other sleuths and investigators. I wasn't fully a part of that. And have his real confession now in the book and his official statement and there's things that he has never said even to these other people over the last two years. So this book is by Joseph Burns. I just I published, I helped ghost write but it but he is the byline.
This is his story.
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, he's not a writer, so he needed someone to help
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Help put that together.
Speaker 1: And there's other moving parts, right? It's not just him. There's nine people at the house that night. Nine minus Kurt.
Speaker 0: Okay. So who is Joseph Burns? Maybe we were getting ahead of ourselves. Sure. But who is this guy?
Speaker 1: Joseph Burns was a rocker. He was a drummer, singer in Seattle. He was in a band called Aspirin Feast and a band called Laceration. And he was a rocker. He was a pump dude.
He was a biker at one time. And he had some felonies. He was involved in the drug game, different types of drugs. But that's part of the story with Kurt Cobain. This is who was at the house.
Most of these people were drug users and dealers. Some of them were called nannies that watched Kurt and Courtney's child, Francis Bean. So basically, Joseph is kind of like a smaller rocker than Kurt. Obviously, Kurt was worldwide. But at the time, and Joseph tells us in the book, Kurt wasn't well known when he met him.
And Dylan Carlson, another rocker from a band called Earth and Kurt's Good Friend, said to Joseph, my friend wants to meet you. He really likes your band. That was Kurt Cobain. And that's how we met him. We met him in about 1989.
It was about five years before the actual demise of Kurt.
Speaker 0: So he's a rocker. He's a Seattle rocker, not as well known as Nirvana and Kurt Cobain, but they were in that circle. Oh yeah. They were sort of in that party circle. And was it normal that they would hang out?
Speaker 1: Yeah for sure. I mean we talk about the gestures of chaos. We talk about other bands the punk scene how grunge kind of if you want to call it grunge they like to call it different names and how that the heavy metal and the punk kind of became grunge and grunge had that pop feel to it. And that's what Kurt mastered, right? And Pearl Jam and Soundgarden and Alice in Chains.
And there was a lot. This was a big era. So many of them, know, Queens of the Stone Age, Screaming Trees, and that's gonna be an important thing in this story today is one of the lead singer of the Screaming Trees. But they all hung out. They all knew each other.
And unfortunately, most of them were addicts, were heroin and cocaine and alcohol abusers.
Speaker 0: Do they share similar like drug dealers all Yes, of
Speaker 1: absolutely. Yeah, and some of the stuff in Joseph's book, and we're allowed to say some of these things and also some recordings that we have too. You know, the biker mentality was kind of big too, the biker gang, the drug dealing, protection. A lot of people went down. A lot of soldiers fell of drug overdoses, murders, even in Seattle and Portland, LA.
We know this time in the 90s this was a crazy time period. So they were all mixed up together and Joseph and his girlfriend were involved in basically dealing also heroin to Kurt Cobain.
Speaker 0: So maybe I I guess maybe we should just jump to the time period when he's he when he dies. What was happening maybe in the days and weeks ahead of time, and how does Joseph relate to that before his death?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So there's a lot of stuff going on. We won't be able to cover it all, and I'll just keep it kinda brief. It It's thirty years of moving parts, nine separate people squealing on each other loosely in other books. It's a lot of stuff.
Basically, if we just pick it up from having a lot of people there at the house, There was an intervention done with Kurt a few days before. He had tried to cancel Lollapalooza. They wanted to pay him like $9,000,000 He said, I don't want to do it. Courtney was kind of upset. The band was upset.
Geffen Records, Golden Mountain I think was the name. Golden Mountain one of them. And so there was this intervention and Kurt had gone down to LA and Courtney went down separately also with the child and Kurt was to go to rehab. He lasted about a day and a half there and then came back to Seattle without anybody knowing and that's when this whole journey was triggered. He comes back basically.
It's late at night on April 1 and then from April 2 to April 5 this is a window of key days where these people are interacting with Kurt Cobain and eventually he is murdered.
Speaker 0: Okay. So he leaves drug rehab in Southern California flies back to Seattle. He's back there on April 2. He dies on April 1, on April 8.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He lands on April 1 and then he's at the house. It's just one of these magical things but at one a. M, he arrives home. It's actually April 2, okay, just to keep it because people will pick this stuff apart.
So, yeah. Now his body is found on April 8. The coroner and the investigators, the Seattle PD, say he dies on April 5. Okay? In our book, in Joseph's statements, his confession, Kurt is killed on Easter Sunday at around 2AM.
That's April 3, 2AM.
Speaker 0: April 3. So his body is found five days later.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So April 2, he gets in at around one in the morning on April 2. Mhmm. What happens after that?
Speaker 1: So, I mean, I'll give you kind of the brief version, and then I can not if you want me to talk about the murder and the staging of the suicide, ask me that separately. I'd like to just I don't wanna blend them all together, if that's okay. Sure. Okay. So let's just talk about him coming back.
There's already people in the house. Joseph Steyer's girlfriend, a girl named Jen Adamson. And
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. If people don't know this, whose house is this? Does Kurt Cobain own the house?
Speaker 1: Kurt's Kurt's Mansion.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: On Lake Washington in Seattle. I think the address is 1171. Yeah. And so when he comes home at one, he's tired. There's people there.
They're shooting up. They're drinking. They're smoking weed. Some of them are playing music. Some of them are doing tattoo work.
They're all kind of artists. A lot of these people are very interesting. Some went on to be designers, rock journalists, famous people. Lot of these people are very well known today. And so Kurt comes home and there's people already at his house.
They don't really know he's coming. Some do but some don't. And initially in my investigation from what Joseph had told me in the very beginning that Kurt was murdered right then within hours, when he came home. Okay? Things have changed a little.
He's hidden things, other people. And this was part of an investigation. I'm not always going to have every detail correct. So I'll be the first one to admit in my first interviews and first statements and stuff about the case was that he died on April 2. Okay?
I'm off by a day. All right? So the next day comes, next morning, whatever. Some people say they seek her. Oh, he's saying to me in the bed.
They're saying he's still alive. We didn't believe them at first through the books. And so some stuff happens. I don't know everything that happens on April 2. And then we lead into April, the night of April 2.
Now we're going to lead into the early morning of April 3 and this is when everything goes awry and three men show up at the house just like barnstormers, and and it it happens right there.
Speaker 0: So we're like a twenty four hour period. He's home at one in the morning. Does he go to sleep? Is he awake? He's there's people in his house kind of the whole time Yeah.
Through a whole twenty four hour period and then into April 3. Is it early morning hours? Are we talking like two in the morning, three in the morning?
Speaker 1: We're talking 2AM when the deed is done. And these people stay there. This is gonna sound crazy. They stay there for another two days while his body's in the greenhouse. Yes.
Speaker 0: So these three individuals show up.
Speaker 1: Who
Speaker 0: so Joseph saw these three people show up?
Speaker 1: Oh, he knows two of them very well. The other one is a little gray and hazy but we do name that person in the book. The third. There's two main killers. Okay?
I can name them because they're in the book. It's up to you. If you don't want me to name them, if your lawyers are like, don't let Chris Todd say their names.
Speaker 0: Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah, that's me actually because 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. +1 806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. How about this, Chris?
They can read the book if they wanna get the names. You've written the names down. It's in the book,
Speaker 1: and Absolutely.
Speaker 0: You name names you name names in the book.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I can say that one of the men, I can say their first names, right? I'll say Dylan and Mark. And Mark is a, we didn't know this for a long time. And this is really one of the hooks in the book.
The gotcha moment is this guy, Mark, who people will look up, who will know from the grunge scene. He is a famous person. He died a couple years ago. Dylan is still alive. And the other third guy has died this year.
So one of them is alive. But it's a fascinating story about Mark and Kurt's relationship as very good friends. And all these guys used to cross dress together. They wore the lipstick. These famous pictures.
And there's photos of Kurt with these two men. And they're online. They're photographed. They're wearing dresses. This is what they did.
It wasn't like as if they were bisexual. It was more of a punk rock thing. And this shows how ahead of their time these guys really were. This was not really going on in 1994. So
Speaker 0: Alright. So back to the murder. Why did they kill him? What do we know what unfolded that led them to to to kill Kurt Cobain?
Speaker 1: There's a lot of different reasons. If we look, was there jealousy between Dylan and Mark and their bands? They were smaller time guys. They don't have a lot of money. Kurt's this big famous guy.
They've been with him for years. They've seen him like his trajectory, right? We're not gonna talk about some elements of motive because I know certain things I can't say about other people and the book, like we said, it focuses on what Joseph sees, Okay? It's not about what are they thinking. One thing that Joseph does talk about in the book is, and we use these kind of little terms, the knuckleheads, the Three Stooges, the three musketeers, kind of saying like, these guys came there and were up to no good.
The moment I saw them come in, oh, hey, what's up, guys? What's going on? The looks on their face, they were not there to party. They were on some type of weird mission. That's how Joseph describes that because Joseph had been in the game a felon himself.
So he knew, as he calls them licks in the book, I've done this before. I know that look. I was fascinated by that. I said, man, just, I like, just tell me more, man. He's like, I knew right away they were up to no good.
Where's Kurt? In the basement. What's going on? And he follows him down to the basement.
Speaker 0: And is it presumably, oh, they're up to no good. They're coming to rob the place. They're coming to
Speaker 1: Joseph deal with does not know. Joseph has no idea what's gonna happen here in about ten minutes.
Speaker 0: So he just sees that their faces, they're up to no good. They're on a mission. They're not here to hang out and party and play music. They're here to do something. Where's Kurt Cobain?
So he sees them with his own eyes come in Joseph. And then go down to the basement.
Speaker 1: Kurt's in the basement with two other women. Yeah. He's playing against me. Yeah. So, you know, there's a lot of people in the house.
And as Joseph says in the book, and we put this in the prologue, he's not going to remember what every person is doing every minute, what room they're in. So he's trying to say like, give me some leeway. Just take a breath. Okay. Cause a lot of these true crime people they're like wolves, man.
Like, and oh, he doesn't know where Jessica Hopper was. Oh, why? Well, he doesn't remember every single second of what all these people are doing. This is traumatic experience that he buried for thirty years. K?
Speaker 0: Also, not to defend him. I don't know him. Yeah. But, I mean, I've I've been to parties, college and otherwise, where you've been there at two in the morning.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And I don't you know, God knows. You know, two in the morning, you're gonna remember every detail.
Speaker 1: You don't know where I mean, unless he was
Speaker 0: unless he was sitting there meditating and not having any alcohol or anything at all.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. No. He was up for days. This is heroin use, drugs.
He said literally he didn't sleep the day before at all. So the way it happened so fast, the way he tells the story, he tries to protect the girls when it's happening in front of him. He hid this for a long time. He never told anyone this ever. I'm the only person he ever told it to.
He told some other things to people over time because they were trying to help him. They tried to do like a GoFundMe page. He was like the borderline homeless at one time. So, but let's just stick to the moment. And they come in.
He doesn't really know this third person. He knows the other two. He knows Dylan and Mark 100%. And they race downstairs. He follows as if like, what's going on?
And then when they get down there, there's an assault of of Kurt Cobain, and he has hotshotted, forcefully.
Speaker 0: Okay. What does that mean? Sorry. He's he's down there with two women. He's playing his guitar with these two women?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's just hanging out, smoking weed, drinking beers. You know, they're Joe's girlfriend is down there and another girl that, is a has a famous brother that I won't say the name this second, but she died. She actually died in 2000 of a either a hot shot or of an overdose. Hot shot meaning hot loads of heroin can either be dirty heroin or excessive amounts.
So, hot shots, hot loads, they overdose Kurt. They force him. They already have these pre made syringes already done up.
Speaker 0: So they force him, and Joseph witnesses this? Yes. Joseph witnesses these three individuals forcing him to only Mainly the two.
Speaker 1: Mainly mainly Mark and Dylan. The other guy, we can say his name Danny because everyone's kind of a fan of his story. He passed away this year. He's honing in on Mark and Dylan because the things with Danny, he's not doesn't have a hard confirm that's him, but he can't rule them out. And there's a lot of weird stuff Danny said over the years and recently.
So we've left him in there. And but it's mainly these two are assaulting Kurt, trying to hit him with something. He's confused about like whether it's being he's being punched and held down or they're grabbing something. He's literally kind of in shock. Okay?
He's in shock of what he is witnessing. Now, Joseph also has a regret. That's why the book says, My thirty year journey of regret, pain, disaster. He should have helped.
Speaker 0: Well, and the title is To Kurt, I'm Sorry. What is he sorry about? That he didn't stop it?
Speaker 1: Correct. Because, I mean, think about it. This was he was good friends with Kurt. You know? He loved Kurt.
And I think Kurt loved Joe. And it'd be like you witnessing your friend who's a very famous person basically be assaulted. Now remember, at this time, it's not like he's watching a murder. If they're injecting him, they're not shooting him at this moment so he just doesn't know what's going on. So he's got the girls, one of them screams, we talk about it in there.
He's kind of pushing them back And it's bad, man. It's bad. I feel for the guy. I deal with a lot of accomplices and witnesses for over ten years. I know it's hard for them to talk about it.
And then Kurt is basically dragged out of there And he witnesses that and he is dragged out of the house and into the separate greenhouse. And he knows that's where they are because he sees them in there when he goes in the driveway a little out, a couple minutes after, he's trying to see what's going on. But he does not go in the greenhouse.
Speaker 0: So he has an overdose. They drag him out of there. Is he dead at that point?
Speaker 1: I believe for me, because other people say different things and based on the coroner and the whole investigation is a joke. I'm just sorry to say it. It's a joke. So, the coroner doesn't say Kurt is deceased and it's a postmortem wound. It's kind of left in a weird gray area.
I do believe based on the autopsy, based on other sources and people that have looked, I do believe Kurt Cobain was dead when he was shot through his mouth.
Speaker 0: So he was probably still alive before he was shot.
Speaker 1: Well, I think he's dead.
Speaker 0: Oh, you think he's dead? I
Speaker 1: think he's deceased. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. He may have had an overdose then right then and there dies. They drag his body out
Speaker 1: to Or he dies Look, remember, this gunshot's not gonna be heard for forty minutes. So he could still be alive when they're dragging him, right? But when they lay him down in the greenhouse, he could die within ten minutes. The amount of heroin he had in the system was one point five two milligrams per liter. Normal addicts with a relatively normal tolerance can die at 0.3.
Okay? So he has five times the amount. Kurt weighed about one hundred and forty pounds. Okay? And people try to argue like, well, was such an addict.
He had a high tolerance. Dude, there's addicts that die at 0.3, 0.4. He has 1.52. Do the math. Okay.
And it's injected. It's not swallowed. They try to do all this misinformation, disinformation. Oh, a guy, you know, he swallowed a thing that would give him two, two milk, two grams. That's swallowing.
This is straight into his veins. Okay. So he, I believe is dead. There's not a lot of blood coming out of his ear. There is some blood, but I guess, you know, his head actually doesn't blow out, which I thought it would.
When I initially came out, I used to say that people tried to rip me apart for it. I guess technically the pellets did not penetrate through his skull. So it's actually inside his head. It's disturbing. It's sad.
It's a very sad story. And Joseph has had the courage to do this.
Speaker 0: All right. So let's go back to they're carrying the body out. Joseph loses track of them at that moment. He's watching them carry Kurt out and he doesn't stop it or interact with them.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: And then he comes upstairs and he's take me through the next stages.
Speaker 1: Yeah. After a few minutes, after the girls are freaking out, right, and he's freaking out, he kind of drifts outside into the driveway. This greenhouse is separated from the house. It's above the garage. So they're almost like perpendicular to each other.
Okay? They're like side by side adjacent, whatever. He finally goes out, I'm gonna smoke a cigarette. They don't know what's going on. The other people in the house, he can't really remember what they're doing.
He believes there's only the three guys in the greenhouse. When he goes out to the driveway, he sees some motion. Okay? He can see he doesn't see clearly. Remember, it's two in the morning.
He sees movement up there and then he hears a gun blast. Okay? At that point, as he talks about in the book, part of the regret, should I have gone up there? And partly what we talked about with him or I did, and I said, let's say it a certain way, but tell me what you're feeling. Try to go back.
He said, do you think I'm gonna walk in there and they're gonna kill me too? And I said, I get it. Okay? He's like, I'm not trying to get killed. Okay?
Obviously something happened. All they have to do is turn the gun on him. He walks in. What's going on? So obviously Joseph had his own history of being in criminal circles and knew I'm not gonna walk in there.
And I tried to, you know, stick up for him and say, I get it. They're gonna understand, man. They're gonna feel for you, you know? And then after that, and then after that, a little later, he then sees Dylan and Mark in the house. And it's very strange about, you gotta get out of here.
You don't want to deal with this. What's going on? Where's Kurt? Oh man, just, you know, like they're not saying it to him. And then he eventually goes and looks at the body Kind of hours later when everything kind of is like settling down and he never told anyone this in thirty years.
He eventually goes and looks and sees Kurt in the greenhouse, deceased.
Speaker 0: So these two guys, they're kinda say, well, you don't really wanna know. We're not gonna tell you. It's don't you don't need to bother about it. Where's Kurt? You don't need to bother about it.
It's kinda it's like, what, three in the morning at this point? Four in
Speaker 1: Or Or later. 5AM, 6AM. They're all there the next day too because there's a key thing that happens on Monday. That's when Joseph leaves is actually on Monday. All these people stay there and they're still shooting up and they're drinking beers and they're, I don't know.
I don't have the answers of why they're all staying there.
Speaker 0: That's crazy. I mean, they just, it's like a flop house. It's just like a drug flop house. I mean, Yep. You know, I've covered these things in the news where just peep you know, people are in these random houses, and they're there for days.
You know? They're sleeping on the floor. They're sleeping on mattresses, and they're just there. And it was sort of an open revolving door policy to have people just flowing into your house. So but I think it's very important.
Joseph then admits thirty years later that on I guess it was that Sunday morning or I guess it would have been Sunday morning, Easter Sunday. He tries to go and find Kurt at some point, maybe three, four, five in the morning. Right. And he goes up to this greenhouse Mhmm. And he sees the body?
Speaker 1: Yes. He and he and he didn't tell people this for thirty years, and he didn't ever mention Mark's name for thirty years. He never talked about any of this for thirty years. So, yeah. And look, I've asked him many times.
People ask me a lot, like, can I talk to Joseph? No. Well, I want to talk well with me and gently, you know, because they're coming at him. They're all he's got groupies and they offer money to come on, man. It's Kurt.
This is traumatic. This is a dark story. There's legality issues. Okay. There are criminal elements.
Okay? Between a witness and an accessory. Okay? There's a very fine line. He's had the courage to do it.
That's number one. But, yes, he finally admitted, I saw him in there. I didn't see his face. I didn't look in. I didn't go in.
He's trying to and if he went in, maybe I don't know. But I'm saying he's kind of keeping that buffer of like, I saw his shoes. I knew how he tied his shoes. Okay? And then when you look from the back, you see his shoe facing you, not the sole, the front, because that's the back.
You can't enter from the front. There's a balcony. You have to come through the, through the back. There's a French doors. That's where the police bust in.
They go through the back door. His feet are away from us towards the front, okay? So that's what he says. I knew how he tied his shoes. You know, look, this could go on for hours.
Obviously, there's a lot of things racing through his mind, right? At that moment, now he officially knows one of his very good friends, one of the top rock stars of his generation just got killed while they're there. That's a problem for all of them. Not just the two plus the one guy, the other six of them. K?
So
Speaker 0: So then he he takes this. He doesn't say a word about it.
Speaker 1: And no one else does either. And no one else does either. That's important to note. None of these people have talked. None.
Speaker 0: When they find so then I guess when they find you talked about the staging of the Mhmm. The what you believe to be a murder. What do you mean by that? How how was it staged? What did the police find on the April 8?
So now this is Yeah. Five days later.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I just stick to the key things that to me, I'm not a cop. I'm not a lawyer. We get it. I am an investigator.
It's what I do. I've been doing it for over ten years. I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do. There's a couple key things that should have set off red flags to the police. They called it a suicide within the same day.
That's a problem. They had no fingerprint analysis results from the gun, the The pen was stabbed through a suicide note supposedly into a potted plant. They don't test any fingerprints on the gun case, the shells, the box of shells, all this stuff. Okay? There's cigarette butts, you know, there's no touch DNA.
So there's Can
Speaker 0: I ask you all these years later in the cold case, are these pieces of evidence still being held in evidence? Do they still have the gun? Do they still have the shell casings? So they could do DNA tests on them all these years later.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. But they closed the case at 5PM on on Friday. And that's where they made the mistake. They had no toxicology report back yet. Okay.
None. And they had some weird rule, like the beat cops can say it's a suicide, and if they say it's a suicide, the detectives are off the case. There's some weird they try to play this game at the Seattle PD. It's just disturbing. There were a lot of detectives there.
Detective Cameron was one of the key guys. He died years ago. And even the coroner had died in a paragliding accident accidentally years later. Let me just take some of the key evidence because people like the details in the forensics somewhat. You have a man with a gun laying on his chest, okay?
The way he falls looks strange, first of all. He's holding this gun and they try to Oh, he had a death grip so when he's seated, when he goes back, he's, he tenses up and he holds. That is not true. That does not happen in every death that the body seizes. That's not true.
This was perpetuated for a long time. Go watch other murders. Watch The bodies don't all seize up when they get killed. Okay? So he's holding this thing.
The way he's holding it's weird. The way his body is sitting is strange. The gun is turned upside down. The shell that should come out of the ejection chamber is on the wrong side. On the wrong side.
So, if he had held it the way he did and he popped it, that gun has an automatic recoil ejection. The shell should have shot out to the correct side. It's on the wrong side. That's one of the biggest pieces of evidence that this is staged. Okay.
Speaker 0: Right. Because, well, I'm just picturing in my head. If he, if someone is holding his head and pulls the trigger, the shell goes out one side. If he's doing it in the reverse and and doing it to himself, yeah, it would go out the opposite direction. And if you're high, drunk, and on drugs at four in the morning, maybe that's maybe that's something you don't think about.
Speaker 1: And I also believe to me, this is my theory. I believe they they put it against their shoulder because now there's some evidence that this type of gun, if it's not shouldered or has something to bounce off the back of the stock, it will not eject the shell. A guy's been proving that he's been holding the barrel and just shooting it and the shell stays in. You have to rack it. Okay.
So what he's trying to show is if Kurt's sitting up and there's nothing and he's like holding it, is the floor wouldn't it slide on the floor out of his hands and he falls back like this instead of him still holding it like that. So the point is the shell is supposed to eject but they're questioning did it even eject at all. But what I'm saying is when they lay them down, they just shoulder it and they sit on them and they shoot them. Then they stage, obviously they're wiping this thing down because there's no fingerprints found on the gun, not even Kurt's. So, they obviously, whether they're wearing gloves, whether they're wiping it down, look, DNA is not a huge deal in 'ninety four.
They're not thinking about too much of that fingerprints they should be, And the pen's wiped down. So, they obviously are staging this in more ways than one. They put the Barq's root beer there. They put the little cigar box with the needles with the caps on them. Okay.
There's a spoon with some black tar heroin in there. They leave that there. They're staging this. And also I'll say this. How many cases have you ever seen where the suicide victim has the receipt to the gun in his pocket and the receipt to the shells in a bag by his foot.
Okay. You don't see that. Okay. When people commit suicide, they don't say, yeah, here's the receipt. Now I want to show you here's that's in my pocket.
And then look by my feet. There's a receipt to the shelves. It's a setup it's staged and all this stuff needed to be red flagged by the Seattle PD. Not right away, but come on, man. This guy is like a hero to half of Seattle.
And you're just going to write it. Yeah. Suicide they're doing interviews. Courtney's reading the letter pretty fast after that MTV. He did this.
He did this. They're all crying in the park. Come on, man. You violated this guy's civil rights. You dragged this guy's name through the mud for thirty years.
You called him the poster boy for suicide. There were copycat suicides. It's disgraceful. I'm sorry to get fired up about it, but it's unacceptable. And I'm not saying they're gonna reopen the case.
I'm not saying you should reopen the case. It's a story. Okay? And it's for Kirk. Okay.
That's what it talks about. That's why it's too Kurt. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: The suicide note is interesting too. I remember when they released that and it said, something like I'll be happier. I love you. I love you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You're better off without me. Well, I'm telling you right now, we believe Kurt did not write those last four lines. They are not in the same font. I mean, they're not in the same handwriting.
And they've had multiple handwriting experts look at it. There's some press out there that Jason Jensen was able to get out. You can go look them up. Jason has his own take and what he's doing too. And he had a report done and they believe that those last four lines are not Kurt writing that.
They're not the same sizing. The spacing is different. It is off. The letters are not the same exactly. And Kurt's letter is not suicidal.
He's talking about, faking it. I just want you guys to all know. Yeah, because he's trying to break up Nirvana. He wanted to do his own solo thing. Joseph talks about that.
He wanted Joseph to play with him. Let's do something with your band too, man. Nirvana, the whole thing he punched Chris Novoselic in the face days when they tried to take her to rehab before Chris drove him to the airport and Kurt punched him in the face. That's his basis of Nirvana. There was a lot of problems.
They canceled Lollapalooza. Everybody was mad. He lost money. Okay. The European tour, looks like they gave him Rahidno and tried to kill him in Rome.
He was OD'd and he woke up and said some weird things to people and the doctor said he didn't think he was suicidal. Look it up. Rohitno, Rome, weeks before.
Speaker 0: Wow. And so were these individuals that are referenced in the book that Joseph names, have they ever been investigated at all?
Speaker 1: None. Zero. One them are now dead. At least three of them are deceased. Yes.
One one killer, one accomplice, one witness. Yes. Three of these nine are are deceased. There's six left.
Speaker 0: What do we think the motive was in they were coming there with a mission, what do you think the motive was?
Speaker 1: Well, that's why I have to be careful because if I if I try to say, were these men told to do it and were they offered free drugs for the rest of their life? I have to be careful how I say that. To me, and in my investigations, in a lot of cases, I don't care so much about motive. A lot of people, you know, this recent stuff in the news with the shootings. What's the motive?
What's the motive? I don't care. I don't care what their motive is. They did something not only bad. It's really the worst thing you can do in life on this planet is take another person's soul.
Okay? It's literally the worst thing you can do. You could have a bunch of different excuses. I really don't care. So, they're jealous of Kurt, whether someone told them to do it, whether they were abetted, aided and abetted, okay, I'm not gonna talk about that too much.
And in the book, we only address that for a very brief moment. We're only focusing on what happened there with the people that are there.
Speaker 0: So where do you go from here with this? Any indication that police will reopen an investigation with all of this evidence?
Speaker 1: I mean, you want my personal opinion? My professional opinion on this?
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: The case is over. This case is closed. This is a story. And this is for Kurt. This is his swan song.
This is his goodbye. This him talking through Joseph. If these other witnesses wanna come forward, they can too. I'm sure they have their own version of the story. One of them sort of wants to talk.
We've had conversations with them. They're a little hesitant. That's up to them. The book is out there. It's only like seven days old.
This is it. Okay? Whatever the other people wanna say, that's for them. But I believe this case is closed. Do I have some 2% hope?
Sure. They opened Kefe D, right? They did the Tupac thing in Vegas. The Vegas PD had courage to do it, get some press. I offered that to Seattle PD and they laughed at me.
I'm sorry. I'm not gonna help you like that. It's just unacceptable. And they've had a paradigm in their head with this. I think they didn't like Kurt Cobain, to be honest.
I really do. I don't think they liked him. He had dark lyrics. He was a heroin user, drug user, artist. They hated grunge.
They hated heavy metal. The punk rockers. They thought some of them were white supremacists. Hard to say that word. There was a lot of stuff.
They saw it. Hey, there's a guy, gone there. Oh, there's a note. What would we got? Oh, there's a note.
Look, look at this. That looks good to me. How about you guys? Yeah. Pretty straightforward.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, the note is interesting to me on a whole other level. So it's like, basically took, they co opted a note that he was writing and added to it to make it seem like a suicide note at the bottom.
Speaker 1: Kurt was always writing. He had all these weird little letters. He wrote letters to Courtney. He wrote, this was on the back of an IHOP menu. This guy was an artist through and through.
This guy was a genius. If you really listen to his songs, he was a genius. Okay? Imagine what he could have done. He was 27 years old.
This guy worked really hard to get where he was. They were not known. They went through like three drummers. They had different band names. So, we're to believe Kurt Cobain, Annie as a child, a one and a half year old, and he's going to take his own life, yeah, things were bad.
Maybe Nirvana was going to break up. Maybe he was going to do something on his own. Yeah, John Lennon did stuff on his own, too. Okay? So, we were deprived of this man's genius.
Okay? And I wasn't even a big Nirvana fan. Okay? I won't say who I was because they'll freak out. My point is I'm here to work for Kurt as an investigator, as a journalist, as a writer to help this guy tell his story.
For me moving forward there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of people online. To me I feel I've done all I can and so has Joseph. From there that's organic and that is up to up to the to destiny in a way.
Speaker 0: Well, it's remarkable story I've never heard. I'm sure most of our audiences never heard it either. A lot of questions remain. We can't go through all of them, but I would encourage people to read the book, get Joseph's firsthand perspective on what he saw those nights and those days, those early morning hours, and what happened to his friend, Kurt Cobain. Chris, thank you so much.
It's a remarkable story. Thank you for sharing it with me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you for letting us have a platform like this with your subscribers and audience. I really wanna thank you. And Joseph, thanks you too. I did give a heads up that I would be talking with you, and he wanted to say thank you so much for allowing this.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The CIA's sinister MKUltra program—did it REALLY end? Whistleblower claims it morphed into something even more terrifying, possibly controlling assassins! Are they still out there? https://t.co/Yo6xWCgxRr
Video Transcript AI Summary
It continued after that. When the church committee happened and Frank Church brought it out that MKUltra existed, well, the stuff hit the fan, and everybody started screaming, we need more of this. Well, Richard Helms, the director of the CIA, immediately destroyed 10,000 MKULTRA documents so that Congress couldn't see them and then threatened the CIA officers who were due to testify with prison if they violated their secrecy agreement. They tried that with me. So that's one of the means of control.
So MKULTRA, they said after the church committee, well, we don't do that anymore. It's been done away with. Victor Marchetti, who wrote CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, I don't know if you're aware of that book. He was the first real CIA whistleblower. He said they claimed MK Ultra stopped at 1973, but he said that's just a cover story.
It continued after that. He believes MK Ultra still exists, and one of the classic examples is Sirhan Sirhan, who was one of the shooters that killed Robert Kennedy senior. Sirhan Sirhan claimed he didn't remember anything about the event at all afterwards, and they went in there and tested him psychologically. And he was so programmable, they had him climbing his cell like a monkey. I have become friends because of our both of our kinds of disenchantment to say that with the CIA.
And Bobby met with Sirhan Sirhan. He said he did he had no idea of what he'd done at all. No memory of it at all. And the psychiatrists were so easy, it was so easy rather to program him that they had him climbing the cell, like I said, like a monkey. And he was, I'm convinced, an MK Ultra subject.
I'm absolutely convinced of this. I don't wanna speak for Bobby Kennedy Jr. We've become friends since, but I think he would probably agree with that as a classic case of it still existing. And why would
Why would they give up such a powerful weapon? You can mind control individuals who can carry out assassinations or pretend to be an assassin as a patsy and be caught while actual CIA agents are actually shooting and killing JFK or shooting and killing RFK in a kitchen in Los Angeles. So it's a very convenient
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It continued after that. When the church committee happened and Frank Church brought it out that MKUltra existed, well, the the stuff hit the fan, and everybody started screaming, we need more of this. Well, Richard Helms, the director of the CI, immediately destroyed 10,000 MKULTRA documents so that congress couldn't see them and then threatened the CI officers who were who were due to testify with prison if they violated their secrecy agreement. They tried that with me. So that's one of the means of control.
So MKULTRA, they said after the church committee, well, we don't do that anymore. It's been done away with. Victor Marceti, who wrote c I and cult of intelligence, I don't know if you're aware of that book. He was the first real c I whistleblower. He said, they claimed m MK Ultra stopped at 1973, but he said that's just a cover story.
It continued after that. He she is convinced MK Ultra still exists, and one of the classic examples is Sirhan Sirhan, who, was one of the shooters that killed Robert Kennedy senior. Surhan Surhan claimed he didn't remember anything about the event at all afterwards, and they went in there and and they tested him psychologically. And he was so programmable, they had him climbing his cell like a monkey. I have become friends because of our both of our kind of disenchantment to say that with the CIA.
And Bobby met with Suhran Suhran. He said he did he had no idea of what what he'd done at all. No memory of it at all. And the psych psychiatrists were easy were so easy it was so easy rather to program him that that they had him climbing the cell, like I said, like a monkey. And he was, I'm convinced, an MK Ultra subject.
I'm absolutely convinced of this. I don't wanna speak for Bobby Kennedy junior. We've become friends since, but I think he would probably agree with that as a classic case of it still existing. And why would
Speaker 1: they give up such a powerful weapon? You can mind control individuals who can carry out assassinations or pretend to be an assassin as a patsy and be caught while actual CIA agents are actually shooting and killing JFK or shooting and killing RFK in a kitchen Yeah. In Los Angeles. So it's a very convenient
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🧠 MKUltra sounds like a movie plot, but it was very real and officially documented. The real question is whether the program ever truly stopped or just went deeper underground. That is what few want to discuss. https://t.co/NQ5lemO18g
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer with seventeen years of service, recounts a sweeping, real-world portrait of MKUltra, directed-energy weapons, and a long-running program of secrecy and retaliation at the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community. He describes how the CIA and a “shadow government” targeted him and his family after he investigated a serious vulnerability in U.S. embassies—namely, foreign nationals in visa sections could hack an unclassified computer to identify CIA cover officers and assets. When he alerted CIA management, a division chief warned him to drop the matter, and his report was allegedly deleted. State Department IG later corroborated the risk to agents and rebuked the CIA; Shipp says this encounter left a laser-like targeting on his back.
Following these events, Shipp says he and his family were transferred to a secret U.S. base where they were given a house known to be contaminated. Within months, severe illness struck: his children’s throats swelled, headaches surged, and his wife developed dementia. He asserts the house contained black mold and leakage of mica toxin (a chemical weapon Saddam Hussein used, described as yellow rain). With the aid of an attorney, Shipp reported the mold and toxins and sought redress, obtaining a clearance for his attorney to work with CI documents. He alleges that, after he filed a personal injury suit against the rental company, the couple faced intensified retaliation: surveillance, bugging, and a wave of neurological symptoms across the family—severe headaches, insomnia, nosebleeds, and immune and neurological damage. He asserts his oldest son’s immune system was severely compromised and that the boy’s symptoms resembled AIDS or radiation exposure; the son later developed PTSD and deteriorated mentally, leading to concerns about his whereabouts in Florida.
Shipp asserts that senior CIA and Department of State officials attempted to silence him, including an IG officer who later confessed that George Tenet and a senior CIA official (Buzzy Cronk-gard) were ordered to silence and destroy him to prevent public disclosure. He describes a culture of intimidation, including a rise in the escalation of surveillance and obstruction of access to credit and resources. He recounts a “secret base” where additional disturbing occurrences were reported, including an observed figure described by guards as a goat-headed, cloaked figure (Baphomet) witnessed by multiple witnesses, including the base commander’s son. Shipp asks whether this symbol signals demonic activity or a psyop and notes that the accounts were later corroborated in mainstream outlets as to the base’s existence.
On MKUltra itself, Shipp defines it as a practice that used drugs (LSD, mescaline, etc.) without participants’ knowledge to monitor brain activity and to create programmable “born” super-soldiers or data mules who would forget the information they carried. He claims the program included sexual abuse, sleep deprivation, beatings, hypnosis, and other forms of torture to break and reprogram minds. He cites Victor Marchetti’s assertion that MKUltra did not end in 1973 and mentions Elizabeth Nichol-son’s studies asserting continuing existence. He argues that the Church Committee inquiry led to the destruction of thousands of documents and suppression of testimony, preventing reform. He cites Sirhan Sirhan as a potential later MKUltra subject and notes Carol Warner’s work with patients who had MKUltra exposure.
Shipp connects these activities to broader patterns of power and secrecy: mass mind control through contractors (Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Booz Allen Hamilton) who hold CIA clearances, and a culture where tens of thousands of Americans are bound by secrecy agreements that preclude speaking out. He claims Lockheed Martin monitors mail and has access to the U.S. Post Office, suggesting pervasive surveillance and control.
He connects Venezuela’s use of directed-energy weapons to the broader capabilities of the CIA and other national actors, arguing that these technologies go back twenty years or more and have spread to Russia, China, and elsewhere. He contends that Havana syndrome and related phenomena are related modalities and suggests the CIA’s upper echelons do not share the full truth with Congress, recalling Chuck Schumer’s warning about “six ways from Sunday” to retaliate if you cross the intelligence community. He argues for reform: dismantling or reforming the CIA and moving intelligence functions to accountable bodies so that oversight becomes feasible again.
Throughout, Shipp emphasizes the human cost: his wife and children still suffer PTSD and neurological damage, his son remains missing, and he himself continues to face pressure and retaliation. He frames his narrative as a call to expose the abuses of secrecy, advocate for accountability, and awaken the public to the alleged realities of MKUltra-era and post-era mind-control capabilities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: MK Ultra may sound like a conspiracy theory, something out of Jason Bourne movies where the CIA performs mind control on unwitting CIA agents, but it's much bigger than that. And it's not a conspiracy theory at all. In fact, it's very real, and it's very alive and well today by the deep state, by the CIA, by the shadow government that is running things. How do we know that? Because our next guest was the victim of that.
His entire family was the victim of an MK Ultra, some sort of directed energy weapon attack against his family. And that person happened to work for the CIA seventeen years as a CIA veteran. He's written multiple books on the subject and his most recent book is Twilight of the Shadow Government and how this deep state is this deep state rot needs to be eliminated from America. Kevin Ship is his name, and he joins us now. Kevin, thank you for being here.
Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Clayton. Good to be back with you.
Speaker 0: So you and I have talked a number of times here on the show, but today I really wanted to zero in and focus on MKUltra and mind control and these nefarious weapons that the agency has at their disposal, the deep state has at its disposal. Maybe you can just take us to a 30,000 foot level, when someone say, this is conspiracy theories. These are propaganda. They don't have this stuff. What do you say to somebody like that?
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I used to think. You know, when I was a good, CI officer, I didn't think those things existed. This stuff is compartmented at the high levels, probably top secret SCIs. I didn't I didn't know they were there until they were used on me, which was a great eye opener. And I had done an international investigation and uncovered a serious vulnerability in US embassies where any foreign national in the visa section could go through the unclassified computer, hack in, and identify the names and the addresses of our case officers and chief of stations and by extension, their assets in that country.
So I put together a extensive report, sent it to CIA management. I got a phone call from the division involved, ominous call from the division chief telling me to drop drop it. Do not investigate it further. It would be my career. Then he hung up.
Then then my report was deleted from the CI headquarters server. I sent it four times to the division involved. Each time, they they claimed that they'd lost it or they never got it. Well, my report leaked out to the Department of State, I'd seen or IG, and I got a call one day. Listen, Kevin.
We think you may be onto something here. Do not tell the CIA that you're involved in this or we're doing this. We're gonna go worldwide and do an investigation in embassies and see if what you may have uncovered is true. Keep your head low, and you'll hear hear from us in about three months. Sure enough, three months later, the secure phone rings.
I pick it up, and I'll call him Jim. He says, Kev, you need to get over the main state immediately. Can you do that? Yes, sir. So I went over there, and they buzzed me into the the big conference room with a long walnut table, and and they said, Kev, it's not as just as bad as you thought.
It is worse. We were able to go to every single embassy, go into the visa section with all the foreign nationals, and hack right in and identify CIA cover officers in those embassies. And he he said, now just hold on. We got another visitor coming. I had no idea this is going to happen.
We have another visitor coming. Wait about ten minutes. The door buzzes. They escort him in and in walks the GS 15 CIA manager that was in charge of of that program and had destroyed my documents and had threatened me. And they said, sir, sir, have a seat at the end of the table.
And State IG stood up and said, consider this an official rebuke by Department of State IG to you, the CIA, for putting the lives of your agents at risk for over ten years and then covering it up. And he froze in shock, and I sat there and watched my career dissolve. And then they said, you can go now. Oh, and said one last thing. This report is gonna be published to the entire intelligence community so they see what the CI has done.
Well, he walked out kind of in shock. I remember they thanked me, and I I thanked them for all the work they did. And I went back to headquarters, I was just kinda left on my own. And it was like I had a laser dot figuratively speaking on my back. I knew they were coming for me eventually.
So, anyway, they assigned me subsequent to that to a secret base inside The United States and commanded that I and my family move on to this base, and they moved us into a house that the CI knew was contaminated. The previous residents had been evacuated because they were very ill. So they moved us in into that house intentionally, on orders of the the chief of the base. And, within, golly, three months, everybody started getting desperately ill. My kids' throats were swelling up.
I had to take them to emergency room a couple times. We were having severe headaches. My wife, was was basically bedridden with dementia. So there was something very we knew there was a poison in that house. Wound up being excuse me, the house was riddled through the walls with black mold.
It was also leaking what's a mica toxin, which is a chemical weapon that Saddam Hussein used in Iraq. It was the yellow rain. I found that leaking in the ceiling, and the only way you can find it that the CI didn't count on was I I I researched and found a black light will cause these mycotoxins to grow iridescent green. So I hit the ceiling with the black light and sure enough there were mycotoxins leaking in, which is a neurotoxin leaking in through the ceiling. Took my attorney back, we left the house, someone broke in, we came back and to make a long story short, took my attorney back.
We hit the ceiling in with a black light, and someone had broken in and painted some chemical over the mycotoxin, and they didn't realize I was using a black light. So we caught him breaking in and trying to cover that up. And I remember Clint, a hero, my attorney, looked at me. He goes, man, this is like three days as a condor. I'm like, goodness gracious.
And then it got worse from there. So I contacted the CIA and told them, and we did. We filed suit against the rental company. We we had a rental property on this residence, and we filed a complaint for the the black mold. And I used that as, the reason I had the authority to do this.
I requested that the CI give my attorney, Clint, be a CI clearance. Now the CI always refuses you having your own attorney If you may know this, but you have to use a CI attorney. They have to have control of all of your documents, all of your evidence in CI headquarters, and then they classify it. Well, I do that. So I got my attorney cleared with a secret clearance telling the CI that it was for the rental claim that we had.
So they granted him a clearance. We turned around and we sued them for a personal injury complaint because of my family was desperately ill. My son, Joy's immune system was so bad. They said it looked like he had AIDS. We tested him twice, he didn't.
Another immunologist said it looked like he'd been exposed to a burst of radiation. So after the poisoning and everybody got really sick, I filed suit and that's when the fun began. We were bugged, we were followed, and then this weird neurological stuff started happening. My wife started getting severe headaches so bad, the doctor put her on morphine and he couldn't tell what was causing it. He put her on morphine, then she got dementia and and was bedridden.
My oldest son, was having severe headaches. He got the symptoms of PTSD, serious anxiety attacks. My two little kids who who eventually started losing their sight from some neurological issue. And, of course, they went after all of us with whatever this thing was. My son got the worst of it and because I had signed a secrecy agreement and they thought they could use that to shut me up.
Well, I think everybody knows now that that didn't work, but Joey didn't. And so he knew some of the things on that base that they didn't want the public to know about. So I think they went after him with a vengeance and really damaged his him neurological. He was diagnosed, and I have the doctor's diagnosis that I sent you. He was diagnosed with severe PTSD.
He couldn't work, couldn't provide for his family. He sank down into a deep depression, and now we don't know where he is. He's living somewhere in Florida. We're trying to find him. And ever since then to this day, he's been been very, very sick.
My now former wife, because this basically ended our marriage, she has PTSD and is too terrified of the CIA to even speak about it. So we were hit with something that permanently damaged every single one of us neurological neurologically rather. And it wasn't until I put all the pieces together, because I try to stay, you know, with the facts and the evidence that I have and the doctor's diagnosis and all of that, because that's important Right. For credibility sake. And after I put it all together, it became pretty clear to me that we had been hit with some sort of electric weapon that had damaged every single one of us neurologically.
Now an IG officer, senior IG officer came out later and confessed to me that George Tenet and Buzzy Cronengard were ordered to silence and destroy me because they were afraid of people finding out what was on the base. So they had
Speaker 0: to be The head of the CIA. The head of the CIA. And Buzzy Cronengard. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And Buzzy Cromgard. Both of which are now in twilight of the shadow government exposing what they did. This senior IG officer, we we were out as a program. I was a program manager for a company. He came over and sat down, and I knew him very well.
He goes, hey, Kev. I I I just wanna apologize to you. And I said, why, Larry? And he goes, I was a senior officer on the CIIG. We were ordered by George Tenet to silence and destroy you before your family, could, before before your story could come out to the press.
They raised the interest rates on all my CI credit union loans. They blocked loans that we are trying to get to survive and on and on and on it went. But it they hit us with something bad, and every single one of us is still suffering from the effects of that. Both of my younger children are having vision problems. They've got neural damage behind their eyes.
My daughter almost went blind, and my son had exactly the same thing. So I I'm convinced that that they hit us with that. Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: I was gonna say that didn't come from the black mold. That didn't come from the toxins that were in the house. This was separate from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was like a double whammy. The mold and and all the exposure to that and the physical illnesses came. And then when I, blew the whistle and filed suit against them, then that's when all this other stuff hit, the severe headaches, the the insomnia, the nosebleeds, and all of that. They just ramped it up.
And, frankly, it was it was pretty bad. So it was kind of a double a double hit, and I'm convinced now, obviously, that they were hitting with our family with some neurological weapon. And my kids were just collateral damage because they were after me.
Speaker 0: When you look at the documents so I just wanna put up some of these documents here on the screen, Kevin, that you've sent to you've sent to us from the doctors and, and these reports. Can you tell us what we're seeing here, and you can maybe just give us an overview of these documents?
Speaker 1: Sure. First thing they tried is you could never say you worked here without criminal penalties. Well, I was overt for for some time, and I had those pay pay stubs. And I sent them, and I said, oh, no. You don't.
Yes. I can. So I I've got my performance appraisals that I did a foyer. Got those. I think you got copies of those proving where I worked, and and and I was a a top performer in in several of the offices.
Mean, and I'm not
Speaker 0: boasting anything. Out. You are highly decorated and and received multiple internal awards for your service. So this is not like, you know, you're not fabricating this. I've seen the documents.
It you you, of course, written about it in your book as well, so here they are. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's why I put them out not to act like, you know, mister Big, but just to prove to people that I am indeed who I said I was. And and my credentials are out there for people to see. And that's important because the CI tried to stop all of that and then tried to brand me internally as paranoid, and and so I took my family to a psychologist. And you have that document too where the psychologist did did an analysis of her whole family and said, I don't find mister Shipp to be paranoid at all.
As a matter of fact, I'm finding that there is serious neurological damage caused by something that happened on that base. So we have the diagnosis, and we have it in writing. And I got that because I knew exactly what the CI was gonna try to do. I tried to get him cleared so we could talk more openly about it because my family, especially my wife and oldest son, were really suffering. But the CI refused to give him a clearance for two years, so we had to talk around everything with them while essentially my wife and kids had been diagnosed with PTSD.
And these were eight and 12 year old little kids. And my oldest son at that point was, I think he'd just turned 17, innocent of everything. But because they happened to be my family and on that base, they suffered pretty greatly. So I've got the doctor's diagnosis psychologically of what effect this had on everybody's neurology, and then I have the doctor's diagnosis of the immune system destruction of my oldest son from the toxins that were in the house. So they hit me with everything, and I I I'm absolutely convinced that that the CIA has got these weapons.
And and usually when we find out that the CIA has something, it's already twenty years old, and they've improved it dramatically. And now they've got micro nanotechnology, and and the brain is an electrical combination of incredibly complex electrical circuits. Very easy to hit brain neurology with the right kind of weapon and scramble everything and and do some damage, which which, I believe is what they did to me and especially my wife and kids who who still have PTSD. As as I mentioned, my kids still have, problems. They're trying to save their vision.
And my oldest son, Joey, is we don't know where he is. He's disappeared. And he was off the charts with PTSD. That all happened, like, at the same time after we filed suit and I went public.
Speaker 0: You know, every bit of focus and clarity that you feel begins inside your mitochondria, the tiny power plants in your cells. When they weaken, your thinking slows, your energy drops, and even simple tasks feel harder. That's why researchers are so interested in methylene blue. Doctors have used it for more than a century to treat malaria, blood poisoning, cyanide exposure. In a recent year scientists have discovered something even more interesting.
In small controlled doses, methylene blue can support healthy mitochondrial energy production, especially in the brain. Doctor. Anna Jaroslavsky from the University of Massachusetts calls it a cellular reboot because it helps the brain produce cleaner, more efficient energy. In 2025 the hype gained traction. People now use methylene blue to support mental clarity, sharper thinking, healthy aging without relying on stimulants.
But purity matters. Many products online are aquarium grade blue dyes or unregulated powders that are not meant for human use. The wellness company's Recharge is in the league of its own. It's a pharmaceutical grade methylene blue. It's paired with PQQ and NAD, the ultimate brain hack hybrid.
So get 10% off plus free shipping. So head over to twc.health/redacted and use that code redacted to get a nice discount. Feel the difference. Think clear. Recharge.
Speaker 2: Bearskin is a proud sponsor of Redacted, and we are absolutely fans of them. Bearskin has a buffet of items that you can use for cold weather, windy weather, wet weather. It is all weather gear that you need to check out. It's also quite good looking. So go to text redacted at 36912.
We also wanna tell you about the Bearskin hoodie. It is a fantastic that's what you see right there. Fantastic zip up hoodie that can hold up against wind and cold temperatures. It also has several pockets. It also is customizable, with various colors.
And in fact, our kids like them because you know how teenagers don't wear coats to school. It's uncool. And plus when you get inside the building, you don't wanna carry around your coat. A Bearskin hoodie, though, is a great in between, and they will take it. And we've had really cold temperatures like the rest of the country.
So you can get 60% off the Bearskin hoodie today. Text redacted to 36912 or go to bear.skin/redacted. One more time, that's bear.skin/redacted or text redacted to 36912. Bearskin, you'll be so happy that you did.
Speaker 0: It's just so heartbreaking that our that our federal government would do this to an American patriot who was trying to protect the agency. It's absolutely heartbreaking and and demonic. As you write in the book, you know
Speaker 1: It's demonic.
Speaker 0: As you write in the book, one statistic really I wanna go more into this MK Ultra program and these weapons and all of that, but I just wanna say, you know, just to talk about, like, the demons that work in this inside the CIA. There's some good people there, but as you point out in the book, most of them are single. They don't have families. Most of them are alcoholics also. Comes this comes with at least half of them.
That's yeah. They're sad people. Sad, sad people.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's that's so that's a very good point. When you get to the upper levels, especially in operations where the the secrecy is where the power really is, these people are malignant narcissists. They don't believe in the constitution. They believe in their own advancement and the power and advancement of the CI at all costs.
And I'll give you an example. I led a team on an operation down in South America. And when I show up with a team, you always have to meet with the chief of station first before you begin your operation. And so, I went to to the station to meet him, went down in the basement where his office was. He's sitting there kind of in the dark behind a desk with one of those green library lamps, And he said, sit down, Kevin.
So I sat down and he goes leans over his desk, and he goes, let me tell you something, and let's get this straight right now. I'll sell my soul to the devil for an intel. You you got that? Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm just I remember thinking that makes one of us do.
I'm like, whatever, sir. There are it is demonic. And and on this base, I think I've only revealed this in one other interview because it's it kinda ties in the security guards who became my friends because I was really taking good care of them and started telling me they were ordered to surveil our family and follow us. They they got the senior security officer. I'm not gonna mention his name so he didn't get in trouble, but to come to me because they've been having sightings on the base.
And he said, when they when they felt that they could trust me, he said, mister Shipp, can I talk to you about something? The guards are kinda kinda scared of it. I said, yeah. Go ahead. He goes, we keep seeing a figure dressed in a long, long black like coat with this face that looks like a goat.
And now I know from my research that the goat's head is a satanic symbol going way back, And several of the guards had seen this, and I asked him to draw me a picture, and he drew me a picture of Baphomet, which is what he'd seen several times on this base. So I filed that away. I I had kind of a black file where I just kept things like this for when I knew what to do about them. So my son has his friend over to spend the night, and they go for a walk on this base, and I hear this screaming. Adam comes running in first screaming and tearing.
I said, dad, calm down. What's going on? I goes, I just saw I just saw this thing. I'm terrified. I said, what is it?
He goes, it was a figure with a long black coat that had, like, a goat's head, and Joey saw it too. Yeah. So is multiple witnesses. What do you what do you wanna do with that? Well, I think demonic is is the right word.
The CIA at those levels in the dark is demonic, and they do demonic things.
Speaker 0: But that this happens a CIA base.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Yeah. It's a it's a covert CIA base. Even the acronym, you couldn't you couldn't even talk about.
Now it has since been in the Washington Post and the New York Times. I can't say where it is, but they did. But, it it was secret. There's a lot of skeletons buried there that if congress found out, from past illegal CI operations, chemical agents, other things, they would shut the CI down if congress had the cojones. So the base had all the CI skeletons buried there, and some of them were perk percolating up out of the ground.
And
Speaker 0: Literally. Because as you point well, yeah, as you point out in the book, I mean, people would find it, like, stuff coming out of the soil. Yeah. I think it was Agent Orange and some other chemical weapons that were found there buried in the soil that you mentioned. It
Speaker 1: was it was mustard gas and assassination pistols. It was like the earth was trying to spit them out, they were percolating they'd been buried, and they were percolating up and laying on top of the ground. So they didn't want anybody on that base because things like that were buried there and starting to happen. Well, now I knew about it, and Joey had been out walking the base and had actually which he should have done, gone in a couple of the buildings. Many of them were locked.
Some of them were opened, and and saw some of this stuff. And I think that's why they went after him so badly because he he'd signed no secrecy agreement. So there's a bunch of stuff, bunch of skeletons buried
Speaker 0: in would do. I mean, I grew up in a near a forest area, and we'd go out and build forts in the woods that me and my friends. You know, you'd go and you'd find old foundations that were back from the eighteen hundreds and, you know, you'd dig dig around and find, like, an old hearth, you know, an old fireplace and staircases in the woods and things like that. That's what kids are gonna do. So you're living on a secret CIA base.
Teenagers are gonna go out in the middle of the night and look for things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And he went with the commander of the base's son. They both went together exploring. So What do who do think that put him there. You know?
Speaker 0: This weird creature, this weird person, do you think it was a human being wearing this cloak doing some sort of a ritual with other people walking walking through this base?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I have no idea. I just had the accounts and and the drawings of what they saw. You know? Was it a demon or was it was it was it somebody doing a psyop?
Which is very possible doing
Speaker 0: a psyop. Guards were telling you that they saw this. Yeah. So Yeah. They were telling you that they saw these are guards.
So perhaps they didn't even know what this was.
Speaker 1: He didn't. He he didn't he didn't even know what Baphomet was. When he drew the picture, goes, I don't know what this is, but this is what I saw. And it was a Baphomet head on a long black cloaked body. Wow.
Yeah. And then Joey and his friends saw it. What what does that mean? You know, that's the question. Excuse me.
Was it a demonic, or was it some CIA psyops trying to scare everybody, which wouldn't surprise me knowing them on the base just as, you know, just as a as a form of manipulation.
Speaker 0: Let's talk about this MK Ultra program. So people hear this. What do most people think it is, and what what is the truth behind what the MK Ultra program is? I mean, maybe separate from your story or maybe tied directly to what happened to you with this neurological electronic attack.
Speaker 1: Yeah. MKUltra was a horrific CI operation where they were using drugs, different drugs, LSD, mescaline, and other things without the knowledge of the participants to monitor their brain activity. The goal was to to create a born like super soldier who they could program to go into war willing to die and and and just be kind of controlled mentally or be a data mule where they would program an agent, would go and deliver the information to another agent overseas, and then he'd completely forget the information he was just given based based on his programming. So he was a data mule, and if they caught him and interrogated him, they wouldn't find anything. So they were engaging in sexual abuse with these people, sleep deprivation, beatings, even Ted Kaczynski went through MK Ultra, he was think he went through two hundred hours of torture in MK MK Ultra.
Hypnosis, verbal assault, just just basically mental torture to see if they could break the mind down and then reprogram it. And that is basically what the CIA is is is doing those sorts of things, and they do it on in the cover of darkness. And they use various forms of torture too. So and then the the question is, did it go away? When the church committee happened and Frank Church brought it out that MKULTRA existed, well, the the stuff hit the fan, and everybody started screaming, we need more of this.
Well, Richard Helms, the director of the CI, immediately destroyed 10,000 MK Ultra documents so that congress couldn't see them and then threatened the CI officers who were who were due to testify with prison if they violated their secrecy agreement. They tried that with me. So that's one of the means of control. So MK Ultra, they said after the church committee, well, we don't do that anymore. It's been done away with.
Victor Marcetti, who wrote CI and Cult of Intelligence, I don't know if you're aware of that book. He was the first real CI whistleblower. He said, they claimed m MK Ultra stopped at 1973, but he said that's just a cover story. It continued after that. And Victor Marchetti Marchetti was a very well known CI whistleblower who wrote a the the first real book on the CI called CI and Cult of Intelligence.
There's an author, Elizabeth Nicholson, who's done studies. She she is convinced MK Ultra still exists, and one of the classic examples is Sirhan Sirhan, who was one of the shooters that killed Robert Kennedy senior. Sirhan Sirhan, claimed he didn't remember anything about the event at all afterwards, and they went in there and and they tested him psychologically, and he was so programmable. They had him climbing his cell like a monkey. Bobby Kennedy junior and I have become friends because of our both of our kind of disenchantment to say that with the CIA.
And Bobby met with Suha and Suha, and he said he did he had no idea of what what he'd done at all. No memory of it at all. And the psych psychiatrists were easy were so easy. It was so easy rather to program him that that they had him climbing the cell, like I said, like a monkey. And he was, I'm convinced, that MK Ultra subject.
I'm absolutely convinced of this. I don't wanna speak for Bobby Kennedy Junior. We've become friends since, but I think he would probably agree with that as a classic case of it still existing. I did a program and interviewed a lady named Carol Warner, And Carol Warner is the daughter of John Warner, who is the chief counsel for the director of the CI Richard Helms. And Carol Warner said her dad couldn't take it anymore, and MK Ultra was going on.
Her dad, Helms' attorney, quit because of the evil things he was saying. He told her that Richard Helms was the most evil man he'd ever seen, and he just couldn't participate in things like MKUltra. I interviewed her, and she has since become a psychotherapist and has several cases of patients that have been subject of MK Ultra and display all the symptoms. She's out there right I think it's carolwarner.com, I think is her website. And she's still interviewing people in their adult years that underwent this kind of psychological torture.
Speaker 0: So they they tell us that it went away in 1973. And just to get some timelines out here, of course, the RFK assassination was 1968. So Mhmm. Carried on well past that. We've heard from other MK Ultra whistleblowers who've come forward and talked about it in the years since.
And why would they give up such a powerful weapon? You can mind control individuals who can carry out assassinations or pretend to be an assassin as a patsy and be caught while actual CIA agents are actually shooting and killing JFK or shooting and killing RFK in a kitchen Yeah. In Los Angeles. So it's a very convenient. And then we can see, of course, what's been unfolding over the past couple of months, you know, assassination of Charlie Kirk and and all of these things.
So it seems like it's still very prevalent. But maybe you can talk about Venezuela because we we reported here a few weeks ago on Redacted that they used a directed energy weapon, and covering, of course, what Venezuelan soldiers were saying they were seeing as these operations were these special forces were coming into into Venezuela, and they'd never seen anything like it. Their men, their soldiers just sort of collapsed on the floor, felt like their heads were exploding. And then we heard from president Trump who then confirmed it. Well, first from Carolyn Leavitt, the sec the press secretary, and then from president Trump himself confirming it.
So this whole, like, idea of a conspiracy theory. Now I've talked to separate sources who tell me that the technology they use in Venezuela is well over 20 years old.
Speaker 1: That's correct. And
Speaker 0: and as you pointed out, very often when we learn about this technology, you said it about twenty minutes ago, it's been around then for like twenty years. By the time we actually start to hear about it, it's already been around for twenty years. So this technology goes back about twenty years. According to my sources, Russia has it and has used it in Ukraine. China has it, has access to the same almost the exact same type of technology.
So do you see similarities with MK Ultra and what we saw in Venezuela? Sorry. It's a long question.
Speaker 1: No. No. No worries. Oh, yeah. Yeah.
They did use that weapon up there without question. There are witnesses that witnessed them using it. No doubt about it. And and, that's part of the reason they were able to go in so quickly and so successfully is they just mentally put down the adversary with that weapon. That's I think that's pretty much an established fact, that they used it there.
And, knowing what the CIA does, to destroy whistleblowers, I Gary Webb is a prime example. They drove him to well, they wound up in a hotel room with two bullets in his head. They claimed it was a suicide, but they literally drove him into a deep depression by destroying every part of his life, and they have a whole program to do that. They tried it on me to ruin you mentally, financially, take away your health insurance, your your retirement, threaten you with prison if you violate the state's secret privilege and just destroy you mentally and physically to shut you up. Now I I humbly am a person of faith, so I kinda answer to a higher authority, and I was not afraid of them.
Plus, I was them. I was a high ranking officer, so I knew what they were gonna do and was two steps ahead of them every time, like getting my attorney clear, which they didn't they didn't bank on me being prepared like that. They they're doing these evil things, and they're doing it to to people's minds, especially whistleblowers or or anybody in the case of Gary Webb, a journalist who digs too deep. That's why journalists don't do it. They're afraid of CIA retribution, and we we're not seeing any journalistic investigations of the CIA anymore because they're terrified of them because they want them to be afraid of that.
Speaker 0: When you look back at the weapon that was used on you and this neurological attack, have you been able to dig more deeply into it? You have the documentation from the doctors on this and what was happening to your children's site, PTSD, dementia in your wife, what was happening to you. Have you been able to identify maybe specifically from your research what this weapon is?
Speaker 1: No. Not specifically. And that's that's one of the problems with the abuse of secrecy. You know, they they're concealing this, so we we can't find out exactly how these things work except for the overt use of them like in in Venezuela and other places. No.
I know that that weapons and science out there exist to alter the human mind like that and and damage the human mind in some university studies. Now would the CIA use those studies? You're darn tooting they will. The the the CIA is all about control, and it it it it's helpful to remember. I think most people do that the CIA has no morals whatsoever.
It's a dark at the upper levels, the 20% upper levels. It is a dark demonic agency that will do anything to accomplish its mission in its own eyes, its version of national security, which is the preservation of the CIA, they will do anything. Would they do this? Absolutely. If there are university studies on on neurological attacks, would they use that and and in the science department expand on that?
You bet they would. Have I seen that weapon, personally? No. I have not. And so that's the that's the dilemma because this stuff is so highly classified, and and they're holding it, so not even congress can see what they're doing.
Like the church committee, they destroyed Frank Church's career. If you remember, they threatened Frank Church. The CIA did and said if you take this any further, we're gonna ruin your career. Well, he did because he was a good man. And sure enough, they ruined his career, and both he and Otis Pike lost their elections the next time around.
Congress today is afraid of that. That's why they're manipulated by the CIA also, which brings me to an another important point if I may. Sure. There's mass mind control by the CIA. In that, they've got congress and and senate terrified of them if they dig too deep.
Remember the famous quote by Chuck Schumer? If you cross the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you, and he was serious. Well, they do. I know. I've I've been there.
So congressmen and senators, even on the oversight committees, know if they dig too too deep in the CIA, it's the end of their career, and they don't wanna go there. That's why we're not seeing reform.
Speaker 0: Do you see similarities, or maybe this is the same type of weapon from what we've seen with Havana syndrome reports? I do. I think it's the same type of weapon.
Speaker 1: I think it's even more sophisticated than that. I think they've got the frequencies down more sophisticated than that. And I think Havana syndrome, I think that's old technology personally, and I think they've advanced on that. I'm I'm convinced of that.
Speaker 0: I'm trying to understand some of the mechanics here. Maybe you can paint a picture without telling us this base specifically, but you're at this secret CIA base that's, as you mentioned, it's been now revealed in the New York Times and the Washington Post, I understand you can't say where it is. But maybe you could just describe the house that you were in and what was around you. And did you see anything that led you to believe that this weapon was being used in a truck or from a mile away, two miles away? Have you thought about that or researched that?
Speaker 1: Well, we had trucks, parked, two streets down from our house all the time. And we also knew that that there was a they actually chief of the base was in the woods doing something when when I first filed our suit. And then when we moved to Jacksonville, Florida, my my now current wife, there were vehicles parked right outside our house with a man and a woman just sitting in them, and I went out in one case and confronted him, and they just drove off looking straight ahead. But during that time, my current wife, both of us got hit with this severe depression at the same time that lasted about two days out of nowhere. She herself would testify some some something's going on.
We were hit with something. So they're doing it, but they're doing it under the cloak of secrecy, which as you know, my mission is to come out and expose the CIA's grotesque abuse of secrecy to cover up its criminal activity. This is one example. Some of the UAVs that we're seeing, that's another example of of programs that that are highly classified. In some cases, as Mike Pompeo and James Woolsey, former directors of the CIA said, the CIA is engaging in operations that not even the director of the CIA knows about, at least the upper level parts of the agency.
It's dark. It's immoral. Doesn't believe in the constitution, and that's what we have to address and do something about.
Speaker 0: How widespread do you think this program is MKUltra today? Do you think it's I mean, now it's probably buried deep deep down and at the highest levels classified. But, you know, if you were to say there's a 100 people working on this program, 50 people working on this program, they've got agents around the world who are fully aware of it. There's sleeper agents like Jason Bourne style agents who have been manipulated in this way. How big do you think it is at this stage in 2026?
Speaker 1: This kind of program, they they would have, at least a branch level staff, probably division level staff that would would be running this thing. And I've spoken all over the country and and on this issue, and I've had multiple people come up to me that were targeted individuals that were being one day, they're normal, and and the next day, they're they're being hit with symptoms of of schizophrenia or symptoms of severe anxiety and they've actually come up and pleaded with me to for help. There's a lot of people out there that this is happening. Carol Warner, the lady I talked about who's who's treating some of these people has multiple patients coming in that have been subjects of MK Ultra and she's as a therapist she's absolutely convinced. So there's a lot of people out there that are suffering from this and some of them have gotten together with targeted individual groups, and and and it's tough because I've met some of them.
I'm convinced that they are being hit with these weapons. A former NASA scientist and his wife came up to me, and and I was absolutely. They were being hit. And then other people, you you don't know if, well, you know, is this a chemical imbalance? Or well, if they didn't have the chemical imbalance one day and the next morning they do, okay.
There's some something's going on there. So with with secret programs, it's like reaching out in the dark trying to find a cause, which is why the system is so diabolical. So Yeah. I'm convinced that that these exist. I I know there will CIA whistleblowers out there that will never have a star on the wall that were destroyed.
We'll never have a star on the wall, will never be heard from in their lives. I know of at least one person whose lives are completely ruined, and it was mentally. So, I'm convinced it exists, and, someone's gotta investigate it somehow. I wish we'd see another church committee. I don't think congress has the guts to do it, to to take that risk.
So as I always say, it's up to we, the people, to start demanding that congress take an action and reform the CIA, something that Bobby Kennedy junior, especially, and I are passionate about, taking the CIA apart and taking its gross abuse of secrecy and clandestine operation away from it and and put it in a new agency or some other agency that's accountable to congress.
Speaker 0: Wouldn't that be great? I mean, we, you know, we see, like, the USAID program. Right? It was all a big uproar. We're dismantling this, you know, this democrat machine that's, funneling money to different countries.
It's a big money laundering operation. It's doing all sorts of horrible illegal things, including child trafficking. So Yeah. Yeah. We can all get behind removing USAID, and then what happens is it gets reformulated and and funneled underneath Marco Rubio's state department.
So, know, it's it's not called USAID. Yeah. Still there. Still operating. You know, in many ways, it's maybe as nefar maybe now more nefarious because it was out in the open.
Now it's being hidden. And I I I worry about that. Like, that's what I worry about. If we dismantle the CIA, you know, you've got you've got the Space Force has its own intelligence program now. What are there?
18 of these intelligence agencies now?
Speaker 1: Total agencies involved in secret intelligence work. And, Clayton, in terms of mind control, what that means is, for example, all the CIA's contractors like Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Booz Allen Hamilton, all of those, they have tens of thousands. I think it's over over a million at least employees that have a CIA clearance, have signed a CIA secrecy agreement as part of that contract and are now absolutely controlled by the CIA. We'll never speak out because it means the end of their career, provision for their family, their health insurance, and their retirement. So there are tens of thousands of Americans out there bound by this system, which is another form of mass mind control, in my opinion, that they're frozen and they can't see it.
Even even if they see something illegal or unconstitutional, which some do, they they're terrified to say anything about it because the CI will hit them with violating their secrecy agreement, which they tried to do to me, and threaten them with prison. And that's how they do it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I one night not too long ago, I was I wasn't drinking, but this individual who worked for Northrop Grumman was drinking and, revealed that he was working for Northrop Grumman and that he signed, you know, he has secret clearance and he can't talk about things, but I said it's pretty dark stuff, as you know, and he he fully admitted that's it would shock the American people if they knew what dark things
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: That they were working on, but he's, like, sworn to secrecy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Lockheed Martin is the, domestic surveillance spying arm of the CIA. And a lot of people don't know this. Lockheed Martin
Speaker 0: has an intelligence contract. He worked he worked for Lockheed, not Northrop Grady. Lockheed. Yes.
Speaker 1: That's a bad one.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's a bad one. Lockheed Martin has a contract intelligence contract where they scan every piece of mail that comes through the US post office, and most people don't know that. And I've gotten several letters that were preopened. I mean, I joke and say, yeah. There are some perks being a CI whistleblower.
My mail is open before I get it. Well, sadly, that's true. With the first batch of twilight of the shadow government came, I have a picture out on Twitter. When when the my box of twilight of the shadow government, which, see, I tried to stop game, it it had been sliced open and someone had been in there. So Lockheed monitors The US mail, and they monitor, our mail that goes through the the the US post office.
They're a massive CIA contractor.
Speaker 0: Do would you say every piece of mail is monitored by Lockheed Martin?
Speaker 1: That's what I understand. Every piece of mail or or suspicion. The mail that they they wanna target, like me, for example. I don't know. But they have a program where they have the authority to monitor every single piece of mail that comes to the US post office, whether they look at them all or just specific targeted ones.
I would think they do specific targeted ones just by the sheer volume, but they're doing it. Wow. Wow. And that could explain why if you're expecting something important, it seems to
Speaker 0: take longer, you know, if you've got a target on your back. Why? It was supposed to be here two days. It no. It's it's taken a week and a half.
That's odd. That's really odd.
Speaker 1: Never arrived. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly. I know all about that. I'm just curious about this weapon. I just I I keep coming back to it because Sure.
I'm sure you're connecting the dots for a lot of Americans, lot of people who've maybe been subject to these type of weapons by the CIA. I've spoken to whistleblowers in the MK Ultra program who've told me absolutely horrible things where they've been programmed they've been programmed to watch members of the US military fight to the death. US Army standing and forced forced to watch under this program as US Army members are fighting to the death in front of them. This is part of some of this programming, where they have to, like, then compartmentalize it and not remember it, and they're only able to, like, recall it once they get out, And then they're targeted permanently. I'm talking programs where they won't even drive cars anymore where they have electronics in the cars because they've been run off the road.
So they just drive bikes. They ride bikes now. Yeah. Because that's how son.
Speaker 1: That exact same thing happened to my son. Yeah. Yep. They're doing it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He was run off the road?
Speaker 1: He was run off the road. He was followed, tailed, and then they they came up and slammed his card, ran him off the road. And a couple that was on the scene called me to say this no. It's true that we saw it happen. And then they took off.
And Joey said, look, dad. This happened, and here's to and sure enough, that's what happened. They did, they did several things to him because I think they they consider him a threat because he never signed a secrecy agreement, and he knows a lot of what is on that base. And his mail was routinely open. So and what what does a 17 year old kid do when the most powerful dark organization in the world is targeting you every day?
And and they they are. They were. Imagine what that does to a young young kid's mind. It's only 17 years old.
Speaker 0: You know? Can't imagine. Awful. Awful. So just as I wrap things up here, just wanna talk a little bit more about this weapon and how you felt the effects of this.
Were you just sitting there reading a book, reading a newspaper, watching the news, and suddenly you just felt felt odd, or was it a slow a slow burn?
Speaker 1: No. It was immediate. In the case of my wife and I, we're sitting there in the living room and all of a sudden oh. And and we just go into this deep depression, both of us at the same time, and it stayed for two days. We we're like, I I knew what it was.
I told her, said, honey, we're being hit. That she's absolutely convinced. Two days, it was gone. It was just removed. That's what it's like.
And on the base with, the headaches and the bloody noses and things, boom. It just hit virtually overnight. So, yeah, you start you start feeling this horrible anxiety, and your head just hits you like this. And, I mean, it's awful. You try to sleep at night, and then and there it is, you know, just just kinda vibrating.
You start slipping into this deep, depression. You start having nightmares, and then boom. It's gone. So, that's what it's like. At least that's my experience, what it's been like.
Speaker 0: And from your experience, you see these cars parked near your house. Would you think it's something local, like it's a local sort of microwave focused attack, or is it something that's done remotely from, like, a thousand miles away?
Speaker 1: Not today. I think, in some cases, they have these things in mobile and vehicles. Other cases, they they can go I understand a distance of up to a mile to target somebody specifically. Think think about the technology. They can read our faces from via satellite in space.
They can identify facial recognition from a satellite. So that that's the kind of technology they have with these weapons. The the cars parked outside our house were routinely a man and a woman in a sedan just sitting there looking straight ahead motionless, just sitting there until I started going out and confronting him with a flashlight. And then they just looking straight ahead would just drive away. It happened routinely.
And we were followed, of course, my current wife and I. So that's why my mission is to is to reveal to the American people what the CIA is and especially in this case, because I'm convinced they're they've tormented and are tormenting a lot of people that they consider aren't marching to to the orders coming down from the national security state. Based on Palantir and other things now and predictive programming, if if you're against the national security state, that automatically makes you a target on their list. And in the war on terror, which got rid of the constitution and the Patriot Act, they can do these things to you if they consider you a threat to national security.
Speaker 0: Well, look at James Fishback. Right? He's running for governor of Florida. He just announced yesterday that he will make Palantir illegal in the state of Florida, and I thought, oh, boy. Awesome.
Speaker 1: Good luck with good luck with trying that. I hope he's successful.
Speaker 0: Hope he's successful too, but I thought, man, who just put a who just put a huge target on his back. Right? Yeah. Yeah. By these demonic forces.
Unbelievable, Kevin. I mean, what you've told us today, and, I encourage, you know, our audience, please go read Twilight of the Shadow Government. It's an incredible book. We'll have it linked up in the description below. But just above and beyond that, thank you for trying to shine a light on MK Ultra, these nefarious weapons that they have access to and what they're doing to American patriots who are trying to get our country back to the constitution, to our founding principles in this nation, and it's just it's so heartbreaking.
So thank you for sharing your story. Thank you for your bravery, Kevin.
Speaker 1: And, Clayton, I wanna mention too, I I came on your show. I've been watching you guys for about a year, and, you're one of the shows I trust, both you and Natalie. And and that's why I've come on your show to talk about these things because I I I really admire you guys and your program and and your objective journalism. So thank you too.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate that. I that means a lot. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you for your bravery, and, we'll talk soon.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Sounds good. Thank you, Clayton. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 The Epstein files took a wild turn. The docs hint he discussed Fort Knox years ago. Now Trump unveils Project Vault, China pushes the yuan, and the UK is in turmoil. Is the old global order cracking wide open? https://t.co/TathinA7tM
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Epstein allegedly used a payphone in solitary confinement to advise Bear Stearns and JPMorgan during the 2008 financial collapse, making a collect call to Bear Stearns’ Jimmy Cain and another to a JPMorgan contact who was, at the time, attempting to buy Bear Stearns. The speakers discuss two phones and the difficulty of avoiding self-harm fears in jail, noting Epstein’s involvement with people tied to Bush-era treasury circles. They also reference Epstein’s supposed reaction to calls and imply conspiracy about elite globalization circles.
- The discussion shifts to Epstein’s credibility and the broader implications: they claim Epstein’s communications shed light on “peak globalization” and that the globalists allowed Epstein’s activities to proceed. They assert Epstein is alive and that his body was swapped in prison, arguing the noose was swapped as well. They also say Epstein admitted involvement with gold at Fort Knox in related materials, though not as a direct personal verification of missing gold.
- On Fort Knox specifically, they explain that the Epstein materials include a forwarded 2011 email referencing a sensational claim that Fort Knox is empty, circulating among Epstein’s circle years before public debates about auditing Fort Knox. They contrast this with the official position: Fort Knox holds about 147,000,000 ounces of gold, with the treasury secretary and others assuring audits confirm accountability. They note attempts by Rand Paul to view the gold and references to a planned livestream from the vault that did not occur.
- The narrative then connects current events: the Epstein revelations, China’s moves on currency, and the US’s response to supply chain risks. They describe President Trump’s Project Vault—a roughly $12 billion critical minerals stockpile to protect U.S. manufacturing from supply shocks and reduce reliance on China, aiming to secure minerals like lithium, nickel, silver, and gold for defense and technology needs.
- They outline three concurrent strands: (1) Epstein files detonating public trust in elites and showing the interconnections of the globalist network; (2) the U.S. hardening its real-world economy with critical mineral stockpiles; (3) China pushing to elevate the yuan to global reserve currency status, necessitating credibility, deep markets, stable rules, and long-term commodity access.
- They note the end of the START treaty with Russia, suggesting a potential new Cold War dynamic and a larger role for uranium/strategic nuclear buildup. The speakers argue that China’s reserve-currency ambitions require long-term mineral security and a robust physical economy, and that U.S. actions in mineral reserves and hard assets are intertwined with global currency influence.
- They frame Epstein as part of a broader narrative of elite influence over geopolitics, economy, and currency, arguing the next months will be “absolutely insane” as these forces unfold, and invite audience input on likely prosecutions of top political figures.
- Sponsor segment: Xi’s February 1, 2026 move to make the yuan a global reserve currency is presented as a declaration of currency warfare on the U.S. dollar, while Project Vault and a U.S. critical minerals event with David Copley, J.D. Vance, and Marco Rubio are positioned as pivotal to reshaping U.S. mineral supply chains and reindustrialization. The segment promotes StreamX (ticker STEX) on Nasdaq, claiming it could disrupt the gold ETF space with a fully backed, vaulted, audited, insured gold product (GLDY) yielding up to 4%, supported by strong insider ownership and notable investors like Frank Juistra and others; StreamX is described as potentially transformative in the gold market, leveraging a platform built by cybersecurity-grade developers and aiming to compete with GLD by offering yield on gold.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hang on. Wait a second. Wait just a damn second. Epstein was openly commenting on Fort Knox's lack of gold, and this sick pedophile claims he was on a a payphone from his jail cell with the head of Bear Stearns and JP Morgan while the two thousand eight collapse was happening in real time, giving advice to these sick people, people tied directly to the Bush's US treasury secretary team. He made a collect call to Bear Stearns and then his second call to JPMorgan.
Speaker 1: How did you hear about what was gonna happen to Lehman Brothers, and what did you immediately think when you heard they was gonna be put into bankruptcy?
Speaker 2: I'm glad you asked that question. I was in solitary confinement. You can dial a number and the when the person picks up, they say, you're getting a call from the Palm Beach County Jail. Will you accept reverse charges? The person I called was Jimmy Cain, the president of Bear Stearns.
And I said, tell me what's going on. The question you wanna ask is who was the other call to?
Speaker 1: Okay. Who was the other call to?
Speaker 2: The other call was to my friend at JPMorgan who was then, I didn't know at the time, trying to buy Bear Stearns. So at one point, I had two phones. It was difficult because they're afraid people are gonna hang themselves with the phone cord so they don't actually come together when they're pretty short. So I was actually going between two phones talking to Bear Stearns and JPMorgan at the same time. So I found it amusing.
Speaker 0: This really just gives you some deep insight into the peak globalization kind of stuff that was running our government. These globalists accepted a pedophile's phone call from solitary confinement to help with the banking collapse. That's how out to lunch these people were. Like, get Epstein on the phone from prison. By the way, does that sound like a guy who'd commit suicide?
I mean, hearing him, he's kinda, like, laughing and hell no. This guy didn't commit suicide. Plenty of evidence this pedophile is still alive today, actually. The body's switched out at the correctional facility. Another person entering his cell now that we see the video.
Is he alive and well living in Israel somewhere? Well, the body they found hanging in the cell was not Epstein at all, clear as day. That's pretty darn clear at this point, actually. And this morning, we now know that the noose that was used was also swapped out. So I wasn't convinced, but now I'm fully convinced that this guy is alive and well.
And, I mean, when you just thought the Epstein files couldn't possibly have anything more shocking to share, we even have Epstein's admission about this gold at Fort Knox part of the story. This guy had his dirty little mitts in everything, and the globalists allowed all of it. So buckle up because we have a lot to unpack as it relates to everything happening right now with the US dollar, China's big moves this week, our gold reserves, what's left of it if we have any, Trump's precious metals vault plan that he just announced this week, and the total globalist collapse we are witnessing. Heck, we even have the collapse of the British government as we speak all tied to Epstein, all tied to this whole story. So we're gonna get to all of that.
So what was Epstein admitting about the gold at Ford Knox? Because a lot of people are gonna run with one headline and just run with it. Don't do that. You separate what the files actually show from what people want them to prove about a particular story. So on the Fort Knox angle, what's circulating isn't Epstein confessing that he personally verified missing gold.
What's in the Epstein related materials is a forwarded 2011 email referencing a sensational claim that Fort Knox is empty. So this was years before we had this move by Elon Musk and Donald Trump to audit Fort Knox. Empty. Gone. This was being shared with Epstein and his friends, pointing out that yes, the vault is actually empty, that the government sold off vast quantities of gold and never refilled it.
So what did Epstein actually know about this? What did his billionaire friends believe? Well, they believed there was nothing really there, that it was empty, that it was all fake. And, of course, the official position is that Fort Knox holds about 147,000,000 ounces of gold, with the treasury secretary saying, hey. Don't worry about it.
Scott Benson saying, don't worry about it. The gold is accounted for through audits. Nothing to see here. Don't worry about it. Just move along.
Can we see it actually? No. Like Kentucky senator Rand Paul, can he see it?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I've been trying to go down and see the gold and make sure it's all there for about ten years.
Speaker 0: What about that, like, livestream that we were gonna see from the vault itself? Elon Musk was gonna livestream it as part of the Doge revelations. No. Not gonna happen. President Trump was gonna fly there and see it himself.
That didn't happen. It's very curious. Right? But here's why this matters anyway. It tells you what kind of narratives were circulating in the same circles where Epstein moved, stories about power, money, what's real inside the system.
It shows you that unelected globalists like Epstein were running everything. Now zoom out to February 2026 right now, and this week, the globalists are panicking. We've just seen the biggest Epstein files released yet, millions of documents, images, videos, triggering investigations, resignations, political shock waves all across Europe among these globalists. And one of the biggest names getting hammered is in The UK right now, former senior minister and ex US ambassador Peter Mendelson. He's now at the center of a UK police investigation into alleged misconduct in public office, where Mendelson allegedly leaked state secrets and marked sensitive information to Epstein while serving in government.
It's in the Epstein files. State secrets. Police have searched properties linked to him as part of the probe now. That's now had been admitted, and now the Starmer government could collapse on the, through the weight of this. We can see tomorrow on Monday what what actually happens because we've gotten multiple calls for Starmor to resign, which is happening right now as we speak on this Sunday.
And that's where this starts intersecting with the economic story because while all of this political class is sinking fast, The US is moving to harden its real world foundations of power right now, industry, supply chains, hard inputs against China we saw this week. This was all happening, by the way, this week during the Epstein upheaval. President Trump announcing Project Vault, a roughly $12,000,000,000 critical minerals stockpile designed to protect American manufacturing from supply shocks and reduce our reliance on China. Does it have anything to do with what's at Fort Knox? The goal is blunt: build a strategic reserve of rare earth minerals lithium, nickel, silver, gold, the stuff that makes modern weapons, batteries, grids, and advanced tech all possible.
We don't have enough of it, and we need it.
Speaker 3: For years, American businesses have risked running out of critical minerals during market disruptions. Today, we're launching what will be known as project vault to ensure that American businesses and workers are never harmed by any shortage. We don't wanna ever go through what we went through a year ago.
Speaker 0: So this is not an abstract policy paper. This is an earthquake. The US is literally building a vault for minerals the way it built strategic petroleum oil reserves. Now keep that in your mind because here comes the third leg of the stool this week, China and the currency war. Now this all unfolded this week while everyone was scouring the Epstein files.
Xi Jinping just dropped like an atom bomb. In Beijing, Xi Jinping announced a message that would have sounded unthinkable like a generation ago. The yuan, also known as renminbi, they want it to become the world's global reserve currency. Xi Jinping called for China to build a powerful currency with reserve status, widely using it in trade, investment, foreign exchange markets, toppling the US dollar. So you've got three tracks all moving at the same time here.
One, you have the Epstein files detonating public trust, exposing how connected the elite world really is, and they're all connected in deeply disgusting circles. How all these sickos operate give them all cover a globalist collapse is happening. Two. The US responding to China's export controls by stockpiling real world inputs, critical minerals, all happening. And then three, you have China signaling it wants to challenge the US dollar's position, and that means it needs credibility and a real economic footprint that makes other nations willing to hold your currency.
Oh, and by the way, also this week with in the midst of all of this, we had the end of our START treaty with Russia. So that means are we entering a new cold war of building massive amounts of new nuclear weapons? Because we don't have a treaty anymore. Like, that is up in smoke. So all of this is happening, and China knows that the reserve currency status is built on confidence, deep markets, stable rules, no volatility, And yes, commodity leverage.
Lots of commodities. Silver, gold, all of it. Which is why the mineral story and this currency story are the exact same story. So if China wants the yuan taken seriously, it needs trade priced in yuan and inputs secured for decades. If The US wants to defend the US Dollar's influence, it has to lock down right now a physical economy in The United States, and it was sold off by Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
We need mineral reserves. So if Epstein is right and Fort Knox is empty, we've got a lot of building to do. If you wanna understand why the middle class feels like it's been squeezed for years, mean, at who controlled all the choke points here Everyone else was distracted. People like Epstein working on behalf of Israel and other foreign governments, selling America's middle class down the river. We see it in the Epstein files.
Epstein openly talking about creating chaos in Ukraine to make lots of money. So working with the CIA and Mossad and MI6, we absolutely know that's the case an intelligence asset selling the American middle class down the river. That's why we're seeing a new world order forming in real time trust collapsing, elite pedophiles being exposed, currencies competing alongside stockpiles of real precious minerals Really, the stuff that makes the modern world run. So the next few months, guys, are gonna be absolutely insane. Absolutely insane.
And by the way, how many of you think we're gonna see prosecutions? How many of you think we're gonna see prosecutions in The United States? We're gonna start to see Bill and Hillary Clinton testifying before congress. Will any of them be prosecuted, or all of these globalists just kinda get off scot free because they're all being protected? Let me know down below.
So that's the news update part of today's video. Now I wanna tell you about today's sponsor, which is tied to everything we just talked about with precious minerals. The financial world just felt basically the equivalent of a nine point o magnitude earthquake because on February 1, as I mentioned, Xi Jinping, Chinese Communist Party officially threw down the gauntlet, publishing a definitive mandate to transform the yuan into a global reserve currency. This is a full scale declaration of war on The US Dollar's eighty year hegemony. And on top of this bombshell, we just saw president Trump signing project Vault into existence.
And immediately after that, vice president J. D. Vance along with secretary Rubio and the critical minerals czar for the White House, David Copley, They hosted a major critical minerals event with world leaders. Again, this is history in the making right now in 2026. The reshaping of the mineral supply chains to feed the reindustrialization of The United States Of America.
This is all tied to this revolution that's happening in demand for ownership of major commodities by the world's richest and largest institutions and individuals. Frankly, I want to be part of this early stage opportunity, so I've been searching for big ideas in this capacity. Just as an example, before 2004, there was no gold ETF. The advent of gold allowed investors to suddenly start owning gold more easily, and now the GLD ETF generates a management fee for its owner and company of $170,000,000,000 of assets under management. So ETFs, exchange traded funds, made gold trading accessible to a much larger audience in much the same way that Blockbuster Video made movies accessible to moviegoers who just didn't wanna go to the movies and wanna stay home on their couch and watch them.
Right? But the next revolution that could make the ETFs of today greatly challenged by better new competitors might be here right now with today's sponsor, and that is StreamX. They're trading on the Nasdaq. Yes. It's on the Nasdaq.
Here's the ticker on your screen. It's s t e x. Now I wanna come out and tell you right off the bat that I am bullish on this company. It's a core holding in my personal long term portfolio. Imagine it's 2004, and you're in the room when the idea of launching a gold ETF is pitched to you to help incorporate it.
You could have been a founding member of a financial product that now manages 170,000,000,000 in assets and collects massive fees on top of that. This could be the ultimate commodity stock right now because legends are piling into this stock like Frank Giustra, who pioneered the gold and silver royalty business. He's had multiple successful billion dollar precious metals deals. And right now he turned his attention to StreamX, with insider buying happening regularly. So the insiders are acquiring aggressively.
Their new gold product will generate a yield for holders. It will potentially revolutionize the entire gold space. This is all happening in 2026. So StreamX on the Nasdaq went public just a few months ago, and to me, their flagship debut product, the GLDY. It offers up to a 4% yield on a one:one fully backed, vaulted, audited, redeemable, and 100% insured gold product.
It's basically a Netflix versus Blockbuster moment right now for the new gold bull market that's happening. No one else offers yield on gold. Conduct your own due diligence on this company because shares are trading right now near all time lows as we speak. Could be one of the most monumental and significant developments in gold and commodities we've ever seen. Everybody understands how Blockbuster's business model became totally obsolete and outdated almost overnight when Netflix offered the exact same content but through streaming services and DVDs sent by mail.
Blockbuster went out of business, and Netflix went from launching its first stream to becoming one of the largest companies on Earth. Went from 12¢ a share to $80 a share. Think about that. Think about having first mover advantage and owning a piece of a competitor to the ETF's market and then earning fees from the marketplace that StreamX is creating. So their chief investment officer, mister Mitchell Williams, who not only ran WAFRA, which is a Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund, who's also one of the sole portfolio managers for Oppenheimer's flagship value fund.
And then you have billionaire mining tycoon Frank Juister, who I've talked about extensively here on this show, along with who I consider to be a mining legend. You had Sean Roosin who are well aware of the opportunity. So both are shareholders of Streamx, and they advise the board by the way. Frank Justra just invested heavily to the tune of 18,200,000.0 shares. That's roughly worth about $50,000,000 in current worth.
Over 50% of the shares on this company are owned by insiders. The two co founders each own 21,000,000 shares, worth just north of $60,000,000 so significant skin in the game for the people that are leading this revolution. So StreamX purchased Gold Bullion for its own balance sheet. They are very likely to be one of the only or one of the first publicly traded companies to own gold on their books. Now the platform itself was developed by the same software experts that build cybersecurity infrastructure for Capital One Bank, Bank of America, JPMorgan's credit card processing infrastructure business, one of the largest fintech platforms in the world, of course.
So I wanna make you fully aware of this at a ground floor level right now, again, trading at near all time lows. So what I'm telling you is that Streamx seeks to compete with GLD and others by offering a fully backed, fully vaulted, audited, and insured GLDY product that actually generates up to a 4% yield and disrupt the ETF model, and then take share from it, and the company was just birthed a few months ago. So every day, two ninety five billion changes hands in the gold market. Imagine StreamX as a first mover is able to turn some of that volume to their own proprietary platform. So if successful, Streamx shareholders will effectively own one of the world's largest and most disruptive commodities marketplaces.
So guys, deep dive this. Do your own due diligence on StreamX. Again, it's on the Nasdaq. I'll have links in the description below for you to do your own homework, and we'll see you next time, everyone.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Will Israel EVER be held accountable? And what about Epstein's ties to Mossad? Some forces are FURIOUS that this person refuses to fund foreign wars and give YOUR money to other countries! #Israel #Epstein https://t.co/kCXjWa2071
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad.
Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now.
Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Will we see Israel held accountable and and questioned for their their part, their role? Maybe what Jeffrey Epstein was doing with Mossad?
Speaker 1: Can you tell me without giving into specifics, are there forces that tried to influence you to stop doing what you're doing now?
Speaker 0: Like, I wouldn't vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, but they were mad at me because I was like, no. I'm not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever or no. I think Israel's doing just fine. We don't need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
‼️EXCLUSIVE: @mtgreenee Pulls back the cannibalistic veil on the Epstein Files, and the cover-up is SO MUCH WORSE than what you've been being told. You can't afford to miss this exclusive interview. https://t.co/TArHjXKz0x
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents.
Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security.
Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act.
Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law.
Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed.
Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting.
Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files.
Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the unredacted Epstein files have made their way to Capitol Hill today. Congressman congressman Ro Khanna and congress congressman Thomas Massey got a chance a few minutes ago to start viewing the unredacted Epstein files. You know, the ones where someone says they love the torture video or they love that 11 year old girl. Let's do it all again. Yeah.
All of that really disgusting stuff that has been redacted by the DOJ. It wasn't supposed to be. Why was it? Huge portions of the files they did, and Pam Bondi didn't comply with the Epstein Transparency Act, which may be why they've been shoving Todd Blanche out there in front of the cameras. I don't know.
You might have also noticed this ad last night during the Super Bowl. Watch.
Speaker 1: After years of being kept apart, we're standing together. Standing. Standing together. Because this girl deserves the truth. Because she deserves the truth.
Because we all deserve the truth.
Speaker 0: Ouch. Absolutely. Also early this morning, Epstein's child sex trafficking girlfriend, Ghislain Maxwell, was on Capitol Hill to appear before congress. When asked direct questions, she plead the fifth. Of course, Rokana's response to this was, here was my conclusion.
After sitting through Maxwell's deposition with her refusing to answer a single question about the men who raped underage girls, saying she would do so only for clemency. She wants to be let out, of course. She must immediately be sent back to the maximum security prison where she belongs. Of course, not in that cushy little, like, country club that she's currently hanging out in. So what questions?
Why did the DOJ fail to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act? Of course, congressman Massey on our show last week spilled the beans about it. He was asked about this yesterday. What answers does he want? Listen.
Speaker 2: But the one thing I want is the one thing the DOJ is not releasing, which is the names of the clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring. So they've either over redacted the files in some cases or just completely omitted files in other cases. The, unfortunate thing that they've also failed at is they have released victims' names.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Someone who knows just how dark and deceitful and satanic these Washington pedophiles can be is former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who thankfully got out of that disgusting swamp. And but she is a truth teller, and she has been all along. Congresswoman, great to see you. Thank you for joining us here on Redacted for the first time.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me today.
Speaker 0: It's our pleasure. So just at a high level, I wanna get your response to this. First of all, the Super Bowl ad calling on the Department of Justice to actually release what they said they what what they are compelled to release under the law that the president signed into law, and they still have failed to do this. And your former colleagues are still begging for them to to, you know, provide these files.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know, when I watch a video like that, it hits home in a very different way because I met most of those women and, spent time with them, heard their stories, watched them tremble and cry as they told their stories in front of the world at several press conferences in Washington DC last year. And my heart goes out to them. They have been fighting for so long. And they've worked very hard to join together, finding each other over all these years.
And all they want is transparency. They want our government to do the job that it's supposed to do that the American people want it to do and our taxpayer dollars pay for it to do. They want the truth to come out. And it's just shocking that even after the big fight we had in late twenty twenty five, after passing a law, the the Epstein Transparency Act, it's still shocking that this is still such a battle.
Speaker 4: I you have a lot of knives in your back from people you thought were your colleagues for continuing to push for disclosure. Now, originally, when we saw ads like this, I thought that this was a matter of sexual abuse and sexual assault. After reading the files for over a week now, it appears that it's violence, possibly murder. So a survivor is not just someone who got away having been abused, but got away with their lives when it seems like there were many who did not. So I wanna offer you an opportunity to take a victory lap because you were right that the American people need to see this.
And also let you sort of maybe I wanna ask you, did you know that it was this violent? Did you know that it was this far?
Speaker 3: I I didn't know it was that I'd say, first of all, thank you for that. I very much appreciate it. Yes, I do have many knives in my back. I've also got them in the front as well. I went through quite a battle And what people need to understand is nothing changed about me.
I didn't change any of my views, my policy views. I very much still firmly believe in the things that I always said and the things I campaigned on in 2024. The problem is that in 2025, the president and many Republicans that I served with in Congress, they're the ones that changed their views. And that's unfortunate. But the release of the files has proved to me, it's proved more to the American people than I think they can almost handle.
I think people are in overload right now because it's so shocking, the things that we're reading in these files. And remember, there are millions more files to go. This is not all all of them. And, they're being they're being held back. But when you see the DOJ breaking the law, they're breaking the law because they're redacting the name of former president, secretary of state, members of the government.
They're redacting those names. That's breaking the law. Every name has to be revealed. They're also deleting files that they release. That files should not be deleted once they're released to the public.
They're redacting names that should not be redacted while they're letting out information on the victims, which they're supposed to redact personal information about the victims. And they're not. They're not covering that up. They're releasing that. And I think what this shows to America is that our government has betrayed victims, innocent victims, in ways that we can't even comprehend, to the point of child sex trafficking, satanic rituals, maybe cannibalism, and rape, and trafficking of women.
And that felt almost inferior to some of these other things. But it's the vast cover up for the rich, powerful elites. It's really the international deep state. It's the people that live in some sort of sphere that the common man can't even comprehend and doesn't walk in. And it's also pulling back the veil, which sadly wasn't surprising to me, that many of the things that the people have had to endure, such as COVID, such as things that happen in our economy, businesses that get supported, industries that get supported, others that get torn down, seems to be planned years in advance by this gigantic network of the international deep state, the international elites.
And it's the stuff that they called people like me and probably you and many others conspiracy theorists and made us think, said that we were all crazy, but yet here it is that's coming out. It's not a random person saying that they were saying things like they're eating babies or they're eating human flesh. It's not a random person saying that. There's a lot of people saying it. And then there's not a random person accusing some of our top government leaders of being associated with one of the most disgusting people, Jeffrey Epstein, who is a convicted pedophile, but also fully intertwined in foreign governments, specifically Israel.
And these aren't one offs. These are all throughout the files. This can't be people are not gonna let this go. As much as the president wants and and and the speaker of the house want people are not letting it go. There's are absolutely outraged.
Speaker 4: If I may respond to that little bit because you're right. There's so many people who are implicated, And they're giving us these little bread crumb excuses. And I'm like, No, no, I'm not done with you. But I got to get over here because this and so how can we act on any of it when we're all so crazed? And it's so vast?
Just wanted to Yeah. Validate that. Please go ahead.
Speaker 0: Well, I wanted to ask you because behind the scenes right now, congresswoman, I mean, what is happening? You know, you've got Massey, you've got Ro Khanna, congressman Massey on the show last week. He's he was furious. I mean, why I'm sorry. He wasn't on the show.
Spoke to him on the phone, and he said he said, Clayton, I like, these coconspirators, why are their names redacted? These people who were saying the torture video, this and that, like, these names were not under the transparency act supposed to be redacted. It seems like Pam Bondi, all of these people are actively covering up. Is there any other way to read it? Like, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like they're actively covering up for these people, these pedophiles.
Speaker 3: Well, it okay. I'm I'm gonna say it like this, and a lot of people are have a hard time with me telling the absolute truth. And it's hard for people to understand. Look, I fought for President Trump more than most any elected Republican in Washington, DC. January 6, after that, they all turned their back on him.
And I was one of the few, me and Matt Gaetz and a few others, that were out there on the front lines for him. And we stayed out there by ourselves for a very long time until he won the primary. And that's when everybody else came on board and said, Okay, we'll put on the MAGA hat, and we'll play the game. Well, here's the reality. These things that are coming out in the files, these are actual FBI forms.
When it says that an FBI agent took out the DVR in the prison where Jeffrey Epstein was supposedly killed, that's on an FBI form. That's not somebody calling in an anonymous tip or writing it on some deep, dark place in the internet. That's an actual FBI file stating what happened. And people are gonna have to completely take in what they are seeing with their own eyes, what they're reading, and what they're being told. The reality is the Trump administration is not releasing the information.
And I got you look. I got yelled at by the president over this. He this is why he called me a traitor. He called me a traitor because I would not take my name off the discharge petition because I stood firmly and said, no. I we're going to release the Epstein files.
I'm standing with women who were raped as teenagers. I'm not standing with the government. I don't support the cover up of all of this stuff, whatever it may be. And the president got mad at me and he told me, and I've said this multiple times, he told me his friends would get hurt. And that's what he told me.
And and then we're seeing a continued slow walk and cover up of a lot of this information. And I know that is why. I firmly believe that that's why it is being covered up. Look. Pam Bondi works directly for Donald Trump.
She she is not out there an independent attorney general. She can't just run out and do whatever she wants. She works at the pleasure and approval of the president of The United States. Everybody in the administration does. So does the FBI.
They're under the very same, pleasure and approval of the president of The United States. So when you're when everyone's getting mad at Pam Bondi or everyone getting you can name anybody you want. The the man at the top is Donald Trump. He's the president. And he's the one that was completely against releasing the files when we started fighting to get them released.
He's the one that called it a Democrat hoax. He's the one that you know, he invites everybody to the White House, but he will not invite these women that that have defended him, by the way. They have defended him and said Donald Trump did nothing wrong. They have defended him, yet he doesn't bring them in the White House, and and support them. But what you're saying is if it looks like a duck, it and if it if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it's a duck.
Speaker 0: Or it might be a Lutnick.
Speaker 3: Or
Speaker 0: it might be a Lutnick duck.
Speaker 4: You know, early onset dementia and Alzheimer's are on the rise. Reports show that a three seventy three percent increase in diagnosis among young people 44. So when doctors treat brain disease, they often focus on the brain itself, addressing the symptoms, but not the root cause, which of course is chronic inflammation and oxidative stress. These factors damage brain cells and lead to the buildup of these toxic proteins, amyloid proteins, which you which are an indicator of oncoming Alzheimer's. But like much of the body, many brain tissues track back to the gut microbiome.
There is a direct communication line between your gut and your brain where gut bacteria influence inflammation, mood, memory, and cognitive function. That's why what you eat matters. Now you might know the health benefits of kimchi, but you're not used to eating it because it's not really a part of the American diet. Kimchi contains 900 probiotic strains and includes bioactive compounds that help reduce inflammation, protect your brain cells, and even improve memory and cognitive function by preventing amyloid beta plaque buildup. That's why Brightcur created kimchi once.
You don't have to eat it every day if you're not quite used to it or you don't like it. You can take a supplement and get all of these benefits. There's no taste, no smell. It's just swallow a pill. It's no GMOs.
Made in The USA. So check out the benefits of adding kimchi to your daily supplement routine. Go to my brightcore.com/redacted or call (888) 404-6312 for 50% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's my brightcore.com/redacted. Use the code redacted at checkout and get 25% off.
This idea of protecting his friends versus protecting because I am not at all convinced that this is not still happening as we speak. You're a mother of three, I'm a mother of three. We serve at the pleasure of this role we've been given as protectors of our children and their generation and their peers. And I don't think that there's anyone else to protect. So I don't care about Howard Lutnick.
I don't care about protecting anyone else who might be associated with something that I once validated. I really don't. And so Massey just called for the resignation of Howard Lutnick, who clearly told us lies about his association with Epstein. And so I want to ask you about, yeah, the domino effect, and who's being protected and who's saying children are not important. And again, how do we know that they're not still being hurt?
Because in one of the depositions, it seems that, at least Lex Wexner did name a predecessor to Jeffrey Epstein. How do we know? Like, aren't we here to protect children? I I've asked you nine questions. I guess you can chew.
I'm sorry. I'm upset.
Speaker 0: Pick which one you
Speaker 4: want. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right. No. I fully how how do we know it hasn't stopped? We only got a glimpse into a moment of time, and that's in the past. So how do we know what has happened since then?
I mean, people are even questioning if Jeffrey Epstein is still alive. And that's I don't think that's a bad question. I think we should ask every question. At this point, in this time, after what we have read in these files, every question is valid. And you know how I really feel about it?
Look, my parents are baby boomers. I'm generation X. I'm 51 years old. And I love my parents, and I love many people in their generation. But I am sick and tired of the baby boomers that are in charge of everything right now.
That's across both sides of the aisle. They are responsible for so many of the bad things in our lives. They're responsible for the nearly $40,000,000,000,000 in debt. They're responsible for all the foreign wars that our military has had to fight for decades now. They're responsible for our Social Security is going to be completely broke in just a matter of years.
The baby boomers are responsible for this. And then what are we seeing in the Epstein files? A bunch of gross, disgusting, evil, corrupt, lying,
Speaker 0: piece
Speaker 3: of crap baby boomers are all in there. So how I feel about it is they all need to resign. They all and and many of them should go to jail because I'm honestly sick and tired of the whole entire group, both sides of the aisle.
Speaker 0: Do you think we're gonna get any answers? You know, one of the things that Ro Khanna had talked about and Massey too, is about having having really sort of an extracurricular special counsel, like I said, I guess you could call it a master, forgive my forgive my ignorance on the the procedural piece of all of this. But
Speaker 3: An independent counsel.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And so being able to have that outside of this process with the DOJ. And, unfortunately, unless they're bringing some sort of a court case, that's not gonna happen. The judge in this has said that. So they're really right now at the mercy of Pam Bondi.
I mean, they're at the mercy
Speaker 3: Let me
Speaker 0: They're the mercy of these people.
Speaker 3: No. You, the American people, are the independent counsel. That is you. You're the independent counsel. Are Do you trust your politicians?
Do you trust anybody anymore to appoint an independent counsel to provide justice? I don't. I worked in Washington for five years. I'm gonna tell you flat out right now, you can't trust hardly anyone up there. They will not do it.
They will not do the right thing. The American people are the independent counsel, and you have the 100% sole power to end all of this stuff whenever the American people get finally fed up with it. And you you vote. You donate. You support candidates.
You can also choose to not vote, support, donate. You can choose to say, we're not having anything to do with any of you. Or you can figure out a way to beat them. But it's pretty hard. Look at what's happening to Thomas Massey right now.
And I 100% support Thomas Massey. He's a dear friend of mine. I endorse him, and I really hope that Kentucky four reelects him because he's one of the few honest good men in Washington DC. And I can say that because I know every single one of them, and and Thomas Massey is stands above pretty much all of them. And what is happening to him is outrageous.
But I can tell you right now, do I believe that this administration is going to going to provide justice for anything in the Epstein files? No. Absolutely not. Because the president told me that his friends would get hurt. So I have that to go on, and that was the president's words directly to me.
So I don't think anything's going to happen. Are we gonna see people resign and step down outside of people over and, outside of the royal family? No. I don't think so. Will we see Israel held accountable and and questioned for their their part, their role, maybe what Jeffrey Epstein was doing with Mossad?
No. I highly doubt it because Netanyahu is coming to the White House tomorrow to to make sure that that his friend Donald Trump delivers on this war, in Iran that that Netanyahu wants to happen. So I I hate to be the bearer of extremely honest but depressing bad news. No. No one's going to be held accountable.
No one ever no one is ever held accountable except the innocent American people. Think about it. The people that were forced to take a COVID vaccine. The parents that couldn't control their school boards so their kids were Yeah. Taught all kinds of crap.
The pro lifers were sent to prison when they prayed outside of abortion clinics. People that walked in open doors at the Capitol, they went to jail, but no one else goes no other kind of political protester goes to jail. I mean, no. It's on and on and on. Time and time again, the American people are the ones that that pay the price, but never ever ever the rich, powerful elites, they never ever go to jail.
Not unless
Speaker 0: sick. Yeah.
Speaker 3: But not unless not unless they're being taken down for a reason.
Speaker 0: I mean, you have I mean, you have, like, Lindsey Graham like, the president tweeting a picture of him in, warmonger warmonger Lindsey Graham yesterday during the Super Bowl as if anyone voted for this at all. And then you've got the demon. I mean, literally a demon Satan incarnate Netanyahu coming to Washington DC, as you pointed out tomorrow to push for us to go to war in Iran. And then we're still sitting on waiting for 3,000,000 documents to be released that were all supposed to be released. Have you had a chance?
Have you gone through any of them at all to know that, like, why are we waiting on these 3,000,000 other documents? Do you have any idea from your experience in congress on why they would be stonewalling that chunk of documents?
Speaker 3: It's totally on purpose. They're not they're they're being directed to not to be very careful about what they release. So I'm I'm sorry. I'm one of those I've I have seen behind the curtain way too many times and for too long. It's all intentional.
Yeah. That's just a fact. I'm sorry. I wish I had a better answer.
Speaker 4: I wanna ask you maybe a personal question. So I think there probably are adults in the room in the government that maybe wanted at some point to do the right thing and show us behind the curtain of this shadow government. And then they get into office and they are unable. So can you tell me without giving into specifics, Are there forces that tried to influence you to stop doing what you're doing now? And what did it take to leave there intact?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Oh, 100%. Yeah. There's a lot there's a lot of good people that go to Washington with great intentions. And and still, they really wish they could do the right thing.
But the system is is not set up that way. You're watching it. What happened to me and what is currently happening to Thomas Massey? We are great examples of how you cannot operate independently just purely working and representing your district. You're not allowed to, because it's a two party system in Washington, D.
C. I call it the political industrial complex. And you're either on the Democrat team or you're on the Republican team. And if you cause a problem for whichever party is in power, well, they're coming after you. So, no, you you cannot go unscathed if you go against, the the party in power or the administration, even if you're doing the right thing.
Such as saying, no, I'm going to stand with women who were raped at 14 years old. That's the right thing to do. I don't care who the president is. I don't care who the speaker of the House is. It doesn't matter.
No. Here's what happens is, well, number one, it's hard to get a bill passed. If you are bucking the system, so to speak, even if the system is corrupt and you're giving them time and doing things like I wouldn't vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding. So I got on the bad side of a bunch of the neocon Republicans. And they got mad at me.
So they wouldn't vote for some of my bills or some of my amendments, even though ideologically they agreed with a bill or amendment of mine, say, on some other issue. But they were mad at me because I was like, no, I'm not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever. Or no, I think Israel's doing just fine. We don't need to give them a penny, not a single penny. Do we need to give it to any other country.
But they get mad at me for that. And then there's other ways that they pressure you. They will really do it'll go to the extreme. So what did I do? I stood up against the president.
I wouldn't take my name off the discharge petition when he was telling me to. And so he put out a post, called me a traitor, and said that he was going to primary me, which is absolutely absurd. I voted with the man 98% of the time. Many of my bills in congress are literal identical reflections of his executive orders. There is hardly any daylight between my policies and supposedly his policies Right.
Except when you come down to the Epstein files fighting wars on behalf of Israel. I I refused to support one of his bills, that opened the back door to a central bank digital currency. I said, no, I'm not gonna vote for that. I'm I'm I'm that's something I'm afraid of. So there was only a few little things.
And then look at what they did to me. And then you look at Thomas Massey. So had I see, I can't play for a team that refuses to win. I I I cannot fight for a team that doesn't do the right thing. And Republicans are pathetic.
They promise one thing during campaigns, and then when they finally get power, they turn into the worst weak men you've ever seen in your life. And they're straight up uni party. I mean, look at Lindsey Graham. He's the ultimate example. Look at Mike Johnson, the ultimate example.
All of them are so weak and pathetic. I can't fight for that team. I can't have anything to do with it. Now Thomas Massey, god bless him. He's a lot more stubborn than I am.
And he said, no. I'm I'm gonna stay in here, but you know what they're doing to him? They they told every political consultant that worked for him that you will never we will make sure you never get hired by any other political campaign politics. So three political consultants of his quit. They quit because they go out of business.
Lucky, he's got a couple of others that stayed in there with him. So first off, they make it almost impossible for you to hire people to run a campaign. So they basically blacklist you and make it hard for you to do the most important part, which is get your message out to your voters, defend yourself from attacks, and raise money. And so, no, politics is a blood sport, and that's what people need to understand. It is 100% a blood sport.
And the rhetoric you hear on the campaign trail, it's mostly bullshit. Mostly bullshit for most Republicans. Because as soon as they get your vote and they get back into Washington, it's business as usual. It's back to they all step in line and make sure they're doing exactly what they get told because they're terrified of something happening to them like what happened to me, or they're terrified of what's happening to Thomas Massey. Even if they even if they wanted to fight, they won't do it because they're too scared.
They're honestly too scared. Many of them walk up to my face, say, hey, Marjorie, how are you doing? They'll text message me just being my friend. They'll say hi to Thomas Massey, call him. They'll say, Thomas, you're a good friend of mine.
But have you seen any of these people? Not one of them come out and defend us. Not one of them have anything nice to say publicly because they're too scared of the machine. And that's what's absolutely wrong.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Cheese stands alone.
Speaker 0: They are weak uni party. Yeah. That's all they are. We have, you know, 35, 40,000 people watching right now across all the platforms. Are you gonna run for president?
Speaker 3: Oh gosh. No. Everybody keeps asking me that. No. I I don't have any plans to run for president.
I'm not running for governor. I'm not running for Senate. And honestly, after everything I've seen in Washington, especially the past few years, I really don't think it's a system that I want to be a part of. And again, it really boils down to I honestly couldn't go all out and fight like I did for a team that refuses to win. And they refuse to do the right thing.
So for me, I feel like I gave it all I had for five years and stood on the issues that really, really mattered. But I don't see it's not a point in America's history American like me, can actually go to Washington and make the changes that need to be made.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, if you go back to '18 you 30
Speaker 4: for for being somebody who is willing to break down partisan lines because that's extremely useful right now. If the Epstein documents don't show us that now, that partisan politics is a ruse, and you as somebody who was a partisan loyalist, who is now willing to say, we're gonna do better if we break down this binary, I feel like that's extremely useful. So I wanna cheer you on for that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Yep. A lot would have to change in the system. I think the American people can fix it though. I really, I go back to that.
I see that as, it feels like a movement that's happening right now where many people on the left and the right are just so tired of being divided. It's like, why do we have to hate each other? It's really horrible. It's destroyed families and relationships. I mean, even marriages.
People have gotten divorced over this. Parents and adult kids stop talking to each other. Neighbors, coworkers. We're not supposed to hate each other because I really truly feel like the key issues that affect all of us, like example, health insurance is too expensive. We're all worried about the future as far as jobs.
I know for my kid's generation. Is it the cost of living? And are we going to be dragged into some foreign war that pulls us into World War III? Those are pretty common issues across the left and the right. And those should be the issues that our government should be working on.
But, you know, unfortunately, that's not the case. It's nonstop. It's an outraged machine. And it's intentionally built that way. They drive votes and donations based on fear and hate.
And so they drive the left and the right to be afraid of the other side and hate the other side so they can drive donations and votes against the other. And I think a lot of Americans are really fed up with that. And they're fed up. They have outrage overload. It's just like it's too much.
I can't be angry and upset every single twenty minutes over something else. So I feel like there is some sort of movement of change happening, but it just hasn't peaked yet. But I think that it will.
Speaker 0: We got a super chat. I don't know if you can answer this. We'll we'll get you out of here on this, congresswoman. But, angry hot dog asks in our chat room. Please ask her to tell us some of the names that she saw on the list.
Is that even possible? Is that even possible? Or is that classified?
Speaker 3: Actually, that's misinformation. I don't have the list. I said at a press conference with the women there, I offered to them they have a list. So just so you know, there's a core group of these women. They have a list of the men that they keep to themselves.
And I offered to them when I was in Congress, I said, I would read that list of names on the House floor because we, members as of Congress, have something called speech and debate. So we have protection over our speech on the House floor. That's not they don't have protection over their speech. If they just go out and read that list of names without proof, these are billionaires and powerful people that will probably sue them into basically homelessness. And these women are they're not rich women.
I mean, they're just average people. They can't afford high end attorneys to defend themselves like that. So the people on the internet said, why didn't she just read the list? She should just read the list. Well, I can't.
That list is held by the women. And what they want, and it's completely reasonable. This is why they're fighting so hard for the FBI and the DOJ to release. And the CIA, by the way, has files. These files need to be released so these women don't have to go out there and risk extremely expensive lawsuits by naming these names because they're all in the files.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: So that I think there's that's been a misunderstanding for many people. Same with Thomas Massie. He doesn't have the list either. Ro Khanna doesn't have the list. It's only the the women have the list.
Okay.
Speaker 0: Gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up, and thanks to our viewer for asking that. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, great to finally have you here on the show. Yes. It's been a real pleasure.
Thank you so much for your time, and hopefully hopefully you'll come back.
Speaker 3: Love to. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thanks, congresswoman. Great to see you. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 WAIT. How did Epstein really function as an intelligence asset and for whom? Now, pro-Israel media are scrambling to rebrand him as a Russian asset. Why the sudden rewrite, and who are they protecting? @JohnKiriakou is w/us. https://t.co/cjiQhRGhHw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on Jeffrey Epstein as an intelligence asset and how such arrangements work across multiple agencies. Speaker 0 questions how Epstein operated as an intelligence asset for the CIA, Mossad, MI6, SBU, and others, noting a media narrative that portrays Epstein as a Russian intelligence asset while allegedly overlooking other connections.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, explains his view that Epstein was likely an access agent—most probably recruited by Mossad—to provide access to people the Israelis were interested in. An access agent is someone who can grant access to target individuals rather than possessing direct access to classified information. Still, such an agent can be a free agent who can trade information or favors with various intelligence services (FBI, CIA, MI6, MI5, French services, etc.) in exchange for potential future assistance. Kiriakou emphasizes Epstein could barter with different agencies to build goodwill if he ever faced trouble.
Regarding Epstein’s lenient 2008 sentence, Kiriakou notes that former US Attorney Alex Acosta said the order came from the top and, when asked why, stated it was intelligence-related. He questions who has authority over a US attorney, suggesting possible involvement of higher-level figures in the Bush administration (President or Vice President) and invites scrutiny of who ordered the lenient deal.
The discussion then shifts to the mechanism of clandestine work. Kiriakou describes a covert environment where meetings occur without an overt trail: if Epstein were treated as a normal source, a meeting might be arranged at a yacht-club parking lot at 02:00, with arrangements made in advance to avoid written records. He contrasts this with cases where some elements are written (as in Watergate, where signals and pre-arranged triggers prompt meetings) but otherwise relies on verbal cues or signals to avoid paper trails.
The panel explores the relationship between Epstein’s sexual offenses and his espionage role. They agree these were parallel issues: recruiters identified Epstein’s vulnerability as a pedophile to compel him to provide information, financing his operations while turning a blind eye to his activities. They discuss whether Epstein evolved into a honeypot operation over time, recognizing that decades of activity could allow intelligence services to entrap or manipulate many powerful individuals. Peter Mandelson’s case is cited as an example of a British figure deeply entangled, raising concerns about state secrets and possible exposure; Mendelson’s ties threaten political stability in the UK, with potential lifetime imprisonment if implicated in treason-like activities or heavy state-secrecy violations.
The dialogue touches on the perception of Israeli diplomacy as flexible and sometimes aligned with adversaries when convenient, asserting that Israelis are “free agents” who act in Israel’s best interests, even if that means sharing information with hostile or competing intelligence services. This is illustrated by a debate with Alan Dershowitz about Epstein’s possible Israeli ties and the broader implications for extradition and sentencing.
Toward the end, the speakers reflect on public accountability and transparency. They emphasize that no one should be granted a pass in crimes involving children, and they advocate for openness about investigations, including calls for Trump to release more information. They contrast the push for transparency with a desire to avoid premature judgments, urging scrutiny of all prominent figures involved. Finally, John Kiriakou promotes his shows—Deprogram, Deep Focus, and Dead Drop—as platforms for continued discussion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How exactly did Epstein operate as an intelligence asset for the CIA, Mossad, MI six, SBU, all of them, quite honestly? How does this work exactly? Well, if you listen to the Zionist controlled media, they are now bending over backwards to paint Epstein as a Russian intelligence asset, ignoring all of the other connections. Here is Barry Weiss's CBS News. Watch.
Speaker 1: Poland says it's looking into possible connections between convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Russian intelligence services. The announcement came after the US justice department last week released millions more files related to the federal investigation into Epstein. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk said Tuesday, quote, more and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary in the global press all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented pedophilia scandal was co organized by Russian intelligence services.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Any links between By the way, by the way, I love how CBS knew you don't even know that the Polish the leader I'm sorry, the the leader is named Tusk, but okay. Tusk. Anyway, how does all of how does all this come together? John Kiriakou is a CIA whistleblower.
Of course, the Obama administration went after him big time and, as he was trying to expose everything that the Obama administration was doing. John, welcome back to the show. Great to see you as always.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Great to see you. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 0: I wanted to have a lot to talk about here. And I know Natalie wants to unpack specifically like the KGB side of this in a second. But I wanna first kind of start off and understand like the mechanics, if you could, maybe helping us understand how exactly would because people saying, oh, he's Mossad or he's CIA. And I think you have said to us in the past that he's probably just an asset associated or in alignment with them. How does how exactly does that work?
How exactly did it work for him, you believe?
Speaker 2: Well, I've been I'm proud to say I've been consistent that from the beginning, I said that I thought he was what was called, an access agent, most likely for the Mossad. An access agent is somebody who can give you access to people that you're really interested in. It's not necessarily gonna be Jeffrey Epstein that has access to classified, information, but Peter Mendelson certainly does, and Bill Clinton does, and, the former prince, Andrew certainly did, and maybe you get some business, information, business secrets, or economic secrets from the likes of Bill Gates. So I think that Jeffrey Epstein was was probably recruited by the Israelis to provide access to the targets that the Israelis were really interested in. But with that said, an access agent is somebody who also can still be a free agent.
And so if the FBI has a question and maybe you can you can establish a quid pro quo with the FBI, maybe you answer the FBI's question or the CIA or the MI six or MI five or the French or whomever. Because you wanna bank those, those favors and, maybe have some goodwill down the line in case you get jammed up. He got jammed up, and he didn't have anybody to help him.
Speaker 0: Can I just follow-up on that real quick, which is one of the big questions that congressman Thomas Massey wanted he he see he told me earlier in the week, he said that among the missing things that they demanded as part of the Epstein Transparency Act was the name of the person or persons who were responsible for giving him such a lenient sentence in 02/2008? Right. Would that be intelligence related, do you believe?
Speaker 2: I think it's 100% intelligence related. Alex Acosta has said Alex Acosta, the former secretary of labor, who at the time was the US attorney who prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein, said that the order to give Epstein a sweetheart sentence came from the top. And when asked why, all he said was intelligence. So make of that what you will. But then you have to think, who has authority over a US attorney?
Well, frankly, the only person who has authority, direct authority over a US attorney is, is the attorney general. At the time, that was, Alberto Gonzales. Alberto Gonzales, god bless him, was a lightweight. It wasn't up to Alberto Gonzales. So who was above Alberto Gonzales?
It was the president and the vice president. So what do we make of that? Was it George w Bush that ordered this? If so, why? Was it Dick Cheney?
If so, why? But I think we have a right to know.
Speaker 0: What if that sore throat or fever that hits you overnight didn't actually have to cancel your family trip or miss work or waste hours at an urgent care? Instead, you could actually just open your medical emergency kit from the wellness company, match your symptoms to the doctor recommended guide, and then start treatment immediately right in your house. This is not a first aid kit. It's a mini urgent care right at your fingertips. Inside, you're gonna find eight core prescriptions to treat over 30 conditions like COVID, strep throat, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and more.
No more waiting rooms, no more pharmacy lines. Modernized medicine right when you need it. We have one right upstairs in our own medicine cabinet. Ordering it is simple. At checkout, simply complete a short intake form and a licensed doctor will review, fill your scripts, and preventative peace of mind arrives at your home in one week.
No one wants to be sick during the holidays or any other time, so be prepared. Save yourself time and money. The medical emergency kit puts urgent care in your hands anytime you need it. So go to twc.health/redacted right now and use that code redacted to save a nice discount and free shipping. Again, twc.health/redacted.
Speaker 3: What do you make of this media narrative that, oh, definitely he's KGB? I mean, set aside the fact that the KGB has been dissolved since the nineties, and Epstein was doing most of his work in the February. The way Daryl Cooper explained it on Tucker Tucker Carlson, I I thought was great because he could move between governments. If if Mossad
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: You know, wanted an introduction to somebody in the KGB, then you have these shadow actors that can act as a liaison. That's what, Robert Maxwell, in fact, did.
Speaker 2: That's
Speaker 3: right. So can you extrapolate on that role, and are there people still doing it?
Speaker 2: Oh, I think that is exactly correct. I think that that he really has has nailed it. You know, the Israelis I'm I'm gonna get threats from the Israelis again. Every time I say something like this, I get threats, but I'm gonna say it again anyway. The Israelis are free agents.
The Israelis are not necessarily our friends. They are when it suits them, but when it suits them to be friendly with the Russians, they go with the Russians or with the Chinese or the Germans or, you know, anybody. It doesn't make any difference. The Israelis do what's best for the Israelis. And if that means using a a source like like Jeffrey Epstein and and passing information on to a hostile intelligence service or at least one that's hostile to The United States, that's exactly what they're going to do.
I got into a spirited debate with, Alan Dershowitz about this on the Pierce Morgan show a few weeks ago, and I thought the man was gonna have a stroke when I said that Jeffrey Epstein was most likely working on behalf of the Israelis. And then he said something that was completely backward. He said that he had been Epstein's, attorney, and if Epstein had been working for the Israelis, he would have told Dershowitz, and Dershowitz would have used that information to get Epstein an even lighter sentence. And I said, wait a minute, professor. If you're saying that you would have gone to the White House to say, my client is committing espionage for the Israeli government, you think that would have gotten him a lighter sentence?
I think he would have been hanging from a tree. Right. It would have been trees removed. On from there.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He would have been put in prison for the rest of his life or put to death. Exactly.
Speaker 3: Well, that's how it's supposed to work. We're we're seeing that it doesn't. Right? Now you can meet with former Israeli or former US traders and
Speaker 2: that's time. Pollard well, Jonathan Pollard got he did every day of his thirty years. Of course, he's, you know, he's a hero in Israel now, he's running for the Knesset. But but he did every single day of his thirty years.
Speaker 3: Oh, good point. Good point.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Now and then now he gets to hang out with, ambassador Mike Huckabee, who's apparently friends with them. So that's how
Speaker 2: it It's VIP treatment in the American embassy.
Speaker 0: Unbelievable. So the mechanics of this, I'm just still trying to wrap my head around. Like, Jeffrey Epstein's just like sitting there in his in his sex lair or whatever, and he just like gets a, you know, gets some like a phone call. He gets like a pager. Come meet me in the park.
We want you to do this. You know, shake shake this hand because the other hand is shaking it back. Like, what does that look like for somebody like Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 2: Well, if Jeffrey Epstein were treated as a normal source, then the answer is yes. You get a you get a phone call saying, hey. How was how's your mom doing? And the answer is, my mom is feeling much better. Thank you.
And that means meet me at the parking lot of the yacht club at 02:00 in the morning. You you have this all set up in advance. And then he goes and and does his meeting and gets his marching orders.
Speaker 0: And so there wouldn't be an email trail here. Right, John? I guess that's
Speaker 2: Oh, no. No. No. There would never be an email trail. This is all done verbally or just using signals.
You remember during, during Watergate, Deepthroat would would, react to Bob Woodward putting an American flag in a flower pot on his apartment balcony. That triggered a meeting that night at 09:00 in a parking garage in Roslyn the Roslyn neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia. So all of this is always set up in advance, so you never have to actually put anything in writing or say, meet me at 08:00.
Speaker 3: So okay. That is covert. It's done by signals. But all the sex stuff was overt and written out
Speaker 2: And it's in writing.
Speaker 3: And in writing. So okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Good point.
Speaker 3: Explain that to me. And then can you please or or just take an opinion because I don't think you're doing that. I don't think you can personally explain it. And then also, I would like to know how you think this international spy espionage relates to this demonic sex predator. Are they related, or is it just that one allowed the other, or did one actually give leverage for the other?
Because or are they unrelated?
Speaker 2: Yeah. No. That that's a great question and a very important one. And I think that they were two issues running parallel with one another. I think that the Israelis or whomever, was the recruiter of Jeffrey Epstein said this guy has a major vulnerability, and his vulnerability is that he's a pedophile.
We can use that to our advantage. He can get us information. We'll continue to supply him with money, and we'll just turn a blind eye to his pedophilia. So they they were able to identify that vulnerability, that hook, in order to to hook him and reel him in, and then they just let him do his thing with with girls and and important world leaders and just let the cards fall where they fell.
Speaker 0: How much of it do you think was a honeypot operation?
Speaker 2: You know, I think it probably became a honeypot operation. You know, I'm I'm wondering. The you you have to figure this was going on for decades. And I'm wondering if if any intelligence service, even one as good as the Israelis, was able to see so far in advance that they could turn this into a honeypot. I mean, of course, it's it's obvious by the late nineteen nineties or the early two thousands, that's exactly what it is, that you can entrap as many of of these movers and shakers as you possibly want to.
Look at Peter Mendelson. You know, I I've been thinking about this all day today. Peter Mendelson, the former British ambassador to The United States, the the the member until earlier this week of the the House of Lords, he's in so deep now after lying and lying and lying that he barely knew Jeffrey Epstein. He's in so deep that this risks collapsing the British government. There were calls by members of the Labour Party today for the Labour prime minister, Kirstjarmer, to resign because he had been so easily duped by Peter Mendelson.
So the stakes are very, very high here. This is really serious.
Speaker 0: Giving him state secrets. Yeah. Funneling state secrets to Jeffrey Epstein. Like, I mean, that's treasonous. I don't know how he avoids prison at this point.
I mean, I
Speaker 2: And and the laws, the state the state secrecy act law in The UK is far, far tougher than the espionage act is here in The United States. Wow. Peter Manerson could find himself spending the rest of his natural life in prison.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. I guess, John, we'll get you out here on that. I'm just curious from your perspective, having worked at the CIA, blowing the whistle at the CIA. When you're seeing all these documents and you're a guest on our show and we're specifically talking about the intelligence side, is there something you think that, like, people are missing? That people haven't looked at more closely?
Something that's been, like, keeping you up at night or wringing your hands that you think people need to pay attention to?
Speaker 2: You know, one of one of the things that bothers me very much is that the more important people become in their lives, the more we as a society are willing to cut them slack. And we shouldn't do that. People are people, and people are sexual beings. God knows what's in their hearts. God knows what they do behind closed doors.
And so nobody should be given the benefit of the doubt in crimes where children are the victims.
Speaker 3: Right. I I just got upset because Roger Stone was on the show, and he said, absolutely, Trump didn't do anything. And I said, well, these documents, you know, are not favorable. Did somebody look into them? Because I don't have any kind of preconceived notion whether Trump is innocent or guilty.
I would like to see proof. I would like to see them be transparent with us. And now that we have more allegations, a valid question is, anybody follow-up on that? Is there any
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: Anything there? Anybody new. Right. And so Still
Speaker 2: far new.
Speaker 3: How do so I I take your answer to be nobody is above scrutiny, especially because our jobs as the adults of the world is to protect children.
Speaker 2: And that's did right there.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: I have five children of my own. And if this had happened to one of them, I'm not sure I could control myself.
Speaker 3: John Wick level. Yeah. Yeah. John Wick.
Speaker 0: I mean, I guess we what about Trump? I mean, there's a lot of going back and forth here on this. Right? You have
Speaker 2: Yeah. You know, if if I were Donald Trump and I were confident in my innocence, I would just release everything. Just release it. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean put it to bed.
Speaker 0: Alex Jones was saying, you know, he was saying, look, the the big the big rub here for Trump is that he waited so long to release it. And that if if he if he releases everything, that he'll be absolved of everything. Mhmm. So if that's the case, then release it all. Why are you continue to insult and insult reporters like Caitlyn I mean, I don't have any love for whatever any of these reporters from CNN, but, like, like, just release everything then.
So no one has to ask any questions. Like, what is there to hide? If you're so innocent, release everything.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. I I just don't understand why it has taken this long, and it's not even done yet.
Speaker 0: Right. No. He's shooting himself in the foot if he's truly, truly, truly innocent.
Speaker 3: Well, John, it's so good to talk to you. You run cover for nobody. Yeah. No. Yeah.
We don't do that.
Speaker 2: The show. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: We love you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, John. Always good to John, tell people where people can find tell people where people can find your show.
Speaker 2: Oh, thanks. I've got three, actually. I've got deprogram every day Monday through Friday at 9AM on both YouTube and Rumble. I have deep focus, which drops twice a week on YouTube. And on Apple podcasts, I have John Kiriaku's dead drop, what makes a spy tick.
Speaker 0: Alright. Love it. John, great to see you as always. Thanks so much for taking
Speaker 2: time today. Thanks, Dan. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Exposed: Epstein's web of influence goes deeper than you think. Was he just a Mossad agent? Uncover his shocking connections in global politics and security. The truth is about to be released! What do you think? https://t.co/DCIxsqr9nN
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've said this many times. People ask me, you know, was Epstein a Mossad agent per se? I think that in reality, his stature and the role he played was in many ways far above that. If you look at his conversations with Barack, who at this time was one of the most influential people in the Israeli political security establishment, he'd been the prime minister. He was the defense minister during part of their conversations.
He was really looking up to Epstein. He was looking up to Epstein for help. He was trying to get his attention. The power dynamic was very quite discernible in their interactions. So it was really Epstein was kind of above, you know, any institution like that per se, but they were a resource and a critical node that they actually relied on for connections and help and for money and political purposes and to spread their influence globally and so forth.
So I suspect that these files, which, you know, again, we haven't had a chance to go through in great granularity and really to get extract the true meaning out of them does take some time to kind of put them chronologically together and see what the meaning of all the conversations were in context. But I do suspect that they will point more of this. Now I have been looking at that conversation that you referenced earlier with Barack, and a third figure who you know, we have some theories of who it is, but we're not having we're not sharing them yet, but I think someone people probably know very well. You know, I do think that points to even more detail about, what Epstein was doing. And I think the one thing about these documents is that they're gonna help us do a lot more stories about this Israel connection soon because they filled in the gaps from some of the things that we weren't able to nail down before.
And I think we'll see a lot more stories about Epstein's influence, through Israel, in many countries around the world, including in many countries in Africa, Central Asia, and obviously in Europe and North America and Russia as well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've said this many times. People ask me, you know, was Epstein a Mossad agent per se? I think that in reality, his stature and the role he played was in many ways far above that. If you look at his conversations with Barack, who at this time was one of the most influential people in the Israeli political security establishment, he'd been the prime minister. He he was the defense minister during part of their conversations.
He was really looking up to Epstein. He was looking up to Epstein for help. He was trying to get his attention. The power dynamic was very quite quite discernible in their interactions. So it was really Epstein was kind of above, you know, any institution like that per se, but they were was a resource and a critical node that they actually relied on for connections and help and for money and political purposes and to spread their influence globally and so forth.
So I suspect that these files, which, you know, again, we haven't had a chance to go through in great granularity and really to get extract the true meaning out of them does take some time to kind of put them chronologically together and see what the meaning of all the conversations were in context. But I do suspect that they will point more of this. Now I have been looking at that conversation that you you referenced earlier with Barack, and a third figure who you know, we have some theories of who it is, but we're not having we're not sharing them yet, but I think someone people probably know very well. You know, I do think that points to even more detail about, what Epstein was doing. And I think the one thing about these documents is that they're gonna help us do a lot more stories about this Israel connection soon because they filled in the gaps from some of the things that we weren't able to nail down before.
And I think we'll see a lot more stories about Epstein's influence, through Israel, in many countries around the world, including in many countries in Africa, Central Asia, and obviously in Europe and North America and Russia as well.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 The Epstein files just detonated. New docs hint Epstein discussed Fort Knox years ago. Now Trump launches Project Vault, China pushes the yuan, and the UK is in chaos. Is the old global order collapsing right now? https://t.co/rV7bOixcJ3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript centers on a chain of controversial claims and geopolitical financial narratives tied to Epstein, Fort Knox, and looming shifts in global power and economics.
- Epstein and the 2008 financial collapse: Epstein is described as openly commenting on Fort Knox’s “lack of gold,” while allegedly being on a payphone from his jail cell with the heads of Bear Stearns and JPMorgan during the Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers turmoil. The speaker asserts Epstein dialed Bear Stearns first and then JPMorgan, claiming he was advising “these sick people” during the crisis.
- Solitary confinement calls and real-time intelligence: Speaker 2 recounts being in solitary confinement and having two phones to talk to Bear Stearns and JPMorgan simultaneously, noting the difficulty of keeping conversations private due to safety concerns.
- Epstein’s broader role and authenticity questions: The speaker suggests the global elite, described as “globalists,” were taking Epstein’s calls from prison and that Epstein’s involvement points to a broader pattern of influence over financial systems. The speaker questions whether Epstein is dead, asserting the body in the correctional facility was not Epstein and claiming the noose was swapped, arguing that Epstein is alive and living “in Israel somewhere.”
- Fort Knox gold and public narratives: The discussion clarifies that Epstein-related materials do not contain Epstein confessing to personally verifying missing gold; instead, they reference a forwarded 2011 email alleging Fort Knox is empty and that the government sold gold and did not refill it. The speaker notes that the official position is that Fort Knox holds about 147,000,000 ounces of gold, with the Treasury secretary assuring that the gold is accounted for through audits, though access to view it is restricted (Rand Paul’s inability to see it is cited).
- Related public skepticism and attempts to verify: The segment references failed attempts to livestream Fort Knox’s vault and prior plans for Trump to inspect the vault, underscoring perceived gaps between public expectation and access to verify gold reserves.
- Economic and geopolitical implications: The narrative broadens to link Epstein’s files to current events, suggesting a “globalist collapse” and connecting elite corruption to systemic power. It ties three tracks: Epstein-file revelations eroding trust in elites; the U.S. government hardening its supply chains against China by building an American minerals stockpile called “Project Vault”; and China’s push to promote the yuan as a global reserve currency, with Xi Jinping explicitly advocating for the yuan to gain reserve status and broaden its use in trade and investment.
- Currency and mineral leverage: The speaker argues that a reserve-currency shift requires confidence, deep markets, stable rules, and commodity leverage, including silver, gold, and other critical minerals. The end result is framed as a broader realignment where control over minerals and currencies intersects with geopolitical competition, including the end of the START treaty with Russia, suggesting a move toward a new cold-war dynamic with larger nuclear arsenals and shifting strategic dependencies.
- Conclusion and forward look: The speaker ties Epstein’s disclosures, global elite networks, and the mineral/currency shifts into a single narrative about a reshaping of global power, with ongoing questions about prosecutions of high-profile figures and the potential for dramatic political ramifications in the near term.
- Sponsor/Investment segment (omitted from promotional emphasis): The transcript includes a sponsor segment about StreamX and a proposed gold-backed product (GLDY) with high insider ownership and potential yield, pitched as a disruptive development in the gold ETF space; however, this promotional content is not elaborated upon in detail in this summary.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hang on. Wait a second. Wait just a damn second. Epstein was openly commenting on Fort Knox's lack of gold, and this sick pedophile claims he was on a a payphone from his jail cell with the head of Bear Stearns and JP Morgan while the two thousand eight collapse was happening in real time, giving advice to these sick people, people tied directly to the Bush's US treasury secretary team. He made a collect call to Bear Stearns and then his second call to JPMorgan.
Speaker 1: How did you hear about what was gonna happen to Lehman Brothers, and what did you immediately think when you heard they was gonna be put into bankruptcy?
Speaker 2: I'm glad you asked that question. I was in solitary confinement. You can dial a number and the when the person picks up, they say, you're getting a call from the Palm Beach County Jail. Will you accept reverse charges? The person I called was Jimmy Cain, the president of Bear Stearns.
And I said, tell me what's going on. The question you wanna ask is who was the other call to?
Speaker 1: Okay. Who was the other call to?
Speaker 2: The other call was to my friend at JPMorgan who was then, I didn't know at the time, trying to buy Bear Stearns. So at one point, I had two phones. It was difficult because they're afraid people are gonna hang themselves with the phone cord so they don't actually come together when they're pretty short. So I was actually going between two phones talking to Bear Stearns and JPMorgan at the same time. So I found it amusing.
Speaker 0: This really just gives you some deep insight into the peak globalization kind of stuff that was running our government. These globalists accepted a pedophile's phone call from solitary confinement to help with the banking collapse. That's how out to lunch these people were. Like, get Epstein on the phone from prison. By the way, does that sound like a guy who'd commit suicide?
I mean, hearing him, he's kinda, like, laughing and hell no, this guy didn't commit suicide. Plenty of evidence this pedophile is still alive today actually. The bodies switched out at the correctional facility. Another person entering his cell now that we see the video. Is he alive and well living in Israel somewhere?
Well, the body they found hanging in the cell was not Epstein at all, clear as day. That's pretty darn clear at this point, actually. And this morning, we now know that the noose that was used was also swapped out. So I wasn't convinced, but now I'm fully convinced that this guy is alive and well. And, I mean, when you just thought the Epstein files couldn't possibly have anything more shocking to share, we even have Epstein's admission about this gold at Fort Knox part of the story.
This guy had his dirty little mitts in everything, and the globalists allowed all of it. So buckle up because we have a lot to unpack as it relates to everything happening right now with the US dollar, China's big moves this week, our gold reserves, what's left of it if we have any, Trump's precious metals vault plan that he just announced this week, and the total globalist collapse we are witnessing. Heck, we even have the collapse of the British government as we speak all tied to Epstein, all tied to this whole story. So we're gonna get to all of that. So what was Epstein admitting about the gold at Ford Knox?
Because a lot of people are gonna run with one headline and just run with it. Don't do that. You separate what the files actually show from what people want them to prove about a particular story. So on the Fort Knox angle, what's circulating isn't Epstein confessing that he personally verified missing gold. What's in the Epstein related materials is a forwarded 2011 email referencing a sensational claim that Fort Knox is empty.
So this was years before we had this move by Elon Musk and Donald Trump to audit Fort Knox. Empty. Gone. This was being shared with Epstein and his friends, pointing out that yes, the vault is actually empty, that the government sold off vast quantities of gold and never refilled it. So what did Epstein actually know about this?
What did his billionaire friends believe? Well, they believed there was nothing really there, that it was empty, that it was all fake. And, of course, the official position is that Fort Knox holds about 147,000,000 ounces of gold, with the treasury secretary saying, hey. Don't worry about it. Scott Benson saying, don't worry about it.
The gold is accounted for through audits. Nothing to see here. Don't worry about it. Just move along. Can we see it actually?
No. Like Kentucky senator Rand Paul, can he see it?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I've been trying to go down and see the gold and make sure it's all there for about ten years.
Speaker 0: What about that, like, livestream that we were gonna see from the vault itself? Elon Musk was gonna livestream it as part of the Doge revelations. No. Not gonna happen. President Trump was gonna fly there and see it himself.
That didn't happen. It's very curious. Right? But here's why this matters anyway. It tells you what kind of narratives were circulating in the same circles where Epstein moved, stories about power, money, what's real inside the system.
It shows you that unelected globalists like Epstein were running everything. Now zoom out to February 2026 right now, and this week, the globalists are panicking. We've just seen the biggest Epstein files released yet, millions of documents, images, videos, triggering investigations, resignations, political shock waves all across Europe among these globalists. And one of the biggest names getting hammered is in The UK right now, former senior minister and ex US ambassador Peter Mendelson. He's now at the center of a UK police investigation into alleged misconduct in public office, where Mendelson allegedly leaked state secrets and marked sensitive information to Epstein while serving in government.
It's in the Epstein files. State secrets. Police have searched properties linked to him as part of the probe now. That's now had been admitted, and now the Starmer government could collapse on the, through the weight of this. We can see tomorrow on Monday what what actually happens because we've gotten multiple calls for Starmor to resign, which is happening right now as we speak on this Sunday.
And that's where this starts intersecting with the economic story because while all of this political class is sinking fast, The US is moving to harden its real world foundations of power right now, industry, supply chains, hard inputs against China we saw this week. This was all happening, by the way, this week during the Epstein upheaval. President Trump announcing Project Vault, a roughly $12,000,000,000 critical minerals stockpile designed to protect American manufacturing from supply shocks and reduce our reliance on China. Does it have anything to do with what's at Fort Knox? The goal is blunt: build a strategic reserve of rare earth minerals lithium, nickel, silver, gold the stuff that makes modern weapons, batteries, grids, and advanced tech all possible.
We don't have enough of it, and we need it.
Speaker 3: For years, American businesses have risked running out of critical minerals during market disruptions. Today, we're launching what will be known as project vault to ensure that American businesses and workers are never harmed by any shortage. We don't wanna ever go through what we went through a year ago.
Speaker 0: So this is not an abstract policy paper. This is an earthquake. The US is literally building a vault for minerals the way it built strategic petroleum oil reserves. Now keep that in your mind because here comes the third leg of the stool this week, China and the currency war. Now this all unfolded this week while everyone was scouring the Epstein files.
Xi Jinping just dropped like an atom bomb. In Beijing, Xi Jinping announced a message that would have sounded unthinkable like a generation ago. The yuan, also known as renminbi, they want it to become the world's global reserve currency. Xi Jinping called for China to build a powerful currency with reserve status, widely using it in trade, investment, foreign exchange markets toppling the US dollar. So you've got three tracks all moving at the same time here.
One, you have the Epstein files detonating public trust, exposing how connected the elite world really is, and they're all connected in deeply disgusting circles. How all these sickos operate give them all cover a globalist collapse is happening. Two) The US responding to China's export controls by stockpiling real world inputs critical minerals, all happening. And then three, you have China signaling it wants to challenge the US dollar's position, and that means it needs credibility and a real economic footprint that makes other nations willing to hold your currency. Oh, and by the way, also this week with in the midst of all of this, we had the end of our START treaty with Russia.
So that means are we entering a new cold war of building massive amounts of new nuclear weapons? Because we don't have a treaty anymore. Like, that is up in smoke. So all of this is happening, and China knows that the reserve currency status is built on confidence. Deep markets, stable rules, no volatility, and, yes, commodity leverage.
Lots of commodities. Silver, gold, all of it. Which is why the mineral story and this currency story are the exact same story. So if China wants the Yuan taken seriously, it needs trade priced in Yuan and inputs secured for decades. If The US wants to defend the US dollar's influence, it has to lock down a in physical The United States, it was sold off by Obama, Bush and Clinton.
We need mineral reserves. So if Epstein is right and Fort Knox is empty, we've got a lot of building to do. If you wanna understand why the middle class feels like it's been squeezed for years, mean, at who controlled all the choke points here while everyone else was distracted. People like Epstein working on behalf of Israel and other foreign governments, selling America's middle class down the river. We see it in the Epstein files, Epstein openly talking about creating chaos in Ukraine to make lots of money.
So working with the CIA and Mossad and MI6, we absolutely know that's the case. An intelligence asset selling the American middle class down the river. That's why we're seeing a new world order forming in real time trust collapsing, elite pedophiles being exposed, currencies competing alongside stockpiles of real precious minerals, really the stuff that makes the modern world run. So the next few months, guys, are gonna be absolutely insane. Absolutely insane.
And by the way, how many of you think we're gonna see prosecutions? How many of you think we're gonna see prosecutions in The United States? We're gonna start to see Bill and Hillary Clinton testifying before congress. Will any of them be prosecuted? Or will all of these globalists just kinda get off scot free because they're all being protected?
Let me know down below. So that's the news update part of today's video. Now I wanna tell you about today's sponsor, is tied to everything we just talked about, with precious minerals. The financial world just felt basically the equivalent of a nine point zero magnitude earthquake, because on February 1, as I mentioned, Xi Jinping, Chinese Communist Party officially threw down the gauntlet, publishing a definitive mandate to transform the Yuan into a global reserve currency. This is a full scale declaration of war on the US dollar's eighty year hegemony.
And on top of this bombshell, we just saw president Trump signing project Vault into existence. And immediately after that, vice president J. D. Vance along with secretary Rubio and the critical minerals czar for the White House, David Copley, they hosted a major critical minerals event with world leaders. Again, this is history in the making right now in 2026.
The reshaping of the mineral supply chains to feed the reindustrialization of The United States Of America. This is all tied to this revolution that's happening in demand for ownership of major commodities by the world's richest and largest institutions and individuals. Frankly, I wanna be part of this early stage opportunity, so I've been searching for big ideas in this capacity. Just as an example, before 2004, there was no gold ETF. The advent of gold allowed investors to suddenly start owning gold more easily, and now the GLD ETF generates a management fee for its owner and company of $170,000,000,000 of assets under management.
So ETFs, exchange traded funds, made gold trading accessible to a much larger audience in a much the same way that blockbuster video made movies accessible to moviegoers who just didn't wanna go to movies and wanna stay home on their couch and watch them. Right? But the next revolution that could make the ETFs of today greatly challenged by better new competitors might be here right now with today's sponsor, and that is StreamX. They're trading on the Nasdaq. Yes.
It's on the Nasdaq. Here's the ticker on your screen. It's STEX. Now I wanna come out and tell you right off the bat that I am bullish on this company. It's a core holding in my personal long term portfolio.
Imagine it's 2004, and you're in the room when the idea of launching a gold ETF is pitched to you to help incorporate it. You could have been a founding member of a financial product that now manages $170,000,000,000 in assets and collects massive fees on top of that. This could be the ultimate commodity stock right now because legends are piling into this stock like Frank Giustra, who pioneered the gold and silver royalty business. He's had multiple successful billion dollar precious metals deals. And right now he turned his attention to StreamX, with insider buying happening regularly.
So the insiders are acquiring aggressively. Their new gold product will generate a yield for holders. It will potentially revolutionize the entire gold space. This is all happening in 2026. So StreamX on the Nasdaq went public just a few months ago, and to me, their flagship debut product, the GLDY.
It offers up to a 4% yield on a one:one fully backed, vaulted, audited, redeemable, and 100% insured gold product. It's basically a Netflix versus Blockbuster moment right now for the new gold bull market that's happening. No one else offers yield on gold. Conduct your own due diligence on this company because shares are trading right now near all time lows as we speak. Could be one of the most monumental and significant developments in gold and commodities we've ever seen.
Everybody understands how Blockbuster's business model became totally obsolete and outdated almost overnight when Netflix offered the exact same content but through streaming services and DVDs sent by mail. Blockbuster went out of business, and Netflix went from launching its first stream to becoming one of the largest companies on Earth. Went from 12¢ a share to $80 a share. Think about that. Think about having first mover advantage and owning a piece of a competitor to the ETF's market and then earning fees from the marketplace that StreamX is creating.
So their chief investment officer, mister Mitchell Williams, who not only ran WAFRA, which is a Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund, who's also one of the sole portfolio managers for Oppenheimer's flagship value fund. And then you have billionaire mining tycoon Frank Juister, who I've talked about extensively here on this show, along with who I consider to be a mining legend. You had Sean Roosin who are well aware of the opportunity. So both are shareholders of Streamx, and they advise the board by the way. Frank Justra just invested heavily to the tune of 18,200,000.0 shares.
That's roughly worth about $50,000,000 in current worth. Over 50% of the shares on this company are owned by insiders. The two co founders each own 21,000,000 shares, worth just north of $60,000,000 so significant skin in the game for the people that are leading this revolution. So StreamX purchased Gold Bullion for its own balance sheet. They are very likely to be one of the only or one of the first publicly traded companies to own gold on their books.
Now the platform itself was developed by the same software experts that build cybersecurity infrastructure for Capital One Bank, Bank of America, JPMorgan's credit card processing infrastructure business, one of the largest fintech platforms in the world, of course. So I wanna make you fully aware of this at a ground floor level right now, again, trading at near all time lows. So what I'm telling you is that Streamx seeks to compete with GLD and others by offering a fully backed, fully vaulted, audited, and insured GLDY product that actually generates up to a 4% yield and disrupt the ETF model, and then take share from it, and the company was just birthed a few months ago. So every day, February changes hands in the gold market. Imagine StreamX as a first mover is able to turn some of that volume to their own proprietary platform.
So if successful, Streamx shareholders will effectively own one of the world's largest and most disruptive commodities marketplaces. So guys, deep dive this. Do your own due diligence on StreamX. Again, it's on the Nasdaq. I'll have links in the description below for you to do your own homework, and we will see you next time, everyone.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 Please Share: Your antidepressants might just be the most dangerous drug in the world. Former FDA medical officer & founder of the world’s largest psychiatric drug tapering clinic joins us to break down the risks. @taperclinic is with us. https://t.co/PgqnQHX48Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Josef Duhring and Dr. Yosef (Doctor Yosef Duhring) discuss antidepressants and SSRIs, outlining perceived risks, data limitations, and long-term concerns, followed by practical guidance on tapering and contact information for a tapering clinic.
Key side effects and risks cited
- Common side effects: gastrointestinal issues (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), changes in sleep (insomnia or drowsiness), headaches, nervousness, restlessness, dry mouth, sweating, tremors, sexual dysfunction, decreased libido, difficulty reaching orgasm, erectile dysfunction, appetite and weight changes (gain or loss).
- Other reported effects: emotional blunting, feeling less like yourself, dizziness, balance issues (especially early in treatment), increased sweating, abnormal dreams.
- Serious but rarer risks: suicidal thoughts or behaviors, particularly under age 25; serotonin syndrome (described as rare); heart rhythm changes at high doses with some SSRIs.
- Behavioral effects: mania, psychosis, irritability, aggression; rare but potentially misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder; in some cases leading to escalation to lithium or antipsychotics.
- Sleep and long-term effects: SSRI use diminishing sleep quality (less REM and deep sleep), resulting in fatigue and brain fog in long-term users.
- Long-term data gaps: “there has never been a randomized control study that looked at them for over a year,” and “seventy percent of antidepressant users are on these drugs for two years or more.” Claims that there is no long-term data on sustained efficacy or safety beyond eight to twelve weeks.
Efficacy and data concerns
- Most drugs reach market based on eight-week studies; there is a reported two-point difference on a 52-point depression scale between the drug and placebo, which is described as clinically very low.
- Outcomes most meaningful to patients (employment, relationships, life meaning) are not directly measured in standard trials, which focus on scale-based movement.
- The claim is made that long-term efficacy remains unproven and that the long-term data are unavailable.
Observations about prescription patterns and systemic factors
- Online “pill mill” platforms allegedly enable easy access to SSRIs (Lexapro), sometimes without video chats, via online questionnaires, with rapid mail delivery.
- The dose of prescription and patient interactions are affected by time constraints and economic incentives in healthcare delivery, leading to faster checklists and medication-based treatments rather than in-depth discussions of life context, relationships, or non-drug approaches.
- An “unholy alliance” between the pharmaceutical industry and academic medicine is described: investigators may pursue drug trials for career advancement and publications funded by drug companies, potentially biasing conclusions in favor of medications.
- The FDA’s stance is portrayed as influenced by this environment, with concerns about regulatory capture and inadequate critical evaluation of risks, including suicide risk data and withdrawal issues.
Key long-term and withdrawal considerations
- Long-term withdrawal: physicians are described as telling patients that antidepressant withdrawal is mild and resolves in two weeks, but tapering often requires one to two years to avoid withdrawal symptoms; many are tapered too quickly, leading to relapse or withdrawal challenges.
- Tapers and recovery: the clinician reports patients improving emotionally during tapering, sometimes even before complete discontinuation; success depends on broader life health improvements (physical health, relationships, purpose) and careful, gradual reduction.
Three major concerns observed with antidepressants (as described by Dr. Yosef)
- They don’t work for many patients in the long term; diminished efficacy over time due to emotional blunting and neurochemical adaptation.
- Behavioral and cognitive changes: potential for mania, psychosis, irritability, and misdiagnosis as bipolar disorder; risk of “drug-induced” psychiatric symptoms.
- Toxicity and sleep: long-term blunting reduces emotional responsiveness; chronic sleep disruption and brain fog; long-term toxicity may underlie persistent symptoms after prolonged use.
Clinical implications and guidance offered
- For those considering antidepressants, emotions matter and should be explored beyond a chemical-imbalance narrative; discuss physical health, relationships, purpose, substances, and non-drug approaches (therapy, lifestyle changes) before relying on medication.
- For those already on SSRIs, a careful, patient-guided taper is advised: slowly reduce dosages, use approaches such as liquid tapering to control precise reductions, and listen to one’s body to avoid withdrawal; a two-year taper may be necessary for many patients.
- Coming off antidepressants can reveal or restore aspects of life and personality; benefits may appear during tapering as engagement and motivation return, but life circumstances must be addressed in parallel to avoid relapse.
Contact information
- Tapering clinic website: taperclinic.com (for patients in the U.S.; clinic claims to operate in about 15–16 states, covering roughly 70% of the population).
- YouTube channel for further resources: Doctor Yosef (German version) with a free drug tapering training (about five hours) and guidance for working with a doctor.
Speaker names
- Dr. Yosef Duhring (referred to as Doctor Josef Duhring in the discussion) and Dr. Yosef (the same speaker) are cited; their experiences include FDA and industry roles and a tapering clinic specializing in antidepressant withdrawal and discontinuation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are antidepressants or SSIs the most dangerous drugs in the world? Consider this list of side effects: gastrointestinal nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, changes, insomnia, sometimes drowsiness just throughout the day, headaches, nervousness, restlessness, dry mouth, sweating, tremors, sexual dysfunction, decreased libido, difficulty reaching any kind of orgasm, erectile dysfunction, appetite, weight changes, weight gain, or occasionally, weight loss. Other side effects, just here's a few of them, reported in this practice. Emotional blunting, feeling less like yourself, like you kind of walk around like a zombie Dizziness Balance issues, especially early in the treatment Increased sweating Abnormal dreams, less common, but here are some other important risks. Suicidal thoughts or behaviors in some people, and especially, this is the thing that stands out to me, especially under the age of 25, suicidal thoughts, which is recognized risk and and is being monitored clinically.
We have the the data on that. Serotonin syndrome. It's rare. I don't know know exactly what that is. We'll find out.
Here's other some rare but potentially, different risks. Heart rhythm changes. Some SSRIs have that at high doses. And consider that almost every mass shooting in The United States over the past few decades have had one common denominator. The shooters were almost always on antidepressants, almost always on SSRIs.
Doctor Josef Duhring is a renowned a renowned psychiatrist, former FDA medical officer who would review this data, and founder of the world's leading psychiatric drug tapering clinic to help people get off of these drugs. And doctor Youssef joins us now. Great to have you here. Thank you so much, doctor, for joining us.
Speaker 1: Hey, Clayton. Thanks so much for having me. What I wanna say from the start is the the you know, everything that you were saying about are these the most dangerous drugs out there? All drugs have side effects and there's certainly drugs out there with, I mean, was quite a list, Clayton, but there are drugs out there with nastier side effects. The issue with the antidepressants is that no one talks about them.
It's the fact that we all pretend that these are fairly benign, ubiquitous, widely used drugs, which celebrities are talking about, we hear about them all the time. And because of that, we think that they're just normal and they're safe. And so the public are not being told that they can cause emotional blunting, sexual dysfunction, sometimes permanent, they can make people suicidal and violent. And that's the story here is that there's a huge disconnect between what people are told about these drugs and what the data actually show.
Speaker 0: Can you maybe step back for us a little bit and give our audience an understanding of how you came to this? I mean, you worked at the FDA, and we know how widely these are administered and they're just sort of I mean, very it seems like a very minimal threshold in order to even get these administered or prescribed for people and just, Oh yeah, here's antidepressants, antidepressants, When did you hit a wall with this and know that there was a much bigger problem here?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, Clayton, on that issue of how easy it is to get them, you don't even need to see someone anymore. There are platforms like HIMSS and ForHERS. These are really online pill mill pharmacies. These are the places that are flogging GLP-1s right now, where you essentially just, you know, fill out an online questionnaire, and then you get some boilerplate text language that supposedly comes from an NP, no video chat or anything like that. And they send you Lexapro, an SSRI in the mail within a couple of days.
It's a brave new world, it's very dangerous. So that's where we are right now with the ease of getting these. But onto what you were saying before, how did I get here? Well, so I'm a medical doctor and then I went to a subspecialty school to become a psychiatrist. And I mean, really the story is there was something very off about the way we were treating mental health conditions.
I came into, my love for psychiatry grew out of an interest in personal development really, and, you know, just general health. And, you know, if you can put your life in order in a good way, and if you can be physically healthy, mental health usually follows. And what I saw in my internship was we were just sitting down with people for twenty minutes and putting them on medications. And they sort of tell you that it, well, you know, these are medical conditions and so you can diagnose them just like other medical conditions by, you know, just getting a list of symptoms and you can use these drugs because it's believed that the underlying cause for these conditions is biological or chemical, you know, a chemical imbalance. And so I had a double take at that because I was like, well, intuitively to me and to a lot of other people as well, I think we recognize that things like anxiety and depression are multifaceted, they can come from a whole range of different things.
And to simplify it in that way, it just seemed off, but I was low man on the totem pole and I wasn't gonna ruffle any feathers. So I just went along with it. So I saw people in twenty minute visits, put thousands of people on SSRI medications. And what I saw during my training was just that people weren't getting better. The drugs would gradually wear off over time.
This would lead to needing higher and higher doses and eventually additional meds. Some people would get worse. We'd have people who were coming in for benign issues like, well, sorry, not benign, these were upsetting issues, like maybe you move city and you're lonely, or you go through a breakup and you have this temporary stressor. And so they would get put on antidepressants and then a couple months later, they would be diagnosed with bipolar disorder because they would have a side effect of agitation. And so people just weren't getting better.
And this is where I became very interested in drug side effects. And I would talk to my professors and I would say, well, you know, there's got to be something wrong about this model because it's not working. And they would just say, you know, these drugs are safe and effective, Yosef. You you've seen, you know, the FDA has approved them. And that's when I became really interested in drug safety research.
And so I dedicated my career at that time to investigating the research base supporting the safety and effectiveness of psychiatric drugs. I got a job at Johnson and Johnson with Janssen, which is
Speaker 0: the
Speaker 1: largest pharmaceutical manufacturer out there. And I worked in clinical development, developing psychiatric medications to see what was happening in the clinical trials. And then I went to the FDA where I had a much larger portfolio of psychiatric medications. And when I was behind the scenes and I got to see how these drugs, like the evidence base like this, because we would always tell patients, you know, the drugs are safe and effective, but you know, based on what? So And when I got to be in the pharmaceutical industry and then at the FDA, I could see what this was based on and that eventually led me to the position I now hold, which is that these drugs are much less effective than people think they are and they are much more dangerous than people are aware of.
Speaker 0: Much less effective. Can you talk about that? And then we'll get into the dangerous piece of this. Did you, what did you discover that how the ineffective they are?
Speaker 1: Well, the major thing is, so most of these drugs make it onto the market in eight week studies, right? So you have a placebo study, half of the people get the drug, half the people get the placebo, and then you follow them for eight weeks. Now, we've looked at the, I guess the difference in the effect between the drug and the placebo, it's two points on a 52 scale. So that's what they're saying is effective. There was a two point separation on a 52 scale.
That is clinically very low, you know? And then the other issue is that they don't measure things that most people care about. You know, most people, when you say, well, it's gonna improve your depression. They might start thinking, well, you know, hopefully this is gonna be correlated with, you know, better employment, you know, better relationships, you know, the things that people really care about it, it's not, it's all based on just how things move on a scale, on a depression scale. So you can just blunt someone out and it looks like the drug is doing better because that's how they measure the effect.
But the real issue, and this is the biggest scandal out there is that there's never been a randomized control study that's looked at them for over a year. And so most of them are eight to twelve weeks, but nothing went longer than a year. And if you think about that, you know, seventy percent of antidepressant users are on these drugs for two years or more. We actually have no idea what happens long term, whether we still get that very small two point difference. Like it's just
Speaker 0: We have no data.
Speaker 1: We have no idea. There's no data.
Speaker 0: Long term studies. That's unbelievable to me. No long term data.
Speaker 1: No long term data. I think most people who work in this space and maybe even many antidepressant users or their families, I mean, it's like, I think it's like, it's getting close to twenty percent of people take these drugs. So most people know someone on them. You just look, how are they doing long term? It's not like someone gets on Lexapro and they sail off into the distance and they never have any mental health problems.
They're usually not doing too hot.
Speaker 0: It's so and not funny, sad, really, that you use the term sailing off because you'll see these commercials on television, right? And it's there's no reason to feel this down in the dumps and it always shows somebody's getting on a sailboat and like sailing off and living now the best years of their life. That's a sunset and they're on a sailboat and now they're finally happy. They can live the rest of their days. It it implies that they can live out the rest of their days sailing around on these sunsets and they're just happy now.
They don't have to deal with all of the pain of life anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's clearly a lie. And then that very has consciously manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry. And unfortunately my profession of psychiatrists who have a guild interest in promoting the benefits of these drugs outside of really what the evidence shows. Because when you boil it down, what this really is, I mean, there's no chemical imbalance.
The way these drugs work is by blunting emotions. And yes, that can be therapeutic if you're in a crisis, but whenever you use drugs to treat emotional states, you worry about issues like tolerance. So the drug simply wearing off over time, which is very common. And you also worry about issues of toxicity because the human brain is not designed to be in a drugged state for years and decades. I mean, eventually something breaks and that's really what I see every day in my practice now.
I mean, I help people once these drugs turned on them and they get really sick. And a lot of it is just the long term load of being in a drugged state for years or decades.
Speaker 0: So we have this eight weeks of data, but you and your practice at the tapering clinic, you're watching people. Can you give an average of, like, how long your average patient has been on one of these drugs that you're working with?
Speaker 1: Decades, really. I mean, these these drugs hit hit the mainstream in the early nineties and not in like a little way, like Prozac comes onto the market in 'eighty seven and it's a blockbuster by the early '90s. And it's just steadily going up since then. And now, I mean, it's like, Clayton, some of these statistics are frightening. Like if we just look at women, twenty percent of women are on antidepressants.
If you go to the 50 category, it's one in three, one in three women 50 are on antidepressant medications now. It's it's just insane. And so given that they've been out for a long time, most of the people I'm seeing, we're talking decades.
Speaker 0: So decades and you're seeing what commonalities are you seeing? Obviously, you're not doing a clinical study, but based on the amount of patients you've had and the long term past that eight weeks, many of them decades, what are some commonalities you're seeing among these people?
Speaker 1: So I worry about three things, and let's just zero in on antidepressants because it's the most common. So the first thing is just that the drug doesn't work. They'll say things like, well, you know, it used to work nicely at the beginning, there was this nice effect, but now the drug is barely doing anything. So that's really common. It just Is that true?
Thing that's
Speaker 0: Like, is that true, or is that, like, just a mental state and they just because it's they've just gotten so used to it. What do you think?
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's true because I think what happens is, you know, the characteristic effect of an SSRI is one of the emotional blunting. And so let's say you're a very anxious person, you take this and you feel this sense of calm, but you know, six months into it, that kind of diminishes because our bodies like to maintain a certain balance of our neurotransmitters. A lot of people like to think that, you know, serotonin, dopamine, all these chemicals, these are just, you know, they work in small sections of the brain and they only control your mood, but that's not true at all. I mean, serotonin, for instance, it's involved in your gut health, the way your heart beats and your immune system. So if you take drugs that alter that, your body actively pushes against it.
And that's why six months into it, people will say like, well, I feel like the drug is only working ten percent now or not at all because we have adapted to the effect. And so I believe it's true. I think they're noticing diminishing drug effect over time.
Speaker 0: So I'm sorry to interrupt you. You mentioned there are three things you worry about. Number one is that they don't work. What's number two?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the second thing that I see is really behavioral changes. Now at the start of the show, listed a whole bunch of frightening things like suicidal behavior. I'll add to that list. There's things like mania, there's things like psychosis, there's things like irritability and aggression.
And so many people who get put on these medications, they will have rare side effects. And I call them rare because our biology is all different. We have different genetics. You can have ninety nine people out of 100 take an SSRI and none of this stuff happens. But if you're that one person who for whatever reason, your brain's just wide a little different, you can have a manic episode on it.
You could become aggressive. And so that's the other thing that I see. People will get on this drug, they'll have behavioral side effects and they'll be misdiagnosed as having bipolar disorder and then they'll get thrown on lithium and antipsychotics. And this is how you get someone who goes through a divorce or a breakup, you know, go and see the doctor, they get on a med and all of a sudden they're stuck in the psychiatric system told that they have bipolar disorder and they're getting nuked on drugs because they've had these side effects. So that's another problem that I help a lot with as well is untangling what's happened to someone when they come to me on like three different meds and they're just chronically doing poorly.
And the last thing, and this is the, I think this is SSRI toxicity or it has to do with the sleep issues. So many people don't know that SSRIs diminish your sleep quality. You have less REM sleep, you have less deep sleep. These are the really important parts of sleep that allow you to feel physically rejuvenated and also emotionally stable. And what I notice in many of my long term SSRI patients is they report feeling fatigued a lot of the time and having brain fog.
And the way I understand that is either chronic poor sleep quality or that just long term use of these medications has induced a brain fog fatigued state. This is frequently misdiagnosed. Doctors will just tell their patients, they'll say you have treatment resistant depression, this mysterious mental illness has now just morphed into something else. And now you need to be on like an anti psychotic medication to help the other antidepressant. It's not true.
It's a long term toxicity. So those are the three things that I see a lot with antidepressants.
Speaker 0: Sounds similar to, like, the effects you'd get with alcohol. You know? Lack of REM sleep. We know that even one I think even one drink affects your sleep, right, and REM sleep patterns and your ability. You're walking around with brain fog, etcetera.
So then I I imagine a lot of these people also are drink probably drinking alcohol on top of taking these SSRIs, right, to kind of cope or go through life in this way. So on top of that, they're getting bad sleep and then double bad sleep, I guess, with taking alcohol too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, Clayton, we have completely and you're right to bring up that analogy because as soon as you start equating psychiatric medications to other well known drugs like alcohol and things like that, it becomes very obvious that, hey, maybe there's some things to be concerned about with long term use. I mean, we know you can get dementia from long term alcohol use, same with methamphetamine, cocaine. I mean, we know issues like tolerance come into play where you need to use higher and higher amounts. All of that is intuitive, but we've been telling the public that these drugs work like diabetes for insulin.
Know, that there is some well known underlying biological process in the brain where you can test it with a blood test or a brain scan and see low serotonin And we're just bringing it up to the normal level. And we're getting your body back into its normal physiological state. And they tell the public this lie because it distracts them from the fact that no, we're just using drugs to manage our mood and our emotions. There's a lot of trade offs with that.
Speaker 0: Can you talk about the blunting? Mean, maybe some people just say, oh, this is anecdotal, right? Because we don't have, as you point out, that long term clinical data. So maybe it's just anecdotal. Doctor, you've been seeing thousands of patients for decades, and maybe it's just anecdotal.
They're all like feeling this emotional blunting. But how common is this effect? And then what does it tell us about how SSRIs are actually affecting brain function?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're right. I mean, this isn't just an anecdotal effect because there have been studies where large groups of people on these medications have been surveyed to talk about what is the effect? And that's what they say, you know, it's an effective emotional anesthesia. You know, I can speak to it. I've taken Zoloft before, my wife has taken Zoloft before.
And so I've been on SSRIs. I know what it's like to be on the drug and I've put thousands of people on it. Back in the day now I just take people off and it's just this like, it just emotionally levels you. Like if, let's say, your wife is, you're having an argument with a friend or a loved one or there's stressful things happening in your life, instead of having that full range where you're really gonna feel all of that emotion just kind of just goes and like constricts it in and everything just becomes like a two out of 10. And it's not just the negative side, it's the positive side as well.
And that's why people really don't, many people don't like taking this long term. They say things like, I couldn't cry at like a funeral. I don't cry in sad movies. I don't feel things. I don't feel connected anymore.
And not only is that a very troubling thing because that emotional pain can really be some of the spice of life. I mean, you need that. But the other issue that I really worry about with this is depression and anxiety. I mean, it's not a chemical imbalance. There's legitimate things happening in people's lives.
You can be in bad relationships, you can have a lack of purpose, you can be spiritually lost, you can have poor physical health that's leading to emotional problems. If you just numb that out, it's like taking the batteries out of a smoke detector in your house and these problems, they just sit there in the background and they fester and you just get worse over time. And so feeling your emotions, that's like protective in many ways, and it allows you to address issues in your life.
Speaker 2: Bearskin is a proud sponsor of Redacted, and we are absolutely fans of them. Bearskin has a buffet of items that you can use for cold weather, windy weather, wet weather. It is all weather gear that you need to check out. It's also quite good looking. So go to text redacted at 36912.
We also wanna tell you about the Bearskin hoodie. It is a fantastic that's what you see right there. Fantastic zip up hoodie that can hold up against wind and cold temperatures. It also has several pockets. It also is customizable, with various colors.
And in fact, our kids like them because you know how teenagers don't wear coats to school. It's uncool. And plus when you get inside the building, you don't wanna carry around your coat. A Bearskin hoodie, though, is a great in between, and they will take it. And we've had really cold temperatures like the rest of the country.
So you can get 60 off the Bearskin hoodie today. Text redacted to 36912 or go to bear.skin/redacted. One more time, that's bear.skin/redacted or text redacted to 36912. Bearskin, you'll be so happy that you did.
Speaker 0: It's crazy. I mean, I I was just speaking to a friend in in, overseas and just telling them when I was about to sit down and do this interview, and he said, yeah, you Americans and these antidepressants. It's like, it's unbelievable. And I said, yeah. It's know, in many ways, it's a lot of navel gazing as well.
You know, I think I don't know. Maybe it's just like a lot of idle time too on our hands where we're not exercising. We're not interacting with people. So we're just we're sort of sitting there feeling bad for ourselves. And I remember a friend in Europe saying to me that they went to a doctor, not even a psychiatrist, just a a doctor and this person was going through something difficult, not terrible, but a little difficult in his life and the doctor was like, oh yeah, you shouldn't have to go through that and just prescribed them antidepressant.
I was like, what? Yeah. It was like a version of Paxil or whatever it was. I don't know what he told but it like you shouldn't have to go through that. I mean, that is that's what we do as human beings, right?
We have to experience these ups and downs, you know, heartbreak and love and all of those emotions. And now we're just sort of blunting all of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And the thing is like, so the question is like, what is going on in America with antidepressants? You know, the way, because we use the most, I mean, the way I would explain this is firstly, I mean, we are the target of billions of dollars of pharmaceutical advertising. I mean, we are the biggest market, drug companies make the most out of us.
And we have built this narrative around these medications that we need to be pro psychiatric medication. We need to be talking about mental health all the time because we are fighting stigma. People throw this word around like the stigma of mental illness, but we don't really think about what it means that people are just like, oh, stigma equals bad. But what they're really referring to with stigma is the idea that if someone is having anxiety or depression, that it's some kind of moral failing. In the past we would think it was a spiritual failing.
Sometimes people would talk about possession and things like that but nowadays people say, well, it's because this is a bad person and they're an ineffective person and so things are happening in their life. And so we need to serve up a narrative where no, no, no, there's no personal responsibility, there's nothing morally going on, this is just medical. And so all of the doctors, we pat ourselves on the back because we're breaking down barriers, we're removing the judgment of suffering, but they replaced it with something that is complete bullshit, which is this chemical imbalance myth, which is so totally not true. It glazes over the fact that these problems are extremely complicated, you know, but they can be fixed. I mean, we need to work on our health, we need to get moving, we need to be exercising, relationships can be tough.
We need to work on ourselves through personal development. We need to stop using substances. So we sidestep the messy reality of what's actually causing these problems and we fed the public a lie that it was a chemical imbalance and it could be fixed by a pill. It's not
Speaker 0: so massive. Growing best up got on, I think, in the in the nineties, he he got on what was the one you mentioned? Prozac. I think it was Prozac. Yeah.
Think he might he might even still be on it, to be honest with you. I wanna have him call you. But he he he described it. Oh, yeah. They just said I have a chemical imbalance.
That's how they described it to him, and that's just a lie.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a straight up lie, and it leads into the second reason why, and this isn't just America, this is a lot of other Westernized countries now. The other reason why we have an over prescription epidemic is just the economics of healthcare. So Clayton, back in the '90s, the major health insurance companies sort of conglomerated. And when they were able to pull together all of these patients that they had access to, they were able to negotiate lower reimbursement rates for family doctors and psychiatrists. Now, what this meant for the doctors treating those patients was you had to now see four patients in an hour to make ends meet.
This was just an economic thing. And when you have that time crunch, you're naturally going to gravitate towards things that allow you to service patients in that period of time. And so diagnosing people off checklists, that's a lot faster than saying, hey, tell me about purpose and meaning in your life. Tell me about your relationships. So that takes a long time.
And also helping people with drugs is obviously a lot faster than saying, Hey, let's talk about your use of alcohol. Let's talk about your cannabis. What's getting in the way of you moving your body, let's talk about your diet, that requires a lot of time, it requires you to motivate them. And if you have to see people in fifteen minute blocks and that's how you get paid and those are the incentives.
Speaker 0: You're just
Speaker 1: gonna get doctors who, yeah, they're just gonna say, oh, you're chemical imbalance, don't worry, I've got the cover of the FDA. FDA said this was safe and effective. And so they just dish out the drugs, they don't tell them about the risks. They just say, well, the pharmacist is gonna hand someone, the pharmacist will tell them about the risks, but everyone knows you go to the pharmacist at CVS, you you say, oh, I need this prescription. They push a pad towards you.
You don't even look at it. You think you're signing like for your credit card, but it says there, you know, have you been given an opportunity to talk about the risks? And most people just, know, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. They get the bag of drugs and they pull out the drugs, they throw away the leaflet inside and they say, well, if there was something important here, my doctor or pharmacist would have told me about it. But there's yeah, essentially there's no time either for informed consent.
We're just churning people through a system.
Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about the suicide piece of this. In your working with thousands of patients and we talk about the violence piece of this, that's one of the side effects listed of course, and then I mentioned of these mass shootings and they have almost all of them have a common denominator of some of them are protected by, you know, privacy laws but others we now know were on SSRIs and that information has been released. Do you see patients where they describe suicidal thoughts or wanting to carry out violence?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Yeah. No. I hope this helps someone who's listening. So one of the most frightening things about being on psychiatric medications is that it can cause like, and this isn't common.
I don't want people to think that getting on an SSRI, it's just like a one in a hundred thing. This is really more like a one in like a hundred thousand, one in a million type reaction, which will happen a lot because we have like fifteen to twenty percent of our population on this. So these are rare side effects. But when it happens, people will describe having dark taboo thoughts. I mean, are people who will start imagining gruesome things happening to them, doing gruesome things to other people.
They feel like they can feel possessed at times. Their whole world can get taken over. It's just everything is darkness. There's nothing positive. Everything is evil.
I mean, the case that I think is the most frightening was, oh gosh, I have remember his name. We were shoot. Give a moment, Clayton. I'm gonna look this up because this is really important.
Speaker 0: Sure. And it's good that you're pointing out that it's not a one in one hundred thing. But, again, when we have these mass shootings, it only takes one in one hundred thousand or one in one million, right, to carry out something horrific at a school or or a church service or something else because they're having these dark thoughts, right?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. And yeah. And so and so the gentleman I was talking about is David Carmichael. So David Carmichael is a Canadian man who never had serious mental illness, never violent or suicidal in the past, got put on Paxil, an antidepressant.
And within a week he became psychotic and he killed his son. I think he killed his nine year old son. And so the way he describes it, so his son had a seizure disorder, that part of it is true, but then when he got on the medication, he started to experience delusions about this, that this was a terminal condition and that his son would become violent and that his son would harm others. And so in his like drug induced psychotic state, he was able to rationalize to himself that it was for the good of his family and for his son to take his life. Now David has talked publicly about this.
We were just on TMZ like a few weeks ago talking about this with the whole Nick Rina's situation. And the interesting thing about this case is it was so clearly drug induced that the prosecution agreed with him. That's really unusual. Usually the defense is like, this is drug induced and the prosecution says, no, this isn't. The prosecution agreed with him.
He ended up going to a psychiatric hospital and essentially got out without charges after a year of monitoring. And so we've got horrible cases like that. We've got the one with Nick Reiner which we don't have all the information yet but that does look like that could potentially have been drug induced as well.
Speaker 0: I wanted you to talk maybe a little bit more about your time at the FDA and maybe the process for allowing this stuff to even hit the market in the first place. I don't know RFK Junior is kinda climbing a mountain right now trying to perhaps even remove advertising from television for this but which by the way, I mean, I used to work at Fox News. You know, I used to anchor the morning show called Fox and Friends and I mean, during that four hours of the show that we used to do, I mean, there was countless drug ads on there. So, cable news will collapse because they're largely funded by Pfizer, by all of these big pharmaceutical companies. So, like, you can wave goodbye, and I'm sure that the the amount of pushback coming from, you know, big pharma and, of course, cable news and all of this to remove this advertising there.
But maybe you can just talk about maybe pull the curtain back on the FDA. Like, how are these things even allowed to hit the market knowing what they know?
Speaker 1: Now this is one of the issues where, I mean, this took me like several years to digest because I was very troubled by this. And the conclusion that I came to, because I mean, these were my colleagues, I probably interacted with 20 psychiatrists and pharmacists who were expert at looking at these things and they're often coming up with very different conclusions than I am about the data. And so I have to start by talking about the relationship between the drug companies and academic medicine. And the reason I'm starting with academic medicine is because academic hospitals feed the FDA. A lot of the doctors who work at the FDA, they're burnt out academics, they like research and so they move over there.
And so you have to understand the world that they come from. Now, there is an unholy alliance between the pharmaceutical industry and academic medicine and psychiatry in particular and what it's based on is career progression. And so you learn as an, if you are an academic, you're a doctor who likes research, you learn very early on in your career that one of the best ways to get promoted is to actually work with drug companies because you're applying for grants and there's two main source of grants. You can go and get a government grant from the NIH, extremely competitive, lots of people are going for them, or you can get grants from drug companies to help them run clinical trials. When you get government grants as well, you're usually doing all the legwork, you're writing your own protocols, you have to hire people in house to help you run those studies.
But when you work with a drug company, they give you a protocol, they give you support staff, they give you statisticians. On top of that, they help you publish the results from the clinical trials and so you get lots of lines in your CV saying, you published all these papers and they also fly you around the world. And that's what you need to ascend academia. You need lots of peer reviewed publications and you need to talk broadly. And so very early on, you learn that it's easier to work with drug companies and that's going to be very beneficial.
And when that happens, and this is the state of the situation now, you notice that the upper echelon of all academic centers right now are essentially professors who run drug company trials. And so they are very biased towards the medications, their careers are built around them and they learn that if they say anything negative about the drugs, well, the gravy train stops. You're not gonna be invited to run this next clinical trial, you're not gonna be invited to chair this panel and your career takes a hit. And so these academics and these junior academics are essentially sitting in a soup that is controlled by drug companies that where it's like be drug friendly, don't criticize the medications. And these are the attitudes and behaviors that they bring into the FDA.
Because when I was there, I would talk to people about the problems with the medications and they would say things like, things that didn't even make sense. Well, we don't wanna talk about this issue between the antidepressants and suicides because what if it scares people away from life saving drugs? That's a crazy thing to even say. Like you should be committed to the truth about these medications. You shouldn't be regurgitating PR bullshit that you heard in a medical journal from Pfizer or Eli Lilly who were trying to run cover for like mass murders and suicides like happening in the public.
And so I just found that they would just regurgitate this like status quo bullshit about the medications and that they were very hesitant to take a different tack and look at things really in a way that was in line with what the data was showing. It was regulatory capture but that's how it happens.
Speaker 0: Right. I've heard this in other industries as well, the regulatory capture. That's such an important phrase. It's amazing to me. We don't want people oh, it can cause suicide and violence, which will mean they will take their life.
We don't want them to have this medication because of the life saving effects of it. It's just it doesn't make any sense. I mean, I don't know if they hear themselves when there's
Speaker 1: Well, you know, the thing that's crazy is the data shows the opposite. I mean, you talked about how the drugs make antidepressants make young people suicidal. Clayton, the black box warning says that there's an increased risk of suicide attempts for people 25 who take these medications. Now that's at a population level. And I'm gonna underline this so it's really clear for the audience.
What that essentially means is when the FDA pulled together all these randomized controlled trials that had an equal number of people on placebo and an equal number of people on antidepressants, there's more suicide attempts in the group that are given antidepressants. These drugs are making people more suicidal, and it's already on the labels. And so to not talk about it, it's just moronic.
Speaker 0: Also moronic is this idea that it's not addictive. Right? They tell us, these are non addictive drugs and you could use it for a little while. In your experience, is that a lie?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, this is one of the biggest lies. I mean, we look at data that shows like the number, like how much, like the proportion of people on these medications, it goes up every single year. Well, the reason it goes up every single year is because people can't get off them because many people will go into severe withdrawal. And thank God, this is currently getting a lot of mainstream recognition. There's been pieces of this in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and finally mainstream journalists are talking about the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably millions of people right now who are doing these really slow tapers.
So this is what I do in my business. I help people come off these medications and sometimes to get off, you have to taper off them over one to two years because your brain is so adapted to them that you'd need to do these very gradual tapers so you can ease your brain off in a way that doesn't lead to a lot of anxiety and insomnia and disruption to your life. And so that's the other very scary thing is that most doctors, I mean, there's so much to share on this. Mean, doctors and myself included were trained to tell patients that antidepressant withdrawal was mild and it went away in two weeks. That's what I learned in my training and because of this, many people, even those on there for years, get pulled off in like two to four weeks and then they collapse, they do very poorly and then the doctor says, oh, well, see, it's your underlying condition, you gotta be on this for the rest of your life.
Where it's like, no, you actually have to come off this drug in a much more controlled way in order to not throw yourself into like an electrical brainstorm of withdrawal. So that, I mean, that's a whole nother can of worms.
Speaker 0: In your experience, then when you look at these patients that you've helped come off of this, how have you seen them transform? Like now they're fully off, They're at a 0%. They're not taking anything anymore, even if it's like a one year taper or a two year taper. What are you noticing in the weeks after you do that final dose?
Speaker 1: You know, the the really cool thing is that I mean, you see them come back to life while you're doing the taper. Like a lot of the benefit is even before coming off the last dose. So many of them actually become funnier and more spontaneous. It's like you end up talking to them and you're like, oh, wow, there's this humorous streak in there. They become more motivated, they become more connected.
So, I mean, emotions come back up. But we are, I mean, we also have to have a sober view of this as well. I mean, coming off psychiatric medications isn't just like a walk in the park. I mean, most people are on them for a reason. And so we're doing a lot of like hard work while they're coming off.
We're working on their physical health, we're working on their diet. There are behavioral things or thought processes that have led them to make bad decisions, we have to confront them because you can't, I mean, if someone is on a blunting medication because their life is in disorder, unless you help them sort out their life, if you just remove the drug, they're still going to be suffering. And so coming off these meds is, I mean, it's always easiest when it's like someone went through a divorce like ten years ago and they've kind of recovered and their life is in order. They always look great coming off but there's a lot of people who have very real problems in their life and that really depends on how much you can help them get through those things when you're taking them off the drugs.
Speaker 0: Right. Makes sense. Yeah. A trauma, childhood trauma, some sort of sexual abuse that they had to go through. Yeah.
They went through as a child, awful stuff. It's not something that you can just walk away from the underlying, you know, underlying trauma there, I I I bet. What do you hope that like if someone's watching this and I hope that this goes out to millions of people. If someone's watching this thinking about coming off of it or going on SSRIs or antidepressants for the first time. What would you say to someone who's thinking about going on antidepressants for the first time?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So the first thing that I would say to them is your emotions mean something. Don't let a doctor tell you that it's a chemical imbalance. You want someone to spend time with you. You want them to look at your physical health, your relationships, purpose and meaning, the substances that you're putting in your body, prescription and non prescription.
How you feel matters. And so that's the first thing and you need to lean into that. Numbing that could be an enormous opportunity cost where you miss out on the chance to address something very serious and it could get worse. So that's what I would say to someone thinking about this. Be very interested in your emotions and know that they're coming from somewhere.
However, if you have done everything, I mean, really, like if your health is in order, there's no medical issues going on, you're engaged in therapy, if you're still suffering, there's no harm in going to a medication. The main issue that we have right now is that people skip all of the non drug approaches and go straight to drugs. You need to do all the non drug approaches first before relying on something like a drug, which has all the problems that we've just talked about. And so that's what I would say to the person thinking about getting on. Now, to the person who wants to come off, what I would say is generally after a couple years of use, this is like, it's probably gonna be a six to eighteen month journey and you really need to listen to your body.
Don't let anyone tell you you can come off in a couple of weeks, that's almost always gonna fail. You can find a doctor who knows how to taper you. A lot of people, I recommend using liquids because you can draw up your dose in a syringe, the syringe has 100 little lines on the side. You can just say, hey, every week I'm just gonna drop five of these lines and then in twenty weeks I'll be off. You could do something like that but you need to listen to your body and how you react to the reductions.
Because if you start having withdrawal, just go back to the last dose, wait for it to settle down and then do a smaller reduction next time. And so the main thing in coming off is listen to your body, go slow, and don't rush. And I think, I don't know if this is Navy SEALs or Marines, but there's some saying like, it's like slow is smooth and smooth is fast. I mean, that has never been more true for coming off psychiatric medications. Doing it the right way, slowly, smoothly is almost always the fastest way.
Speaker 0: Well said. Well, if people wanna get in contact with you at your tapering clinic, you take extra patients, if you're able to work with or point someone in the right direction, how can people contact you and your clinic?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we're all over the country now. I think we're in the 15 or 16 most largest US states. And so I think that's about 70% of the population. Our website is taperclinic.com. So you can go there and we have videos on our program that you can check out and see if we're a good fit for you.
If you're someone listening internationally or maybe in a smaller state, I would recommend that you go and check out my YouTube channel which is Doctor. Josef, but it's the German version. So it's J O S E F and we have all sorts of videos there, very long detailed videos on how to safely do a drug taper with your doctor. Underneath all of the videos, we also have a free drug tapering training. It's about five hours long and that's like everything you would ever wanna know about coming off any psychiatric medication.
It's available for free if you go through that and you use it to work with your own doctor, you're gonna be in a really good place.
Speaker 0: Doctor. Youssef Duhring, thank you for all your work on this. Thank you for sharing your story. Thank you for sharing the data that you know about and hopefully trying to help people get off of these drugs. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Thanks so much for having me.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
The Swamp runs DEEP! Explosive new docs reveal Epstein claimed Rothschild ties & sought tech deals linked to Ukraine. Is this the tip of the iceberg? DEMAND the TRUTH! https://t.co/QzjxuDWTrH
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the conversation, Epstein claims in newly released documents to represent the Rothschilds, stating in an email to Peter Thiel of Palantir that he “represent[s] the Rothschilds” and discussing a bank with “160,000,000,000” under management and opportunities in tech. He also notes avoiding the Middle East for the next decade and planning to be back on the East Coast, in New York City, on an island in late April or May. The transcript highlights Epstein’s assertion that he is aligned with the Rothschilds and “best clients in the world, prehistoric products, etcetera, etcetera,” suggesting a substantial reach into high-level finance and technology networks.
Mel Kay of the Mel Kay Show discusses these revelations, expressing that Epstein’s files imply a broader pattern. She argues that a supranational international banking cartel has been running the country—and, she says, the world—since World War II, with American taxpayers effectively footing the bill. Kay describes this as a “very small club” of generational wealth, implied to operate behind the scenes of global finance and governance.
The discussion emphasizes Epstein’s connection to well-known financial and tech figures, the explicit claim of representing the Rothschilds, and the broader narrative of a secretive, powerful banking cartel influencing national and international affairs. It also notes the 2014 CIA-backed coup in Kiev, described in the documents as a lucrative business opportunity, and references the suggestion that Epstein’s network seeks to leverage such events for financial gain.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You probably know, he says, I represent the Rothschilds. Well, in the new Epstein files, Epstein himself claims to represent the Rothschilds. And the pedophile sex offender also treated the '20 fourteen CIA backed coup in Kiev Ukraine as lucrative business opportunity according to the newly released Epstein documents. Here is that email to Peter Thiel of Palantir. He says, certainly not in Saudi.
Just think I will avoid the Middle East for the next decade or so. Should be back on the East Coast in late April or May sometime in New York City on an island on the island then. As you probably know, he says, I represent the Rothschilds. I was hoping to figure out a way for the bank that has a 160,000,000,000 in it. Management can do something in tech.
Best clients in the world, prehistoric products, etcetera, etcetera. So he really landed on thick for Peter Thiel. Most of us understand the Rothschilds represent a secret underground group of puppet masters bending international finance to their benefit for hundreds of years. But what are they really, and what is Epstein's connection here? Mel Kay from the Mel Kay show joins us right now.
She's been tracking all of this, and she's been tracking this for years. And you must feel a little vindicated, Mel. We're seeing this in in print inside of these documents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, it's just I hope that the American people are having their eyes open to the idea that a supranational international banking cartel has been running our country and frankly the world since World War two and that the American taxpayer have essentially been paying for all of this. And, what I see when I when I see all of these documents is, again, a very small club. It seems to be generational wealth.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🍽️ Ever wonder why the US food pyramid helped fuel decades of diabetes? One of the quiet influences behind it traces back to a small Christian denomination almost no one talks about. Now there’s a brand new food pyramid, & the backstory is wild. https://t.co/rtVpg0JiyB
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the origins of the modern food pyramid and argues that a small Christian denomination, the Seventh-day Adventists, quietly shaped American dietary guidelines and public health, contributing to later increases in diabetes through a grain- and processed-carb–heavy guidance. It begins by noting the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture released a new food pillar pyramid in contrast to the old one, emphasizing healthy fats, protein, dairy, vegetables and fruits, and whole foods with less processed sugar and grains.
The presenter follows the thread back to Ellen G. White, who, in 1863, reportedly received a vision about the Garden of Eden diet—fruits, nuts, vegetables, and seeds, with no alcohol, tobacco, meat, or much dairy—founding the Seventh-day Adventist church. In Battle Creek, Michigan, John Preston Kellogg and his family became central figures; the Kellogg name is linked to extending these dietary ideas into American food culture. John Harvey Kellogg, in particular, typeset Ellen White’s works and was influenced by the temperance movement, which promoted abstention from alcohol and meat, sexual restraint, and balance among exercise, rest, and cleanliness. Kellogg created bland cereals and promoted a vegetarian diet, inventing the cornflake by 1882 and bringing it to market with his brother Will, along with over 30 patents including a vegetarian burger.
The narrative asks why Americans adopted Kellogg’s approach over bacon and eggs and attributes some influence to Adventists securing positions within dietary organizations and the government for decades. Lena Cooper, a Kellogg protege who ran a cooking school, helped establish the American Dietetic Association, served on the Surgeon General’s staff, and created the Department of Dietetics at the National Institute of Health. Other Adventists, like Harry Miller, a missionary in China, contributed to the idea of soy milk. By 1988, the American Dietetic Association formally accepted vegetarianism, with eight of nine reviewers being vegetarians—five Adventists, the rest vegetarian for other reasons; one reviewer was funded by Coca-Cola despite not being vegetarian.
The original 1992 USDA food pyramid, according to the video, was influenced by these Adventist connections, along with lobbies from sugar, soda, seeds, and other industries. The presenter points out Adventists still own food brands such as Sanitarium (largest cereal producer in Australia, makers of Weetabix and Vegemite), and in the U.S. Worthington (plant-based meats) and Cedar Lake (beans, rice, sugar, coffee). AdventHealth, a major health system, is also identified as Adventist-owned, and Adventists run hospitals, medical schools, and research centers, publishing nutrition research. The speaker emphasizes that the Adventist population—about 1.2 to 1.3 million, roughly 0.4% of Americans—has disproportionate influence on American diet, health care decisions, and public health, through ownership of brands and control of institutions.
The video suggests that the current food pyramid’s promotion of vegetarian and grain-based eating could reflect ongoing influence, and it questions whether profit or ideological pressures shape dietary guidelines, stating that human nutrition requires complete proteins, bioavailable fats, and essential micronutrients, which the new pyramid appears to promote. The takeaway is a call to scrutinize who benefits from dietary shifts and the power they wield, inviting viewers to share their thoughts on whether they knew this history.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, this is a fun story about why we have a food pyramid and why it has looked like it has since the early nineties and then subsequently led to skyrocketing rates of diabetes. One of the lesser known influences behind those guidelines comes from a small Christian denomination, and its role is rarely discussed. In the beginning of the show, I asked people to guess who it was. It wasn't Jehovah's Witnesses. It wasn't Mormons.
It is not the Catholics. I'm gonna tell you in just a second. The US Department of Health and Human Services along with the Department of Agriculture this week rolled out this brand new food pillar pyramid. It's basically an inversion of our old one. It says that your diet should be made of mostly healthy fats, protein, and dairy, vegetables and fruits, whole foods.
If you go to realfood.com, it's a beautiful site, actually. And the government has all kinds of tips on how to eat real unprocessed foods, low in sugar, and other types of, processed grains. The old food pyramid was a okay with processed grains, spaghetti, breads, crackers even. Like, literally, the government was telling you to eat make most of your diet out of crackers. Look down there as saltines.
There's no nutritional value in that. This that's a way to get diabetes because it's a constant insulin spike and have very little dairy and meat. It why was it recommended? Whoever thought that it was preferable to eat breads and pasta as the main course of your meal and suffer this constant elevated glycemic spike? Well, this is an interesting story.
Most of it told by what this is the way I learned it through Jane Buxton's great book, The Great Plant Based Con, and I'm gonna summarize it for you. But I have many times recommended that you read this book, and here is another time. So this is not the only story of how profitable processed foods came to dominate the American diet, but it is a big one. In 1863, a woman named Ellen G. White said that God gave her a message in a vision, and that message was that humans should eat what she called the Garden of Eden diet.
By that, she meant fruits, nuts, vegetables, and seeds, and no alcohol, no tobacco, no meat, and very little dairy. This was part of the religion she would go out on to found. It was the Seventh day Adventist church. Did any of you get that right? Anyone in the chat?
Seventh day I saw a few. You did. Now she founded this church in Battle Creek, Michigan, one of the families that would help her establish the church. The dad was a man named John Prestig John Preston Kellogg. Do you recognize that name?
You probably do if you've ever been in an American supermarket. Kellogg had 11 children. One of them, John Harvey Kellogg, as a young man, was given a job to typeset the books of Ellen White. And so her Seventh Day Adventist books and her temperance movement were what he would type set. And back then, this is the eighteen hundreds, you had to letter by letter, so he was clearly reading the books and heavily influenced by the temperance movement.
The temperance reformers believed that citizens were plagued by disease because of overstimulation and immoral behavior. So they set out to curb these things by abstaining from alcohol and meat processed I lost my way. I was gonna say oh, okay. By from abstaining from alcohol and meat and practicing sexual restraint and promoting a balance between exercise, rest, and cleanliness. They were also very big on preventing masturbation.
John Harvey Kellogg also typeset books on that subject too that told mothers that it was their responsibility to stop their sons from masturbating or else they would suffer from headaches, weak backs, spinal illnesses, and blindness. That's where we get that joke that if you do that, you'll go blind. That came from the temperance movements. They'd literally said this in books. So books about this movement would influence Kellogg, and it would become his life's purpose, which motivated him to make these bland tasting cereals and and prescribe a vegetarian diet.
By 1882, he invented the cornflake. And by the early eighteen nineties, he would bring it to market with his brother, Will. He actually invented more than just breakfast cereal. That was just their most profitable. He had a whole line of pat he had over 30 patents, including the first veggie burger.
Now the question is, Americans at the time were not eating this. Why would they choose to? Why would you want why would you want to eat this instead of bacon and eggs that they were eating? Well, a lot of that is because of the Seventh Day Adventist. They had secured appointments within dietary organizations in the government for decades.
One of them was Lena Cooper. She was a protege of Kellogg and his wife. The Kelloggs had a cooking school and their students went on to develop nursing schools focused on nutrition. Cooper graduated from one of those and went on to establish the American Dietetic Association. She served as on the staff of the Surgeon General, and she created the Department of Dietetics at the National Institute of Health.
There are many other Seventh day Adventists who would then continue to influence the plant based diet, like this guy, Harry Miller. He was also a Seventh day Adventist and a missionary in China. That's how he came up with the idea of soy milk. Did you know that? That that came from a Chinese missionary or an American missionary in China.
Now this influence continues all the way through until in 1988, the American Dietary Association issued a formal acceptance of vegetarianism. Of the nine reviewers on that board, eight of them were vegetarians, five were Seventh day Adventists. The other three were vegetarians, but not religiously associated. And one was not a vegetarian, but he was funded by Coca Cola. And then we get this.
Four years later, the original USDA food pyramid in 1992. Now I'm not saying that the Seventh day Adventists were the only influence in the government development of that monstrosity. There were other stories to be told, but we know those stories were told them a lot. The sugar lobby, the soda lobby, the seed lobby, who benefited from that? We know those stories.
This one, I feel like most of us really don't. Like, what about you boys? Did you guys know this about Kellogg's? Yes. I mean, I I took a nutrition class in college, like a Okay.
I watched the documentary. A documentary. Okay. Alright. So this is something that maybe some of you know, but some of you might not.
Now did you also know, though, that, the Seventh day Adventists still own quite a few food brands, including Sanitarium, which is the largest cereal producer in Australia. They make Weetabix. You might have heard of this. Australians like to talk about Weetabix. They also make Vegemite, As in he just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich.
That's what this is. It's made by the Seventh day Adventists who believe that you shouldn't eat meat because of the temperance movement. In The US, they own Worthington, which makes plant based sandwich meats, and Cedar Lake, which makes beans, rice, and sugar and coffee. Now most of these companies don't have to pay taxes because they're on their profits because they're owned by a church. The vegetarian diet is still very much outwardly promoted by the Seventh Day Adventists.
Here's their website. Now, what people may not know, not only in their influence in the American diet, but also in sort of overreaching in all areas of American health care. Because they run large hospital systems still, such as the AdventHealth, which is really big here in Colorado. David, you've seen it, right? These these AdventHealth is one of the biggest health systems.
That's did you know that's owned by the Adventists? I did not. Yes, it is. They also run adversity universities, medical schools, research centers. They publish peer reviewed research and nutrition.
They have still quite a lot of influence in public health. Now, I'm not saying maybe they don't believe this, they probably really do, Right? But this is their it's it's their underlying religious philosophy that's influencing their research and products and then is put on the American consumer whether we know it or not. So this is a story worth telling because the Adventist church population is quite small. It's about 1.2 to 1,300,000 members.
It's about the size of, like, Jehovah's Witnesses. It's it's a small portion of the American population. I estimate that at about 0.4% of Americans. But they have such disproportional influence in dietary decisions in the US government and health care decisions. So, you know, it's interesting to know that.
This is a story worth knowing when you hear the government pushing vegetarian and grain based diets. Where is that influence coming from? Now, RFK Jr. Has chosen not to do that. And, you know, what he says is more evidence based food pyramid.
But how do we know that the current food pyramid now is not shaped by profit or ideological pressures? Well, we don't. Not with certainty. What we do know is that human beings do require complete proteins, bioavailable fats, and essential micronutrients for growth, repair, and metabolic function. And this pyramid does clearly have promote those things instead of processed foods, so we can feel better about that.
But will there be people who profit from this shift? Well, almost certainly. That's why this scrutiny shouldn't just stop because of these new guidelines. We should always be paying attention to who benefits and what power they yield. So let me know what you think of this in the comments, and if this is a story you'd ever heard before.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
📉 Want a snapshot of mass immigration policy in action? Look at Canada. Vancouver & British Columbia have undergone a rapid demographic shift that longtime residents say has made the city unrecognizable. @TheLaurenChen is with us. https://t.co/OT28PFSHnu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript presents a contrived media discussion framing mass immigration from India as a crisis-like trend sweeping Western countries. It begins with claims that Canada, especially British Columbia and Vancouver, is overrun with East Indians, and that Canada’s openness to Indian immigration has made cities like Vancouver and Brampton “unrecognizable” to natives. A montage introduces Brampton as “Canada's little India,” where roughly 53 of the entire population is foreign-born and India is the top country of origin. Interviewees from Brampton describe Punjabis and other groups, suggesting diminished cultural integration and attributing local changes to immigration—though some acknowledge Indian immigrants as “nice people” and “cheap” labor.
The segment then pivots to Europe, citing Ursula von der Leyen’s announcement of an “EU legal gateway office in India” and a mobility agreement intended to facilitate movement of students, researchers, and workers as evidence that Europe will mirror Canada’s approach. The show asserts this will lead to large-scale Indian immigration into Europe, claiming Europe is already collapsing under energy policies and open borders.
Lauren Chen, a Canadian guest, is invited to discuss perceived negative outcomes in Canada due to mass migration, including what the hosts call a “mass migration” program. Chen contends that Canada has seen a general decline in the standard of living for Canadians, with high school and college graduates unable to obtain jobs because many Indians are willing to work for cheaper. She alleges a government wage-subsidy program that subsidizes Indian immigrant wages, connects to rising housing costs, and notes that Canada’s birth rate among natives is below replacement. She asserts that immigration has led to housing prices “skyrocketing” and that millennials struggle to achieve independence.
Chen adds that Indian migrants bring cultural incompatibilities, citing inappropriate public defecation on beaches as an example, and argues that Canada’s former merit-based immigration system under Trudeau shifted toward mass migration and low-skilled chain migration. She warns about fraudulent universities in India and similar fraud in the U.S. with H-1B programs, urging caution about high-skilled immigration deals with developing countries like India. She points to truck-driver deaths linked to varying licensing standards and suggests many Western countries lack effective assimilation requirements. She contrasts European policy with practices in Italy or Portugal where language tests and cultural proficiency are required for citizenship, arguing Western governments show self-sabotage of their own cultures.
The discussion includes later remarks on crime statistics, alleging increases in Canada among permanent residents from India and other countries, and predicting similar trends in Europe if mass immigration continues. Speakers discuss the ideological motivation behind open borders and assimilation policies, with concerns about the impact on native populations, youth prospects, and welfare usage by certain immigrant groups. The segment closes with light, off-topic banter about beach signage and social media, briefly returning to the idea that Canada serves as a warning for Europe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, if you wanna get a sense of what happens when you open up your doors to massive amounts of immigration from India, look no further than Canada, specifically British Columbia, Vancouver. That province and city are overrun with East Indians. Get on the sky train to head downtown, and you'll be filled with East Indian immigrants. For Canadians who grew up there, it's now unrecognizable. Tyler Olivier, Olivier put together a snapshot of India's invasion of Canada.
Here's just a glimpse.
Speaker 1: Punjabis here in Brampton. It's like home. This is Brampton, Canada's little India, where roughly 53 of the entire population is foreign born, and India is the number one country of origin. Where are you originally from? I'm from India.
India. India. India.
Speaker 2: I'm from Punjab. Punjab.
Speaker 1: Punjab. Everyone's from Punjab. From Ghana.
Speaker 2: From Sri Lanka.
Speaker 1: Jamaica. Jamaica. Okay. Is there a large Indian community here in Brampton? Too much.
Too much? Yeah. In store, counter, restaurant, movie dealer, everywhere. Why is it so popular for Indians here?
Speaker 0: I don't know. It's cheap.
Speaker 1: I'm not a 100% certain, but a lot of people say it's because the airport's right there. It's been going off for about forty years. What do you do for work? Check the Track and drive. Drive.
Drive? Yeah. Have you noticed any big demographic changes here in Brampton? Yes. What are your thoughts on the Indian migration that's come here recently?
Speaker 2: They're okay, but, they don't bother me, though.
Speaker 1: Nice people. They're good people, actually.
Speaker 0: That's just a glimpse. Well, get ready because the same thing is about to happen in Europe where this week, Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected globalist, leader of Europe, made this announcement about opening Europe's doors to massive amounts of Indian immigrants using virtually the same program that Canada did. Watch.
Speaker 2: Finally, prime minister Yanarendra, we both know our greatest wealth are our people. That is why I'm so glad that we are signing an agreement on mobility. We will facilitate the movement of students, researchers, seasonal and highly skilled workers. And this is also why we are launching the first EU legal gateway office in India. It will be a one stop hub to support Indian talent moving to Europe in full alignment with EU member states' needs and policies.
This is good for our economies. This is good for the friendship between our people, and this openness benefits us all.
Speaker 0: Alright. There you go. That's what's coming. Europe is already collapsing under its own disastrous energy policies, open borders, immigration policies are now facing massive immigration from India. So will this be good?
Let's ask Lauren Chen. She's a Canadian. She's seen exactly what happened to her country with massive immigration from India. Lauren, welcome to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me. Although, this is a I'm sorry that this is the topic I'm gonna be speaking about because I'm gonna be real with you. It's a pretty negative one, at least at least when you look at what's happened to Canada after Mass and Dean migration.
Speaker 4: Now you have
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I was just gonna say what has happened to Canada?
Speaker 3: Well, you see by and large a general decrease in the standard of living for Canadians. There are Canadians who are in high school or even coming out of college who frankly cannot get a job because there are so many Indians who have been imported who are willing to work for cheaper. And I don't know if the EU is as crazy as the Canadian government, but there's actually a a program in the Canadian government where they will subsidize the wages of Indian immigrants if, different companies want to bring them over. It is insanity. We also see the cost of living has gone up.
Housing especially has exploded in prices. And it's getting harder and harder for even millennials like myself to purchase homes. A lot of Canadians don't have, you know, the same prospects of being independent that their parents did. And a lot of this is specifically due to the mass migration. Canada, native Canadians have a, a birth rate that's below replacement, which means that, you know, housing especially should be getting cheaper, but it's not.
It's skyrocketing. And it's specifically because of mass migration. And, you know, when we look at the Indian culture specifically, what we also see, unfortunately, is that a lot of the people coming over are not compatible with Canadian values. Like, I don't mean to be crass, but, not defecating publicly. There's been an increasing issue on Canadian beaches where they're putting up signs against public defecation.
And I I don't mean to sound like a western chauvinist, but I just I think if you if you don't know that inherently, it's not appropriate to defecate on a beach. You probably shouldn't be moving into my country.
Speaker 4: Now you have said you're not against immigration. You have no prejudice against different cultures. You're asking for reasonable and measured and slower immigration at a rate at which a con a country can adopt. There is no method for calculating this. There's no we've been immigrants.
We moved to Portugal. We had to show that we would use our own health insurance, that we were people of means, that we would not be a drain on their economy. Why can't that be a thing? It was not racist. When Portugal asked us for that.
We didn't feel offended.
Speaker 3: No. Absolutely not. I myself have immigrated and lived in different countries, and I think it's very reasonable for a host country to say, we wanna make sure that you're going to be a contributor, that you're going to assimilate, that you're not gonna be a drain, and that you're not gonna disrupt our way of life. And for the longest time, Canada specifically actually had a very a very, I think, workable immigration system. It was merit based, points based.
That's why I think similar to The United States, for the longest time, the immigrant Indians, sorry, Indian immigrants specifically that were coming over to Canada, they were skilled professionals. And so for a long time generations in Canada, the Indian community actually had a very a positive reputation because these people were our doctors, accountants, business owners who integrated. And the numbers were such that they weren't causing these huge drastic shifts in things like the housing markets or labor markets. However, since especially Justin Trudeau came in as prime minister, that system has shifted. We're no longer talking about limited skills based immigration.
Now we're talking about mass migration, including chain migration, bringing over low skilled workers. And we're seeing now increasingly that India as a country is just not compatible with Canada as a country. There's a difference between saying some Indian immigrants can come over. We'll take your best and brightest. Of course.
There's a that's not the same thing as saying, by and large, we're gonna have this blanket, compact. Like, it seems like the EU is trying to implement with this country that I'm sorry, but is is a developing country. Their, you know, their education standards is not the same, are not the same as Canada's. Their professional standards are not the same. The EU mentioned students specifically.
What you need to understand, and Canada has been grappling with this, is that there are a lot of fraudulent universities in India, diploma mills where they will just print out these fake degrees, and and award them to people who are willing to pay for them, giving that person a ticket to whichever country they want. The US is also seeing fraud like this when it comes to h one b's. And so I would very much caution any world leader in doing this type of deal specifically with India when we're seeing the number of scams that are happening. I think it's also, I think relevant to talk about. We've seen truck drivers of Indian descent, specifically in America and Canada, cause these fatalities?
Because, obviously, like, you know, licenses are something where there's also different standards. So just Sure. By and large, not all countries are like America or Canada or The UK. If we were talking about, you know, a more immigration within these developed western countries, that would be one thing. I think the general population is at a point where they would still be, skeptical about it.
But when we're talking about a a third world developing, you know, South Asian country, put the brakes on. No one in Europe has voted for this. No one in Canada voted for this. And yet time and time again, we see that this is where things are going. People need to be very concerned in Europe.
Speaker 4: Maybe you've heard about this. Smart people are grabbing theirs now. When it's freezing, you want the gear that actually keeps you warm. Bearskin is running a 60% off deal right now, so you can finally upgrade that sad excuse for a winter hoodie you've been suffering in. Now let me tell you specifically why I like this is because I have teenagers who refuse to go to school in a coat.
I guess it's uncool to wear a coat, but they will wear a hoodie. And I get it because they go, you know, from the car to the in building in the winter, and then they don't leave again. They don't wanna carry a coat. It's uncool. This is a really good midway solution specifically for that.
Now if you're not a teenager that goes to high school and you're like, I actually will wear a coat, you wanna look into Bearskin. They have a buffet of really great options for heavy winter weather, and the hoodies are really built for serious cold weather. They've got 340, GSMs of bearskin fleece, 10 legit pockets, a muscular fit, and even zips into the heavy storm rain jacket to turn into a full winter waterproof armor. So whether you're hiking, hunting, traveling, or just really hate being cold, this is the last hoodie you need. And Clayton and I wear ours every morning because we walk the dog in all weather because he's gotta go out.
We gotta do it. And we also we want him to get exercise and live longer. So our dog does get full walks every day in winter gear. There's no dog. There's no dog version of bearskin as far as I know.
Right? We can put that on our wish list. It's just the humans that wear the Bearskin. So check them out. Text redacted to 36912, or go to bear.skin/redacted.
That's baer.skin/redacted for 60% off your hoodie today. Again, that's b a e r. Skin slash redacted.
Speaker 0: I was gonna talk about crime statistics because if you look at Canadian crime statistics, and I haven't collated all of them, but from violent crime like, every category of crime has risen dramatically since this massive increase in migration. And let me just put up some numbers here on the screen just based on the permanent residents and how many how this has surged in Canada, specifically, permanent residents by country of citizenship for just 2025. Look at 30% surge from India specifically. Then you got China, Cameroon, Nigeria, but overwhelmingly, it's India. And then you see over the past number of years, going back to 2,000.
Again, India. India. India. And it's all part of this international mobility program, which is the same exact thing that Ursula von der Leyen is trying to do in Europe. So can we anticipate a surge in crime across Europe?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. And what what is frustrating that progressives pretend they don't understand is that the reason why certain countries are more dangerous than others is because of the people who are in it. Like, there's there's someone who's gotta be committing those crimes. And if you just, you know, kind of blanketly accept people from that country, it's it just makes sense that your crime statistics would be begin would begin to become more reflective of that other countries. In Canada, specifically, we've seen an increase in things like scams, mail theft, unfortunately, sexual assaults.
These are all sort of what India has become notorious for. And like clockwork, Canada increasingly is seeing the same as well. And I don't you know, looking at the situation in Europe, we see increasingly anti immigration hard right parties are becoming more and more popular. We see that in in Germany with the alternative for Deutschland, Reform UK as well. Even in in France, we're seeing a growing populist anti immigration movement.
And yet simultaneously, it seems like the EU and a lot of the ruling class in Europe, they're hell bent on increasing these very unpopular programs. I have a lot of sympathy, frankly, for the people in Europe right now because it seems like their government is just not listening to what they're saying. They're doing the complete opposite. And, you know, already in Europe, we're seeing some of the same things we saw in Canada with mass migration. Housing is becoming more unaffordable.
Crime rates are going up. So for people to look at this and say, yes, we want more, I really have to wonder what the ulterior motives must be because it definitely isn't the wealth concern for the welfare of your actual citizens.
Speaker 4: Right. And I'm just sort of confounded on how these Western states have dropped their requirements to assimilate. They just don't care, which shows a lack of respect for the native population in those places. In Italy, in Portugal, it it has always been that if you wanna get a passport there and you you qualify, you must pass a language test. You must show a proficient yeah.
Proficiency in the culture. And so does this show that Western governments just absolutely are self loathing for their own culture?
Speaker 3: 100%. And I wanna be clear. I don't support these types of destructions policies for any country, not just my own. You know, if if India were to say, hey. We're going to open up the the immigration standards and invite a bunch of Somalis in, I could imagine a a bunch of Indians would not like that as well, and they wouldn't feel comfortable with that.
I think countries have a right to declare that we have minimum standards, that no one has a right to be here if you're not born here, and we are able to set those standards as high as we want. That's how most other countries frankly function, and it's very strange how when it comes to immigration into Western countries, the rest of the world has developed a sense of entitlement almost as if you're you're owed being able to move to to Germany, to France, to Canada, or The United Kingdom, even if it's to the detriment of the native population. And I'm I'm very concerned, frankly, for the youth of Europe. Their prospects are looking very grim like the youth in Canada. You know, we are seeing increasingly a birth rate decline, which is due to things like a very negative outlook for the economy.
And it's kind of ironic because the mass migration proponents will point to low birth rates as reasons why we need to invite all of these, you know, other people in largely from the third world. And yet we see consistently that it's it's these people from the third world who are largely making things more unaffordable and also, frankly, sucking up a lot of resources that would otherwise go to the native population in terms of things like welfare, especially, you know, there's a big scandal in America over the disproportionate use of welfare among Somali immigrants. I I think it's fair to say that if there are people who are from your country who are struggling, your government is is in no place to start inviting other people who are also likely to have to depend on those government benefits.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Absolutely. Lauren Chen, great to have you on the show for the first time. I can't believe we haven't had you on the show yet. That's a a tragedy.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me. It's it's been a joy.
Speaker 0: Well, thrilled to have you here. Come back. Please. Come back. Hopefully, we didn't Absolutely.
Speaker 4: At your
Speaker 3: No. Sometimes Sometimes you
Speaker 2: so much.
Speaker 0: Sometimes she's off putting.
Speaker 3: Let Canada be a warning.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Right. That's true. Oh, my gosh. Lauren, thank you so much.
I appreciate it, man. And also to talk about, like, these, like, dog pooping sign. I mean, you've seen them. Like, the the signs are on social media.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah. At the beach. Like, don't
Speaker 3: take a dump on them. Fake.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It looks fake. It looks like it's AI, but they're very real. Right?
Speaker 4: Right. It's not an exclusionary thing to say. Like some cultures have different, you know, practices around spitting and all of that. Like, we have to decide what is ours. We thought we had one.
But do we or don't we?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. I feel like if it's if it's being offensive by telling people not to poop places, I'm okay with being offensive.
Speaker 2: Okay. Right.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. You can't spit gum on the ground in Singapore. Otherwise, you'll get caned. Remember that.
Speaker 4: You can poop in San Francisco where I'm from. So that that is They
Speaker 0: have a map. Yeah. They have a poop map.
Speaker 2: Poop map.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You wanna access it.
Speaker 4: A okay.
Speaker 0: Where to where to poop in in San Francisco. Lauren, we're sorry. We're sorry for this kind of talk.
Speaker 3: This is
Speaker 4: really disintegrated. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you so much. Alright.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Billionaire media moguls control what you see. Deregulation runs rampant. Will the truth EVER be revealed? Demand transparency! #EpsteinFiles https://t.co/NQV3mmJQz8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bezos owning the Washington Post is described as an arm of the CIA, a claim raised by Speaker 0. He suggests that the newspaper is part of a broader pattern where media power is consolidated in the hands of a few billionaires, accusing the outlet of being used to push a particular agenda.
Speaker 1 responds dismissively to that assertion and mentions Ellison taking over of [text incomplete in the transcript], signaling ongoing concerns about who controls major media and institutions. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 asserting that Barry Weiss is trying to squash real news and hide it, and that reporters who are doing real journalism are being targeted, framed as investigations or actions run by a few billionaires who control much of the media landscape.
A related critique follows, declaring Bill Clinton a “slimeball” for deregulating the Federal Communications Act of 1996. The speakers reference the consequence that there were thousands of independent radio stations, television stations, and newspapers before deregulation, and now six companies control 92% of the media as a result of that action, calling Clinton a “lousy little slime ball.”
The discussion moves into personal remarks about Monica Lewinsky, with a claim that “I didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” followed by derisive language directed at Bill Clinton, describing him as “that little clown.” The conversation then shifts to the Epstein files, with frustration expressed about why those files are not being released. The speakers criticize the redaction of the Epstein files and question, “Where the hell are these Epstein files?” They argue that the redactions are to protect individuals, using charged language to describe the situation as disgusting, and they call for the files to be made public.
The topic then turns to the DOJ’s handling of redactions related to Congressman Thomas Massey. The DOJ reportedly missed deadlines to provide reasons for the redactions to Massey and “walked right past his deadline.” The speakers say they interviewed Massey on the show, reiterating that the DOJ violated the deadline and ignored the will of the people, with the DOJ referred to as the “DOJ, Department of Jerkoffs.”
Finally, Massey is praised as one of the top lawmakers, described as one of the few in Congress who is truly respected, and “one of a kind,” with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 expressing strong admiration for his work and integrity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bezos owning the Washington Post Yeah. An arm of the CIA.
Speaker 1: I mean, give me a break. Ellison taking over of
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Barry Weiss trying to squash real news, hiding Yep. Coming after reporters who are doing real journalism. Like, this is what's happening, you know, run by a few a few billionaires.
Speaker 1: That's it. Again, slimeball Bill Clinton, dereg Federal Communications Act 1996. Look it up. There were thousands of independent radio stations, television stations, newspapers. Now six companies control 92% of the media because of this lousy little slime ball.
I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. She always suck my yeah. Right? That little clown. Oh, and the how about the Epstein files?
Look at this crap. Hey. How about putting them out there? Oh, no. We're redacting them.
Because these little boys, they they gotta pay to get you know, they because who would wanna do it to them. Right? It's disgusting. Where the hell are these Epstein files?
Speaker 0: Well, and as we reported here on the show this week, the DOJ just missed another deadline to provide the the reasons for the redactions to congressman Thomas Massey. They walked right past his deadline. We interviewed Thomas Massey the show. The ones again, they violated their deadline and ignoring the will of the people. DOJ, Department of Jerkoffs.
Ugh. We're living in crazy By the way, Massie is one of the top cats out there, man. He's one of the only people I really respect and very few in congress. Yeah. He's he's one of a kind.
He's terrific.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Epstein is so much WORSE than you think.🧩 @davidicke joins us to expose how Epstein’s satanic cult is just a tiny piece of a much larger & darker puzzle most people still refuse to see. https://t.co/CWX7EFPcCp
Video Transcript AI Summary
David Icke and a host discuss the fallout from the latest Epstein files, arguing that the material confirms long-standing claims about a global satanic-pedophile network connected to powerful figures. They insist that Robert Maxwell was a Mossad asset and that Epstein’s circle involved a Massad/CIA/Mossad nexus, with links to Putin, Trump, and other world leaders, and that mainstream media are presenting these revelations as new and sensational when they are not.
Icke argues that the Epstein emails, emails, eyewitness accounts, and party history are all consistent with a vast, interconnected system he calls the global cult, which operates beyond the public’s normal perception. He claims this network is not the origin of human control but a servant of a deeper, astral-level power. He introduces a framework in which the physical world is a frequency band and the astral dimension, outside visible light, is where the origin of control lies. He posits that nonhuman astral entities feed on human energy, specifically low-vibrational energy generated by fear, anger, hatred, and terror, and that this is the gift to the “gods” through rituals.
The discussion lays out how rituals, including satanic and pedophilic ones, are designed to generate maximum terror in victims to produce powerful low-vibrational energy that these astral beings feed on. Pedophilia, in this view, is tied to energy extraction (adrenochrome is referenced) and to possession, whereby an entity influences a human by connecting to their electromagnetic field or aura. The possession can be partial, with facades of normal behavior, or fully infused, causing noticeable facial changes as the entity’s information overwhelms the possessed person.
The participants discuss agency and complicity, noting that low-vibrational beings seek out people who are vulnerable or inclined toward wrongdoing, and that those who are high-vibrational—full of love and joy—cannot be attached to by these entities. They describe how secret societies maintain power through compartmentalization, ensuring most members are unaware of the true occult agenda, while inner circles orchestrate events to sustain the low-vibrational atmosphere that feeds the astral force.
They connect Epstein to broader networks of power, including the CIA, Mossad, and the AI oligarchy, and emphasize how the Epstein case illustrates how the global cult connects people publicly presented as unconnected. They point to specific London connections: Ted Heath, Jimmy Savile, Lord Mountbatten, and Prince Charles, arguing that Savile was a procurer of children for the rich and famous and that internal royal circles knew of Savile’s activities, with media and police dynamics historically protecting such figures due to their connections. They recount how Savile’s proximity to the royal family is documented, including his relationship with Margaret Thatcher.
They reference a supposed transformation: witnesses have described reptilian-like shapeshifting in individuals such as Heath, and a broader claim that some powerful figures are not fully human in a literal sense. They describe how media and political narratives are shaped to keep the public focused on visible conflicts (left vs right, Islam vs other religions) while the astral-level “they” remain behind the scenes, guiding events to generate loosh energy.
The conversation broadens to Nelson-like power networks: Keir Starmer, Tony Blair, Larry Ellison, and Epstein-linked figures, implying that public roles mask deeper affiliations. They discuss how the Overton window is manipulated to keep society within a narrow band of acceptable discourse, and how the true sources of control lie beyond ordinary perception.
Icke argues that the awakening involves redefining self-identity from body-based labels to seeing oneself as consciousness, an expansion of awareness beyond the limited frequency humans typically perceive. By recognizing a larger, interconnected reality, people can perceive the “they” behind the apparent us-vs-them divisions and see how the entire system is coordinated from a higher level.
The Roadmap, Icke’s book, is described as connecting dots across politics, occult phenomena, and afterlife concepts, suggesting that the current revelations are part of a broader unveiling of hidden forces. He frames the public revelations as a process that will shift normals and open pathways to greater insight, with the potential for both challenging and hopeful outcomes as information surfaces and people rethink established beliefs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the Epstein Files release on Friday, and the press suddenly pretends that they're learning about these things for the very first time, like the fact that Robert Maxwell was a Mossad asset, that he was murdered on a boat. This is the Epstein files document dump. Of course, this is in there, and people are saying new information is suddenly released about this new information. But, of course, the media is lying, running cover once again. All of this information was written about years ago by David Ike in his books.
The satanic rituals, the pedophilia network, the CIA, Mossad connections, the international network. And now we get to witness all of these so called MAGA influencers, you know, those same guys that had the binders that then suddenly went silent after these documents got dumped. Now, they're running cover for Trump, of course, forgetting his deep associations with Epstein, of course. And then Trump comes out and says, yeah, I never really, was really that friendly with him. Of course, the videos tell a different tale.
Of course, the emails tell a different tale. The eyewitness testimony tells a completely different tale. The the partying, of course, all of it. And then, of course, one of the the mainstream media is running cover in a larger way saying that all of this pedophilia and satanism is just something from a bygone era, of course. And David Ike posted this on his, on his ex account.
The most ridiculous thing I've heard about Epstein is that he ran the world's biggest pedophilia ring, not even close. He ran a Massad CIA blackmail operation that is just part of a vast global pedophilia satanic network that goes back into the ancient world and on which the very existence of the global cult is founded to this day. And he goes on, of course, about all of that. So this idea, as the New York Times points out, that Epstein emails reveal a bygone era.
Speaker 1: It was just one of those things, a one off,
Speaker 0: Thank they God it's all over now. Now as he's gone
Speaker 1: Gatsby, you know, it's gone now.
Speaker 0: David Ike, the great David Ike joins us now to talk all about this, his research, and this vast sort of Satan pedophilia ring and how deep this actually go goes. David, welcome back to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Yeah, have you noticed how whenever a scandal breaks, the official response is, Oh yeah, but new checks and balances have been put into place and it can't happen again. It's always the same story, but actually it is happening again because it's a fundamental part of how human society is controlled.
Speaker 1: Well, can you explain that? Because I think if someone is averse to conspiracy theories, they think, well, that was just a one off. That was awful. I can't believe it happened. It can't still be happening.
What is it? How do we know it's still happening? And why would they do this? I guess the big question is, it the pedophilia ring is just one part of other heart of darkness. Can you paint that picture for us?
Speaker 2: Yeah. You see, to understand the resistance to what is going on is to understand that from cradle to grave, people are programmed to believe in a version of normal. Now this normal may change what they call the Overton window, the limits of public debate and considered real world. It may change, so we have a new normal, but there's always a normal. And that normal never encompasses the extremes of what's actually happening.
And, you know, one of the greatest forms of mind control and perceptual limitation is to control the public's perception of the possible. There was a great quote from a guy called Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, who said words to the effect of Every man it's not actually every man, but it's getting there Every man basically views the world, the limits of the world, by the limits of his own field of vision. And that's what normality does. It gives people a certain view of what is happening, and therefore, when people come along and expose what is really happening beyond the normal, beyond the walls of normal, then they're immediately mad, bad, crazy or all of them. And so to grasp what this is all about and how it all fits together, demanding from the start is a blank sheet of paper in terms of preconceived idea, so that we let the information be our guide rather than preconceived idea, which is from the normal.
And we have the normal ingrained in us through the education system, which this global cult that I talk about, and this pedophilia and satanism is all this cult is founded on that. It created the so called public education system. It created and owns sources of communication, the great majority of them anyway. In other words, it controls the sources from which people form their perceptions to grasp a perception of normality. So first of all, that has to go.
Ladies and gentlemen, the preconceived normal has to go. Just let the information be your guide. And so to put this into perspective and to explain why satanism and pedophilia are fundamentally connected, we have to start to realize that this global network, which I call the global cult, which is the generator and the orchestrator of this global pedophilia and satanic network, it is not the origin of human control. It is the player out of that control. It is the servant of that control.
The origin of it is not in this dimension of reality, which is merely a band of frequency. That's all it is. If people realize, as I said in other chat, if people realized just how little they can actually see, they'd be staggered. We can only see something called visible light, which is so tiny, it's ridiculous. The rest of infinity exists in the same space, but we can't access it visually because this biological computer, as I call it, will only decode, literally decode, a certain tiny band of frequency.
So in the same space that we are experiencing are other dimensions of reality. And there's one very close to this one, but outside of visible light, called the astral frequency. And that's where the origin of human control is coming from. Now, to again grasp why, we have to realize that to this nonhuman force, this astral dimension force, humans are a source of energetic sustenance. Every time we think, every time we feel emotion, we are generating a frequency.
This is well known in mainstream science. We're generating energy. We can't see it because it's outside of visible light, but we can feel it. You know, we talk about good vibes, bad vibes, all horrible vibes. That's because we're feeling the frequencies, but we're not seeing the frequencies, they're outside visible light.
And those frequencies are actually an astral phenomenon. Every time we feel emotion and we think in various ways, we are putting this energy, this frequency into that astral dimension. Now, by their very nature, and demonic is a very good term, by the very nature, this demonic force in this astral dimension is in a low frequency state. It's in a higher frequency state than we are because this human realm is so unbelievably energetically dense, it's unbelievable. But they are in themselves a low vibrational state.
And therefore, if they're going to absorb human energy, it has to be within the band of frequency that they're operating on. And it turns out that that frequency band relates to what you might call low vibrational human emotion and thought. In other words, the emotions of fear, of anxiety, of depression, of hatred, of regret, of resentment, of conflict, of war, all these things generate or trigger people to generate these low vibrational frequencies. So first of all, is no benefit whatsoever in this astral force of entities, which are talked about throughout human history. To have a human world that is based on love, on joy, on peace, on harmony, on balance None, because that's not the frequency they absorb.
So when you had the Morpheus character in the Matrix hold that battery up and say the matrix, which is this is a simulated reality created by this astral force, held up the battery and said the matrix is a computer generated dream world built to turn humans into one of these, it was a very profound truth in an apparently fictional movie. We are an energy source, but only if we're in a low vibrational state. So you have this astral force, these entities, these demonic entities, and they have in service to them within the human reality, this global cult of secret societies, which are fiercely compartmentalized, so most people in them haven't got a clue what's really going on. It's the inner core I'm talking about. And the role of this global cult is to generate events and happenings in the human realm that are going to trigger in human response to these events that low vibrational energy.
So if you look at the world, it's a generator of that low vibrational energy all the time in many and various ways, whether it's, you know, this background anxiety that people feel and worry about the future, or whether it's an outright war, which generates phenomenal amounts, obviously, of this energy. This is a louche farm, as I call it in my book, The Roadmap. It's a louche farm, and louche is the word that's given to this low vibrational energy. So if we then look at the connection between pedophilia and satanism, and why it's so prevalent, and why this global cult has literally a global network, a satanic pedophile network, of which the Epstein network was a part, but only a part, it's to do with energy and it's to do with this low vibrational energy we call LUSH. So, and this is what I've put together over the years in the books, over now thirty six years of full time research.
So as I mentioned in the chat we had, the longer chat we had, I started to realize when I was putting this global cult together in the early 1990s and how it worked, and how the people in positions of power like presidents and prime ministers were just here today, gone tomorrow assets of this cult, many of which didn't even know the cult existed. But the the the cult itself is always there. I started to realize that major players in the public arena that were playing the role of advancing the gender of this cult to more and more centralization of power and human control. They were involved in satanic ritual. And you go, what?
Why? And then you realize that in the ancient world, they were doing, openly human sacrifice rituals to the gods. The gods? Who are the gods? Who are the gods through the ages that these rituals are done to?
Still done to? These nonhuman entities in the astral dimension, they interpenetrate this one. So you had these, ancients doing these these these rituals, and they were sacrificing people. And often you you you hear the the term about sacrificing young virgins to the gods. Well, young virgins is code for children, kids, and there's a reason for that that I'll come to.
And so what is happening in a ritual, whether it's the ancient openly done ritual or the secretly done now as humanity reached a point of maturity where it weren't having their open rituals anymore. Whatever time you're talking about, the question is what is the gift to the gods that these rituals or these sacrifice rituals are doing? And so you then realize that it comes down to this louche, this low vibrational energy, Because the rituals, and I've been given chapter and verse by this, by the people who've taken part over the years, some against their will, some who've seen the light eventually, that these rituals are designed specifically to generate maximum terror in the victim. And what terror does, or what terror is, is a phenomenally powerful low vibrational energy, which these entities feed off. And as I said in our chat, you know, you can look at someone and you can see from their facial expression and their body language that they're in an emotional state, terror, whatever, but you can't see the energy that they're giving off as a result of that, very powerful energy, of terror, because it's going into this astral dimension.
And they're feeding off it. These entities are feeding off it. That's the gift to the gods. And then the Satanists within the human dimension who are orchestrating the ritual, they then drink the blood of the victim, and it's by that time laced with a very powerful adrenaline generated by the energy of terror. And it gives them a high.
It gives them a it's like a drug. It's like an elixir to them. And then you look at pedophilia, that's adrenochrome by the way, that people talk about, and then you look at pedophilia. Now, I've been given chapter and verse on this over the years. I've talked not only to people in the Western world about this, I've talked to shamans in different parts of the world as well that carry the ancient knowledge.
And there's this tremendous synchronicity of explanation between the two. First of all, there's a particular energy that these entities want, and it's the energy of children before puberty. We look at puberty as a hormonal chemical change, but actually what's happening is there's a vibrational change, there's a frequency change in the energy field of children, and that expresses itself in the so called physical world as a chemical hormonal change at puberty. They want that energy overwhelmingly before that happens, if possible. And so pedophiles are basically possessed people.
You know, throughout human history, there has been this constant story, this theme of possession. Well, what is that? We have a physical body, what we call it physical, it's not really, but that's another story. We have this physical body because it allows us to interact with this frequency we call human. As I said in the other chat, I can pick up those spectacles because I have a vehicle that is resonating within the same frequency band as the spectacles, therefore I can interact with them.
My consciousness, which is a field of energy awareness that overrides the body, that is vibrating so fast, I couldn't possibly interact with this dimension and pick those glasses up. So we have this vehicle. But that electromagnetic field that you might call the mind or consciousness can be there can be a connection made between these astral entities and that human electromagnetic field, some people call it the auric field, whatever, and through that electromagnetic connection, then the perceptions of the possessed person can be controlled. And so this whole idea of possession is to connect with the electromagnetic field of human and take control of perceptions and behavior. And you know when you see these themes where literally someone's face changes into some grotesque entity.
Speaker 0: Right. People report seeing the facial shape shifting.
Speaker 2: I've seen it. I've seen it. I've seen it. It's real. Now the question is, what's going on?
It can be very simply explained. Most possession, like, connects powerfully with the person when it wants to impose itself on the behavior of that person. Otherwise, it's one step back. And this is why you can talk to people and they say, well, I met so and so who I know is a satanist. Oh, he's a nice chap.
He's very, very pleasant. Yeah, okay. But you want to see him when the entity comes in. So you've got this like schizophrenia in personality between when the entity imposes itself and when it takes a step back because it doesn't really have to control behavior in the intermediate time. And so you can have possession where the entity is influencing the perception through the subconscious overwhelmingly of the target person.
But it doesn't reach the point where this facial change takes place. However, what the entity is, is a field of information that relates to how that entity looks and what that entity is. And what happens when the possession gets really, really powerful and intense is that so much of the entity's information is poured into the possessed entity's field, that the possessed entity's field starts to reflect the entity, at which point the facial expressions and the facial look of the possessed person starts to change in line with the infused information from the entity. Thus you have this exorcist type look of people and you think, oh my god, their face is changing. I've seen it, it's real.
And so the pedophile is basically a possessed entity. And the charge, the urge to have sex with children is is infused by these entities. It might Do be that
Speaker 0: they have agency? David, do
Speaker 2: they have agent? Say again?
Speaker 0: Sorry. I was gonna say, do they have agency? I mean, because what I'm trying to understand too at these Epstein parties and events, and you saw the, you know, the event that was happening in Mexico where the woman runs out. We've shown the video where she said they're, you know, they're eating humans. They're eating humans, and then she disappears afterwards.
Do they have agency? Like, if they're a part of this process, are are they
Speaker 1: giving Can they get out of it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Are they giving themselves willingly to it? Do they have what what sort of mechanism is happening there?
Speaker 1: Well, if I may follow-up on that, because we see how these low vibrational vessels are finding each other, looking out an email who's game to do this bad stuff. But we do have an archetype. We have Norm Finkelstein who tells them all to f off. So it seems like they put out their feelers, and this vibration comes together if there's always already a weakness. What what do you think of that?
Speaker 0: But Elon Musk was trying to get to the island. He's like, can I come can I come, please? Can I get there? I wanna go there. I wanna go to the island.
I wanna go to the island.
Speaker 2: All of the above, basically. But if you think about it, these are low vibrational entities. And if you're in a high vibrational state, if you're full of love and joy and peace and harmony, they can't attach to you, because your frequency is incompatible with theirs. Your perceptual frequency, what we call the what I call the electromagnetic field, it's incompatible. What they want is to pull you in to low vibrational states.
So the for instance, the real abuse of alcohol, the abuse of drugs, all these bring you into a low vibrational state which allow possession. You look at these apparently bizarre secret society rituals. But what these rituals are, and I've talked to some Freemasons and said, what's all this ritual about that you do? Oh, I've got a clue it's just lost in the midst of antiquity. Well, actually it's not, but you think it is, because you know, most Freemasons haven't got a clue what's actually going on.
But these rituals are locking you in, they are tuning you in to these entities, this non human force. And then what happens, and my God, just look around the world people who are running this cult, they start to reflect the mentality of these entities. They basically become vehicles for them. So in terms of pedophilia, and this has been I've been given chapter and verse by this over the years in different parts of the world. When the child is being abused, the overseeing entity that's possessing the the pedophile is drawing the energy of the child off and absorbing it.
I remember talking to a shaman in South Africa who was and others have said the same in different parts of the world, that some of these children, these abused children, their energy is basically so absorbed, so drawn off that only just enough to survive is remaining. You know, there was a Central American shaman who talked about this wonderful energetic field that children have and how these entities draw it off. And so the pedophile is the vehicle. It's conduit for this energy to be drawn off, which is how pedophilia and satanism connect. It's all to do with these entities feeding off human energy.
And so you've got to go to this level, this astral level, because at that level, everything connects. At this level within the human world, yes, these cultists can fight among themselves. Yes, they can battle to get up the top of the greasy pole instead of their mate who's also part of it. All this goes on. But if you go to that level, that astral level where it's being orchestrated from, suddenly the left in politics and the right in politics become the same.
Right. Islam and other religions and Hinduism and all these different religions, they all become the same religion. Because what do religions do? What does political ideology do if both are without question and without, if they're rigid in their belief and immovable? They create a belief system that limits where people will go.
They create their own normal within the societal normal. So you have an Islamic normal, you have a Christian normal, you have a Hindu normal, you have a Jewish normal. And these normals are smaller than even the Overton window of society in general. What you're doing is you're limiting their perception. You're holding them in basically boxes of the mind.
And so they're all serving the goal and the agenda of these entities. And once you have these rigid belief systems, different ones, political, religious, whatever, cultural, you've got the perfect environment to play them off against each other. So your target population is fighting among itself, which divides and rules so they don't focus on you, it's controlling it all. And also, what are they producing in their fight and their cussing and their conflict with each other? Loosh, low vibrational emotional and mental energies.
So to understand what's going on, you have to go here. You have to go here. And most people won't go there because they don't think there is a there. Right. And that's what perceptual control has done.
Speaker 0: So when you see the Uni Party, boxes, as you describe it even being narrower than the Overton window, and you see this battling back and forth and giving cover for Trump and giving cover for Elon Musk or whatever it is, it's all just operating within this sort of narrow band. And it's so much bigger than all of these people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of it. And the other thing about the Epstein files, the drop that's just happened, and the previous one come to that, is that it shows how this global cult works in terms of connecting in the public arena, apparently unconnected. So you have documents, emails, whatever, that connect Epstein to Putin. But he's also connected to the CIA, he's also connected to Mossad, He's also connected to Trump. He's also connected to endless other world leaders and former world leaders.
And he's connected into the AI oligarchy, which is massively relevant to current events. And how many people would realize that Epstein was manipulating on that level and interacting at that level? But Epstein was just one guy. This is how it all works. They're all connected in the end.
You know, there's a Jewish area of Judaism called Shabad Lubavitch, and that connects into Putin, connects into Zelensky, connects into Trump, connects into Lutnick, connects into Yarid Kushner, connects into Netanyahu. There are there are these networks everywhere, not just Jewish ones. No, not at all, not just Jewish ones, but they seem to be very prominent at the moment, to say the least, and and back through history. But but this this cult is encompassing all these different belief systems, just that some are more dominant than others. But there are these networks which connect people that in the public arena are unconnected.
So you look in Britain, you look at Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister. Well, his Svengali is Tony Blair. And Tony Blair is owned by Larry Ellison, who funds him, Mhmm. Who's massively active in AI and the media in The United States, and is the biggest private funder of the IDF in in Israel. And who's who's who was appointed US ambassador by Starmer?
A guy who was a very close associate of Epstein, and has just now resigned from the British Labour Party of Kirstjarma because of his Epstein connections. And this same guy was this Svengali again of Tony Blair, who was the spin doctor that brought him to power as Prime Minister. So you see these connections everywhere because there is the public face, everything's unconnected, everything's random. And then there's the real level where everything is connected.
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.
+1 806133557 or go to learredacted.com and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase.
Speaker 1: Early onset dementia and Alzheimer's are on the rise. Reports show a three seventy three percent increase in diagnosis between young people, even thirty to forty four years old, a three eleven increase in people forty five to fifty four. So when doctors are treating these brain diseases, they focus on medicating the brain, addressing the symptoms. But instead, they should also look at toxic proteins that build up in the brain. Like much of the body, many brain tissues track back to the brain issues, rather, track back to gut microbiome.
That's why we'd like to tell you about kimchi one because it is a supplement that contains over 900 probiotic strains. Studies show that its bioactive compounds help reduce inflammation, protect brain cells, and even improve memory and cognitive function by preventing amyloid beta plaque buildup, which if you've studied Alzheimer's, you know, is indicative of Alzheimer's. So that's why Brightcore created kimchi one. Try it out for yourself. You can get an exclusive offer by either clicking our link or going to mybrightcore.com/redacted.
Again, that's mybrightcore.com/redacted. Use the code redacted, and you'll get 25% off. You'll be so happy that you did. Again, it's the benefits of kimchi, but you don't have to eat it if you're not quite used to it. Mybritecore.com/redacted.
So if if I may just see if I'm understanding the picture you're painting is that these evil demonic forces that are driving this human behavior is a part of a spectrum. So as we see, we're like, why does Epstein love war so much? Why does he want provide weapons to a murderous government? Why does he wanna have these demonic pedophilia rituals? It's all the same because boar, you can feed on souls in the same way as pedophilia.
So that behavior is just expansive. Do I understand correctly?
Speaker 2: Yeah. And by the way, the guy I was talking about just not mentioned his name, Lord Mandelson.
Speaker 0: I was gonna say Lord. Yeah. Couldn't remember his last name. Lord. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Lord Mandelson, yeah. They're trying to get him to drop the Lord and be thrown out of the House of Lords now. But, you know, what you've just described is, yeah, that's the kind of foundation of the way it it works. But, you know, every everywhere has its Epstein.
So you you add the Epstein through that period in The United States and further afield, of course, as we're now seeing. But we had our own Epstein in Britain called Jimmy Savile. Jimmy Savile was a BBC entertainer, and in the 1960s, I remember him coming to prominence, he was known as a disc jockey, which was a new term in those days. And he was a front man host for BBC programs, and he he was on, you know, playing discs on the radio and all that stuff. And, yeah, playing discs, showing my age.
But then in the late 1990s, I published a book called The Biggest Secret, in which I talked about this nonhuman element for the not for the first time, but in detail. And part of it was that I met one section of it was I met a lady who was a close friend of Princess Diana for nine years. I've still got our chat on one of those reel to reel kind of audio tapes. And she told me a load of things about the British royal family, which had been told to her by Diana and she read other sources as well. But she told me about this guy, Jimmy Savile, and how he was a pedophile and was in the heart of the British royal family, and how Prince Charles, then Prince Charles, now King Charles, had used Saville, this disc jockey, as a go between with Diana during their marriage breakup.
Bizarre, you would think. Right. And Savol became a very, very close friend of Prince Philip before they had a big fallout. And well, virtually to his death, if not to his death, was a close friend of Prince Charles, now King Charles. So I started to do kind of research into this guy.
And what you find, by his own admission, is that he was invited into the bosom, the inner circle of the British royal family, by a guy called Lord Mountbatten. Lord Mountbatten was a known pedophile. In fact, there are FBI files on him to that effect. And so this pedophile, Lord Mountbatten, who was a close associate of the Queen, invites this pedophile, Jimmy Savile, into the bosom of the inner circle of the royal family, and he stayed there pretty much for much of the rest of his life. And then after he died in 2011, a year later, there was a television documentary by Independent Television here.
It's not really independent, but it was on that occasion, thank goodness. And it exposed Savol as a mega, mega pedophile. I mean historic levels of pedophilia. And it was a big furore and what have you, but the royal family were never questioned on it. Hold on a minute, this Jimmy Sapple has been in your inner circle since the sixties.
You didn't know what he was? Of course he was in there because they did know what he was, because although his pedophilia, and indeed his satanism, came out as more and more women came forward to describe how Sabol had abused them as kids, What didn't come out, but I established and I put it in my books, is that he was a procurer of children for the rich and famous. Not only was a pedophile himself, he was procuring kids for the rich and famous, including people like the British Prime Minister, Ted Heath, Edward Heath. Edward Heath was the man who took Britain into the, what became the European Union, the common market at the time in the early 70s. And he was prime minister for a time.
And in The Biggest Secret, which came out in 1998, when he was still a member of parliament, I named him as a pedophile satanist. And in the week of publication, a journalist, or pastors for one, contacted him and read the passage to him. I mean, he's an MP, he's extremely rich. He could have taken that book out, but he would have to go to court to do it. And all he said was David Ike must be mad.
And that was the end of it, never heard another thing. Seventeen years later, when various people came forward making accusations about Heath as a pedophile, Wiltshire Police in England did an investigation, he was dead by then, and decreed that if he was still alive, he would definitely be brought in for questioning. There was enough evidence to bring him in for questioning on these allegations, seventeen years later. And I'll tell you something about Ted Heath, right? I was in television.
I finished in 1990 when I had my head explosion and I was launched into this lie for the last thirty six years. But during the '19 the late 1980s, I was also a national spokesman for the British Green Party. It didn't last long because I saw politics from the inside and I thought, I'm out of here. But anyway, different different rosette, same same techniques, same nonsense. Anyway, as a result of there was a European election, I think it was in 1989, and the Green Party had never done very well.
It had very, very small votes and really no mentions in the media at all, really. But during 1998 and into 1989, suddenly the support for the Green Party started to grow and grow and grow. And it was proposed in the polls or said in the polls that the Green Party was going to do extremely well in the European elections of nineteen eighty nine. And so I was invited by Sky News to go to their headquarters and comment live on the show as the election results were coming in. Okay.
So I turn up and I'm met by this lady at the door and she says, oh, I'll take you into makeup. So she takes me into makeup. And when I went into the makeup room, the door was was was out was open there. And I walked in and to me, the place was empty. And she said to me, there'll be someone coming to see you in a minute.
So I go and sit down, and I'm looking at the mirror thing, and then something caught my eye to my right. Now let me emphasize, at this point, I had no idea of any of this stuff that we're talking about now. None of it. That started about a year later. So something caught my eye and I looked across and sitting behind the door, that's why I couldn't see him, was Ted Heath, then the former Prime Minister of Britain, who'd just been interviewed on the live show and was waiting to have his makeup taken off.
So I, you know, being a friendly bloke, said, alright mate, you know, I couldn't stand his politics, but alright mate, yeah, how are you doing? And what happened next, I couldn't explain, but I could now. He's looking at the mirror when I said hello, and he sort of turned in the chair and he looked at me. He never said a word, not a word was spoken this entire time. And he looks at me, kind of an inquisitive look on his face, like, what's this?
That kind of look. And then his eyes started at the top of my head, and then they went down to my feet, and then went back again, and then he turned and looked back at the mirror, never said a bloody word. Now what happened while the, what I would call the scanning was taking place? The entirety of his eyes, including the whites, turned jet black. Jet black.
And I'm looking at this, and I've described it as like looking into two black holes. It was like, you know, when you're having a conversation with people, you have eye contact. There's eye contact between you.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: But he had no bloody eyes, they were black holes. And so it was like looking, I would say now, like looking through his eyes into another dimension. And what happened later was I was in America, it was 1996, and in a fifteen day period, I met 12 different people in different cities because I was talking to nobody, but I was traveling and talking every day, who told me how they'd seen a human, apparently a human, turn into a reptilian figure and then go back again. And you're like, what? But what you don't do is just dismiss it unless you know it's nonsense.
You think, oh, I'll wait and see if other information comes on this, and it did massively. Anyway, I had an appointment after I came back from America to meet a lady who said that she was the former wife of a guy who was the steward of an area in the West Of London called Burnham Beaches. It's an area of copse and clearings and woods, and it's owned by the City of London. And anyone who does research into the city of London, you know how how what an absolutely not only financial center that is, but an unbelievable satanic center that is. I mean Yes.
Horrific. I talked about all that in the books over the years. So I was meeting this lady who was going to tell me about her time with this guy when he was basically organizing satanism and satanic rituals in those woods. So anyway, we have the chat, and I'm writing it all down and all that stuff. And I had a cup of tea, I just finished my tea and I said, well, thanks ever so much for talking to me.
That's kind of incredible. I've got to just kind digest all that. And I put me tea down and I turned and as I turned, I said, you know, I'm having some strange experiences recently. I said, I keep meeting people who say they've seen people turn into reptiles. And I was turning away and all I heard was behind me.
And I turned back and she's going, she says, oh my god, I wasn't going to tell you that bit. She said, I thought even you think I was mad. And she told me of this, of an experience she had in that wood of reptilian type figures. But what she told me, there's this major experience, is that she was out one night walking. It was dark.
And she saw a light through the trees, and she crept up and looked looked through the trees at this light. She said, and and this woman knew nothing about my experience with Ted Heath, nothing whatsoever. She said, and I saw a a satanic circle, and they were in the robes. And she said, it was led by Ted Heath.
Speaker 0: Oh. Oh.
Speaker 2: Here we go. Right? Oh my god. And she said next to him was actually his chancellor of the exchequer when he was prime minister, called Antony Barber. And then there were these other people in the circle, in the robes.
And she said, first of all, I couldn't believe it, but I'm watching. She said, and then there came a point where suddenly Heath transforms into a reptilian figure and grows about two feet. Now this, when they shape shift, they grow about a foot, two foot, is such a common theme all over the world. I've been told by so many people that that's what happens in a shape shift. They basically grow.
And she said that then Heath starts talking. She said, like the old Transatlantic phone calls where there's gaps between the words. People have to be of a certain age to remember the Transatlantic phone calls and what they were like. And she said, what shocked me more than anything is that when it happened, nobody in the rest of the circle reacted as if it was the most natural thing in the world and they've experienced it many, many, many times. And it turns out that pedophile procurer of children for the rich and famous, Jimmy Savile, in a circle member of the British royal family, was a great mate and associate of Ted Heath.
Who was he also a great friend of? Margaret Thatcher. And the Margaret Thatcher cabinet in the 1990s, there were lots of revelations about the pedophilic nature of some members of her cabinet, well, significant members of her cabinet. And all, of course, the lid was put on because you've got the cult that is orchestrating the pedophilia and orchestrating the satanism, but it's also controlling the political and administrative levels. It's also controlling the media, and therefore it not only has the ability to orchestrate what happens, it has the ability to cover it up and make sure it never comes out.
And so what you have is the media will ridicule or it will dismiss, or it won't even bother reporting or investigating these things. And so many times I've come across people, you know, politicians and such, who have sought to follow-up reports of satanic activity and pedophile activity in their area of influence, who've had it shut down and have it shut down by the police. Now, this is another point. It's well known now, and has been for a long time, that the police knew what Savol was doing. They knew that he was a megapedophile.
But he was never collared for it. Never collared for it because of his connections. So you had this guy who was a disc jockey in the 60s, who was allowed to be a megaphaedophile and procurer of children for the rich and famous right to the end of his life. Long after his media career ended, he had houses all over the place and massive cars and Bentleys with no perceivable, seeable source of income because he was procuring children for the rich and famous. But the police never touched him.
Now there is a special branch in the police, there is the Royal Protection Unit in the police that directly interact with the British royal family. They would have known what the police knew of what Savol was doing. You think the royal family didn't know? Of course they knew. And so as these connections constantly are able to be made, you have the Epstein connection to Prince Andrew, massive, and you then have Prince Charles, who has now taken the title of Prince Andrew away in a damage limitation exercise.
Maybe there'll be more sanctions as a result of this latest Epstein drop. And he's like, oh no, you know, Prince Andrew is bringing terrible things on the British royal family. He's been dispatched a long way from London now to a house in the middle of bloody nowhere in Norfolk to try to get him out of the public eye. He doesn't do royal events anymore, he hasn't done for a long time because he was ostracized. But the guy doing the ostracizing was a close mate of Jimmy Savile.
Speaker 0: Right, Keith Charles.
Speaker 2: For all those years, decades.
Speaker 0: Right. The David, whole person's
Speaker 2: you Known you saw in the public arena and the the pictures exist. Now the guy who brought him into the inner circle of the British royal family, Lord Mountbatten, who was a close associate of Jimmy Savile, hence he brought him in, he's known as the mentor of Prince Philip and Prince Charles. So it all kind of connects and no media organization asks the royal family the obvious question. What is this pedophile doing your inner bosom since the 1960s? One other thing, finally, on Savol.
This lady, this friend of Diana, told me that Savol was into pedophilia on a mega scale, yeah, turned out to be true. She told me that he was into satanism, turned out to be true. And she also told me that he was into necrophilia. He likes sex with dead bodies. Now, Jimmy Savile was famous in Britain for doing charity work.
It was one of his fronts. And one of the things he did was volunteer, ongoing over a long period of time, as a porter in a hospital in Leeds in the North Of England. Why? Well, we now know it gave him access to the mortuary. So, you know, and because Savile was so kind of famous and other reasons too in the background, of course the politicians loved him and wanted to be photographed with him.
And oh yeah, Jimmy's such a good guy. And that's how he turned out to be. And so again, you have the public face and you have the real face.
Speaker 0: What are talking about? Go ahead.
Speaker 1: So I felt very strongly around the disappearance of Princess Kate. They're using a doppelganger, her reemergence having beat cancer, that there was something foul there. And and that the idea of using someone who wasn't even close to her appearance for it just really made me extremely uncomfortable. And now in the context of all of this secrecy, it feels like they're like, we can feel it when there's some kind of institutional hypocrisy, when there's something transparent about it. And I I don't wanna ask you to relitigate that because she seems to be back in public appearance, and I don't quite understand it even still, the royal family's explanation.
But it does, again, feel like this is an institutional evil that feeds upon itself. I just
Speaker 2: Yeah. But I'll tell you something else. Over the years, things I've picked up in various ways and various sources. Well, let me let me go back to to the early nineteen nineties when the top of my head blew off and I was launched into this. My television career finished, I left the Green Party and what have you.
And I went on this journey of trying to uncover what the hell was going on in the world. And various things happened to me, extremely paranormal experiences happened to me in 1990, 1991, that launched me on this journey. And from the moment they happened, the synchronicity of my life was just ridiculous. I would walk into people, documents, personal experiences, books, whatever, that were basically handing me puzzle pieces in an extraordinary synchronistic way. And one of the things that happened in the early 1990s is that I would keep meeting psychic people, professional psychics.
I only went to one in 1990, a story I told, and that psychic told me I was going go out on a world stage and reveal great secrets. And I thought you were having a laugh, but this turned out to be true.
Speaker 1: Here we are.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But what happened was after that, after that one I went to, the synchronicity of my life was like, if you wanted to meet a professional psychic, well you should have followed me around for about a year. Because I was meeting them all the time. What do you do? Oh, I'm a professional psychic.
Oh, well not another one, you know. But was, what they were, some of them were telling me synchronistically, was that there was a energetic change coming. What was what it would do would have the effect of bringing to the surface all that had been hidden so that humanity could at last see what had been going on without them realizing what was going on. And, you know, for a long time, you know, when I was, you know, subject to endless ridicule and abuse and what have you and dismissal, it didn't seem like that was going to happen. The first book I wrote, actually, in 1991, or nineteen ninety, ninety one, was called Truth Vibrations, which was about this the title was based on this energy of bringing to the surface all that had been hidden and the fact that it couldn't be stopped.
And no matter how this, you know, manipulation was trying to stop it, it couldn't be stopped. And now I'm starting to look at it. Yeah. And I'm starting to see this bringing to the surface all that had been hidden from us. And this is why, as I said right at the start of our chat, that the normal is going to have to change because what's coming to the surface and being revealed is going to change people's sense of normal.
And it's going to be very challenging to them as they see actually the world they've been living in compared with the one they thought they were living in. Completely different. So I think we're in for some very interesting times, not only negatively, although they're, you know, these global coal is going to throw the kitchen sink now, because it's starting to be backed into a bit of a corner, but also good things in terms of information coming to light and people starting to see, hey, this is real, that they haven't before. So I think, you know, it's not all doom and gloom, absolutely not. And where this goes from here depends on us.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think you're right. I think, you know, seeing the resurfacing of some of these on X, you've seen it over the past seventy two hours. Oh, Princess Diana was right. She was telling us.
She was telling us about these things. We had to wait, you know, decades to to finally see these things.
Speaker 1: Then Michael Jackson.
Speaker 0: Michael Jackson. All these other pieces of these stories. But then you're also seeing people like Dan Bongino trying to go back and do his show after lying after lying to all of us. And then the the comments just filled with thousands of people saying, you're lying. You're lying.
You're lying. You're a traitor. So there's an awakening happening.
Speaker 1: It must be incredibly validating to you who's waited so long and stood in your truth. So, yeah.
Speaker 2: Talk a relief. You you think, well, you know, I'm told this is going to happen, but I can't see evidence of it, but now suddenly you can. Another thing that's happening is that what I call the fake alternative media, present company not included, by the way, the fake
Speaker 1: alternative
Speaker 2: media, they're increasingly being exposed as well. What they really stand for is coming to the surface rather than what they said they stood for. And very quickly, and one thing in my mind I remember is when I talked to this friend of Diana for over nine years, another thing she said, because Diana had died by then in the fake accident in the Pumpdalma Tunnel. Diana, by the way, was an ancient moon goddess, and Pont Dalma means bridge or passage of the moon goddess. It's all symbolism, all symbolism.
And so what this friend told me that Diana told them is about the Royal Family, she actually said, they're not human. And she wasn't talking about metaphorically, she was talking about literally. Wow.
Speaker 0: Well, you've seen and I've studied some of the clairvoyance and remote viewing individuals who've remote viewed into, Westminster and others, and other places and talked of really nefarious things. We're talking cloning. We're talking all sorts of Oh, Mhmm.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. And of course, Epstein was in into that old cloning arena as well. You know, the know, a lot of people don't talk about this Zorro ranch that he had. So many different aspects. Oh, by the way, Juliette Bryan, who was one of the survivors of Epstein ring.
She comes from South Africa and she was taken to the Epstein ring in America. She talks, as she says on a show on Iconic, our media platform, how when she was with Epstein on the island, that he turned into a dragon type figure. Very briefly, but very clearly to her, it was a dragon like figure. And she said at the time, of course, I'd never, I thought what the hell is going on? Because I'd never heard of any of it.
And then later a mother, I think, came across my stuff trying This to explain what world is nothing like we think it is. It's so important, as I said at the start, to have a blank sheet of paper where our perceptions and sense of reality earn their place on that paper by evidence, not preconceived idea, not what we've been programmed to believe all our lives, but on evidence and on basic common sense often, and to encompass the possibility that maybe we don't know it all. You know, there's an ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, who talked about to know is to know you know nothing. That's basically the meaning of true knowledge. Other words, realize that whatever you know, given this tiny band of frequency that we're able to see, and just imagine, from this tiny band of frequency comes orthodox science and academia, all from this band of frequency where people glean their perceptions of academia and science.
So one thing you can say without fear of credible contradiction is whatever we know, there's always more to know. And so the question is, what don't we know? And that question constantly expands your sense of the possible, and then you end up in the realm of realizing that the world is not even a smear like we thought it was.
Speaker 0: And trying to navigate all of this, your new book is called The Roadmap. You can see it over your shoulder there, as well. And, yeah. Your new book is called The Roadmap, and you have a brand new UK tour as well. Two of the dates are already sold out, in Hull and Derby.
Gateshead is still available at the February and, Colchester as well. But I highly recommend, and after our last talk, so many of our viewers said they went and bought your book and bought the roadmap to start to to try to navigate all of this craziness.
Speaker 2: Well, the roadmap is about connecting the the dots across all these different areas. It it, you know, it deals with the the here and now Trump phenomena and goes right out into the afterlife, really. So, but it all connects. And it's like, if you encompass this other level from which it's being orchestrated, and you only see this level, well, this level will make it appear as if everything's about us and them. Us and them divide and rule.
But when you go to that level and you realize that these us and thems are actually all controlled from this level, then the us and thems become a they. People say, so who are this they? Well, there you go. That's who they are, ultimately orchestrating human society as a louche farm. And we don't have to be.
That's the point. This is vital to emphasize. You know, the whole point, the whole foundation of human control is to focus attention on this tiny band of frequency, visible light, as if this is all there is. I mean, you've still got orthodox science saying, oh, no. There's no there's no other levels.
It's only this one. Yeah. Okay. And so all those endless areas of unexplored space, there's no life there at all, then. Oh no, evidence.
Well, I mean, just look at it. You know what I mean?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: But the thing is that once you start to open your mind and let information be your guide, then it's a a process starts to happen where you start to expand your awareness into greater and greater and greater sways of consciousness beyond the manipulated human world, etcetera. And that's when you start to tap into insight, knowledge, awareness that you didn't you didn't know before, you you weren't aware of before. You have these insights, you have these intuitive knowings that suddenly kind of come to you and end up being proved correct with evidence. And the key thing is to understand that level, because what happens is if you're only aware of this human level, if you like, then everything seems to be us and them. Everything seems to be random.
Everything seems to be unexplainable. But when you go to that level and you realize that actually that's orchestrating all these apparently unconnected areas of life and organizations people, then suddenly what appears here to be us and them divide and rule, becomes here, they. People say, who are they? Who's this they? Well, there's the they, and these are just servants to the they.
And and no matter whether it's left or right or or this religion or that religion, they are ultimately in control, even though the vast majority of people with these political ideologies and these these religions have no idea that that's the case. And, you know, awakening is so much easier than than people realize. I've looked at the, you know, the kind of the spiritual side and new age and all that, it all seems terribly complicated. You have to go on these quests or you have to do this or do that to expand your consciousness. I I think it's much simpler than that.
I really do. I think all genius is simple, and I think we're we're part of a a a genius reality in in many ways. Well, more than many ways if you get further out, Total genius. And for me, all we need to do is to redefine our self identity. So if you, are focused on your I, who you are, being your your body and the labels of a a human life, like, I'm a man, a woman, I'm this sexuality, this race, this religion, whatever, then you are self identifying with limitation.
You you you are in a myopia of self identity, and therefore, you are you are trapped in the And and what happens as a result of of of your attention being focused on the myopia of self identifying with the labels of the body is that your consciousness is also reflecting that myopia. And so you're in the world and you are of it. All your information and insights are coming from the information controlled in the world that you're experiencing. In other words, the cult. But if you redefine your self identity to I am the consciousness having the experience.
That what we call human is merely a brief experience in a, what we call a human body, to interact with this particular band of frequency, but who I am, the real I, is the consciousness having the experience, then what happens is instead of your self identity being myopic, your self identity starts to expand and expand and expand it to the point where eventually you realize that you're an expression of an infinite state of consciousness. You are basically all that is, has been, and ever can be, having a brief human experience, which is a long way from Ethel on the checkout and Bill driving the bus that we're told to identify with. And as your sense of self identity expands and expands and expands, so does your consciousness reflecting that expansion, going deeper and deeper and deeper into the infinite realm of consciousness. And this is awakening. Suddenly you're going, I can see it now.
Why couldn't I see it before? Because you were there before. That's why. Now you're here. Now you can see it.
And the idea of the whole foundation of the conspiracy is to keep people so focused in their attention. And I'll give you an example. Okay. I'm sitting here, and I can see I can see the room and and basically all that's around me in this visual light frequency band. So now I do that and I focus on it.
The room's disappeared. There is no room anymore. It's just my finger. And that's what myopia does. Myopia of perception, myopia of self identity, it does that.
And awakening is going, oh, saw that for a game of soldiers. I'm more than I thought I was. And suddenly you start to get insights, awareness, you see things you couldn't see before, because your expansion of consciousness is expanding with your expanding self identity. I am consciousness, ultimately an expression of all consciousness. I am not Ethel on the checkout.
Speaker 0: David, the new book is called The Roadmap. Again, the tour is available for people that want to go see you live. It's been an really an honor. I mean, was no one that I wanted to talk to more about all of this, today to help us make sense of it. And so when you see this sort of myopic approach of people online, it's it's I hope people will share this far and wide.
The great David Ike, thank you so much for joining us, David. It's been an honor once again.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been it's been my pleasure. I can tell you. It's been it's been great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Bye.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 New Epstein files say Epstein claimed he represented the Rothschilds and viewed the 2014 CIA backed coup in Kiev as a lucrative business opportunity. @MelKshow is with us. https://t.co/5uddcNjV0a
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the new Epstein files, Epstein claims to represent the Rothschilds and describes the 2014 CIA-backed coup in Kiev, Ukraine as a lucrative business opportunity, according to the newly released documents. He writes in an email to Peter Thiel of Palantir: “certainly not in Saudi. Just think I will avoid the Middle East for the next, decade or so. Should be back on the East Coast in late April or May sometime in New York City on an island.” He adds, “I represent the Rothschilds. I was hoping to figure out a way for the bank that has a 160,000,000,000 in it. Management can do something in tech, best clients in the world, prehistoric products, etcetera, etcetera.” Mel Kay notes that Epstein was “really laying it on thick for Peter Thiel.”
Mel Kay argues that a supranational international banking cartel has run the country and the world since World War II, with a generational wealth circle that has persisted since the Federal Reserve. She notes that Ariana Rothschild was close with Epstein and says the revelations should trigger questions about the international banking system, especially the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the IMF, and the World Bank, as well as the groups at the very top. She contends that immunity under the International Immunities Act of 1945—which created immunity from audit or legal action for BIS and the 63 banks beneath it—remains in place to this day, and she believes the answers lie there. She asks why Rothschilds’ names are not widely visible yet are cited as shaping global finance, and what the “160,000,000,000” bank refers to, asserting that all roads lead to BIS.
Epstein’s documents allegedly include Ariana Rothschild stating that they funded Hitler, to which Epstein and Mel Kay respond, “Yes. So did we.” The discussion centers on infiltration versus invasion, questioning whether wars have been for profit and whether much of the narrative surrounding Ukraine involves manipulation for opportunities. The speakers discuss post–World War II manipulation, arguing that after the Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, took control of the state department, USAID, and the CIA, a tentacle of a supranational global public-private partnership and international banking cartel was created. They suggest that the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and other agencies are part of a single, overarching structure, asserting that the immunity and secrecy of these institutions enable ongoing manipulation of markets and political events, including the alleged influence over Ukraine and broader global strategies. The dialogue emphasizes that the contended system operates beyond allegiance to any single country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, in the new Epstein files, Epstein himself claims to represent the Rothschilds. And the pedophile sex offender also treated the '20 fourteen CIA backed coup in Kiev, Ukraine as a lucrative business opportunity according to the newly released Epstein documents. Here is that email to Peter Thiel of Palantir. He says, certainly not in Saudi. Just think I will avoid the Middle East for the next, decade or so.
Should be back on the East Coast in late April or May sometime in New York City on an island on the island then. As you probably know, he says, I represent the Rothschilds. I was hoping to figure out a way for the bank that has a 160,000,000,000 in it. Management can do something in tech, best clients in the world, prehistoric products, etcetera, etcetera. So he really laying it on thick for Peter Thiel.
Most of us understand the Rothschilds represent a secret underground group of puppet masters bending international finance to their benefit for hundreds of years. But what are they really, and what is Epstein's connection here? Mel Kay from the Mel Kay show joins us right now. She's been tracking all of this, and she's been tracking this for years. And, you must feel a little vindicated, Mel, seeing this in in print inside of these documents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, it's just, I hope that the American people are having their eyes open to the idea that a supranational international banking cartel has been running our country and, frankly, the world since World War two and that the American taxpayer have essentially been paying for all of this. And, what I see when I when I see all of these documents is, again, a very small club. It seems to be generational wealth, that is passed on. Most of the people involved have been, involved since the Federal Reserve.
And as far as, what has come out about the Rothschilds, we knew that because he had, Ariana Rothschild was obviously close with him. But, him bragging about it should also, sound off the alarms. Because what I really think we need to do is to start asking questions about the international banking system, particularly the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank, and, the groups that are at the very top. Because right now, still, as far as I can see, all of these institutions still have immunity from the International Immunities Act of 1945 that, created, immunity, the inability to look into audit or, anything legal with the Bank of International Settlements and 63 banks underneath that. That is still in place to this day, and I believe that that is where the answer to the Rothschild banking dynasty lies.
And, until we start to, fight back against this unjust immunity and the inability to audit or legally look at anything having to do with any of these tentacles that have been around forever, particularly the city of London, manipulating the markets for decades, we won't be able to get anywhere. So for me, I just hope that people are thinking, well, why are the Rothschild's names nowhere yet they're everywhere? And and how come he's saying they have a 160,000,000,000? Which bank is that? And and, again, there's many, many of these banks, but I do believe all the roads here lead to the Bank of International Settlements.
Also very interesting was that he, in those documents, Ariana, I think, Rothschild is saying that they funded Hitler. And then and then, you know, of course, Epstein's like, yes. So did we. You know? And this goes back to what my what it's all about.
It's like, okay. Infiltration instead of invasion. What are we talking about here? Are has all of this been a fraud? These endless wars for profit?
Is is it really true? And and frankly, I think it is.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. You you hit on the real I think the real crux of it, we were speaking with David Ike. You know, I spoke with him a few weeks ago, and he but he he was saying, like, you know, all of this is connected. Right?
This idea that like, Epstein would have been real
Speaker 1: A one off.
Speaker 0: I can't handle. Oh, you funded Hitler? I can't work with you. And he was like, yeah, we did too. We're all a part of it.
We're all a part of this chaos, which is your what he, you know, was referencing in Ukraine. Right? This idea that like, we want Ukraine to collapse because there'll be so many opportunities there for us. Right, Peter Thiel?
Speaker 1: Right. And then he said later, if you saw the, when he was talking to Steve Bannon, he basically said, we we just manipulate finance and make it look confusing and and make it look like the the layman can't understand it. But, really, it's very simple. I mean, the the level of, elitism first of all, he didn't come from that world. That is not true.
He didn't grow up rich. I don't know how. I think he got pulled in by Ace Greenberg. But, going back to all of this, the one thing that we have to understand is that I don't believe after the Dulles brothers, after World War two, I believe that, John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles took the state department, USAID, the CIA, and all of it and created a, tentacle of the supranational global public private partnership slash, international banking cartel. So for me, I really think that all of this leads back to post World War two manipulation.
The, like I said, the immunity that they all gave themselves. Also, the UN is now going broke. That'll be a a real stress test for this international, supernational control grid that has been going on. I really believe also in there, have a lot of stuff about the pandemic. I mean, how how is that too?
So he's working with JPMorgan. I knew this years ago that in probably 2013, they were pushing the idea of pandemic bonds, and we were like, what is that about? But now it turns out that he was talking about that with JPMorgan. Then you see the JPMorgan banker and and, Jess Scaly, you know, goes to Barclays. He doesn't he get gets to continue working in that field.
It just really seems to me well, I don't believe that, first of all, the CIA and MI six are different. I think that they're both Right. Tentacles of the same thing. So, like, deciding who he works for, probably the Mossad's under them as well. Again, I just think that there's a supranational structure that was built out of World War two that is still functioning to this day even though it's on its last leg, and that that's who these people's allegiance and alliances to.
To think that it's to The US or Russia or Israel or China doesn't compute to this level of people that are running this international banking cartel.
Speaker 0: You know, they can freeze your bank accounts. They can shut off your cards. They can lock you out of your own money. Overnight, banks don't protect you. They control you.
That's why real financial freedom starts with ownership, and we wanted to introduce Rumble Wallet, a non custodial wallet built for people who refuse to give up control. With Rumble Wallet, you don't just buy digital currency like Bitcoin and Tether, you can own Tether gold, real gold on the blockchain. And through Tether Gold, you can actually get direct ownership of physical gold bars, each one fully allocated, verifiable by a serial number, purity, and weight right there on the blockchain. This is real gold. This is not an IOU, And the wallet is yours forever.
You can buy, sell, move twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. I don't if you saw, I just looked at gold prices almost at $5,000 an ounce as we speak right now. And I saw an estimate that said $8,000 could be coming very soon. Saw that today, actually. So when you support creators on Rumble, you can actually tip them directly using your Rumble wallet, peer to peer and outside the banking system.
So check it out today. Go to wallet.rumble.com today.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Are LED lights slowly kil*ing you?☠️ Think about how many glowing LEDs surround you every night while you sleep and how fast this change crept into our lives. Founder of @Softlights_org joins us w/the facts. https://t.co/KxxgESiR9s
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mark Baker, founder and president of the Soft Lights Foundation, argues that LED lights are devastating to health and leverages his personal experiences to advocate for change. The interview explores how blue-rich LED lighting has become ubiquitous, including car headlights, streetlights, household general service lamps, and indicators on appliances, as well as assorted night-time sources like smoke detectors and alarm indicators.
Baker describes his awakening to the issue in the mid-2010s. While teaching in California, he noticed blue-rich LED headlights and 5,000 Kelvin LED streetlights that disrupted his psychological well-being. An apartment on the second floor was flooded with intense light, leading to a mental breakdown when his school district refused to switch off the lights. This event redirected him from teaching to full-time advocacy, involving him in learning the physics of light, government regulation, and connections with others suffering from LED exposure around the world.
He recounts that many people initially resist confronting LED issues because the problem feels overwhelming. He notes the pervasiveness of LED lighting—car headlights, streetlights, household lamps, and even emergency vehicle lights—and emphasizes that bureaucrats often feel overwhelmed, which can impede action. He describes a community of people who report a range of sensitivities and health effects linked to LED exposure, including migraines, epileptic seizures, and, in some cases, suicidal ideation, as well as driving difficulties for people with astigmatism. He frames the community as “canaries in a coal mine,” highlighting that different people have different sensitivities and that some may be unaware of how LED lighting affects their sleep or mood.
The discussion highlights that LED lights emit a spike at blue wavelengths, particularly around 450 nanometers, which is tied to regulating circadian rhythms and wakefulness. Baker argues that artificial light at night interferes with melatonin suppression and cellular repair processes, thereby disrupting sleep and health. He asserts that the natural night environment should be preserved as much as possible and that LEDs, with their spectral distribution and lack of infrared, diverge significantly from natural light.
On how LEDs work, Baker explains that LED stands for Light Emitting Diode, a solid-state lighting technology that emits photons through an electronic process, not combustion. He highlights issues such as flicker due to drivers, directional light emission, and the spectral power distribution across wavelengths. He notes that the Department of Energy acknowledged the directional nature of LED light and, at one point, eliminated infrared light as waste heat; later, scientists recognized the benefits of infrared light for certain applications. He contends that the shift from incandescent to LED lighting was pursued for energy savings but without proper standards for safety, flicker, or quality, and without adequate evaluation by the FDA, which the law required to collaborate with the DOE.
Baker traces the policy trajectory: the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed DOE to evaluate solid-state lighting, and by 2007 the minimum luminous efficacy standard (45 lumens per watt) effectively phased out incandescent bulbs. He argues that the DOE did not ensure safety or quality standards, focusing only on efficiency. This, he claims, led to widespread adoption of LEDs without comprehensive health safeguards and without FDA oversight.
Regarding sleep and nighttime exposure, Baker cites evidence that even tiny indicators and devices in bedrooms—smoke detectors, nightlights, routers, and other LED indicators—can interfere with sleep and circadian rhythms. He notes that skin exposure to light also influences physiological processes, expanding the scope beyond ocular effects. He stresses the potential health risks associated with long-term exposure, including cancer, diabetes, and mood disorders.
Regarding solutions, Baker argues for reintroducing incandescent technology and reducing reliance on LED-heavy lighting, while pushing for FDA evaluation and regulation of LED products. He mentions practical adjustments, such as choosing lower color temperatures (around 2700 Kelvin or lower), avoiding flicker, and using alternative bulbs for fixtures where possible. He describes programs and campaigns by the Soft Lights Foundation, including a petition against blinding car headlights and a system for LED incident reporting to the FDA. He points to resources on softlights.org, a campaign to stop blue-rich LED headlights, and a Facebook group called Ban Blinding LEDs for community support.
For actionable guidance, Baker encourages individuals to minimize night-time LED exposure in their environments, shield streetlights when possible, switch to warmer lighting, and seek regulatory change to allow safer lighting options, including incandescent or incandescent-inspired LEDs with infrared components. He invites people to learn more through Soft Lights Foundation resources and to participate in advocacy and reporting efforts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let these words sink in. LED lights are devastating. Devastating to our health. Think about how much our lives have changed over the last few decades. Think about now when you go to sleep at night, all of those little LED lights that are surrounding you while you sleep, and the smoke detector, maybe on a television at the bottom of the screen, maybe you've got an air filter with multiple LED lights, maybe your phone is sitting next to your bedside table with an LED light surrounded by these artificial lights.
Devastating to our health. Again, Mark Baker is the founder and president of the Soft Lights Foundation. Those are his words, and I've been wanting to do this story for a long time here on Redacted. So many people have been asking us. Please have Mark Baker on.
Have somebody from the Soft Lights Foundation to come on to talk about how devastating these lights are to our health, and so your wish is my command, and Mark is our guest. Mark, welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: Hi, Clayton. Thanks for having me on this show.
Speaker 0: My pleasure. I think, you know, I think people don't want to face this, and so we kinda I I maybe compartmentalize it. Like, we're able to look at other things in our environment. You know, we don't want lead in our water. We don't want these are the things in our environment as we go through our day.
But, we just sort of accept, oh, LED lights and lights are just kinda part of it, so I'm just not even gonna face that. I'm not even gonna look this in the eye because it's just too much. Do you do you do you you think you see that from a lot of people when you first start talking? Do their eyes sort of glaze over?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I have been told that Mark, you're taking on too much. This issue of LED lights is overwhelming, and I kind of agree that it's overwhelming. So we now we see the LED headlights in cars. We see the LED streetlights that are blue rich.
We see this conversion to LED general service lamps that we put into our house. We see the intense LED indicators on washing machines refrigerators. And so these LEDs are now everywhere. I left out emergency vehicles, which many people really find debilitating. They have very intense flashing LED lights.
So it is a big task and people, it's easy to ignore or not want to deal with it because it's overwhelming. And I have found it to be overwhelming for our bureaucratic officials because they too don't know how to solve that. And so we are trying to push them to get this problem solved.
Speaker 0: So we have a lot to unpack, and I wanna just have a great conversation with you today on this. Before we get into all of the mechanics of how it's terrible for our bodies and what, you know, what you're pushing with the members of congress on this, can you walk me back? How did you come to this subject? And I hate to say, what what was the hate to use a pun here, but what was, the light bulb moment for you when you said that this is devastating and I need to take this on?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, I lived in the Silicon Valley of California, and I was a school teacher in the, in around 2015, 2016 is when the LED lights really started to come out. The high powered, high intensity LED lights. So I started to notice them on cars. The headlights became something really weird to me, blue rich lights.
They would capture my attention. They would make me agitated and angry. As a middle school math teacher, by the time I got to work, I was upset already because it was really affecting my psychological well-being. Then I would come home and my town had switched from high pressure sodium streetlights, the nice amber glow, to the 5,000 Kelvin blue rich LED streetlights. I happened to live in an apartment on the 2nd Floor.
I came home, opened my door, and my apartment was flooded with this terrible light because it was at 2nd Floor Level. I had to close the blinds and try to block it out, but even then it's so powerful it seeped in. So that's when I really started to become an activist because, wow, this is really bad. I met with city officials to try and find out what had happened, and that's when I started to learn the bureaucratic process. But because it was so debilitating for me as I started to fight it, I ended up at the point where it was so impactful that I had a mental breakdown at school, where my school district had said, No, we're not turning off those LED lights.
You're just going to have to somehow live with it. And I really couldn't take it anymore. So it was so bad that they came and took me away and put me in a hospital for four days. It was not an experience that I'd like to go through again. And it really affected, changed the direction of my life.
I was already advocating for fixing this LED problem, but that was really the end of my that was the end of my teaching career. I could not go back to teaching because you have to have patience and with a mental breakdown you don't have patience anymore. So then I became just full time advocate, learning the physics, learning the government bureaucracy, learning how these lights are regulated, all these different issues, and connecting with many people around the world who are suffering as similar to me.
Speaker 0: Can you go back to this mental breakdown? Did you think you were, like, isolated? Like, this was I I guess at the time, I I'm just trying to picture myself. I'm trying to put myself in your shoes. Like, if I was did you have this awareness?
Did you know this is exactly what's causing the problem or did you think it was a confluence of things, other things in your life, and you just weren't able to pinpoint it, and did you feel like isolated? Like, are there are there other people out there that are having the same experience? Because we hear from viewers all the time that say, you know, when they live near electrical wires and things like that or five gs towers, how debilitating it is for them and then other people can just go through their day normally and they don't have any of these issues. Did you feel like you were on an island?
Speaker 1: Well, so at first, it's what is this like? It's so bizarre. So there was, a woman in Chicago who had started a Facebook group called Band Blinding LEDs. So around 2016, I think late twenty fifteen, I joined that Facebook group. I didn't know anything about the LEDs.
So this is where I started to learn that other people were feeling these same effects, that this was just too sharp and really not something that we wanted to be suffering under. And so we learned about color temperature. I didn't know anything about that before. And so what happened is I got so invested in it that they encouraged me to start my own Facebook group. So I did that.
So we have the Soft Lights Foundation Facebook group, but they're kind of twins. And we have met people that join both groups. I had a person that was a lawyer that I was talking to told me that I should be a foundation, so I made a 501c3 foundation for the Soft Lights Foundation. But when I was initially going through this and I was kind of battling my school district, they had a 5,000 Kelvin LED light on the roof to supposedly for security. And so it would strike me in the eyes as I came to work.
So one day my principal came in just told me, well, Mark, you've asked to have that turned off, they need it for security. And I had been struck so many times by the LED lights. This was in 2019. So I've already been working on it three or four years and just the accumulation of being struck so many times, I snapped. I've never had anything like that before, but I knew exactly what it was.
I fell down on the floor, I was screaming, I was saying LED lights. It's not the students, they're not bothering me, it's the LED lights. So I, yes, I knew exactly what it was and when they took me to the hospital, was trying to explain to them, but I was kind of out of my mind. They gave me a lot of drugs and stuff like that and tried to just calm me down. But yeah, so it is, you are on an island.
We do feel that nobody's fixing this, but we also share camaraderie with all the people around the world that are suffering similar to me.
Speaker 0: So there are a lot of people that have similar circumstances then to what you experienced. You are not alone. There were a lot of other people experiencing something similar to you, right?
Speaker 1: Very much so. So people with sensitivities, it's not really the greatest word, makes us sound weak, but we have a sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. And for me, it's maybe blue rich light at nighttime. It's really, really strange experience. But other people are suffering epileptic seizures from the LED lights.
Are suffering a lot of people are suffering migraines from the exposure to the LED lights. I've had people contact me and said they're suicidal because they just can't take these LED lights anymore. And so there are a lot of people with sensitivities and people who have disabilities that would qualify for the Americans with Disabilities Act. So we're kind of like canaries in a coal mine. But then with driving, a lot of people with astigmatism have signed our petitions and let us know.
People with astigmatism are having a lot of trouble driving because of the LED headlights. So there's a lot of conditions. And what I've learned is that people are very different. Everybody has different sensitivities, And there are certain people that can just go through life and they feel nothing. It doesn't bother, this light doesn't bother them at all.
So we have to be aware of both, both types of people.
Speaker 0: And I was, I guess we'll get to this in a little bit, but I would think that the people that maybe go through their life where they don't have any sensitivities that they know of outwardly, maybe inwardly, they're it's affecting their sleep in a deep way, and they probably don't know that it is. They might just say, I don't have any problems. I'm sure if probably many people watching this were like, I've never noticed an issue at all that we're going to have a lot of people that are going to leave comments on this video that are going to say, thank you for speaking about this because I've been suffering from this for years. So, do you think that that's true that maybe, you know, it's affecting their sleep? They just don't know it.
Speaker 1: Right. It's how would you pinpoint? You wake up groggy, you go through the day kind of grumpy, you're just not don't have the energy, but how would you know why? So previously, a lot of the country was lit with high pressure sodium street lights and that have an amber color. I don't think there were a lot of complaints about that.
It is light pollution, but when the switch to light LED street lights happened, they changed the color temperature and these street lights became blue rich. So there is a spike of blue wavelength light at night now. It produces high glare and now that's coming into the windows of people. And we have thousands of complaints of the streetlights being too bright. And the cities switched to streetlights to save money, but ignored all health impacts.
So scientists are now putting in their papers that this blue rich light is an environmental carcinogen. And typically people get upset when they hear that something's carcinogenic. The government would act to try and reduce the harm from this. But in this case, ignoring the situation. But people are being exposed, even tiny amounts of light, artificial light at night, are interfering with our circadian rhythms, interfering with our sleep.
And it's a cellular process. That sleep is an important part of our lives. So when we go to sleep, when the sun sets, our melatonin hormone is suppressed, and then a repair process occurs. Cells that got damaged during the day are repaired or absorbed and killed so that we have a healthy system. When we're exposed to light at night, then this repair action is not occurring because the melatonin hasn't been suppressed and that whole process is interfered with.
So it's very important to get back to a natural as close to natural night as we can.
Speaker 0: All right. So let's go into some of the mechanics here. But at first, I want to maybe you can just educate me, educate our audience. What are LEDs?
Speaker 1: So LED stands for Light Emitting Diode. It is a solid state lighting, SSL. It's a circuitry. It requires some kind of a driver electronics to make it happen. It's a flat, well, I guess they're inventing new things now, but I used to say it's a flat surface.
And through the physics of that flat surface, these photons are emitted. It is not a burning element. So an incandescent light bulb burns. Yeah, it's a chemical process. This LEDs are an electronic process.
So we consider this LED light like a digital process that kind of comes out one photon at a time in different directions. It's not a sort of a smooth process. And because of the electronics, we might have digital flicker. It might be, you might have seen this in certain bad lighting that the lights are flickering that didn't occur as drastically. So with incandescence.
So incandescence may have, if they're on household current, they may have a sine wave flicker at around 6%. And most people could tolerate that. But LEDs can flicker on and off completely, on or off, and on or off. And if the drivers are not done properly and there are no regulations to make sure they are done properly, then it can flicker. And then because it's a flat surface, the light comes out in a beam.
It's not all around, it's not spherical, and so it's directional. And the Department of Energy acknowledges this. Well, we've got to imagine that life is somehow different if we're under a spotlight. The engineers try to maybe make the light come out in all the directions, but really it's kind of a messy light. So all these different characteristics, think I left out spectral power distribution, which is the energies at each wavelength, the blue wavelength, the green wavelength, the red.
And one of the drastic differences is that LEDs have eliminated infrared light. The Department of Energy claims that this infrared light is something that waste. They call that wasted heat. So LEDs are so great because they eliminated this waste. Well, in the last few years, many scientists have now figured out that this infrared light is very beneficial and people are already making products.
People can buy masks that have red LEDs in them to somehow make your skin better. And so they recognize the benefits of this infrared. So the switch from incandescent lights, which was this pretty much healthy light, to a really hazardous toxic LED light with no infrared but lots of hazardous blue was probably the one of the worst decisions ever made.
Speaker 0: It's remarkable. I just did a little side anecdote here back when I used to do a show called Fox and Friends on Fox News many years ago, and this was all rolling out at the time. I think it was under Obama where I guess they were starting to eliminate incandescent bulbs and so forth. I'll I'll never forget because I didn't really know much about it. I just I thought that these were highly inefficient.
You know, those old incandescent Thomas Edison bulbs. Right? They cost a lot of money. So everyone's getting those CFLs and and LEDs. They're gonna save a lot of money.
You know, your your electricity bill is gonna plummet because it just took a lot less. And I remember my friend who my cohost at the time, Tucker Carlson, said, I don't want these LEDs. My so he bought he just, like, stocked up on so many incandescent bulbs. He just had, like, a garage full of them because, you know, they're, like, impossible to find. And I just sort of laughed at it, and I thought, oh, that's interesting.
Like, at least you don't care about saving money. You know? And and, but now, like, in hindsight, it's was a really smart thing to do. And, I mean, they started to eliminate incandescent bulbs. Did they not?
I mean, they made them illegal if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's quite a story. That's exactly what has occurred. Tucker was right to stock up. It was a it's a much healthier life.
So backing up a bit, way back 1973, we had an energy crisis in The United States and an oil embargo and people were lining up to get gas. And that's the first time that Congress in The United States sort of recognized that, well, unlimited energy sounds great, but here we are learning our lesson. We don't have unlimited energy. We're kind of dependent on how much we have and where it comes from. So they started to look in ways to save energy and energy conservation or energy efficiency is a different term.
They started looking into how can we do that. So one of the first things they did is start applying energy efficiency rules to vehicles. And so you had to start getting a certain miles per gallon. And as long as the car is still going just as far and just as fast and just as safe, energy efficiency is perfectly fine. You're actually saving money instead of 10 miles per gallon, you're getting 20 miles for every gallon and no change in your car.
Why not? That sounds great. But then they started applying it to everything else and to refrigerators and all kinds of things. And then they applied it to light. And this was a big mistake.
So in 2005, they passed the Energy Policy Act and directed the Department of Energy to go investigate. Hey, there's this new solid state lighting, these LEDs, they look great. We can save energy. So go find out if we can use LEDs to replace the incandescent light bulb. That's what the law says, 2005.
By 2007, everybody had gotten so excited. Oh my gosh, this is great new technology. Yes, we can save all kinds of energy. And the Congress directed the Department of Energy to establish a rule that the minimum luminous efficacy is 45 lumens per watt. So any light bulb for your house had to meet that criteria.
Incandescent light bulbs are around 10 lumens per watt. So incandescent light bulbs wouldn't meet that standard. So LEDs would. And so this is what the cause and it's gone through multiple administrations, Republicans and Democrats. So it's just some train wreck that's gone through all administrations.
But so this was the cause of everything. And so when they implemented that rule, then that was the phase out of incandescent light bulbs. The problem is the Department of Energy was required to collaborate with the Food and Drug Administration to make sure that this new light was safe. The Food and Drug Administration regulates electromagnetic radiation for all products, doesn't matter what it is, x-ray machines and microwave ovens and lasers, and it would be LED lights. So DOE and in the law, they're required to collaborate.
Well, that never happened. So nobody ever established any performance standards to make sure that this LED light was safe. So when it came out and your friend Tucker said, Wow, I don't like this LEDs, is because there were no standards. The only standard was lumens per watt. How much light can you get out?
Is the light safe? Nobody checked that out. Is the light meet quality standards? Does it have low flicker? None of that occurred.
So we were, it was pushed on us. Maybe, you know, maybe not, they weren't trying to kill us initially, but it happened. One of these things and it was like, my own negligence, and then it was just the ball started rolling and now nobody knows how to extract themselves out of this problem.
Speaker 0: I wanna come back to the idea of negligence, but also maybe intentionality of them trying to kill us in a second because my brain covered too many stories to think that it's just, you know, this is all a coincidence. We'll get there in a second, but maybe you can talk about some of the mechanics of LEDs and what it's actually doing to our bodies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I'm not an expert on biology, so, it's I'll do what I can, but light is fundamental to how we function. Turns out that we have photoreceptors throughout our body, not just our eyes, but in our skin, even inside, in our blood vessels, in our fatty tissues, there are these proteins that will capture or detect light and the light can penetrate through our skin. They've even found these detectors in our brain. So they're called opsins and these detect light and especially tied to blue wavelength light at four fifty nanometers around there. And so that blue light is fundamental to waking us up in the morning, making us energetic, making us hungry or sleepy, the lack of blue light.
So that's really important. And so if we've altered that by introducing LED lights, which if you look at the spectral distribution, typically has a large spike at exactly that four fifty nanometers. Why did they choose that? Because it was the way they could make it. It was the cheapest way.
They've been working now for a decade to change it and to improve it, to make it sort of come out like an incandescent light bulb. So that's what's occurring. But all these lights that we've been suffering with for a decade or more have a spike of that exact blue light that is probably something you don't need, especially at night. And so we have found that we are sensitive to the whole spectrum. We're sensitive to the missing infrared.
We're sensitive to maybe missing green. We're sensitive to the high blue, etcetera. So the mechanics of the light is really important. The spatial distribution, how it lands on our body is important. The time of day that we're being exposed to certain wavelengths is important.
The flicker. And so all of those things are impacting our mood and the diseases that we might be at risk at. And all of it's important. So what we need is the most quality light that emulates the natural world as possible. And LEDs are about as far away from the natural light as you can get.
Speaker 0: So incandescence are closer to that mimic more closely the natural world?
Speaker 1: Right. So if we look at the sun, it's something burning and it's far away. And that's really driven life on Earth here. And then we have maybe a campfire. It's got the warm colors, the reds and the yellows, and that's close to a sunset.
So, but we feel, most people feel warmer and happier around this kind of reddish amber light. And then when Edison came out with the electric light, it had a coil, it's tungsten, it's a filament, it's burning, and it generates a natural type of light. So it has the incandescent spectral distribution is very low blue, and then it ramps up to higher in the reds. And then most of it is this, what the Department of Energy called heat, wasted heat. But most of that incandescent light is this warmth.
So those were all natural. Then came things like fluorescent light bulbs. I have found out that many people have suffered under fluorescence. I never cared for them, but they weren't devastating for me. But many students had suffered through school because it has a spiky spectral distribution and may have a flicker to it.
So a lot of people like students are suffering in school because they had poor lighting. And then compact fluorescence came about, which I found to be okay as well. But a lot of people really, really didn't like compact fluorescence. And then the LEDs came out. So it's kind of this downward trend towards worse and worse light.
Speaker 0: You know, it's fascinating. You talk about the warmth of, you know, like a campfire. Everyone no one feels bad sitting around a campfire. It's kind of interesting. Right?
And when people are out in the sun, they're also their mood is lifted, right, most of the time. And we know even my daughter's been dealing with influenza A over the past week, and I've told her, you know, go out at noon and sit here for ten minutes in the sun. We get this beautiful Colorado sunshine, you know, sunniest state in the country. Like, sit here and get, you know, ten minutes of vitamin D in this noon sun, you know, to to make you feel better, get better. And even the Norwegians and the Danish have a term for that cozy lighting atmosphere called Hoike, think it's pronounced.
It's, spelled h y g g a or e.
Speaker 1: I think
Speaker 0: I've all my Norwegian friends and Danish friends forgive me, but it's a term for having that cozy atmosphere. And so they, the Danish, the Norwegians take lighting very seriously. Like, it's a very important part of their living rooms because it's, you know, cold and dark. And so when you get together with six people, I think the I think the number is even six. Like, if you have more than six people at a gathering, then it's not considered Hoika.
They have a name for this like a cozy atmosphere and the lighting is so important to that cozy atmosphere with gathering people. Anyway, my my European friends told me about this and there's books written on Hoika and it's all it's really fascinating, right? If you have more than six people at a gathering, then it's not considered cozy and so they take their lighting very seriously and and I would imagine that that having that warmth of those certain lights is important to that entire atmosphere, would you say?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I like that story. I'm half Danish. I don't know the word for sure, but I know the concept and you're right. And so I like that.
Yeah, so this, we have to realize then that light is affecting our mood. So if the government and the Department of Energy came along and strictly ordered required lights to just simply meet 45 lumens per watt as a minimum luminous efficacy without considering the impacts on our mood. That was a big mistake. Why should we be forced to, let me back up. The idea was to, of course, conserve energy by being more efficient.
So the problem is, of course, that they didn't really think it out properly. They didn't set the, they didn't test it. They didn't make sure it was safe. And then they didn't make sure, the idea was that there would be a one to one replacement. So if you had an incandescent light bulb, you'd go to the store, now you pick up an LED, it would last supposedly last longer and you'd be saving money, but they didn't realize that the manufacturers and the engineers and the physicists would invent all kinds of new LED lights.
And so now we've got LED lights everywhere where we don't need them. So did we end up saving energy because we did a one to one swap? I don't think so. I think we ended up with way more lights, way more electricity waste and light pollution as it's a major consequence to our health and to our ecosystem health. And so I think it was just a total disaster, even if the intentions were good.
So we need to get the, there's tons of research. So we need to get that research into the hands of the officials. And my big push is against the Food and Drug Administration. We need to get them to listen and start evaluating the situation. And we need to undo the effective ban on incandescence.
We need to allow people to start be able to buy these incandescence again, because they're healthier for us. And we need to eliminate some of these hazards that are built into the LED lights.
Speaker 0: Can you even buy incandescence anymore? I mean, are there any manufacturers still cranking them out?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there are ways to do it. So there are lots of limits that you sort of workarounds. For example, there is a type of, didn't ban it on all light bulbs. So specialty light bulbs, can still purchase. You can purchase an oven light, for example, that's an incandescent, and an oven light might be 60 watts, not too bright, but it would be an incandescent.
Rough service is a label for light bulbs that allow them to maybe be outside in the winter or something like that. So they're more durable. You can still buy rough service. So if you go online and you need a light bulb and you don't want an LED, look for these specialty bulbs. I bought a bunch from a store that these bulbs were made in Hungary and they were at the store and it was a discount store.
They have a little bit of halogen gas in there and it's a little bit sharp, so it's not my favorite, but I bought a bunch of them just in case. I have LEDs in my house, so not all LEDs are bad. As far as the color temperature at 2,700 Kelvin, for me, that's about sort of the limit of that sort of as a label of how much blue it has. I'm okay with that, as long as it's not flickering and stuff. It's not a bad light for me, but anything beyond above 2,700 ks, I just really, I can't tolerate it.
So there are ways many people have found it necessary Christmas tree lights. We would recommend buying that you can I just looked online yesterday there you could still buy the old style incandescent Christmas tree lights? And I would recommend buying those because they're gentler and softer and they don't have that sharp, ow, my eye hurts because it's too sharp. So yeah, there are workarounds for it, but it would be better not to have the rule. And Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced in the Senate, it's called the LIT Act, L I T, I think it's Liberating Incandescent Technology.
I don't know if it's going anywhere, but I think it was around April 2025, he introduced that. Just cross out all these energy efficiency things. And we support that. The Soft Lights Foundation supports that regulation because it was done wrong in the first place without regulations to make sure the light is safe for us, comfortable for us, it was a bad bad rule.
Speaker 0: What about sleeping? Because as I mentioned at the beginning, now we're sort of surrounded at night by maybe you've got an alarm in your house. It's got a little green light on it. I know we have that. You know, your your smoke detector on the ceiling has a little LED light.
There's all these little LED lights surrounding your bedroom, and I keep hearing stories about how detrimental it is to your health. It can even create cause myopia in children that ophthalmologists are fully aware that they can almost tell if a child has been in a room with too much light as they're growing up, they'll develop myopia, which is unbelievable to me. Just like little LED lights in your your room can affect your sleep so much. Can you talk about the sleeping patterns with these LED lights surrounding us?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the myopia comes from looking at close objects, looking at our cell phone. So children are looking at devices. I think that's a problem. The light itself, and I've had exactly that experience that you just described.
So you turn off the lights and the lights are still on. There are little indicator lights and it's disturbing. Science has measured this and has found that even those tiny little amounts of lights are interfering with our sleep. So I try to go around and turn off, let's say if it's plugged into a power strip that has the red indicator, I turn the power strip off. For the smoke detector, I painted it over with nail polish.
I don't want that thing blinking at me when I open my eyes. What else? There are some of the sockets now where you plug in your appliances has a little and may have a little LED indicator. I was putting little stars over those, But then your Wi Fi router, may be in your room and that may have an indicator and it may be a big bright, they're making it brighter and brighter. So that may have a blue light.
Turn off the router maybe. Maybe you don't need Wi Fi at night. That's probably better for you anyways. So do everything you can to eliminate all those little sources and you'll sleep better. But the problem is, systemically, might have a street light outside your window.
Now what are you going to do? That's harder. So a lot of people will say, well, buy blackout curtains. Well, that's, you know, you want the sunlight to come in in the morning. Now you can't open the window for fresh air.
That's kind of disastrous. So that would be something like, if you want to get it shielded or something, contact a city manager at your city and say, Hey, I want a shield around that. Try to demand an amber color instead of a blue rich light, see what they'll do. But they're very resistant, these cities, so that's hard. But throughout your own, whatever you can do within your own house, yeah, turn it all off, get the natural night as close as you can.
And maybe you get a sleep mask or something like that, but it's important to be aware because what's going on is that's interfering with the whole process. And you're more at risk of lots of different diseases if you're exposed to this artificial light, diseases like cancer and diabetes and mood disorders.
Speaker 0: I was gonna say, I mean, even with a sleep mask though, right? As you pointed out earlier, your body is still receiving the light through the skin. So even if you've got a sleep mask on, that's only just kind of maybe tricking your brain a little bit, right? But otherwise, your skin is still absorbing this stuff.
Speaker 1: Very perceptive. That's exactly right. So it's just sort of a surprise to everybody that, wait a second, I thought light was through the eyes. This whole skin thing is kind of new. Only how long ago was it?
Twenty years ago, the scientists discovered these other eye cells as well. So we have cone cells for color vision. We have rod cells for nighttime vision, which is gray scale, but very sensitive. And then maybe twenty years ago, IPRGCs that are non visual, but related to the circadian rhythm. And these IPRGCs are detecting the light and controlling things and that's in the eyes, but then further that, wow, these same types of cells are throughout the whole body.
And so yeah, you're right. We don't want the artificial light touching us anywhere.
Speaker 0: So you mentioned earlier some LEDs that they're now trying to mimic incandescence. So maybe they were harsh and blue, but maybe we could actually buy LEDs eventually that it's almost indistinguishable. And I've seen some of those, like, little flickering bulbs, you know, that look they try to look like and mimic candle light and those sorts of things. Are those good? Are those okay?
Or are those closer to incandescent so our body wouldn't notice a difference?
Speaker 1: Right. That's a great question. So this is totally fascinating. So here we, sort of unintelligently effectively banned a quality light, the incandescent light in favor of the LEDs. So then we have LEDs for a decade and then we figure out, oh, that was really bad.
So the physicists and the engineers are trying to now take that same LED and make it go backwards in a sense, right, to what incandescent could generate. So there is a vendor, a person I know that makes a bedtime bulb, that's his brand, and he's added infrared so that the main part of the light, the visible light is an LED, and then they've added a little something in there that creates infrared light, and it's designed for you to use at night before you go to sleep. It's not a very powerful light. I've got one in my bedroom. It's very nice.
It's soft. And now you've got that it's closer to mimicking an incandescent by combining these two technologies. There are many companies out there who are selling or promoting what they call a natural light that the spectral distribution is instead of this really tall spike of blue light and no red, that it's closer to natural sunlight, which is natural sunlight has from all the visible wavelengths, kind of they're pretty much even depending on the time of day. So eliminating these spikes and trying to get it more of a just a straight across all energies at the same levels. And then there are many companies now jumping into this promoting these health effects of the infrared light.
So that's just one aspect, the flicker, there's no regulations, but then people are kind of aware of that. The spatial distribution is still a problem because it's coming out of this flat surface. But yeah, that's a trend and it's kind of up to the individual user. If you're purchasing an LED and it feels fine, okay, you know, it's okay, use it if you're not feeling any ill effects, but realize that at nighttime, do what you can to turn off that light sooner rather than later. And if you are being awake, use the warmer color temperatures at night.
Speaker 0: Interesting. Now we you know, we're in a fairly new home here, and so we've got, you know, the cans in the ceiling with the the LEDs that are way up there in the ceiling with the whatever you call them, the recessed lighting and all of that. It's like, how do you, you know, try to replace all of that? Back in the day, I was replacing those all the time getting up on the ladder, you know, because they were incandescent, and so they would, you know, you could dim them, burn they'd burn out, you know, after about a year or or however long. So I guess it's almost impossible to find manufacturers of of incandescence for, like, recessed lights and all of that these days.
Right? Also, I should I should point out before I let you answer that. I I know even though they'll clip in, like, they, like, clip into, like, a socket. So they're not even they don't even have the the traditional, whatever you call it, socket. Right?
You can't even, like, screw anything in. They just kinda clip into a little LED receiver. You're sort of stuck with those now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's not everywhere. So we went to a hotel recently and they had 5,000 Kelvin LED light bulbs in the lamps. We turned it on and we said, Oh my gosh, I can't, there's no way we can handle this. But they had those little, oh no, I take that back.
That was another hotel, but they had those little plug things. So what are you supposed to do? This other hotel that I started to tell you about had regular screw in the twisty kind. So we unscrewed them. We drove across the street to the store and bought some 2,700 Kelvins.
They're LED, but we brought those back and they had it much softer and then we could use the hotel room fine. I forgot what you had just said.
Speaker 0: Well, the plug ones, I mean, yeah, it's like, how do you, in your home at this point, I guess, turning them off at a reasonable hour. I mean, I don't feel the effects that I know of. Again, maybe in my sleep with all the LEDs in my bedroom, I'm definitely gonna start getting out the nail polish for my wife and trying to put up some stickers to block that stuff. But, you know, I guess in your main living room, if you don't if you got a newer home that doesn't have any sockets at all, they just plug right into a little little socket, you know, and you're stuck with these LED systems until I I don't know what. Maybe there's an invention that can mimic incandescence or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that reminds me of what I was going to say when we moved into our house currently, now they're integrating the light into the fixture. This is another very, very poor design choice. So in the kitchen, had 5,000 Kelvin lights, but you could not just simply replace the bulb. And so I'm not any kind of a fix it person or anything like that, but I got the ladder and I got the hammer and I got the drill and I got all those things because I had to totally replace the entire fixture.
So I've got parts everywhere. I'm going to Home Depot multiple times to get the parts that I need and and drilling things and just to replace the light. That's that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 0: That's crazy. I guess before I let you get out of here, Mark, I wanted to talk about maybe the insidious, almost nefarious nature of these things, and you mentioned offhandedly, like, you know, I don't I don't know that they're trying to kill us, but that's where my brain kinda goes with a lot of this stuff. We see this with cloud seeding and sort of all sorts of other harmful things, whether it's processed food giving us then medications, then, you know, keep keep eating your processed food. We'll give you statins, you know, on the back on the backside. Right?
So I don't trust these people as far as I can throw them. Do you think that there is an agenda here? That there is some sort of an agitation agenda? Because I if we're all angry, if we're all agitated, if we're all not getting proper sleep, just my brain believes, you know, that the government and there's nefarious we certainly know the effects of MK Ultra programs that we've covered here on the show and the CIA, which are they're still operating today. We've spoken to whistleblowers, so this is not fiction.
Do you think that there's something nefarious going on here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm asked that question quite often. It's it's complex. The nefarious part is sort of inherent to everything else that's going on. I would use a lot of other adjectives to describe the situation, arrogance, incompetence, negligence, power, money.
So these different things have come together, inertia, fear, like in a bureaucratic system, there's a fear of losing your job if you do raise the issue. So all these things come together. One of the other things that I have found personally is how the system works is that if I notify a government agency that there's a problem, the first thing that will come back to me is how they're complying with all the regulations, so they don't have to do anything. If I push it further, like a petition, they will come back and say why they don't have to do what I'm asking them to do. If I push it further and take them to court, and I filed many lawsuits, pro se lawsuits, then they will assign it to a lawyer and the lawyer will then fight.
So even this, when you want to get it fixed and you point out all the problems, the system that we live in is designed to fight any kind of fix. They want the status quo to stay the same. So is there somebody sort of pulling the strings and saying, yeah, sort of there is, there are people that want to make money, they don't want to be sued. So for example, these LED streetlights, it's been now scientifically stated that it's an environmental carcinogen. Well, now those companies are liable for having sold this product, that's a carcinogenic product, right?
Well, they don't want to be sued, so they're going to fight. So anything that occurs now kind of gets on its own, kind of rolls down the hill. There are forces at work that's very difficult to fight. And, whether they're, they are trying to kill us all, probably not, but are they trying to fix it? Absolutely not.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, that's what's going on.
Speaker 0: My brain always goes to, well, someone's probably making money off of this. If they now, you know, the melatonin industry or something, you know, trying to help us sleep because they know how detriment, you know, they can make a lot of money off of this and so the sleep industry, the the sleep drug industry probably can make a lot of money off of this. I I'm sure there's papers somewhere. Someone knows this, and someone's making money off of it. But that that's the that's my cynical nature.
I've been doing this too long, Mark. Where can people learn more about how to maybe change their environment? You have a or on your website where some resources that people can go, if they wanna reach out. Maybe someone's been suffering from this for years and just didn't know, and this could be, you know, again, a wake up call moment for them. Where can people go to get more information that you can help them with?
Speaker 1: Okay, great. So softlights.org, it's plural, softlights.org. On our front page, we have a campaign right now for, especially for LED headlights on cars, and you can sign a petition on change.org. We have over 75,000 people now have signed our petition to ban these blinding car headlights. You can also submit an LED incident report, which we submit to the Food and Drug Administration.
We started this in April 2024. We now have over 400 incident reports. These are very important because it's public record that something's wrong. So any person listening to the show can fill out an LED incident report. It's simple, just describe the impacts of the LEDs on your life.
The Soft Lights Foundation will submit that to the Food and Drug Administration, and we will hold them accountable to make some kind of regulations or something about this. If you want to learn more about the health impacts, we have a resources section, which has, I post lots of scientific articles. So the direct source, you can read through those, you know, those can be difficult. We have it's kind of a dense website currently. We're looking to redesign it, make it more accessible.
But there's lots of information about the health impacts and different categories, your eyes, environmental health, and you can learn about sort of the history. We have a news section which kind of keeps you up to date what we're doing, all of our regulatory petitions and our lawsuits, etcetera. And so, and then you can reach out to us. We can join our Facebook group, Ban Blinding LEDs, and and collaborate with others who are also trying to solve the issue or just there to complain.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, there's power. There's power in those numbers. I can tell you one thing I'm gonna be doing though, which is after this interview is going to our bedroom and and putting stickers on all these little LEDs. I've been meaning to do it, and you you were the catalyst. So, yeah, the sleep masks don't work, and we've got too many of those things in our bedroom.
Mark, thank you so much. I I I keep thinking of puns to say that this has been illuminating, but I I I should I should stop myself from saying that. But thank you so much for this. I've been wanting to really dive deeply into this, subject for a long time and hopefully we can have senator Mike Lee on the show to maybe push this even further and see if we can get some some eyeballs paying attention to this at the FDA and other things. So, Mark, thank you so much for your work on this and and this was really, really eye opening.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Clayton.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
💣 The Palantir Connection with EPSTEIN they don't want you to know about: As Ehud Barak left Israeli government service, he sought guidance from Epstein, who pointed him to Peter Thiel’s company Palantir. @MazMHussain is our guest. https://t.co/bKolCZ20NI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the ongoing investigations into the Epstein-Israel connection. Speaker 1 explains that Robsat has been examining Epstein’s ties to the Israeli government, Israeli security services, and Israeli private firms connected to the security sector, which are heavily involved in tech surveillance. Epstein is described as a very critical node in this network. The recent email dump is noted as chaotic and not fully accessible, with about 3,000,000 documents released, roughly half of what the DOJ reportedly has. There is mention of another roughly 3,000,000 files that remain unseen, and that lawmakers like Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey have raised this issue. The currently released material may only be the tip of the iceberg, and fuller analysis awaits chronological organization to understand the conversations in context.
Speaker 1 notes that prior reporting relied on very limited Epstein files and involuntary releases from hacked material—such as an intrusion into Ehud Barak’s inbox—which revealed Epstein’s extensive, far-reaching involvement with figures and institutions in Israel’s political and security establishment. Epstein’s role is described as a resource and a critical node used for connections, money, political leverage, and global influence, rather than simply being a Mossad agent. The forthcoming documents are expected to enable more stories about Israel’s global influence through Epstein, including in Africa, Central Asia, Europe, North America, and Russia.
Speaker 0 asks about the significance of Epstein informing Ehud Barak, especially in light of Palantir’s actions, and why Barak would need this information if Palantir would proceed independently. Speaker 1 responds by noting that Ehud Barak was leaving public service and, like many former politicians, sought to leverage access gained in office to generate private wealth while pursuing ongoing political aims. Epstein was assisting Barak in developing him as a tech security mogul. Barak apparently did not know Palantir well at that time, illustrating Epstein’s role in shaping and linking these tech surveillance interests.
Speaker 1 adds that Palantir was reportedly attempting to hire Israel’s UN ambassador, Ron Prosor, indicating a very intimate relationship between the Israeli political/security establishment and Palantir, which also has ties to the American intelligence community. Epstein’s interest in surveillance technology aligned with his broader access to intelligence networks and financial resources to influence the technological landscape.
The transcript ends with Speaker 0 interjecting a promotional advertisement for gold and silver (which should be omitted from the summary per instructions).
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So just at a high level, when you sort of are are sorting through all of this, what are you seeing, that is further confirmation of this Israel, Epstein, Massad, CIA cabal connection here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So as we talked about last time, we've Robsat has been doing this ongoing series of investigations on the connection between Epstein and the Israeli government and Israeli security services and Israeli private firms tied to the security services, which are very heavily involved in the tech sector and tech surveillance and so forth. Epstein was a very critical node in all of that. Now, this email dump is very interesting because there was a tremendous number of documents dumped. And in typical fashion, they weren't dumped in a way which made them extremely accessible.
They kind of were released in a very chaotic fashion. And my understanding is about 3,000,000 documents were released, but that document release is only about half of what the DOJ is said to have. So there's shouldn't be another 3,000,000 or so files and documents related to Epstein that the DOJ has in his possession. And I think Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey and a few others have brought that up. So, you know, whatever we've seen right now, and I saw you guys were reading some of the, really egregious sort of allegations that were in some of these emails and correspondents in some of them, you know, that's still maybe just the tip of the iceberg to be honest because whatever they they saw fit to release this and not the other 3,000,000 which we don't have any schedule or time frame to see.
So, you know, I'll tell you that our previous stories were based on the very, very limited Epstein file releases that had happened beforehand, but also some involuntary releases that took place because some hackers online had hacked former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and hacked one of Epstein's old inboxes for a certain time period. And then we were able to see this very voluminous and far reaching relationship that Epstein evidently had with not just Barack, but a wide range of figures and institutions in the Israeli political and security establishment. He was a very critical node in all of that. And, you know, I've said this many times. People ask me, you know, was Epstein a Mossad agent per se?
I think that, in reality, his stature and the role he played was in many ways far above that. If you look at his conversations with Barack, who at this time was one of the most influential people in the Israeli political security establishment, he'd been the prime minister. He he was the defense minister during part of their conversations. He was really looking up to Epstein. He was looking up to Epstein for help.
He was trying to get his attention. The power dynamic was very quite, quite discernible in their interactions. It So was really Epstein was kind of above, you know, any institution like that per se, but there was he was a resource and a critical node that they actually relied on for connections and help and, for money and political purposes and to spread their influence globally and so forth. So I suspect that these files, which, you know, again, we haven't had the chance to go through in great granularity and really to get extract the true meaning out of them does take some time to kinda put them chronologically together and see what the meaning of all the conversations were in context. But I do suspect that they will point more of this.
Now I have been looking at that conversation that you you referenced earlier with Barack, and a third figure who, you know, we have some theories of who it is, but we're not haven't we're not sharing them yet, but I think of someone people probably know very well. You know, I do think that points to even more detail about, what Epstein was doing. And I think the one thing about these, documents is that they're gonna help us do a lot more stories about this Israel connection soon because they filled in the gaps from some of the things that we weren't able to nail down before. And I think we'll see a lot more stories about Epstein's influence, through Israel, in many countries around the world, including many countries in Africa, Central Asia, and obviously in Europe and North America and Russia as well.
Speaker 0: And what do you make of him sort of filling in Eliud Barak about it? Why does he need to know this if they're you know, if Palantir is gonna do what they're gonna do, he needs him to know about Peter Thiel. Like, why bring this guy who is legacy leadership in on this if they're just gonna like, why? What do you what do you I'm asking you to guess.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know, it's funny because, this time, you know, Ehud Barak was leaving, public service. And in Israel, and like many countries, when politicians, leave public service, they wanna try to leverage the access they got in office to make a lot of money. And in making a lot of money, often still pursue the same political goals that they did in office, or whatever ideological goals they had, but try to make money as a private citizen in tandem with that. So what, Epstein was doing for Barack at this time was he's helping build him up as this, tech security mogul.
And as you can tell, Barack didn't even know what Palantir was at that time, so he probably didn't really have that much of a background in the field. He was someone who's focused. He was a defense minister and so forth. He was a professional soldier at one point in his life and politics.
Speaker 0: To be fair, right, most people didn't know what Palantir was at that point. And he had really just kind of secured their, like, CIA funding at that point, which you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: So, like,
Speaker 0: most most people didn't know about it. And here he is speaking about it as if he has, like, some sort of CIA insider knowledge passing this on to Ehud Barak.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's very notable for that reason. You're right. And, you know, one thing that I I've seen in these email archives and some of the other lead archives that have come out over the past year or so, and has been reported by a few other places, smaller outlets as well too, that Palantir sometime around this period was attempting to hire the Israeli ambassador to the UN directly out of his role at the UN, Ron Prosor. So there was some very intimate relationship between the Israeli political establishment, security establishment with this company, which as mentioned also has ties to the American intelligence establishment.
So Epstein's interest in it is not surprising to me in a way because he's he was very invested and interested in this idea of surveillance technology. And he was kind of he was a very intelligent and forward thinking man in some ways in the sense that he was plugged into all these networks, and he was trying to shape the technological environment, that we would see in the years to come, through his access to intelligence, resources and also the money he drew could draw upon. Well, don't you
Speaker 0: 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.
+1 806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus metals with a qualified purchase.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Global RESET?⚡Epstein files resurfacing, a historic move in precious metals, & a bizarre gold arbitrage. Then Trump taps Kevin Warsh, & suddenly, the dollar era, the petrodollar, & the energy game all look very different. https://t.co/7gUk5MFNuC
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video argues that a “new world order” is unfolding in real time, signaling the start of a “great reset.” The host points to events from the past Friday as evidence: 3,000,000 Epstein files released, the biggest one-day drop in the history of the precious metals market, and a large arbitrage developing among Chinese, London, and US precious metals markets. Gold is described as the indicator that a full-blown reset is upon us, with attention drawn to pathways like the US’s approach to Iran and the Epstein files, while claiming a broader resetting dynamic is at work.
Context for the moment centers on Friday’s nomination of Kevin Warsh (referred to as Kevin Walsh in the transcript) as the new Fed chairman. The host notes baggage around Warsh, including his appearance in Epstein files, but emphasizes his views: Warsh “hates stimulus money,” “hates quantitative easing,” and “voted against it,” believing it pushes inflation higher. He is said to have shifted on interest rates, from believing higher interest rates were good for the dollar to a different stance, and he allegedly favors slashing the Fed’s balance sheet to lower rates. The implication is that the nomination marks a shift toward a new dollar era and a shift away from a strong USD, which the host frames as a response to concerns about the US owning precious metals and controlling energy markets.
The host ties these changes to a new petrodollar era, arguing that the United States, now the largest producer of oil and natural gas, has moved the petrodollar structure away from Saudi Arabia and toward the US. This trifecta—new dollar policy from the Fed, a drop in the precious metals market driven by speculators, and US control over energy policy—constitutes a “reset.” The video asserts that the traditional petrodollar system, once led by OPEC, has shifted, reducing outside leverage over Washington in energy matters. The host also claims a debate over foreign influence in the Middle East and calls for ending involvement in regional wars and bringing troops home, while criticizing mainstream outlets and certain political figures.
Four main points are then presented as the crux of the reset:
1) Trump desires a weaker US dollar and is pursuing greater domestic manufacturing to compete with China and India, including the aim to export more and import less; the host frames this as a deliberate strategic shift rather than inflationary debasement.
2) The end of the Fed’s independence, with a collaboration era between the Treasury and the Fed, led by figures like Scott Pissent and Warsh, suggesting much lower interest rates and a shift of debt ownership back to American hands, with foreigners potentially selling US Treasuries.
3) Energy wars are emerging, with the US drilling and producing more oil and natural gas than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined, changing the energy dynamic with China, which remains a large importer of oil and vulnerable to such shifts.
4) Sustaining public support for volatility, with Trump’s team allegedly aiming to declare a housing emergency to lower rates, discourage Wall Street from buying single-family homes, implement tariff dividends to Americans, deliver veterans’ checks, and lower inflation and gas prices in the lead-up to midterms.
The host contrasts reactions within the Trump-supporting and anti-Trump camps, asserting the reset is underway regardless of opinion. A sponsor segment then pivots to copper, arguing that copper demand is surging due to global competition for materials, and highlighting Giant Mining Corporation (ticker: BFGFF) as a primary copper idea tied to the Majuba Hill Copper Project in Nevada, noting its favorable infrastructure, past production, and strategic importance to American copper independence. The segment cites executive actions and tariff movements, including a 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products effective August 1, 2025, positioning copper as central to the new industrial reality. The host reiterates Giant Mining as the foremost copper idea and invites viewers to conduct their own research.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we better buckle up because what we just saw over the past forty eight hours in just one week after president Trump came back from that globalist enclave of Davos, we are watching a new world order unfolding right before our eyes. And I'm not being hyperbolic about it because this past Friday, we witnessed the start of the great reset. 3,000,000 Epstein files dumped on us, which are disgusting and disturbing to say the least. We also, on Friday, saw the biggest one day drop in the precious metals market in history. And right now, as I'm recording this on this Sunday morning, we are watching something huge happening, a massive arbitrage happening between the Chinese precious metals markets, London precious metals markets, US precious metals markets.
Right now, gold is the indicator that a full blown reset is upon us. Look over here at The US ready to bomb Iran. Look over here at these new Epstein files. But if you look over here, there's something massive happening that's resetting everything right now. So I wanna connect the dots for you today with four key parts of this story as I see them.
Okay? Four key parts. But first, some context here because on Friday, president Trump nominated Kevin Walsh as the new Fed chairman. And, yes, there's a lot of baggage that comes with this guy. Heck, the guy's in the freaking Epstein files.
Like, couldn't have picked another guy? Anyway, I'm gonna do a deep dive on him soon, but not in today's video. But just so you understand, he hates stimulus money, this Kevin Warsh. He hates stimulus. He hates quantitative easing.
He voted against it. He thinks correctly that it pushes inflation higher. Could have used him during the Biden years. He also changed his mind on interest rates. He used to believe that higher interest rates were good for the US dollar, not any longer.
He also believes the Fed shouldn't hold this much debt on its balance sheets. He wants the Fed to slash its balance sheets, which will also lead to lower interest rates. So this is a huge move. And this move, though, means that we are effectively in a new dollar era right now. The globalists are terrified of us owing owning any kind of precious metals, dumping US dollars.
So everything is changing right now before our eyes. So along with this new dollar era, we are in a new petrodollar era. And This is important because if you're paying attention to the last cabinet meeting, The United States is now the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. This means the new petrodollar structure isn't sitting in Saudi Arabia anymore. It's now in The United States.
And the trifecta here that just happened is a new plan for the US dollar at the Fed, the precious metals market dropping like a bomb thanks to speculators dumping their holdings and everyone taking profits, and then The US control over the petrodollar, energy policy. So all of this just happened, basically, on Friday. The petrodollar system was controlled by OPEC, We're the source of endless Middle Eastern wars. This has now changed, meaning no one can shake Washington down on energy anymore. We produce more than you do.
That makes every American a thousand times safer as long as we don't continue to do Israel's bidding and bomb Middle East countries. We'll see what Trump does there. If you really wanna make America safe, stop listening to that demon Netanyahu and actually bring our troops home out of the Middle East, 50,000 of them back to The US. We've got our own problems here at home to deal with. But the neocon Fox News crowd would love nothing more than for Trump to kiss Netanyahu's ass and do whatever he wants.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's bring in former secretary of state and CIA director Mike Pompeo, a Fox News contributor.
Speaker 0: But one thing at a time. And just so you understand what happened on Friday, with everyone selling off silver and gold, I mean, few weeks ago, The US stole Venezuela's oil. It's ours now. China was pissed. They are one of Venezuela's largest oil partners, settling these transactions in the Chinese Yuan instead of US dollars.
Well America swoops in, kidnaps Maduro, steals their oil, kills hundreds of people by the way which didn't get any headlines. China then responds, limiting silver export controls. Countries and banks panic. People buy up precious metals like crazy because now The United States and China relationship is heading for disaster. But then then then things suddenly turned around.
The US and China calmed down. Things started to get back to normal. Trump and Xi Jinping are gonna actually spend the autumn together, maybe holding hands and walking amongst the, the leaves. I don't know. Like, they like each other again.
Then Friday, it all comes to a head. Right? Oh, things are calming down between The US and China. All these leveraged bets and Wall Street speculators who overbought on the China tension. They bought tons of silver and gold.
They suddenly decide to take profits, dumping it. The markets tumble, but normal people like me just doubled down and bought more silver and gold on Friday. Hey. Buy the dip when these idiots play this speculation game. I don't wanna have anything to do with those morons.
Which brings me to the four main points that I wanted to make that a lot of people are missing in this whole story. Number one, Trump wants a weaker US dollar, and that's why I'm I'm buying as much silver and gold as I can get my hands on.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I'm a person that likes a strong
Speaker 0: What people don't understand is that Trump doesn't want to push up higher inflation or debase the currency. That's a conspiracy theory. He wants a weaker currency because The US now controls the world's energy markets. He's trying to turn The US into a manufacturing hub and massive exports to other countries instead of us importing everything from China and Vietnam and India. Of course all of this might blow up in his face.
I don't know. Might be the dumbest move ever, right? Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just telling you what he's doing. But certainly, the Clinton Bush Obama era of shutting down all of our manufacturing destroyed our country, so what choice does he have? In order to compete with China and India, he believes we need a weaker US dollar, just like the Chinese Yuan is weaker.
And India's rupee, which is basically in the toilet as we speak, just hit an all time low, It's one of the worst performing currencies in Asia. So he believes we need a weaker US dollar to create a manufacturing boom in The United States to compete with China India. So this is a new era that we are entering in. This isn't some small policy tweak. It's an intentional move that could last a decade or more.
Again, it could be a disaster, total disaster. We won't know for sure for a while, that's for sure. But, certainly, we're sitting in a disaster right now thanks to Obama, Biden, and Clinton. Now the second point that we need to make is this is the end of the Fed's independence. So since 2008, the Fed has essentially become more independent.
I know they're not technically independent. They still have to answer to congress, but give me a break. So they dropped interest rates to nearly zero back then, created a housing crisis. No one did anything to stop them. No one stepped in and said, don't do this.
Obama certainly didn't. Now we're entering a collaboration era between the Treasury Department and the Fed. Scott Pissent and Kevin Wash literally worked together under Stanley Drunkenmiller. Their desks were side by side. This means we're heading for much lower interest rates.
And if you lower the value of US bonds and US treasuries, then foreigners are gonna dump those bonds. And that means those bonds will now come back home, The United States will be sitting on that debt. I will own this debt, not China or Russia. And we'll see what this means. This is a bombshell.
Mean, this means that foreigners will not own these bonds anymore. American pension funds will. Now what will they be worth? I don't know. Again, a lot we still don't know.
But the next part of this great reset that we're seeing, number three on this list, in my opinion, is energy wars. So what Trump is doing with energy is a total shift from the Obama Biden era. We are entering a Trump energy war era. No bullets, no killing, but import and export wars over resources. The United States is now drilling and now producing more oil and natural gas than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined.
Energy is the Achilles heel of China. They are the biggest importer of oil in the world. Yes, they produce their own but not nearly enough to survive, and they are the biggest importer in the world. They cannot function without it. China retaliated with silver controls after Trump took over the Venezuelan oil fields.
This is gonna get much worse, guys. Much worse. And the fourth part of this reset is that he needs Americans to go along with all of this volatility and all of this drama, which is tough. Right? Will they?
Will Americans go along with it? Well, according to sources I've spoken to in the Trump administration, Trump and his team see it like this. During the Obama, Clinton, Bush, Biden era, which Americans were rewarded with sending jobs overseas and manufacturing leaving The United States, Thanks. It was the elites who benefited from all of it. The elites.
Ross Perot nailed it when he said the middle class would suffer. He said there would be a giant sucking sound leaving The United States, and the average American would suffer.
Speaker 1: And you don't care about anything but making money. There will be a giant sucking sound going south.
Speaker 0: He was right. Now Trump's team wants to stop that. They're planning to declare a housing emergency to lower interest rates, stop Wall Street from buying single family homes, tariff dividends to Americans, those seventeen seventy six checks to veterans, US veterans, lowering inflation, lower gas prices. And he knows that most Americans don't care about Ukraine. He knows that most families vote with their wallets, so ahead of the midterms.
Right? How is my how's the economy doing right now if I'm gonna go out and vote republican or democrat or whatever during the midterm elections? Is it helping or hurting me? Do I have a job? Etcetera.
So this is a huge gamble that is all coming together right now in multiple parts as we speak. Now you have the MAGA Fox News crowd saying, see, Trump is Jesus Christ. He has it all figured out. He walks on water. Ignore everything in the Epstein files.
Ignore all the times that Trump's name appears in the Epstein files or Bill Gates and all forget about it. Trump is god. And then you have some economists saying this is a crazy move. Trump's insane. And it really doesn't matter matter how you feel about it.
It's actually happening. Right? You could be, like, angry angry liberal. You could be, like, mega cat turd. I'm excited about life.
I love everything that Trump does. Doesn't matter. It's happening. Right? So it's like, wanna understand how it's all happening.
This is this reset is now officially here. So that's the news update part of the video. Now I wanna talk to about today's sponsor, which is tied to everything we just talked about. I don't know if you've been paying attention, and I don't know if you've been benefiting from paying attention, but copper demand is beyond belief right now. Supply is vanishing.
Chile, the largest copper producer, sees production decline. Copper shortage is just a matter of time now. Copper is trading near all time highs. The deficits coming are ungodly. From 1990 to 2023, two thirty nine major copper discoveries.
Here's the problem though, time to develop these mines has surged 40% to roughly eighteen years. That's how long it takes to develop these things. Around 90% of major discoveries still need ten years to reach first production. The United States Of America and China are battling right now over mineral supply chains, technological supremacy because globalization stepped out of equilibrium. And you can see just how when you're looking at the strategy both superpowers are taking right now, Trump's using tariffs, deregulation to begin process of realigning mining, securing resources on US soil.
While the Chinese Communist Party is using their near monopoly status, their scale, their reserves to their advantage. So I told you about these energy wars. 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 for copper. Copper surged to a fresh record as supplies tightened and inventories became increasingly constrained.
Today I want to showcase a company that is actually trading near its one year lows right now, down nearly 70% from its highs. It's the owner of the Majuba Hill Copper Project, a past producing mine in the state of Nevada, and it's the sponsor of today's video. That's Giant Mining Corporation. Here is their ticker symbol on your screen. It's b f g f f.
Now the company is the only copper company that I am bullish on right now. And I, again, say this, Giant Mining has rarely, if ever, traded this cheaply. So I'm showcasing it to you right now because it's one of the lowest market caps in history. It began in 2026 with a breakout over record setting copper prices. Giant Mining, by the way, there are ticker symbols available on Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab among all of them.
Since President Trump's inauguration, his administration has aggressively pursued policies to secure US mineral independence, with copper emerging as a major flashpoint. Copper, vital for defense, AI infrastructure, it underscores America's vulnerability to foreign dominance. In February 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14,220, initiating a Section two thirty two investigation into US copper imports. The investigation, completed in June, led to a presidential proclamation that imposed 50% tariffs on semi finished copper products, including wires and cables, and that was effective on 08/01/2025. So what happened on August 1?
The copper sector, in my view, entered a brand new ground floor seismic level opportunity, marking the beginning of a transformative new phase right now for the entire industry. Now what we've been seeing is the very first chance in my view to be a part of the rebirth of the American copper mining business. You know, we can access it as a we can access it basically as a at a founding moment as far as I can tell. Giant Mining owns a past producing copper mine in Nevada, one of America's best and most cherished mining jurisdictions. Giant mining, in my personal view, is my number one copper idea.
I stand by this statement. Howard Lutnick said American industries depend on copper. It should be made in America. No exceptions. No exemptions.
Then Trump said copper should be made in America, it's time for copper to come home. Historic underground mines at the Majuba Hill project produced copper, tin, and silver from the early 1900s to the nineteen fifties, including 2,800,000 pounds of copper, 184,000 ounces of silver, 5,800 ounces of gold, 21,000 pounds of tin. I'll say this again, all of these factors and the following ones below are the reasons that led to my significant bullish opinion about giant mining. So the infrastructure is ready. They have access roads, power supply, transportation, water supply.
They have ore stockpiles, and they have established road access. They have power nearby. They have space for potentially processing infrastructure as the project advances, which is huge. So, guys, do your own homework on Giant Mining, and their ticker symbol is right here on your screen again, b f g f f, and we'll see you next time, everyone.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🚨 A new documentary presents evidence suggesting the COVID vaccine turns the human body into a signal transmitter, including footage showing signals detected from graves. https://t.co/MVfg2p2Cpn
Video Transcript AI Summary
The program presents a narrative linking Havana syndrome, COVID-19 vaccination, and alleged pervasive nanotech-based surveillance and control technologies, framed by whistleblowers and investigators.
Key claims and points:
- Havana syndrome is described as real, with documented anomalous frequency phenomena. The guest, Jesse Beltran, an expert in anomalous frequency analysis and Havana syndrome-related phenomena, says the phenomenon expanded after the COVID vaccine rollout, with complaints “identical to what he was seeing with Havana syndrome” and suggests vaccines act as transmitters of signals.
- A central premise is that signals can be received inside the body and sometimes appear to originate from external sources, including graves. A trailer scene allegedly shows signals coming from six feet underground in graves of people who took the shot and died, described as signals still being broadcast.
- The documentary frames the COVID vaccines as containing or enabling signals and transceivers, with claims that biosensors and programmable nanotechnology are embedded in vaccines, lipid nanoparticles, and related substances, enabling data retrieval and data transmission from the human body.
- The discussion covers biometric surveillance “into what’s under the skin,” with assertions that biometric data and location data are collected through these technologies, turning vaccine recipients into “routers” and “communication devices.”
- The Bonnie Keller-B case is highlighted: a woman implanted with biosensors without consent, later surgically removed in some cases. Beltran cites these biosensors as evidence of nonconsensual implants, used to illustrate broader claims about experimentation on U.S. citizens without consent.
- The 21st Century Cures Act (2016) is cited as enabling experimentation on U.S. citizens without consent under minimal risk criteria; the speakers claim Section 3024 was extended in 2024 to cover private entities and research institutions, with implications for consent and data sharing (including FOIA exemptions and national security protections).
- Specific claims are made about nanotechnology being self-assembling, programmable, and able to cross the blood-brain barrier. A reference is made to patents and documents describing nanoscale biocompatible devices and their capabilities.
- Doctor Hall (John Hall) is presented as an early whistleblower who linked signals to Havana syndrome as far back as 2010, with a history of using frequency detectors to identify anomalous signals. Hall’s work is said to have led to field scans and data collection from hundreds of individuals, revealing patterns in who is affected.
- The frequency-detection methodology is described: two devices—an RF general frequency detector with precision to a fraction of a millimeter and a nonlinear junction detector—used to scan living subjects. The nonlinear junction detector is described as capable of locating silicon-based circuitry and biosensors in the body, sometimes leading to surgical removal.
- The narrative asserts post-COVID increases in the number of detected signal locations per person (averaging around 20 locations or more), with comparisons across demographics and geography, including prisoners, soldiers, and general populations showing similar patterns. It is claimed that children can also test positive.
- The speakers discuss broader implications: a new form of war using neurotechnology, six-g/AI integration, remote manipulation of thoughts, and potential erosion of human rights if these technologies are used for control. They cite potential military subcontractors and telecommunications companies as sources of the frequencies, and they reference a “brain initiative” and AI-assisted control as evidence of centralized command and control over individuals.
- A recurring theme is the threat to free thought and autonomy, with warnings about a future where people could be deprived of basic rights or become “homo borgensis,” subject to memory imprinting or erasure via remote technologies, especially as six-G and advanced AI advance.
- Practical takeaways offered include a supplement (zeolite Z) to reduce symptoms and excrete graphene oxide, and the Stop3024.com initiative seeking signatures against nonconsensual experimentation. The speakers urge independent research and present themselves as offering coaching and evidence gathering for those claiming to be affected.
People and roles:
- Jesse Beltran: TSCM-certified investigator, expert in Havana syndrome and anomalous frequency analysis; discusses detectors, biosensors, and post-vaccine signals; shares case histories and demonstrations.
- Doctor John Hall: Referenced as a pioneer who documented hearing signals and health effects; linked to early Havana syndrome work and field data collection.
- Bonnie Keller-B: Subject of biosensor implants; case cited to illustrate nonconsensual implants and surgical removal.
- Speaker references include various researchers, whistleblowers, and advocates who describe legal, ethical, and technocratic concerns around biometric surveillance, nanoscale technologies, and government programs.
Overall, the transcript presents a cohesive, if controversial, account connecting Havana syndrome, COVID vaccines, nanotech, biological monitors, and a trajectory toward pervasive biotechnological control, framed as a matter of urgent public disclosure and citizen action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, it turns out Havana syndrome is real, and our next guest has been documenting it for years. But then after the COVID vaccine rollout, suddenly he started noticing incredible similarities, increases in complaints coming forward that one hundred percent were identical to what he was seeing with Havana syndrome. He's featured in a new documentary that might be the most mind blowing report we've ever seen on the COVID vaccine. It looks at the shots in our bodies almost acting as transmitters broadcasting signals. And one of the most eye opening scenes from the trailer shows signals being received, and then the camera pans back, and you realize the signals are coming from underground, six feet underground in the corpses in the graveyard.
People that had taken the shot, now dead, but still sending a signal. Watch.
Speaker 1: Way back in 1778, the Continental Congress unanimously passed America's first whistleblower law. I did this clearly at own It recognized the duty to give the earliest information to Congress of any misconduct, frauds, misdemeanors committed by anyone working for government.
Speaker 2: The information I'm presenting is made as a protected communication under Title 10 USC ten thirty four as a whistleblower. We are all ready.
Speaker 1: Two hundred forty six years later, whistleblowers have an incredible record of changing the course of history.
Speaker 3: In 2019, I was approached by leadership. There were five clients and there was a vendor in the room. The vendor was BiomeTech. These are the notes that I took during the conversation of the meeting with the stakeholders for the contact tracing application. Took the fabric of my reality and just rubbed me.
I mean, it just made me question everything.
Speaker 0: Government is going to grant themselves power unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society.
Speaker 4: COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize
Speaker 1: Upload complete.
Speaker 4: Total biometric surveillance.
Speaker 5: It's always the data. It's the crack cocaine of Silicon Valley. We are already living inside the architecture of totalitarianism.
Speaker 4: We need not just to monitor people. We need to monitor what's happening under their skin.
Speaker 6: I know my husband is not vaccinating people and putting a microchip in her arm because that technology doesn't even exist, and he's never uttered the words out of his mouth. So
Speaker 1: Microchips and tracking devices are embedded in the vaccine. Is this accurate?
Speaker 7: We have six MAC addresses that are pulsing Bluetooth signals and all we are is surrounded by tombstones. So can someone explain to
Speaker 8: me why we're getting EMF emissions off
Speaker 1: the
Speaker 8: grave inside of a Faraday cage, please? So we've seen the reports individuals having unlicensed MAC addresses post vaccination. I've seen evidence of that myself.
Speaker 3: One of the requirements that just changed the entire course of the conversation and frankly my life, That's when lipid nano came into the conversation.
Speaker 9: These are not vaccines. These are not biological. As you go through the patent in section two nineteen, it explains how they are self assembled nanoparticles, and they're fully programmable.
Speaker 3: From a technical perspective, if I can retrieve data, I can send data.
Speaker 1: DARPA calls it transhumanism.
Speaker 3: Can you hear what I just said and not wanna just step away?
Speaker 9: Blood samples aren't supposed to have blinking lights, but there they are. They're little dots. They move across the slide, and they're blinking. This was, brain tissue that had been sitting in a jar of formalin for six months. Even if the body does, they continue?
Yes, apparently.
Speaker 3: All of your biometric data, your location, your privacy, it's gone. If you took the vaccine, you are the routers. You are a communication device.
Speaker 0: Jesse Beltran is a TSCM certified investigator, one of the nation's leading specialists in anomalous frequency analysis and Havana syndrome related phenomenon for over twenty years. Of course, this has led him to the COVID vaccine, and Jesse joins us now. Thank you so much for being here, Jesse. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 10: Well, thank you, Clayton, and thank you for the opportunity. It's important that we disseminate this information to basically the general population, because normally I deal with people who are symptomatic and having complaints. And recently, within our research, and you just touched a little bit upon it, we're finding that even those who are not symptomatic post jab are now coming up positive in where we detect anomalous RF signals and or nonlinear junction semiconductor materials in these very specific focal areas around the human body.
Speaker 0: And we have some video here of your team, you specifically looking at and examining the human body. Here's one individual where you have some sort of a device on someone's head. This person obviously is still alive. What are you seeing? Like, what are what what is actually happening when you're holding up this transmitter to the the human head and different parts of the body?
Speaker 10: Yeah. What what I'm actually, there's two devices. One is an RF detector suggest general frequency detector where we'll scan the human person and see if we get a detection. The manufacturer has this, the accuracy down to one one millionth of a millimeter, as far as accuracy, so we can attenuate it down because we live in a wireless society, so that we have to be really, really close to an emission. Then the other device that you saw in the documentary is a nonlinear junction detector.
These things are highly sensitive, very expensive. This piece of equipment here is around 22,000 US dollars and what it was designed to do is to find rust initially in airplanes and what they found serendipitously is that it will also locate circuitry or semiconductor material, silicon based, which is basically in all circuitry down to very, very minute sizes. And what we were doing is doing RF scanning around those victims who were symptomatic initially and then coming with a nonlinear junction detection because we felt our hypothesis was those who were suffering from the Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidences is the new acronym, that there was something unique within that person that was allowing them to receive these signals. And what the nonlinear junction detection was detecting is positive results for semiconductor materials or semiconductors in these people, which ultimately led to surgical removal of biosensors. One of my earliest cases is the Bonnie Kellerbee case.
Speaker 11: This man and this woman here are now my family. And without John supporting Bonnie through this, remember, he thought she was crazy. But we were able to show proof on this journey that she wasn't. Yeah. Okay?
He did. And and think about their relationship. This can happen to any one of you. Okay? And how would you feel if you let the love of your life go because someone synthetically induced mental illness?
Thank you. Okay. You wanna say anything? Yeah. You wanna say anything?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 12: I'll just you know, this here this started twenty two years ago for us. She was implanted twenty two years ago. So that that was very difficult. No. Yeah.
No. And it was very difficult. The seven years before we met Jesse, it was hell, basically, because we didn't I didn't trust what she was saying, didn't trust what she was acting. Takes her to the hospital. They put her in seventy two hour lockup because they say that, oh, schizophrenia.
That's what they use against you. It's not fair. It's a horrible thing, and we're lucky we made it through it today. So, anyway, she's got we got three inserts. We did we went through everything.
I take her to wherever it's necessary to get help, and we've got the some surgical removal. She's got two implants still that are very bad that aren't released yet. We're hoping that this new doctor will help us to get it out, and then maybe we can have our life come back. But our life has not been normal, you know, that we should be enjoying our retirement with. It's very difficult to do that when she's tortured twenty four seven with voice and torment.
It's it's a horrible thing. It's unbelievable, actually. So, anyway, sorry. Very emotional. Jesse, thank you.
Speaker 10: They removed three biosensors out of her, and I asked this question to everyone out there. How many of you out there have someone in your family, a friend, or, know someone who has mental illness? And what if that mental illness was synthetically induced? Okay. How would you feel if this was done to a loved one, to you, or to a close friend?
And the Bonnie Keller b case really touches home on that. I was invited down in Santa Monica, California to do a presentation in front of secretary of state RFK support group. They raised a lot of money for his campaign and they asked me to do a presentation about this topic and to my surprise the Keller Bee showed up there. And so we showed and demonstrated these biosensors that were taken out of her, and she stood up and Mr. Kellerby was a very proud man, stood up and he's he he expresses he almost lost the love of his life because he thought she was crazy.
In fact, doctor Call called me and suggested, can you please give this couple a call? I know that Bonnie's telling the truth. Can you please talk to him? And I said, sure. So I gave him a call, and when we held our first meeting in Sacramento, California, when I was just trying to find out how many victims are truly out there and I expected a handful.
And when we disseminated out to the community, had a 100 people show up. Mister Kellaby was there, and everyone in that room was standing room only, had the very same complaints with very little deviation. And mister Kellaby stood up and he said, I almost love lost the love of my life, but I can no longer discard her as being crazy because each and every one of you have expressed the same complaints as her. And he goes at that RFK presentation that I was at, and he said, we should be enjoying retirement. You know, they're making individuals like my wife look like they're crazy and diagnosing them with schizophrenia, force institutionalizing them, force medicating them, further revictimizing them.
Bonnie Keller Bee never consented for those biosensors to be implanted in her body. Those were done nonconsensually. And what may surprise you if I asked you, is this legal to do in The United States? And I would come back and say, right now, it is currently absolutely legal to do to you without your consent. In 2016, president Obama instituted the twenty first Century Cures Act, and it was sold to the American citizens as a way to fight the opioid epidemic and crisis that we were having here in The United States.
But hidden in it was a section called 3,024. And in section 3,024 the exact language is this, it is legal to experiment on US citizens without their consent as long as it does not exceed minimal risk criteria. Then the question question is what is minimal risk criteria? Nothing that doesn't happen in normal everyday life. And I would ask this, does death happen in normal everyday life?
These and they are further protected if you are in an IRB and if you do a FOIA request to see if you are in an experiment, it is protected under national security protocols so that data cannot be shared with you. And in 2024, the Biden administration extended it to cover private entities, private research institutions, and universities.
Speaker 0: So I'm just I'm sorry. If you go in for, like, a doctor's visit or someone's gonna give you a shot because Obama instituted this, they could inject you with something you don't even know about?
Speaker 10: Absolutely. It's perfectly legal to do. And you might be Yes. Have a software engineer, yeah, I have a software engineer who took his children to a dentist recently and under the authorization there is a section in there that their data will be shared with the federal government, law enforcement, NSA, and research institutions. Why does that need to be included?
I thought it was absurd. I didn't believe them. Then I had another client who said the NSA is collecting our data. I had to sign this And they they will allow me to show you redacted aspects of their their signed forms, and it absolutely says that your data will be shared with the NSA. So why is this being done?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Like, I know that you live in this world, so this is probably normal to you. But take the kids to the dentist, you're just filling out your forms, your intake forms, just going to the dentist. You you don't realize that the NSA and this is not every dentist, but in certain situations, I guess, that your information, your child might be injected with something and the NSA is gonna be watching it and you have no recourse?
Speaker 10: It is absolutely legal if you're a US citizen currently to experiment on this without consent. We actually this is why we're out here educating the population. We have, a URL called stop3024.com, and we're asking for everyone to sign that. We would expect it we'd have a million signatures by now, but we don't. But the reality is that this is happening right now before our very eyes, and we can go deep down the rabbit hole about what this technology does.
Back in 1994, November 1994, there was a twenty first Century Cures Act. It it was a declassified document that was obtained through a FOIA request. And on page 80, this is to keep the United States Air Force a superpower fifty years into the future. On page 89 is a chapter called biological processes of this report, and in it it talks about using RF technology to remotely influence the human body affecting our our biochemistry, our thought processes, And in it, it says with this tech that they can erase memory sets and imprint memory sets. That means that they can take a mirror, a copy of someone's memory sets that has a certain attribute that they want to institute in others so they can imprint it in others with this tab.
And they can erase memory sets. Now people say, that sounds very sci fi, but it's in there. You can read it. It's in black and white. Go back to 1972 in California, our, correctional institutions are notorious for experimenting on prisoners.
We have another, document from our United States Congress Senate that talks about modifying human behavior. And in 1972, a Vacaville prison, not only then were they able to remotely monitor your biometrics, that means your respirations, your heart rate, your temperature, your blood pressure, but in the section it also says remotely read your thoughts. So that was in 1972. Now in 2013, there's a gentleman by the name of Doctor. Ito Bashaleh who gave a TEDMED talk in Israel, and he's holding up a syringe.
He says, I just brought this syringe from my lab, and just at the tip, not the full scale of the syringe, he says at the tip of this needle was 1,000 robots. Nanorobots is what he was talking about. They're 50 nanometers in size. That's 2,000 times the width of a strain of a human hair. You can never see it.
It would be invisible. But what these robots can do and can self replicate, they can self assemble, they can cross the blood brain barrier, they can attach to your DNA, and he teaches his students and he's saying this in the presentation, how to control these things once they're in the host with an Xbox controller. That is what we're dealing with now. This is basically computer programming of nanoscale technology that we are now discovering that is that we know that in studies has shown that has been in the Pfizer vaccine and the mRNA vaccine. It is also in the Xylocaine derivatives.
You can, in the demonstration that we sent you, you can see doctor Edel Bacciolet's nanorobots next to the xylocaine derivatives, and they're identical. You can look at what's in the studies that show what they were pulling out of the vaccines. You can see that they're identical. So the bottom line is is, you know, what can be done with this tech? If you're able to do these types of things and what is what is meant to happen in the future for our society, our children to come, our genealogy, It is not a good picture if we don't stand up and say this is not okay.
It's never been okay, and that we've been hijacked, and this was done without our consent.
Speaker 0: Maybe we can just before we get more into the COVID vaccine piece of this and these detectable signals and what these things actually are, maybe you can wind the clock back a little bit here briefly and kinda walk us through the Havana syndrome piece of this and how you were first uncovering because we've had people say, you know, people say, oh, it's just people being crazy. And we've had whistleblowers who've come forward and told us that they've they've gone through this. They've been they've been targeted. We've had former members of the CIA telling us that. They were specifically targeted with, directed energy weapons affecting their children, affecting their entire family.
But maybe you can talk about the the beginning when you first discovered that there was something nefarious going on with Havana syndrome.
Speaker 10: Okay, so Havana syndrome is a recent term. Okay, how I first became aware of this is this happened to someone who was close to me, my son's mother. I met a gentleman by the name of Doctor. John Hall in San Antonio, TX back in 2010. He was the author of a book that he had just released called satellite terrorism in America.
Coincidentally, he wrote that book based on the same phenomenon happening to his fiancee. So when I met him, he was telling me how he was meeting US citizens who were talking about hearing this strange signal that was being transmitted to them, followed by short term, long term memory loss, brain fog, severe headaches, vertigo, nausea, vomiting, but more specifically electrical shocks through the torso, which is now defined as buffeting, okay? Now, these individuals are truly being tortured and affected three sixty five days a year twenty fourseven. It is completely debilitating. And what Doctor.
Hall was doing was utilizing a general frequency detector, scanning people to see if they can detect anything around their person, and yet we're coming up positive. And I had said to him, well, isn't that enough to go to the general practitioner and get further diagnostics? He says, no. As soon as they go when they say they hear auditory symptoms, he says, They're being forced institutionalized and forced medicated. And he says, They're being re victimized.
And I said, Well, my background as a firefighter paramedic and being involved in IRBs and studies and looking for objectivity, said, well, there's got to be a way to take this subjective complaints and turn it into objective data. So that's when I decided to call that meeting in Sacramento, California. When a 100 people showed up, I said, we have something. So I decided to start doing mass scanning in the field, in conjunction with obtaining survey data to see who was most affected by this. And the data started to paint a picture.
300 people showed up at our first event in Davis, California. And what the data was showing is the persons most affected by this during that time were Caucasian females, recently single, widowed, or divorced, highly educated, then Caucasian males, in the same sequence African Americans, Asians, and then Hispanics. And it dwindled down in ethnicity from there. And I go, is this some type of attack on Caucasians? Because we went to the Midwest and the same exact data happened.
Same picture. It did change when we got into Chicago where African American and Caucasian flipped, where African Americans became number one and Caucasians were number two. And that stayed consistent to the East Coast except for one anomaly which was up in Virginia. I was invited by a bunch of military subcontractors who were all having these same complaints and they found out about my work and they said can you please come and scan us? That ultimately took me to Europe.
I was invited by a government agency to test their diplomats and, for me to bring anyone who I felt sure was suffering from this phenomenon. They allowed me to use a research facility, test these individuals in a Faraday cage, anechoic chamber, which is a robust Faraday cage, and it was rated to block out frequencies between eight kilohertz and 19 gigahertz. The frequency which we were detecting out in the field were well within that. So we used controlled people, which our frequency counters read zero for the first time ever, So we knew we were in the right environment. When we brought in those symptomatic individuals, we were, we were, detecting frequencies.
So it was at that point we conclude for whatever reason, these frequencies are emitting from the human body. Ultimately, that led to the Bonnie Keller B cases where they started doing surgical removals, finding these biosensors. Now in 2016, which is far further, you know, in the future from 2010, it was recognized but, from our diplomats and our FBI agents and CIA agents and congressional members, Colonel Eggerung testified that this is happening to all of them, but they're saying it only happens to federal employees. We know for a fact that this has been happening, at least we've been documented since 2010 to US citizens here in The United States. Why else would the Ted doctor but the re letter agency contact me contact me and tell me, you and doctor Hall kind of renaissance men, and you're absolutely correct.
There's significant overlap between the 338 federal employees that he's treating for Havana syndrome and our clients are the same. He said the only difference is that you are surgically removing biosensors. Tell me more.
Speaker 0: So I have so many questions. It's not just affecting federal employees as you've documented. It's affecting average Americans, white Caucasian women, newly single, widowed, men, white Caucasian men in that strata. And have you been able to trace back the moment when this started, an injection, some sort of a doctor's visit, some sort of a vaccine? I mean, how how is this getting into their bodies or does it have to be injected into their bodies?
Speaker 10: Very good question. So a little bit about the history in a very short amount of time. Back in the nineteen forties, the US military was implanting our soldiers with RFID chips the size of a large grain of rice. Into the eighties, early eighties, it became a small grain of rice. Late eighties, they were now approaching the size on a letter of a penny.
Okay, that has and you're lucky if they can be identified on any type of medical imagery, because that can surgically be removed. What we notice is post COVID, I started getting just inundated by calls of people saying that they're suffering from this and it's there was a huge spike. So when we were scanning people back then, maybe on average four to seven, four to eight locations, high side was 10. Now post COVID, when we're scanning people, the average is about 20 locations that they're lining up. They're not random.
They're very specific and very predictable. Back in the early two thousand tens, if you were incarcerated and we scanned you, we could we already knew you were incarcerated just by the pattern that was developing. We could superimpose all those over each other and they were identical. We can take soldiers, those who were in the military who were coming up positive. Their pattern was slightly different, but you can superimpose them over each other and they were identical.
Then you can take the general population and their patterns were identical. And the same
Speaker 0: so I understand correctly. I'm sorry. You're blowing my mind here. But, like, you could look at those who were prisoners, and they had a similar pattern. You could look at soldiers, and they had a similar pattern.
And you could look at the general population, the mom that goes to Trader Joe's in the afternoon, and she had a similar pattern to another mom that goes to Trader Joe's in the afternoon. Am I understanding that? Exactly. I know I'm dumbing it down a little bit, but is that
Speaker 10: That is exactly what I'm saying. Yeah. And there were a couple anomalies, but when we found an anomaly in an unusual location, they said they always had a surge surgery surgical procedure.
Speaker 13: Now Can I jump in really quick with a question? So does does every human give off some sort of signal and that but you're just getting a certain pattern with the ones that are infected or others give no signal whatsoever?
Speaker 10: No. Back prior to COVID, we it was not unusual to scan someone and they came up with no detectable signals. Just nothing. What we've discovered recently post COVID, everyone is coming up positive in the exact same locations that we were detecting prior to COVID of those who are symptomatic. So what I I had a software engineer recently who insisted that I test his three year old and six year old.
He was so vigilant and so demanding that I do it and he didn't tell me why. And I I I finally agreed after getting permission from both parents to do this. And when I scanned those two little children, they came up identical as the adults. I was shocked. And it was and and quite frankly, I was a little upset.
And I'm more than a little upset. Was pissed off.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because they're using children. I mean, that's why no way in hell I would ever ever put this in my children. Right? I mean, I you know?
Yeah. No way. But a lot of people did. A lot of people were like, yeah, wanna give as many shots as I can and many of these COVID shots and boosters and anything I can to shove into my children.
Speaker 10: It's Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's devastating.
Speaker 10: What this engineer did not tell me is he built a Faraday cage in his home, and he did RF testing on his children inside the Faraday cage, and they were coming up positive. And so he wanted my expertise in order to verify what his findings were, and he never told me what he did until after I did the testing. And then then I understood why. And so it was then that I said we need to continue to start testing the general population now. What and I just came back from The UK from a a I was there for three weeks.
We're doing some human testing on people who are nonsyptomatic but have had the jab. And what we're finding is the exact same thing. They are all lighting up now. We're not finding what we did back in the early two thousand tens where we it would not be unusual to find someone who came up negative. So what this is our hypothesis now is those who are symptomatic are turned on.
Those who are non symptomatic haven't been turned on yet. And there is an article put out by Scientific Neurology, which is also in that presentation that we sent to you. And I encourage everyone to get a hold of this article. It's called Surgical Neurology International and it was put out by Fabian Derulet, his PhD, and he really talks about the whole spectrum of this program. This is all, the reason we we think those are symptomatic right now, those are the beta tests, and we're probably in a new form of war.
The United States has this tech. The UK has this tech. Russia has this tech. China has this tech. India has this tech.
Okay?
Speaker 0: A new form of war. We'll have a link to this article in the description. Do you think that this so when you then I mean, you're you're just studying human being, human patients, and you're looking at this cross section of these, these Americans who are having these symptoms. Do they have some sort of political beliefs that are all in unison? You know, are they all you know, that's what I my my my brain immediately goes to.
They're they were all at, like, you know, supporters of Black Lives Matter. You know what I mean? Like, what what anything common there that you've then analyzed?
Speaker 10: Well, no. I think when you read that report, the Surgical Neurology International, it talks about how microwave frequencies are being utilized as a weapon of war. It talks about the five g. China yesterday we just read an article they just turned on their six g and in it it says in the six g it's they have the ability to read and manipulate the human brain with it. Okay?
This is what we're facing. If you have this nanotech in you, you are no longer considered human. There's a new term for the human species, homo borgensis. And my question to this, if this was basically imposed upon us without consent and you're no longer considered human, the debate is gonna come at some point here just like they engineer, you know, crops and they patent it. Now are you a patentable item?
Are you still covered by human rights if you're no longer considered human? This is what we're facing. You when Putin said that the first, superpower to master psychotronic weapons, how powerful weapon can this be if you can imprint memory sets upon what I call, demographical biospheres, bubbles across The United States, get them to believe one thought process versus another, divide and conquer. That is what's being implemented on us. It's important that we educate everyone so you can get in tune with your internal true self, your internal spirit, your your true moral compass.
You know what that is. Once you are aware of this tech and you start to get influences that are not common to yourself and you can identify that, this is part of the battle. But really what we need all need to do is bind together. Because if we do not stop this now, just think about this, before it only took fifty years to change a generation's perspective. Now with the advent of AI supercomputing quantum computing Moore's law has been superseded.
It has been broken. Instead of seven seven years we're now exponentially increasing our technology. And when we're integrating AI into this and doctor Giordano, who is a world leading expert on this technology, completely talks about AI being integrated with this. Elon Musk says that we're creating an AI god. There's a command and control video that we sent you.
It's important that you show that to the listeners because ultimately, that is what they're trying to implement. Total control, total slavery. You don't conform. Your digital, resources are, cut off from you. You can't buy food, water.
You can't pay bills. You can't access any monetary, anything in order to buy anything because you just aren't following the system.
Speaker 14: The central command platform This gives us a real time view of all the subjects in our jurisdiction. Let's use the search bar to find a specific subject. Here, we can search by typing in the name of a subject or search with an image of the subject's face. First, let's try typing in the name of our subject. In this case, there were two people with the same name found in our jurisdiction.
We can tap a subject's live location to see more details. We can now see the live location and source details of the person we tapped on, with options to see more details to help us determine if this is our subject. To search by face, let's say we have an image of the subject. We can source this from a surveillance integration or by manually uploading an image. Using face search, we can find the exact person who matches the face of our subject.
Let's say our subject is suspected of committing a crime last night. We can use the AI chat to see where he was at the time of the crime. The chat will respond and show us the exact location on the map. Let's say we have a crime report that tells us the suspect fled the scene at 09:30. Let's use the timeline tool to go to exactly 09:30.
We could see that it matches the report. He's leaving the bar. Let's see where he is right now by using the timeline tool to go back to live. We can use the chat to automate the next steps such as requesting an arrest warrant and sending units to the area once we receive it. The chat will automatically create an action plan and execute the plan for you as soon as you give the approval.
It'll notify the relevant parties, execute according to your department's protocol, and custom integrations with your current services, allowing you to keep your jurisdiction safe and secure right from the palm of your hand with the central command platform.
Speaker 10: That is what they're facing, and this is why it's important that we share this.
Speaker 0: Man, it sounds like the matrix, you know, you're you're plugged in. I mean, it's unbelievable to me. The idea that someone somewhere at a dashboard is saying we're gonna flip on, we're yeah, gonna flip these individuals on right now in Memphis, Tennessee. Over here in Salt Lake City, there's a group of 100 individuals. We're gonna turn those guys on today and they're gonna start to experience these symptoms.
I mean, it sounds it sounds insane. Well, an app Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I
Speaker 13: was gonna say, after hearing this, a lot of people are gonna wonder, am am I infected or or or whatever? Like, is there a way people can know, like, themselves? Because they're gonna like, after they see this, they're gonna be freaking out. Like, what can they do to know that they
Speaker 10: are infected? Well, well, doctor there was a Trojan horse that was instituted upon a global society. Doctor. Sherry Tenpenny recently, disclosed a video where she was disclosing that in the PCR testing that hydrogel this graphene oxide a lot of this nanotech was instituted in that. You know not everyone took the vaccine but I would argue that the majority of the globe was forced to take the PCR test.
You were forced to take a COVID test. Otherwise, you couldn't see your children's basketball game. You couldn't, you know, go out in in public and events. So this was forced upon all of us.
Speaker 0: So it was in the PCR tests, not even in just
Speaker 10: in the codes? In the hydrogel. In hydrogel. Hydrogel, yeah. Not in it in addition, what they're finding in the vaccines, there's there's no hiding that, and they're finding it in in this anesthetic derivative Xylocaine.
So anytime you've been numbed or go to a dentist, that you cannot get a Xylocaine derivative or or lidocaine derivative right now that does not have the Nanotech in it.
Speaker 0: So even just going to get a simple blood test right now, just having them numb the area before a blood test, could be receiving these nanoparticles?
Speaker 10: Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, I'm working with a very talented group of people just like Ito Boucherle teaches his students how to program these things. We believe, if we're able to establish the protocol that they're utilizing, that we can come up with a solution, basically a cure to make these things inert.
But it's going to be a back and forth battle, know, once you find out a way to stop it, then they're going to find a way to reintegrate it again. And this is going to be a consistency that we foresee in near and far future. Right now, the best thing that can be done, like I said, I've never stood behind anything until recently, the Zeolyte Z product, that is out there, that's basically all natural Mother Earth. It's a negatively charged, mineral that's created when you have volcanic activity in sea, and in blue zones, that's the best place to get it, and they source it from. But what we're finding is that those who are who are symptomatic, like I said, both in intelligence agencies and the victims that I normally see are saying fifty to seventy percent reduction in their symptoms.
And they've done testing, blood testing at initial levels of control, seeing the graphene oxide, peak after taking it, which is what you expected because the it's been excreted out of your body, and then after ninety days it levels down to at least a minimal tolerable level. I, right now, that's it's a band aid but it's it is a some type of solution to help. What we are finding in the general population of the non symptomatic people, those who are coming up positive in the least locations, three or four, which is something that I rarely see now, are those who live outside of cities, suburbs, in very distant locations, live a very organic life, haven't had the vaccine, just live a completely healthy lifestyle. For whatever reason, those are the ones who are coming up positive in the least locations. We're currently working on trying to find cultural groups who are very isolated like the Amish, and we're working on trying to start testing them to see because you ask how's it get in you.
The the larger tech was with an injection or some type of medical procedure. With the nanotech, we know that an injection is a a modality for it to be in you, but it's also in our foods. It's being marketed in the cosmetics as the next greatest way of marketing things. And we still haven't figured out why those who live out in distant remote areas are still coming up positive in at least three or four locations. That would mean it's either in our water or it's in our air.
Speaker 0: And, of course, Dane Wiggington, a friend of the show, Dane Wiggington, of course, who has followed the the particles that are being, sprayed in our skies through what a cloud seeding programs and all of the other, work that he's done on that and the aluminum in the air and all everything else that they're blasting into the air with, with, you know, with these with these, you know, sky you know, chemtrails or whatever else you're seeing in the sky, maybe that explains it, but, of course
Speaker 13: Well, and also the the control they have on all the farmland now. Like they control all the farmland. So, like, we don't even know all the all the entry points at this point.
Speaker 10: Yeah. It it it we're constantly bombarded. So at least with the zeolite z, it at least keeps it down to a minimal level where you minimize and it excretes the graphene oxide as well as other toxic metals. But graphene oxide specifically amplifies RF signals. Okay?
Basically our health systems have been weaponized against us. That is what's happened now. And each and every human being who has this in them, this nanotech, is a node. You are connected to the Internet. Each and every one of us is a transmitter and a receiver.
Now remember, again, when you read that New World VISTAs report on page 89, and even go further to the other report that talks about them being able to remotely read your thoughts back to 1972. This system will have the ability to do that on a mass scale once the six g is turned on.
Speaker 0: Jeez. So, you know, I guess it's hard to maybe answer the question, but who's behind this?
Speaker 10: What we can say is the frequencies that we are detecting almost always go back to a group of military subcontractors and telecommunications companies. All of them are fighting for this neurotechnology. The brain initiative that was instituted by president Obama was not a mistake. This was all construed and done on purpose. In 2011, I was at the presidential bioethics commission where under Amy Gutman, who was appointed by President Obama, is now the ambassador to Germany at the UN.
I was there with my assistant, and this was broadcasted worldwide. And they were talking about wanting to map every living organism's genome, including humans, back then. And I was allowed to ask a question, and my assistant wrote this down, and she can bear witness to this. They took a break and my question was going to be asked next. And my question was this, I understand the importance of your experimentation, but what safeguards have you put aside for when your experimentation goes wrong?
Because I already knew what was happening. We had been tracking this this phenomenon, early on, and I was asked to go attend that meeting. And what they did was ripped up my question. And Amy Gutman in that meeting said this, that they are the top elite 1% of the top 1% that should decide, on health decisions and what should be done to our bodies, that we are too dumb to make good decisions for ourselves. That's the mentality that we're dealing with at the upper echelons, those that are in control.
Speaker 0: I mean, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not much of a limb, but this is one of the most mind blowing, disturbing interviews I've ever done. Thank you for your incredible work on this, Jesse. I'd love to have you back. Maybe we can do an even deeper dive on all of this. And I wanna put this out to our audience and maybe any questions you have for our audience, Jesse, that you wanna ask?
Because we can maybe kinda catalog in the comments here and people can reach out to us directly.
Speaker 10: Yeah. You know My question is this.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, please.
Speaker 10: Yeah. My question is this. What kind of future do you want for your children, your grandchildren, and your great grandchildren? Do you want them to have the ability to have free thinking, free thought, and individuality, and that creative creativity that, you know, our our creator has given us? Or do you want everyone to be cloned?
Do you want everyone to be worker beasts? Do you want them to be forever enslaved? We are the only species on this planet that has to pay to live. Think about that, and that's profound. Okay?
If you think that this is happening to you or know someone that could benefit from what we do and help coaching people to find evidence and solutions, you can contact us at mind nexus live dot com. Also, if you're interested in the Zeolite product, it's called Masterpiece. You can see that at our website. Again, I am not one to promote anything I never had before in twenty years to two decades that I've been doing this, but I am saying that it does work and it does help. And I see thousands of people around the globe who are suffering from this phenomenon.
You can contact us, ask us any questions, we'll get back to you or contact your your platform, reach out to us, my team is super great. They will answer everything and they always get back to everyone. And also if you type in the letters MNX, you'll actually get a discount on the zeolite z if you wanted to do that. But read the research there, it's there, you can see the studies. Don't take my word for it.
I always say everyone do your own research.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 10: And all the documentation we provided for you and again thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Yeah. Please leave us comments here under this video. If you have been suffering from this, if you said, you know, I've I've never known where to go and now this has been a light bulb moment for for you. So, please share your story with us here, Jesse.
Thank you so much. Like I said, I'd love to have you back on to do an even deeper dive on this. Just mind blowing. Thank you so much.
Speaker 10: And thank you. Appreciate your platform. It's important. Thank you.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Are we living in a Simulation?🧠 @ClaytonMorris sits down with @davidicke to talk about the future of humanity & whether we are living inside a simulation, & who's really running the world. https://t.co/G6DzOFBbkt
Video Transcript AI Summary
David Icke and an interviewer discuss a sweeping premise: the next major conflict may be over bodies and minds, not borders or money. The documentary The Human Antenna, and Icke’s new book The Roadmap, assemble claims that COVID injections, nanotechnology, and an AI-driven world are tools in a plan to fuse or fuse-with—rather than merely interface with—technology, potentially creating a world where humanity is connected to a larger hive mind and managed by AI. The interview frames this as not doom, but a path to “break free of this matrix.”
Key ideas Icke presents
- The end goal is an upgraded or downgraded human that is connected like hardware in an AI-managed system, forming a hive-mind reality. The film and book tie together claims about the COVID vaccines, nanotech, and a push toward AI-driven control, with a purported roadmap to escape this matrix.
- A small, global elite—“the few”—exerts control by ensuring the many remain in rigid belief systems. By locking people into fixed identities (religious, political, cultural), they box minds and enable divide-and-rule. The aim is to prevent the many from uniting against the few who supposedly hold hidden knowledge and power.
- Perception is the instrument of control. Information flow shapes perception, which shapes behavior. Censorship and mainstream media have been used to sculpt what people think. The COVID narrative is cited as a microcosm: a minority at the top of institutions allegedly pushed a narrative that coerced billions into actions (masking, vaccination) to protect against a deadly virus, thereby demonstrating how perception controls behavior.
- Moving beyond information control, Icke argues the next stage is direct mind-to-machine fusion via AI “the cloud.” Ray Kurzweil and others have described a future in which human perception is supplied directly by AI, reducing or eliminating human thought and emotion as sources of perception. This would enable a new form of control.
- Public figures are described as frontmen or “gophers” for a larger project. Musk is discussed as a case: initially positioned as AI-skeptic, Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (renamed X) is portrayed as part of a broader arc toward normalizing and accelerating AI fusion, with the platform acting as a propaganda arm for the AI agenda. The involvement of Trump and various tech magnates (Ellison, Altman, Palantir’s Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks) is cited as surrounding the AI fusion push.
- Creative destruction is the tactic used to move from one phase to the next. Major historical upheavals (World Wars, the Great Depression, Bretton Woods system) are described as steps in a long process that clears the way for a new global order. Trump’s role, according to Icke, is to dismantle the current system so the next phase—AI human fusion and total digital control—can be installed.
- The next stage may rely on a global electromagnetic system. Icke argues that a hive mind could be fostered through AI and a network of electromagnetic fields, including satellites and 5G/6G, and, crucially, nanotech in vaccines. He cites graphene oxide as a nanomaterial that purportedly amplifies electromagnetic fields and can act as a superconductor, enabling outside frequencies to influence brain processing and perception. He claims self-replicating nanotech in vaccines could serve as a receiver within the body for hive-mind signals.
- The role of the astral dimension and the simulation: Icke describes a non-human, astral realm that interacts with humanity through a multi-level simulation. The “global cult” operates in the astral dimension, manipulating human society via this simulation, which is encoded with rules akin to computer codes. The simulation aims to keep consciousness within a limited perceptual field, or “the ring past” (a wheel of samsara). Death and near-death experiences are discussed as experiences within this larger framework, with consciousness reincarnating and being drawn back into the simulation to learn lessons and continue the cycle.
- Reincarnation and awakening: Icke references the research of psychiatrists like Ian Stevenson on children claiming past-life memories as evidence for reincarnation, arguing that consciousness, not bodies, reincarnates. He describes near-death experiences where consciousness passes through an electromagnetic field that erases memory, then returns to life through a mechanism akin to the “wheel of samsara.” Awakening, in his view, is expanding consciousness beyond the programmed perception to see through the simulation, leading toward an expansive self-identity that recognizes consciousness as part of an infinite spectrum of possibility.
- The nature of reality and consciousness: The body is described as a biological computer; perception arises from frequency processing of signals through the senses. The matrix or information field is the interface that can be influenced by energy and frequency. High-vibrational states (love, harmony) versus low-vibrational states (fear, anger, hatred) are said to generate different energetic energies that certain astral entities feed on. The “gift” of satanic rituals, in this account, is the generation of low-vibrational energy that sustains these astral entities. Adrenochrome is mentioned as a drug-like byproduct associated with fear-based energy and sacrifice, powering the ritual system.
- Death, fear, and freedom: Icke argues that breaking the program of the body through expanded consciousness allows one to escape control, and that true freedom involves transcending the limitations of self-identity as a human within the matrix. He recounts personal experiences of ridicule and persecution starting in the 1990s and emphasizes that awakening is not about dogma but about expanding awareness beyond rigid belief systems.
- Practical takeaway: The interview promotes The Human Antenna and Icke’s Roadmap as resources to explore these ideas. It also points to his Iconic media projects and to the broader project of awakening by expanding self-identity beyond conventional frames of reality.
Context and framing
- The interview frames these claims as a cohesive system: a secretive global cult manipulating perception through information and, ultimately, technology; a push toward AI-driven consciousness fusion; and a multilevel reality including an astral dimension and a simulated environment. Icke presents both a diagnosis of contemporary events (COVID-19, political upheavals, tech mega-donors) and a metaphysical theory of reality that encompasses reincarnation, astral entities, and the nature of consciousness.
- The dialogue occasionally revisits Icke’s personal journey—from a BBC sports presenter to a public figure with a controversial worldview via experiences in Peru and a transformative encounter with a spiritual healer, Betty Shine—and uses those episodes to ground a broader, ongoing project to reveal what he sees as hidden structures of power and reality.
- The conversation ends with a note that the discussion can continue in future encounters, and with a recommendation to watch The Human Antenna and to read The Roadmap for a deeper dive into these themes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But what if the next big fight isn't just over borders or money, but over your body and and your mind? What if the end goal is a world where humans aren't fully human anymore at all, but sort of upgraded or tagged or or I I should say downgraded, really, and connected like a living hardware in sort of an AI managed system in sort of a larger hive mind. That's the premise of a new documentary called The Human Antenna, and in it, filmmakers explore claims about COVID injections, nanotechnology, and the push towards an artificial AI driven world, which we're seeing right now, along with a plan actually to break free of this matrix, not just giving us all doom and gloom, but actually a path forward, a road map, if you will. In fact, that's the name of a brand new book by David Ike who puts all of these pieces together and sort of gives us this map to break free of this matrix. David Ike is in the film.
He's been warning about this for decades if you've been paying attention, arguing that there's a long planned agenda to fuse humanity with technology, and we are extremely lucky enough today to have David here with us on the show. David, welcome to Redacted for the first time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's it's a real pleasure. I've been watching, Redacted, quite a lot. I'm very impressed.
Speaker 0: Well, that that's I I say that's, that means a lot coming from you because, you know, I had a bit of a blind spot in not knowing your deep history and your lectures and your education. I mean, I mean, heck, selling out stadiums, teaching people about this, and trying to bring people to this awakening. So, it's quite an honor to have you here, and and I hope that this I hope that this interview serves a couple of purposes, but number one, I really want this I want you to be broadcast to the world. I want people to wake up to your teachings in a in a much broader way. Obviously, the Internet has not been kind to you.
They've banned you. They've blocked you. They've censored you. They've tried to hide you. So I'm hoping that people will share this interview far and wide, and hopefully this can lead to some sort of a new awakening because I I think we desperately need it.
So, it's a real pleasure to have you here. So I guess let me just start with the film. And the question is this, the film is basically daring all of us to ask. You know, are we heading into a future where you don't just use technology? You merge with it.
We've heard that from, like, Elon Musk and these other AI billionaires where the Internet of things, you know, just sort of monitoring the humidity in your house, forget that. Now it turns into, like, the Internet of humans. Like, your body is now a platform. Your mind is a battleground, like, the the battle for your mind. The CIA says internally that if they can know your thoughts, that's the ultimate goal.
If the CIA can know your human thoughts, that's the ultimate goal. So is your biology really the access point here? Is that is that the point?
Speaker 1: Woah, that's a massive question. I could sit here and talk for the next three or four hours on that subject alone, but I won't. Yeah, the point is, I always find that we are shielded purposely from what's happening by the illusion of complexity. So if you think things are terribly complex and you don't see them in their simple foundation, then a lot of people go, I don't understand it, mate. I don't understand it.
I can't get my head around all that. And yet, it's all very simple. It's like you see these these scientists and these physicists with massive, massive blackboards with codes and symbols and and what have you all over all over the the the blackboard. And people look at that and go, oh, dear. What's on the telly?
But, actually, behind all that, it's it's dead simple, the situation we're in. If you are the few, and compared with the apparently 8,000,000,000 people, we're talking a few in full knowledge of what they're doing. If you are a few, then you have to control the many. Now mathematically you would think that was impossible and complex, but the foundation of it is very actually simple. If you're faced with billions of people, and if they're united and realised that there is a common threat and it's you, then you're you're it's over.
It's over. Game of house of cards is is down. So what you need to do is make sure they don't unite. Number one, you have to get them to believe in something rigidly and unquestioningly. It could be a religious belief, it could be a political belief, cultural belief, whatever.
But they must believe it rigidly, because that immediately puts their mind in a box. Because if you are a certain religious belief, then you are not going to go out into the infinity of possibility because if you do, you know your religious belief is is in trouble. So and and not least, religions tend to frighten people into going there. Oh, that's the devil. That's the occult.
And so you stay in your box, and it's a narrative. And as I've said many times, this global cult that I talk about, this global network of secret societies with a central mission control driving it, they don't care what you believe so long as you believe it rigidly and without question, because then you are you are in a box of some sort and not going there. And then that creates a situation where it's perfection for divide and rule. Because now you have all these different political and religious cultural belief systems, which you can then play off against each other to divide and rule. So now you've got your target population, because I've heard all the time since I started this thirty six years ago, it's impossible for a few to control the world.
Well, clearly, it's not. Look around. But how do they do it? That's the question. So now you've got these rigid belief systems and you're playing them off against each other.
Now they're so busy fighting each other that they're not looking up and seeing actually that the strings attached to all of them are held by the same hand. And the other thing that leads me to answering your question is a simple question: who are we really? Who are we? How seldom you hear this question: Who am I? Am I this body?
What is this reality that I'm interacting with? Because once you realize the situation we're in, which is that we are consciousness, eternal infinite awareness, formless consciousness, having a brief experience through a form, a body, a vehicle called human. We are not human. We have to, however, believe we are in some form for the few to control the many. Because once you believe that what you are is human, you are immediately pulled into the, the material world of extraordinarily, extraordinary levels of limitation, and I can't, and it's not possible.
Speaker 0: And chaos.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what are looking for to control the many when you are the few is control of their perception and control of their self identity. Once you've got those two things, you've got them. It's over until people wake up from it. And we are looking at the control of perception up to this point, been through control of information.
This is what censorship is all about. We form our perceptions of reality and our perceptions of self identity overwhelmingly from the information that we receive. Anything from the 10:00 news to a Facebook post to a personal experience. From that information, we form our perceptions. Now, our perceptions come from information received, and our perceptions dictate behaviour.
We behave as we do because we perceive as we do. So if you want to control behaviour, and if you're the few wanting to control the many, that's exactly what you want. If you wanna control behavior, you must control perception. And if you control perception, you must control information. So censorship is obviously not for a laugh and a bit of fun.
It's essential because if you have people hearing only your narrative or as near to only your narrative as you can get away with, then there's a very, very good chance that they are going to perceive, therefore behave, according to your narrative. So if you take the the the COVID, hoax for a start, that was a wonderful microcosm of what I'm talking about. You had, billions of people who went under, house arrest, in effect, who put little masks on, and rolled up their sleeve and had this fake COVID vaccine, not even a vaccine under previous criteria, because they, a, believed that there was a deadly virus and doing what authority told them was their protection from it, or people who didn't want to do what they were told to do but feared the consequences of not doing so. And those, those two groups, meant that a tiny few people actually, if you break it down, a tiny few people at the top of the World Health Organization, if you bring it down to where it was all coming from a Rockefeller organization, by the way, created in 1948 with help from Roth schild. And so billions of people did all that they did during COVID, you know, walking away from people when you're walking down the street, even if you were walking down the street, which was rare at the time.
They did it because a tiny few people were putting out the narrative that this is the only way to protect yourself. It was a wonderful example of how, you control perception, you control behaviour, you basically control the world in its totality, really. And so up to this point, they've had to control perception by controlling information. This is where the mainstream media for years, of course, was putting out the narrative. You know?
Speaker 0: And they and they were they worked in lockstep with these World Health Organization schleps, you know, and and pushing out this narrative and all across whether it was CNBC or CNN or any of it. It would they worked in lockstep to control that information and, you know, our channel, I think you were banned, we were banned across YouTube for even reading Pfizer's own documents on the air. They said it was medical misinformation and they took us off the air. So they were really controlling everything from Google, YouTube, to CNN, to all of it as part of this information war.
Speaker 1: And it shows how powerful controller perception is. It's everything. You control people through that. And as we go along, maybe we could get into the structure through which they do it. Because again, the structure is relatively simple, but appears to be impossible if you see it only at the level of complexity and how all
Speaker 0: Yeah, please, please, yeah, take me through that mechanism because I think maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but I think what you're saying is up to now it's been an information, the control of information. Yeah. We're we're moving we're moving beyond that into this AI fusing. Is that what where we're going next?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That this is this is this is where I was just I was just going with this. So up to this point, as you say, it's information control. Where they want to go to complete the complete the job really of complete perceptual control is to connect humans to artificial intelligence via what people like the Google executive Ray Kurzweil calls the cloud. And from that, human perception will no longer come from human thought and human emotional response.
It will come direct. So no more even do you have to control information then. You have to just deliver to people the thoughts you you want them to have. And what we've had on one side is the hard sell of this from people like Klaus Schwab when he was at the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, Ray Kurzweil, many, many, many others, where they're telling us that when we fuse with artificial intelligence and people like Ray Kurzweil, that's his book up there, the yellow book, he claims to be the world expert on artificial intelligence where it's going. He's talking, and he did this some years ago now, about 2030 being the target year for when this big transformation of AI human fusion starts to happen big time.
It's already happening, in fact. So you've got the hard sell, and what the hard sell says is if we fuse with artificial intelligence, we'll be gods, we'll be super men and super women. Now there are and have all all along been a group of people, a large group of people actually, who not the majority, but a large group of people that were saying, hold on a minute. I'm I'm not happy with this. I I don't I don't like the sound of that.
And I'm no. I'm pushing back on that. And so the alternative media for a long time was saying, oh, this transhumanism, oh, they they they they they want ultimate control of us through transhumanism and AI and all that stuff. And then along comes Elon Musk, you see. And I've been tracking Elon Musk for years and years, long before he, bought Twitter, now X, because he was ticking the boxes of this agenda for humanity that I've been uncovering for a long time.
So I'm I was very interested in him. And so when he was allowed allowed to buy Twitter X, I knew it was a scam. The question was what form of scam does it take? Well, it didn't take long to find that out on many levels. First of all, Elon Musk, positioned himself, because this global cult plays the long game, as an AI skeptic.
AI could be the end of humanity. Oh, I'm very worried.
Speaker 0: And then And for people that don't remember that, he was when we were hearing about ChatGPT and he hadn't yet rolled out Grok, he was out there in speeches and posts warning all of us about how scary and how it's gonna run away and we will lose to it and we need to be very cautious about it. He was saying that in the early days of, I mean before the previous election, he was saying that regularly.
Speaker 1: That was positioning himself because you've only got to, look at what's happened since to see that that's the case. So, he then was facing criticism from many in the alternative media. This guy's pushing transhumanism or whatever, and he's not our friend. And then he bought Twitter X or was allowed to buy it because the so called deep state owned it before quite demonstrably. And Musk, when he bought it, put out these Twitter files saying, look.
Look. Here's the here's the proof that the the deep state owned Twitter before I bought it. Yeah. Okay. So the deep state had control.
We all know that, you and me and many others, of of what was posted and not posted on Twitter. Right? Yeah. Absolutely. So why did they sell it to you then?
Why did they sell it to you as self proclaimed, and it is self proclaimed, not true, free speech absolutist because it was a scam. And what I saw was almost from the moment he bought Twitter, called it x, and started letting people back, the criticism of Musk from so much of the alternative media that criticized him before just disappeared because now he's one of us. And he's he's he's able to get away with loads and loads of things that he wouldn't have done without owning, Twitter X. And then, you saw him start to move into bed, basically, with Trump after Trump's alleged assassination attempt. Within an hour, he he was was supporting Trump, and and all the other kind of AI oligarchs came in.
And what you have now is two things. You've got Trump as the president. And as I said in his election campaign, this guy is gonna tell you what you wanna hear. When he gets in, he's gonna do things that you didn't think he was gonna do and and and that he said he wouldn't do. But, crucially, he is going to facilitate the the mad rush to this AI human fusion and the AI digital control of, of society.
And it took two days after he Hartford's inauguration the second time to wheel into the Oval Office, Larry Ellison, Sam Altman, and and some other guy to announce this up to $500,000,000,000 AI project. I think they called it Stargate with with data centers, etcetera, which are essential to this AI control system. And since, he's gone on and on and on pushing this whole AI agenda. And what you've got around Trump is this they've circled the wagons around him. There's Musk.
There's Peter Thiel of Palantir who's getting contracts not just from Trump, but from other countries around the world, to to advance this AI control system and surveillance system. You've got Marc Andreessen. You've got David Sachs, who Trump made his AI crypto czar. And you've got all these other people that are around him, these billionaires that are pushing this agenda. So what you've got is Trump.
Basically, he's been brought in to be a wrecking ball to the system that we've had up to this point in my lifetime. And people are saying, who support Trump, oh, yeah. He's destroying the deep state. He's destroying the globalist system. Well, no.
He's not. You see, there there's a a technique called creative destruction. And what that is is you you're starting here at at a, and you wanna go to zed. And you're going in stages towards your ultimate goal, which is AI human fusion and total AI digital control. And on the journey to that, you have different phases.
So what creative destruction is, is when a phase has served you and served your interest, but you need to go to the next phase, then creative destruction destroys the fur the the the previous phase, the previous status quo. So if you look over the twentieth century to now, the first world war destroyed the status quo, and the world was not the same in 1918 as it was in 1914. You then had, not not just the Great Depression in America, but a Great Depression all around the world, and my father was caught in that. And that basically was dismantling the the economic system of that time. And then you had the second world war.
That's another creative destruction, which takes it even further on. So the world at the end of the second world war was absolutely nothing like it was at the start of the first world war. And you had the Bretton Woods agreement. You had the introduction of the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations, and the the a massive move to the centralization of global power. And from the end of the Second World War, and I I was born in 1952, only seven years after that, to pretty much recently, that system has been the one that's been the system of of of the world in all its facets and forms.
What Trump is doing now, because the next stage is moving rapidly into, AI human digital control, that status quo we've had since the second world war has to go. Because if it doesn't, like all status quos, if the status quo stays and doesn't move, you can't replace it with anything. So you've gotta demolish it, and this is creative destruction. And so what that's what Trump's been put in there to do to demolish the system, the current system in all its forms again so it can be replaced by this next phase. And around him are the architects of the next phase, which are the AI billionaire oligarchs.
And I said, you know, two things, and one was was was all that. But the other second thing in relation to, Musk buying Twitter X is look at what it's become. It's I mean, I don't follow Elon Musk, but, my ex feed is it's like machine gun fire. I mean I mean, the posts under Musk's name are just incessant. And two things, are the basis of them.
One, dividing and ruling the population by winding one part of the population up constantly, support for Trump. And the other one is that x has now become, could be the end of humanity, x has now become, a propaganda, incessant propaganda arm for pushing the AI system. And, he's pushing it all the time. He does it through Grok and all that stuff, but what he's doing is pushing this system. Because what he says, this is the soft sell as opposed to the hard sell.
What Musk said was, yeah, you know, it could be the end of humanity, but, you know, it's inevitable. That's a massive mind control, psyop there. Because once you think, once you're convinced that something is inevitable, you stop trying to stop it and you start trying to mitigate its impact. So you're already weakening your response because you think it's inevitable. And so, he's saying because it's inevitable that AI will become more intelligent than humans, if we don't fuse humans with artificial intelligence, then humans will die out.
And so you've got the hard cell, outcome, human AI fusion. You've got the soft cell, outcome, human AI fusion. They're taking you to the same point using, different rhetoric and and different words. And, you know, e Elon Musk is the most blatant front man in his arena of this global cult that I'm talking about. And they're all front men.
They're all gophers. I mean, if you see them on public display, they're not running the show. They're serving the show. That's the difference.
Speaker 0: Are there forces pushing back against this that you've seen? Obviously, since your awakening in the early nineties and what you've tapped into, are there forces pushing back saying we're not going to allow this to happen?
Speaker 1: Well well, there there are, but, again, let's look at what the situation, is. And why Okay, on one level, why do they want human AI fusion? Because they can then dictate what humans think. Okay. But there's another reason they want that.
It's not just control in the sense of whatever we tell them to think, they'll think. There's that level of control, and that's part of it. But there's another level. I said earlier that the true I, the infinite I, is consciousness. This is a vehicle for consciousness to experience this reality.
And I can pick those glasses up because I have an external vehicle, if you like, that is resonating within the frequency band of this human reality. Therefore, I can pick them up. My consciousness, your consciousness, our consciousness, can't pick them up Because the consciousness is operating on such a high frequency, it's like two radio stations sharing the same space but not interfering with each other. You couldn't pick them up. So we have these vehicles to, to interact with this reality, this actually tiny reality in in in truth.
And what we are is consciousness. And there's a massive difference between consciousness caught in the human, trap of, constant perceptual control and expanded human awareness that taps into, the greater, the greater reality, the greater infinity of reality beyond this human band of frequency. The nightmare for this global cult is that people awaken and tap in to that level of awareness. Now what we call awakening, this is a word that's thrown around all the time now, people are awakening, people are waking up. What does that mean?
What does waking up mean? It means that you are moving out of the myopia of seeing the world the way you're told to see it, and you are opening your mind, literally opening your mind, and tapping in to a more expanded level of insight, awareness, knowledge, knowing, all these things. And that's awakening because because people, you know, watching this show will will know if they've been through this process. They ask questions that I I get asked all the time. You know?
I can see it now. Why couldn't I see it before? It's obvious. Because you were here before, and now you're here. Now stopping that awakening process is absolutely crucial because without it, the house of cards is is is all over the floor.
And so you've had, for instance, the control of of science, which is just another religion with its holy books of scientific orthodoxy. And if you step out of of the orthodoxy, you're a pseudo scientist or or or crazy, just as if you step out of the limits of a religion, you're a blasphemer. It's the same process, same mentality. And what science has been used for is to hold people in a myopia of perception of self and reality. And so you have to be in that limitation of perception of reality and self identity, so you can be controlled.
Because once you start to expand your awareness into these greater levels of insight, of knowledge, of knowing, you become increasingly uncontrollable. Because you know, people say, oh, this is what's happening. Authority says this is what happened is what what's happening. This is why you must do this. You must do that.
From that point of view, oh, yes, sir. No, sir. You must know better than me. From that point of view, you're having a bloody laugh mate, I'm doing that, I can see what you're doing. So the idea is we must be held.
I mentioned earlier about these belief systems that hold people in limitations of potential perception, But what AI human fusion is all about is so dictating the perceptions of people directly from AI that once that's in place, we no longer ask questions like, who am I? Who's running the world? To what end? What is this reality? We won't ask questions like that because AI will not be asking them, and that will be doing our thinking for us.
This is where it's going.
Speaker 0: And
Speaker 1: what's happening is Trump's perfect for them as a diversion Because wake up in the morning, you go on the internet or whatever, and you're thinking, what's he bloody done now? There's so many things going on and people are
Speaker 0: Greenland National Guard in Minnesota. Yeah, it's nonstop. It's a machine gun.
Speaker 1: Machine gun fire. Yeah. Of what? Perceptual attention hijacking. And all the time behind this smokescreen, what's Trump done now?
Oh, he's going for Greenland. You can't go for Greenland. That's not right. What about the Europeans? What do they say about and the AI oligarch agenda pushing head towards this AI human fusion, AI control system agenda goes on and on behind that smokescreen.
Speaker 0: I want to ask you about the mechanics of how this AI fusion happens in a second, but first I just want to share a little anecdote because it came into my brain as you were talking about this idea of vision and myopia. You know, you're blocked here. Lately I've been on a journey to stop using these. Just a few years ago it just suddenly boom, it went and I said there's got to be a natural way. So I've started to go down a rabbit hole and I've discovered a couple of doctors, ophthalmologists who've said, Wait a minute, so as an ophthalmologist my whole life now is every year you come to see me and I give you a worse and worse prescription until you die?
That doesn't seem right. I discovered And this doctor who wrote a book in the 1980s and he would bring thousands of people to a large arena and he said I want you to throw away your glasses. And it wasn't just the mechanics of the glasses, it was really I want you to ask yourself what are you seeing? Like, how are how are your eyes really working? And it sounds a little metaphysical to someone who just wants, like, their eyes healed, but it's exactly what you're talking about.
What are you really seeing? And from that he was able thousands of people were able to say I don't need my glasses anymore because now I'm able to understand the mechanics of my eyes and what I'm I'm artificially putting these things on on a regular basis and it's limiting what I'm doing. And I just thought it just popped in my brain because I've been on this journey lately and it just sounds it's just a little piece of it you know for someone who maybe is not tapped into the vast array of awareness that you have, maybe it's just that little gateway drug. It's just that little gateway to start questioning what you're seeing. Who am I?
How are my eyes actually working? Am I seeing light? Am I seeing shapes? Am I seeing colors when I just take a walk with the dog? Anyway, just wanted to share that because
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's a very important point you've raised here because of all the things that, are suppressed, to keep people under control, the biggest one, the most important one, and the one that the alternative media very, very rarely if ever talks about is the nature of reality itself. What is this reality that we're experiencing? And what what what I do, what I've always done, since I started out consciously on this road in 1990, is know that whatever you think you know, there's always more to know. If any statement can be made that is unquestionable and unchallengeable, it is that whatever we know, there's always more to know. In terms of humanity, beyond the living room, more to know.
So I started out in the early 1990s uncovering this global cult seems a long time ago now and how it works, and I hope we can get into that at some point, because the structure is very simple and very instructive if people know how it works.
Speaker 0: Well, I should say for our audience who's new to David Ike and doesn't know, as you've written in your books, and it was eye opening for me to hear your story. 1990 was when that, know, you worked in television. You were a broadcaster like I was. I used to work at Fox News back in the day. So you were in the mainstream media.
You were a footballer, a very good footballer, and you had this awakening in 1990 that changed everything. So maybe you could just tell our audience a little bit about that as you talk about the structure that you uncovered.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that's a long story, but I'll try to shorten it. Throughout 1989, I had this feeling that whenever I'm alone, I wasn't alone, was some some presence there, which was kind of all new to me. I hadn't gone into those areas before. And it got more and more powerful through 1989 when I was working for the BBC and etcetera.
And I eventually ended up I'd just done a program for the BBC, and I I went to a hotel down from the BBC Television Centre in London called the Kensington Hilton, still there. And I I was I sat in this hotel room on my own that night, and the presence was so powerful and tangible that I set out into the room, if there's something there, would you please contact me because you're driving me up the bloody wall? Then a few days later, I'm at home, and Gareth, who's now a big strapping guy, of course, he was a little boy at the time, my son. And we were going down to a cafe on the seafront next to a railway station, and that cafe next to it had a newsagent shop, sold newspapers and things for the tourists. It was a seaside place.
And when we got there, a railway guy came up to me and started talking to me about football. There was a big game on that day, I remember. And then I realized that Gareth was not here anymore, but I knew where he would be. He'd be in in the shop, looking at the steam train books. We like steam trains.
And so I walk in, and we were going to this cafe, but it was packed. So I said to Gareth, come on, mate. We'll go up the town and get some lunch there. At that point, the atmosphere around me changed. The energy around me changed, and I now know the electromagnetic field changed, but that was all bewildering to me at the time.
And then I heard it wasn't a voice, It was like a very strong thought form that said, go and look at the books on the far side. What? And there was this energy coming through me, and it's like my feet were, like, being pulled to the ground like magnets. And so I walked across to these books. Now I knew what books this news agent sold.
They were romantic novels of no interest to me. And I go in there and I look, and there are all the romantic novels as I expected. But in there was another book, and it was by a professional psychic lady called Betty Shine, Mind to Mind. So I pick it up, and I turn it up, and I I read the blurb, and I saw the word psychic. And I thought, woah.
I wonder if this lady would pick up what's been happening to me for the last year with this bloody presence I keep feeling. So I read the book in twenty four hours, went to see her eventually, and well, pretty soon, actually. And first two times I went what I said to her is, look. I've got rheumatoid arthritis, which finished my football career. Maybe your Reiki hands on healing stuff would would maybe help because she did that as well.
But that was the reason I went. I went to see if she would pick it up, anything up, what was going on around me because I wasn't gonna give her any leads and say, well, this is happening to me. What do you think? So I just kept still on all of it. And I'm the first two times we went, I I went I we had a a nice chat about reality and stuff.
And then the third time I went and the fourth time I went Well, it changed my life, really. On the third time, I'm on this medical type bench, and she's doing the hands on healing just next to my left knee, and suddenly I felt so tangibly like a spider's web on my face. And what struck me was I'd read in her book that sometimes when other dimensions of reality are trying to lock into you, you sometimes feel like a spider's web on your face. Now again, what I was feeling was an electromagnetic field. It's the same principle as when you're in a stadium full of excited people.
The hairs on your neck stand up. It's it's that electromagnetism. So I said nothing to this lady except, you know, my bum was slipping further down the down the bench thinking, what's going on here, Reiki? And about fifteen seconds later after this happened, never said a word to her, she launches her head back and says, my god. This is powerful.
I've gotta close my eyes for this one. She then proceeds to tell me and she said that that they're telling me to to tell you this. You're gonna go out on a world stage and reveal great secrets. And now I'm I'm a television sports presenter with the BBC. Are you having a laugh?
Right. But and and lots of other things. One man cannot change the world, but one man can communicate the message that can change the world and all that stuff. I remember that that was one one line. And, you know, your your your human level is saying, you're having a laugh, lady, but something else was saying, go for it.
Go with this. Go with this. So, as things, turned out, it was exactly, the way that it's it's played out. One of the things that I was told was, we are going to be led to knowledge. What what knowledge?
And at other times, we will put knowledge directly into your mind, and you'll think, where has that come from? Now for about two years after that, because what happened after that meeting, is my life transformed and it became this synchronistic, unbelievably synchronistic, constant experience of being led to information. First of all, it was it was the nature of this cult, for instance. Then later it moved into the the wider, wider picture I'm sure we can get into, and eventually out of this dimension even. But the first two years, the synchronicity of coming across this information through personal experience, books, documents, people, whatever.
Basically, I looked at the information and then I concluded what to make of it. After about two years, in line with what came through Betty Shine, it changed. And I would know what the situation is, And then the information names, dates, places would follow to confirm the initial intuitive feeling of what was happening. And that's gone on ever since. And like I say, it's gone in stages, but the stages go together, which is why I spend all my life basically working and researching and writing.
Because first of all, it was this level of the manipulation, the global cult, secret societies, all that stuff. Then it was the non human level. Then it was the fact that we live in a simulated reality created by this non human level. And this is not this is basically like a massive virtual reality game, and it's gone on ever since, including the whole afterlife stuff as well. And it's gone in stages, but each stage doesn't stop and another one starts.
They keep going, and so you're kind of working across a vast spectrum of information and fitting it together. And that's how it it it it it all all came about. And she
Speaker 0: was right. And she was right. I mean, to
Speaker 1: That's how I
Speaker 0: was Wembley Wembley Wembley Arena with thousands of people coming to see you speak. So you went from, wait a minute. I'm on the BBC. I'm a sports presenter. What how the hell am I gonna start speaking about this?
But you did as in many ways as like a conduit, it seems.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But I'll tell I'll tell something else as well, very important, is that when I first went public with all this and what was happening to me, and to be honest, I didn't know what was happening to me. Another part of the story is that in early nineteen ninety one this is March 1990, I saw Betty Shine. And then I started writing a book called Truth Vibrations, which came out the following year, about what was happening to me, not that I really understood it at the time. And then towards the 1990, I had this feeling I needed to go to Peru.
So I'm seeing Peru everywhere suddenly. I'd walk past a travel agent shop and there would be a display for Peruvian holidays and stuff. And I'd turn on the telly, and it was a documentary about Peru. He's going, what's all this about Peru? Anyway, purely on intuition, I get on a plane to Peru, and I have some fantastic things happen.
But it culminated with with me being on a hill near Lake Titicaca, near a place called Puno. This is in very early 1991. And it's long story, but I I end up I end up on this hill. And it was a bit like the the newsagent shop, but massively, massively more extreme. This energy hit me going into the top of my head through to my feet and going the other way back again.
And it was like being plugged into the mains because my body eventually is shaking with this stuff. And when it started, had as I can say, it's not a voice, it's like a thought form goes through your head and it said, 'It will be over when you feel the rain.' Now I'm standing under a a piercing Peruvian sun, and a clear blue sky. It will be over when you feel the rain. So you think, you know, this is insane. But anyway, it went on.
And I noticed that, you know when you're driving a car and you lose the last two miles, your subconscious has been driving the car, thank goodness, and you've been away with the fairies. Well, it was like that. This energy was going through me and I'm shaking. And again, my feet are being pulled to the ground like magnets. And you you would you would you would go into wherever, and then suddenly you'd come back to to your conscious mind.
And on one of those occasions, this lasted about forty five minutes to an hour, I noticed that the far distant mountains is right out in the countryside near a place called Siustani, an old Inca site. I noticed that there was a dark a light gray mist over the mountains, and it got darker, and I thought it's bloody raining. And if I just put what happened next into a movie, they'd say, you're having us on, mate. What are you talking about? A bit farfetched, say the least, mate.
But it happened. What I watched was this rainstorm come out of out of the mountains across the land towards me. And and people talk about, whether people talk about a front. Well, this was a front. This was a straight line of steroid bloody rain, and it came towards me.
By this time, I'm I'm, you know, I'm just trying to hold on with the energy. And then the rain hit me. I was soaked immediately because it was so torrential, and and the energy stopped. And that night I couldn't sleep because the energy was was was coming out, still coming out of my feet, my hands. And things dramatically changed after that.
I came back to England and started talking about some of the things that were happening to me and some of the things that I was experiencing. And I went through the most historic levels of ridicule. I mean, I literally couldn't walk down any street in Britain without being laughed at. Going to a bar, forget it. Don't even go there.
And but what that did, it was it was extreme ridicule. I mean, comedians only had to say my name to get a get a laugh. They didn't need a joke. I was the joke. But what it did was was free me of the prison that most people live in, which has stayed with me ever since.
And that's the fear of what other people think. See, most people live in that prison, and what they're trying to do is edit, censor what they say and what they say they they believe to stay within the Overton window of acceptability, because if you go beyond it, you're mad. He's going strange. He ought to see a psychiatrist. And I was subject to such extreme ridicule everywhere that you either gave up and just disappeared from view, or you came out and said, I am me.
I am free. I'm not asking you to believe any of this stuff. I still am not. I'm saying, this is what is happening to me. And what I'm saying today is this is what I've researched over thirty six years.
Make of it what you will. And so that freed me of this fear of what other people think of me. I don't go through mental gymnastics saying, how do I put this in a way they won't think I'm crazy? Or what do I leave out so they won't think I'm crazy? I think like that.
I think, well, the way I work is I hear something or I research something, and maybe it's an initial thing, like there's a nonhuman force manipulating human society, which there isn't, and I won't then come out and say, oh, yeah. This is this is what's happening. I'll I'll put it on the back burner, and let it simmer, and I wait to see if other information comes in. And there comes a point where so much information has been compiled from so many different sources that it crosses your line to this is going on. And at that point, you don't think, oh, yeah.
But if I say it, what they're gonna think of me? You don't think about that. That that left me behind big time in 1991. You just say what you think. You say what you think the situation is.
Write what you think the situation is and and and say, this is this is why I think. This is the evidence to support it. But you don't you don't censor yourself, on the basis of, what people will think of you. And that was absolutely crucial. And I can't tell you the freedom that gives you, that you, open your mouth and you say what you think rather than what you think other people would like you to think.
And it's it's it's just an incredible freedom, which has allowed me to do what I've done and and research what I have and say what I have. Because otherwise, you would say, I'm not talking about reptilians. You you are you kidding? No chance. What are they gonna think of me?
I don't care.
Speaker 0: You know, I had a similar conversation with my daughter recently. She's 13 years old, and she's in that teenage world where she's worried that if, you know, daddy pulls up to her dance class and I have some music turned up a little loudly, she'll get embarrassed in front of other people. And I said, you know, it's a nice place to arrive at when you don't care what other people think of you. Saying that, feel like I believe that, but I'm certainly not at your level of that. And I think that's in many ways it's like a superpower.
It sounds like a superpower. You know, I'm in late forties now, 49. I don't feel the way that I felt in my 20s where I worried about what other people think of me. I still feel a nudge from time to time, oh I maybe shouldn't do that or I shouldn't talk about that because of what people might think. But in the past year on our show I've just let the floodgates open, you know, and it feels incredibly freeing to be able to talk about we've talked openly about reptilians on our show, To be able to talk about the genocide in Gaza openly, freely, to talk about the evil the evil people that are running our country openly and freely, and and it it it is in many ways a superpower.
When you started understanding the cult, because you talked about this was one of the first pieces after your 1990 experience, you started to see this cult and the pieces of it. Did it come to you in a particular vision and then these other pieces of information started flowing to you?
Speaker 1: Well, the first two years, as I said earlier, I was following the synchronicity of life and gathering information and then concluding. And by then, I'd pretty much seen that the people that were apparently running the world, like presidents and prime ministers and, you know, almost anyone in the public eye, were were just gophers for something much deeper. And what it is is when when you constantly, know that whatever you know, there's always more to know, you're constantly seeking what it is you don't know. What I've seen with the with so much of the alternative media, especially a lot of mainstreamers who've come in since COVID, is you you you get so far, and you got you go from your your your your little myopic prison, seeing the world in a certain way, and you go, there's a conspiracy going on, and it's political, and it's corporate, and it's banking. Stop.
And that's where so much of the alternative media is. It's become an eddy going round and round while the river of knowledge flows past it. And when you are constantly saying, with some humility, whatever I know, there's more to know, you're constantly seeking what it is you don't know. And the synchronicity of my life also has driven me deeper and deeper in the rabbit hole. So, from the, early nineteen nineties when I was putting this global cult structure together, which we can talk about, I then asked the question, first of all, when did this start then?
Because it was obvious from the structure I'd put together that it wasn't five years ago or even fifty years ago. This goes way back. So you start charting it back, and you get pretty comfortably back to ancient Rome and Egypt and Babylon and Sumer and all these Middle Eastern regions from which the major religions came out of. And you then realize that people have been born, they've played a part in advancing this agenda, which is for the constant centralization of power. We were in tribes once, and the people in the tribe were deciding what happened in the tribe, and then loads of tribes were brought together to form a nation.
Now a few people at the center of the nation are dictating to all the former tribes, and now we've got the European Union and these other groupings of countries whereby a tiny few people at the center are now dictating to whole vast regions of the world. And so this centralization of power has gone on and on, but people were being born. They were playing a part in advancing this agenda within this cult. The cult was expanding and expanding its reach until it was eventually global. And, they were then dying, and other people would take over.
So you were seeing this, process. So the next question is, so there has to be some common force that's been overseeing all of this, and that's been orchestrating all this. Because born, you play a part, you die. Someone else born, plays a part, dies. There's got to be some orchestration.
Because if people are being born and they know that although they're playing a part in advancing this cult agenda, they ain't gonna be here, well, in theory, to see it reach fruition. I mean, what's going on? There has to be another force. And this was the point from the mid 1990s when I first came to The United States to talk on these subjects, to nobody by the way. I had this strange experience of 12 times within fifteen days when I was traveling around America talking to nobody, people came up to me 12 different people and told me the same story.
That they'd seen someone who appeared to be human, then change shape, shape shift into a reptilian form, and then go back again. And again, back burner. You go, the one thing you don't do unless you're in a box, and unless you've from previous research, you know it's nonsense, you don't dismiss it. Nor do you stand up and say this is what's going on. You put it on the back burner and you wait to see if any other information will come.
Because, of course, when you first hear this stuff, it's like, what?
Speaker 0: And
Speaker 1: information kept coming and coming and coming, and eventually it crossed the line where I thought this is happening. This is real. And and so, you you then go to the next level.
Speaker 0: And this is pre Internet in many ways. Oh, You know, so you're getting this information not through emails and direct messages, but from people independently, In which is even more
Speaker 1: different places. Suddenly you're starting to build a structure, because it clear that this non human force was not operating in this or from this dimension. It's operating in another dimension of reality. And that's why it's so important, a, to understand reality, and b, to stop people, if you're the cult, understanding reality. So I'm sitting here for instance, and I am within a certain band of frequency, and that band of frequency is all I can see.
It's it's something I I I've said that all all children should be told at the first time, a point that they could grasp it. But when they look through their eyes, they're not seeing everything in the space that they're looking at. What they're seeing is a tiny band of frequency, and it's bloody tiny. According to mainstream science, the electromagnetic spectrum, which is basically our experience reality, is 0.005% of what exists in terms of energy and all its forms in this so called universe. Some say it's a bit more, but whichever, it's tiny.
Visible light, which is the only band of frequency that we can see, everything that we see and I'm looking at now is within visible light, is a smear of the 0.005% of the electromagnetic spectrum. So humans are basically blind. Now the reason it's so important for people to know this at the earliest age is because it changes everything. Now suddenly when people say, well, you say these non humans, why can't I see them? Well, because they don't operate with invisible light.
And if they do enter visible light and leave visible light, you dismiss the idea that that could possibly happen. Because when people say, I saw this UFO and it came out of nowhere and then disappeared into nowhere, or I saw this entity appear out of nowhere at the end of the bed and then it disappeared. Of course, the Overton window of normal, very fiercely policed, says that's impossible, that can't happen. Oh, it can, And it's very easy to explain it. When something is in another dimension of reality, it's vibrating on a different frequency that's not within visible light.
You can't see it. When it enters visible light, because it's changing its frequency, it appears to any observer to have come out of nowhere. When it goes back to its dimension of reality, increases its frequency, it appears to disappear out of nowhere, but it's not appeared and it's not disappeared. It's entered your range of vision, which is absolutely bloody tiny. So I'm sitting here like you're sitting there, and in the space that I'm sitting in, it's another story, space, is infinity.
All the other dimensions of reality are all in the space that we're sitting in. But on the same basis of radio and television stations on the analog system being on different wavelengths, sharing the same space, but they don't interfere with each other unless they're very close on the dial. That's how all these different wavelengths of realities going out into infinity can exist in the same space without us being aware of them. So if you get a a radio and you tune it to radio a, you get radio a. You then move the dial and you get radio b.
But radio A has not stopped broadcasting because you've moved the dial from it. It's still broadcasting, but you're not aware of it anymore. This is how reality, kind of works. And therefore, these entities that are manipulating human society through this cult operate in the unseen. Unseen to what?
The visual acuity of humanity. And if understand you that, then people are gonna dismiss what is happening because they can't understand how it could happen. And it's one of the things I've said, one of the greatest forms of mind control is squeezing our sense of the possible. Because if you do that, it means that people will dismiss things that are actually happening because they can't understand how they can happen. If if you even look at mainstream science, how often does it dismiss the so called paranormal?
Because within its context of reality, it doesn't understand how paranormal is possible when it's perfectly explainable. And so these entities are operating in another dimension of reality, which is very close to this one, but it's outside of the normal human range of sight. Some psychic sight can go beyond that and can see some of these things, but mostly they can't. And and the structure started to appear to me from the mid nineteen nineties that, this global cult was actually manipulating human society within the band of frequency of human society on behalf of this non human force operating in another dimension of reality, what's known as the astral dimension. And then, as the synchronicity went on, and you keep asking the question, okay, so what don't I know?
What then came next just after the turn of the millennium, although I've been thinking about this for years before, came the the understanding through various various and many sources and and and pieces of information that I write about in the books came the fact that this is a simulated reality. And what has happened, basically, is that this non human force has created a fake simulated reality through which it can control human perception at the very base level of the perception of what we are actually the world that we're actually in.
Speaker 0: So it's safe to call it a simulation then? If someone were to say, David, are we living in a simulation? Would say
Speaker 1: 1%. 100%. Funnily enough, when I first went public on this, I was looking around to find anyone who, certainly in the public eye, was talking about this, and I basically only found one person. It was a guy called Nick Bostrom, professor Nick Bostrom at Oxford University was then, who was talking about the fact that this could be a simulated reality. I see it in a very different way to heat than what he does, but at least the theme of the simulation was there.
But what has happened since from about 2016 is more and more mainstream scientists have started to come out and say, well, it actually does like look like it's a simulation. I mean, in the books, I explain all the evidence for it, which is which is legion, actually, in the the the books like the road map. And, more and more people, mainstream scientists and and academics, have started to come out and and and say this. And and was I I remember saying in the early nineteen nineties that I felt this was a simulation and that the level that we operate at, because it's a multi level simulation, the level that we operate at is its limit is basically the speed of light. That's why the speed of light appears to be the fastest speed, but absolutely isn't.
You go beyond this material reality that speed of light is pedestrian. And then in April 2021, there was an article in Scientific American by a guy, an academic, and he concluded that this was a simulation and the limit of the simulation was the speed of light. I say there's many other levels of it, actually. He was relating, I think rightly, to, the fact that the speed of light is akin to the limit of the computer power of of the simulation, I would say, at this level. And that is the that's what the speed of light really is.
And it's interesting. I was saying in the early nineteen nineties that I felt that the laws of physics were actually computer codes akin to those that create virtual reality simulation games. So, you've you've got the the creators, and they write in to their game various rules, laws, and limits, of what is possible. And I say that those laws limits written by the game creators are akin to our laws of physics. Our laws of physics are actually, computer coding.
And it's interesting that when people have these near death experiences, when the body briefly dies and then gets revived, Their experience in between, and there's millions of these experiences. I've watched and read endless of them in my research with incredible common themes, by the way. The one thing that they say, the many common things they say, but one of them is that when they leave the body, they're in a realm with a completely different law of physics than this one. And what's possible there is very different to what's possible here. That's because this level of the simulation is encoded with these codes, which are what we call the laws of physics.
And so you've got this non human force in this astral dimension that is using this global cult to manipulate human society as it wishes, and there's a reason why they've created this simulation, which I'm sure we'll get into.
Speaker 0: I was just about to ask you what's their motivation for this, and then what sort of agency do we have? Is it to expand our consciousness to be aware of this limit?
Speaker 1: Once you do that, once you do that, see, when I say the whole foundation of this is to control perception, I mean control perception on every level, from the perception of the reality that we're experiencing right across the board. Every aspect of perception they wish to control, and really they have to control to, to keep us in check because they're they're relatively few compared with the the billions of of humans. So I when I was give you a go into why why build why why create this simulation? We can go into how it works as well. But in the early nineteen nineties when I was uncovering this cult, I realized that, rich and famous people, many who are on the news constantly, were taking part in satanism, in satanic ritual, in human sacrifice ritual.
And you're going, what? Why? What's the game? Not just satanism, but also pedophilia, because those two are connected actually by the same thing. And then I've met satanists and former satanists, and people have observed the rituals against their will as well, all over the world from the 1990s onwards and onwards and onwards.
And wherever you talk to them in the world, they talk about the same thing. It's that these people who are doing these satanic rituals, and the whole foundation of this global cult is based on satanism and, pedophilia, they are actually interacting with their gods as they perceive them. Actually, bunch of prats, but they perceive them as gods. They're masters, if you like. And then I thought, okay.
And I got detail on that, which I put in the books. But then I thought, well, they've been doing this all along, haven't they? I mean, look at the ancient world, and they were sacrificing people to the gods as a gift to the gods. And then again, the question, what do the gods get out of it then? What's the gift that they're giving them?
And what happened is that in ancient societies, it was acceptable. It was part of the life that you sacrificed young virgins to the gods. What's that code for? Children. And that was all part of their life.
And then as humanity matured, they stopped all that and it went underground, and that's where it is now. All this satanism goes on secret, comes up every now and again to the surface, and then they bang the hammer down to cover it up. But it's the absolute foundation of this whole cult network. So what was the gift to the gods? And then, through many other sources, I came to this conclusion.
And one of the sources was a guy called Robert Munro. Robert Munro was a kind of a media executive at one point, but he had this gift of being able to project his consciousness into this astral dimension and experience it and see it. And he became very skilled at this. He wrote a series of books about it. The American military got so interested in what he was doing that they started a project called the Gateway Gateway Project Gateway Process, it was called, to study this astral projection, as it's called.
And they got other people together, who had this gift, and they did this study. And the CIA declassified the report on it by the guy who ran it for the US military some years ago. And when you look at what I've been saying is that this reptilian force it's not only reptilian, by the way, but that seems to be a dominant part of it is operating in this astral dimension. Well, what happened in the Gateway Process, this US military operation, is that the participants saw so many reptilian entities in the astral dimension when they were projecting that they gave them in the gateway project a collective name. They called them the alligators.
Oh, I've seen I've seen some more alligators sort of stuff. And what, Robert Monroe was saying he learned in the in his astral projections, and I've had this in many other sources as well, is that these entities, these astral entities, are feeding off low vibrational human energy.
Speaker 0: And So that's the gift.
Speaker 1: That's the gift that comes in the satanic rituals, but it's also the gift that the whole of society is set up to produce. Now this will explain a lot about why the world is as it is. First of all, it's not just any human energy that these entities absorb, because they are themselves in a low vibrational state. It's higher vibrational state than the human world, but in the astral world, they're still in a low vibrational state. And thus, if they're going to absorb this human energy, which Robert Munro called Louche, the name he gave to it, then it has to be within the frequency band that they are.
And, that frequency band relates to low vibrational human thought and emotion. So it's well known in mainstream science that every time we think and feel emotion, we are generating a frequency. And that frequency relates to the nature of the thought or the emotion. So joy, love, harmony, peace, appreciation, respect these are all high vibrational energies generated by states of mental and emotional being that relate to those emotions, those thoughts. This force cannot absorb that.
What it can absorb is low vibrational energy created by fear, anxiety, depression, war, other conflict, regret, hatred, remorse, and resentment, all these low vibrational emotional energies, they can absorb them. So what you have is this global cult within our reality manipulating human experience. It's why we have all these bloody wars to generate in the population low vibrational energy based on those mental and emotional states. And these entities are feeding off that. And so in the Matrix movie, which which may have been, you know, apparent fiction, but there was a heck of a lot of things in there that were actually what's happening.
And you had the Morpheus character, and he held up a a battery, and he said, the matrix, the simulation, is a computer generated dream world built to turn humans into this, a battery. And that was a profound statement of truth within apparently fictional, movie. So, this force, both the global cult and its masters in the astral dimension, have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a world of love and peace and harmony respect and joy. They have no interest in that because that's not their energetic source, the low vibrational emotions are. So that's what the kind of world we live in overwhelmingly.
So then we come back to these satanic rituals. What are the gifts to the gods? Well, they put the sacrificial victim through a process to generate maximum terror. I don't suppose they have to try very hard given the circumstances. Maximum terror.
Imagine you're a kid. You know? Oh, dear. And what's happening is if I look at someone and they're in a very extreme emotional state, I will see in their facial expression and their body language that they're in an emotional state. What I won't see, because it's outside of visible light, is the energy, the frequencies they're giving off that relate to that state, because that energy is in the frequency band of the astral dimension.
So when these sacrificial rituals are happening, these entities oversee from the astral dimension the ritual, and they're feeding off this incredibly powerful and intense low vibrational energy called terror, and that's the gift of the gods. And at the same time, these satanists within our human reality, they drink the blood of the sacrificial victim, and as people have, told me who've witnessed this, they get high on it. It's like a drug to them, a massive high. Why? Because states of extreme terror release into the blood an adrenaline.
And it's that adrenaline that they get high on, and that adrenaline brings us to adrenochrome. That's what adrenochrome is. It's blood laced with this adrenaline, which these people are literally, literally addicted to. And when I was looking at these ancient societies that were doing this sacrificial stuff in the open, I realized I write about this in the Roadmap that although we hear about the pantheons of gods, like the Greek pantheon and the Egyptian pantheon and the Roman pantheon, actually, these pantheons of gods can be found all over the ancient world in all these ancient societies. In fact, these pantheons still exist in the belief system of Hinduism.
And you then start to realize that although they obviously, they they have different languages and different cultures, so they call these gods different things, different names, they're actually the same gods. The the the the gods, bunch of prats, that the elite today are doing their sacrificial rituals to are the same entities that they they they gave them to in the ancient world because the the the the timeline of, of the astral is completely different to this one. And and so, you start to, put these things together, and you realize that the whole thing is basically founded on creating constant events to put people in low vibrational states, which then can be fed off, and that these satanic rituals are also another form of very concentrated production of this low vibrational energy. And and you start to see why the world is as it is. They have no interest in a world of love, a world of joy, a world of harmony, none whatsoever.
No. No. No. That's not lunch. Start another war.
And that's why if you look through what we call history, there's a lot more to know about that. We've had this constant conflict, constant war, constant deprivation, constant suffering among vast, vast tracts of humanity. I mean, you look at the First World War, you look at the Second World War, it's not just the people taking part and death itself as a frequency of vibration. It's all the people back home worried if their loved one will return or not. Imagine the lush, the low vibrational energy that will have been created in Gaza since October 7.
And and this is happening all around the world. And, you know, I'm I'm I'm banned from 30 European countries and and Australia now and many others if I try to get in there. But before that, I traveled really widely around the world since 1990. And you see the vast, vast numbers of people, the great majority of people actually, are living very challenging lives trying to survive another day, another month, or whatever, in in terrible circumstances. And so, there's all this challenge, emotion, mental response energy that's basically turned the earth into vast battery producing energy for these entities to absorb.
And one of the things, funnily enough, that I've written about over the years, and I do in the roadmap as part of that whole putting the dots together is reincarnation. And this gateway process of the US military kind of came to the conclusion in its report that reincarnation is actually real. Because what's reincarnating is not the body, it's consciousness. It's a state of awareness, a state of consciousness. Some people call it the soul, although that's only one level of it.
And so you have this situation where it's certainly questioned in my mind is when you leave the body like in a dear death experience or you leave permanently, what happens then? Are are you then out of the the simulation, out of the the loose production machine? Because if you were, because of what I've just said about the challenging lives that so many people have, the great majority, if you left the the the body at the end of an experience of human, surely you would say, well, I'm not going back there.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: That for a game of soldiers. That's horrible.
Speaker 0: Right. Gave me the experience of being a paraplegic for the last sixty years. Why would I want to go back to that again?
Speaker 1: Exactly. So then I really got into this whole, what the hell is that all about? And again, I write in the books in terms of the detail, but basically, what you have is another level of this simulation, which is the astral dimension. And the idea is that when consciousness leaves the body, it enters this astral dimension. Okay.
But they don't want you going any further, because if you do, you're out of their control and thus out of their Luche machine. They want you to reincarnate back into this reality over and over again, so it's like a self perpetuating machine. And I set out in the books in detail how this seems to work talking to people who've got memories and have experienced it and all that stuff. And that is that when you enter this astral dimension and you see the light or the the tunnel with the light at the end, you think you're in some form of heaven, because compared with, what you've just experienced, it seems to be. But there is a whole system which ultimately this simulation is run by AI, a level of AI that makes human AI currently even look like the stone age.
And, you go on this what the Buddhists call wheel of samsara, where you basically come out of the body, you go through a process, and you come back in. And, so they've set up this multi level simulation system so that it's self perpetuating. And the reason consciousness comes back in is because what it learns in its astral state is that, it's got lessons to learn, and it must go back to pay back its karma.
Speaker 0: We hear this in the teachings of or the the research I've read Journey of Souls, Michael Newton's books on reincarnation and it's a common theme throughout all of the regression hypnosis that he does in his work. Thousands of people who are totally unrelated all say the same thing, that once they've left the body and they're in this astral state, they've sort of chosen to come back to fix or work on something that heretofore was a deficiency in the previous life.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And and, basically, it's a load of old crap. And I tell you what I tell you what I've I've I've noticed. I can come to something else I've noticed in a second, which relates to it.
But what I've noticed is the relationship between, humans in the human realm and to authority mirrors the relationship of consciousness soul, if you like, in the astral in relation to authority. So people look to authority in the human world to tell them what to think and to tell them what to do, and overwhelmingly they'll get their information from those sources, and they'll be guided by those sources. Or, oh, hello, doctor. I I'm not very well. Please save me, doctor, and all these all these different institutions of authority.
And then when they leave the body this is the this is a fascinating thing to me because one of the common themes of a near death experience is when they leave the body, they say, it was amazing. I've never experienced anything like it. And then you say, well, you you believe in reincarnation though now? Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Reincarnation. Yeah. So you must have experienced it lots of times then. So why have you never experienced it like this before? You must have done.
And so that was my question. Well, how does that work then? And then I've come across information and talk to people who have a memory. They're not that many in number, but the common themes are very compelling. They have a memory of the incarnation process.
They have a memory of the pre incarnation process in the astral when they're about to come back, and they, then, have a memory of actually coming into the body. And what they talk about is that as you come in, you go through some sort of very powerful electromagnetic field that wipes your memory. Now there are people, young kids mostly, that do remember, previous lives in this reality, but they're they're comparatively few. And by seems by about the age of seven, eight, it it kind of disappears. But they they do have, memories, and they are absolutely phenomenally detailed, a lot of them.
There's a guy I quote in my books, a guy called Stevenson, who was a psychiatrist psychologist, and he set out to basically trash the idea that reincarnation was real, through these kids who were describing previous lives, small kids. And what he did is noted what they said in detail about where they were in this previous life and what the background was and who was around them and what have you. And then he'd check it out, because a lot of them, of the people involved were still still around, still alive. And he he became so amazed by the accuracy of these kids and what they were saying to what he was checking out, even in another country or another town where they'd never been, that he he realized that reincarnation was real. I'll tell him one quick story I'll tell in one of the books.
There was this lad who said that he was formally married to this woman who was much older by now, obviously, but he was still he was a kid. You know? He said, oh, I was married to this woman, and and this is where I I, I swear I lived. And, you know, these kids are describing houses in other places, sometimes other countries, and they're describing how they're laid out, what the rooms are are, etcetera. And they never ever ever been there.
They're only little kids. And so they Stevenson took this guy to, this kid to to this home of where he said he was married to the woman. And and and Stevenson was saying, the funny thing was the kid was talking to the wife as if he was still a wife. She was still a wife. Wow.
When she's a much older woman and he's a little kid. And it it it came to the point where they they they said to him, the family, well, if you if you say you were, you know, previously one of us, where's your will? Cause we could never find your will. And the kid went to, I think it was in the kitchen, to a floorboard and pointed at a floorboard. They took the floorboard up, and there was the will.
And so he this guy, Stevenson, he wrote thousands of case studies of these people. But what they say is that when they come in, overwhelmingly they pass through some kind of really powerful electromagnetic field. It wipes their memory apart from the few. And so they go through a human life in a, like, blank sheet of paper state. They have no idea where they've come from.
They have no idea where they're going. They have no idea why they're here. And so when they they leave the body, and we can come to what death is in a second, when they leave the body, they're still in that mind wiped state. So they experience this astral dimension after they leave the body, And to them, they're experiencing it for the first time. I've never experienced anything like it.
And you go up the tunnel. Obvious you know, if if you're a Christian, you might see Jesus. If you're if you're a Muslim, you might see another religious hero, etcetera, etcetera. You might see loved ones and all the stuff. I talk about in the books how they are projections.
They're not real. It's all AI, basically. A a level of AI that, you know, we can't comprehend even now. And they go up the tunnel still in this mindwipe state. And then what happens with near death experiences is that they are told, it's not your time.
You've got to go back. And it's so lovely at that point that often they say, well, I don't wanna go back. Oh, no. You've got to go back. You've lessons to learn and all that stuff.
What they don't do is pass the threshold into the level of reality that's beyond that point of you've got to go back. So basically none of these near death experiences cross that threshold and realize what's beyond it. And so when you go beyond it, well, bang, you're on the wheel of samsara and you're back. And the question of death is very relevant because people are so frightened of it. What is death?
We are consciousness vibrating far quicker than this reality. So to interact with it, we need a body. This body is a biological computer. And it's, I was saying another thing, earlier that, is intriguing to me is that this explosion, this AI computer explosion in the human world that we've had in recent times, it's actually a technological mirror of how we experience reality, of what this reality is. Just another level of it, technological level.
And so I'm sitting in front of a computer now. If there was Wi Fi in this room, then where is it? You can't see it. It's outside of visible light. You can't see it.
And if you said to someone who didn't know anything about Wi Fi and knew nothing about computers, that there is a whole collective global reality in this room. And if you get a better kit called a computer, you can lock into it, it will lock into it, and it will put that reality on the screen in a completely different form to how it exists in the in the WiFi field, then if people didn't know about computers and WiFi, they'd say you were mad. They'd say, What are you talking about? What WiFi? I can't see it, and all these things that they say.
But if you said to people now, in this room there's a Wi Fi field and it's a collective reality called the internet, you can tap into it anywhere in the world if you've got a bit of kit, a computer to tap into it, people would go, oh yeah, I know about that Wi Fi computer. Yeah, of course I know about that. Everyone knows about that. Now the only difference, this is a really important point, the only difference between you're mad mate, I can't see it, what are talking about? And, yeah, I know about that.
The only difference is knowledge. Knowledge. Knowledge of of that existence. If you can therefore squeeze knowledge and squeeze the sense of the possible, you squeeze perception into the myopia that you need to control, the great, mass of people. So what's happening is the computer is locking in to the Wi Fi field, and it's putting that field onto the screen in a totally different form to what exists in the field.
Okay. Where is the computer doing that? It's doing it inside the computer. We're just observing it from the outside. It's all happening inside the computer.
So then you come to how we interact with this reality, this simulation. There you go. The human body is a biological computer. And, you know, people think that biological is natural and technological is human made. Okay.
But unless you have something, and we don't, that is unimpeachably natural, you have nothing to compare the natural to. And I'll tell you from my own research over the years is that this cult treats the biological as a form of technology, not natural. And so what you, have is is is a body, and it's interacting with the matrix. What is the matrix? It's an information field.
It's like a Wi Fi field. It mirrors it. And so you're tapping in, and it's an interactive, so you're affecting the field as the field is affecting you. As you wake up, you affect the field. That's another reason they don't want you to wake up.
So we're interacting with it through the five senses. Now this is mainstream science. How does the five senses work? They pick up frequency information. They turn it into electrical information.
They communicate the electrical information to the brain, and different parts of the brain specialize in decoding different senses. And then it puts together from all that information a sense of reality. And if people say, well, we all see the same reality. Well, we don't. We all see the same background, basic reality, but what we make of it and how we interact with it is completely different, depending on your state of perception, your state of being.
But what I'm saying is that the world that appears I grant you, it does, appears to be out here. It's all happening in here, just as it's happening inside the computer. There is no external external world. It's happening in here, and the world is holographic. This is creating a holographic world simulation exactly the same as a virtual reality game.
So if you go on the internet to a video platform and you go to a, like, like a compilation of people going crazy with headsets on, then you'll see how amazingly easy it is to control human perception. Because what is the video game using to give you this fake reality of a headset and the gloves and the audio and everything. It's using the five senses. It's using the same five senses. It's overriding them.
It's overriding them with another level of information. And what you see in these compilations is they put their headset on, and they suddenly go absolutely bloody crazy. They're they're they're they're falling off the chair. They're running. They're screaming.
They're running away because almost in an instant they put their headset on and the information is being communicated to their brain to override quote, normal reality, and their perceptions are completely taken over. Now imagine, because this body is a headset, in effect, It's biological computer. And if people think, well, that's a bit strange, that's a bit far fetched, well, hold on a minute. Unless you're out of breath when you become conscious of it, do you remember breathing? Do you think of breathing?
Do all you the time, I must breathe, I must breathe, I must breathe, I must breathe. No, only when you've got bit of a problem might you think that, but overwhelmingly, you're breathing.
Speaker 0: Or your heart to beat?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Do you think, okay, must concentrate now because I've got to process this food. I've to get this food down. No.
No. It just does it. It's a computer, and it's a biological computer, a very, very advanced biological computer. And we are interacting with the matrix, an information field, which is what some scientists are now coming to the conclusion it is. I was talking about this in the early two thousand's.
And we are living in a reality we think is outside of us, but actually it's in here. And if you put on these really advanced computer games now, these headsets, etcetera, you know, you've got arms, haven't you? You think are arms, you think are your hands. Why? Because the perceptions can be overridden by information.
So when I'm talking about the five senses, they're picking up frequency information, electrical information to the brain, blah blah blah. The ears are a classic, but they all work like this. The ears are picking up sound waves, frequencies. They turn it into electrical information, send it to the brain. So when I'm talking now, I'm not passing words between us.
I'm passing frequencies. My vocal cords are generating a frequency field, which we call words, and that's what the ears pick up, that frequency field. They then pass it to the brain in the form of electrical signals, and the brain decodes the frequency or the electrical information into the words we think we are hearing. And that's how the communication's going. Everything is frequency.
It's like Nikola Tesla said, if you wanna understand the universe, then think of frequency and vibration. Exactly. I mean, we live in this ocean of frequencies. Now if if if you're introducing five g towers, six g towers to come being pushed by Trump in the last couple of weeks or so Right. And and and you've got Musk and Bezos and other satellites beaming electromagnetic fields at you, thousands of them and more to come, then we're not just in a field of an ocean of, for want of a word, natural interaction of frequencies.
We've had this massive introduction of technologically generated frequencies, And, therefore, it's imposing and impacting upon the human mind, human perception. In the road map, I quote a whistleblower from China. This is some years ago he spoke, who said that the Chinese are already basically dictating thought through electromagnetic fields. Because what is the brain? It is processing information electrically and electromagnetically.
And if you can get access to that field, you can impact what it thinks and how it processes that information. And in terms of what's happening now with the whole AI thing, it's that they're creating a massive global electromagnetic field through the towers, but massively from the low orbit satellites of people like Musk and SpaceX, through which they are creating a hive mind to dictate global perception. And although the Chinese, this guy said, are doing it directly electromagnetic field to electromagnetic field, if you've got kit like nano stuff in the body that operates as a receiver of this, hive mind electromagnetic field, then, it's even more powerful. And that for me is what the COVID fake vaccine was all about. It was putting this nanotech into people, which is self replicating.
I've been in contact, since then with many scientists and groups around the world that have been studying this and looking through electron microscopes at the self replicating nanotechnology building systems in the body. And, one of the things they found, it was a group in Spain called La Quinta Columni, which means, fifth column in English, and they came out quite early when the fake vaccines started rolling out and said there's something in the in the vials, called, graphene oxide. Now graphene oxide is a relatively new, at least publicly new, substance, and it has two particular qualities, there's many others too, that suit the cult. One is it amplifies electromagnetic fields. So if you've got graphene oxide in the body, it will amplify the effect on the body, of an electromagnetic field that you come into contact with.
And the other thing is it's a superconductor of electricity, and you have the brain processing information electrically. And if you can interfere with that, then you're dictating perception, and you're stopping the brain coming to its natural, if you like, natural conclusions of how it sees the world or how it sees a situation. Many people have explained this, how they use this gel to trick the immune system into allowing this crap into the body, and then it starts forming systems. And it also, it is said by these people who studied it, it's entering the brain through the blood brain barrier, which should protect the brain from external foreign bodies. And as a result, it's getting in the brain, and it's changing the way that people process information.
And this nanotechnology is, on one level, it's the receiver system of the hive mind, which if you have an electromagnetic field, you can pass frequencies through it. And what are frequencies? They're information. We have television and radio, all this stuff, because frequency carries information through electromagnetic fields. And the idea is that this nanotechnology receives it, and then the body processes it into a state of reality.
And people might understand why I have been screaming from the rooftops that this is the game, this is where we're heading. Kurzweil is talking about this happening by 2030. It's already happening. And all this diversion stuff that Trump's involved in, although there are other reasons for that as well, but it's a massive diversion. It's getting you to look that way while actually the real deal is going on here.
Speaker 0: You you think about some of the science fiction over the years, just as you were talking about keeping keeping us in this state of entropy where everyone's fighting in the chaos. You can go back to the nineteen sixties. There was a Star Trek episode in the original series called Day of the Dove where there was like this noncorporeal entity that was feeding off of the negative energy of the federation and the Klingons by keeping them in a perpetual state of war. Yeah. I know.
There's been, you know, so many examples of this. Right? And to keep us keep us in this constant state of chaos in order to feed this this beast. Didn't you believe the AI piece of this further amplifies that? It makes it even more
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, basically, AI becomes louche on tap. You don't have to manipulate information and even events to get people into a low vibrational state. You just make sure they are because AI is doing their thinking for them.
Speaker 0: You don't have to rely on false flags and put a massive information war together. You can rely on just turning on the spigot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the game, and this is where they want to go. But one very quick thing I need to mention is, like I said earlier, what is death? Okay, so the consciousness enters the body for a human life. Then the body, as I have written in the books, is actually a program. It's a perceptual program.
You know? Okay. Like I said earlier, the body is running itself all the time because it's a program. It's a computer program. It's a biological computer.
Is it too much of a stretch, therefore, to think that also encoded in this program are perceptual programs? And we can override them, but only if we open our minds to expansion of consciousness. Because then consciousness is so powerful, it can override the program that's thinking for you even now and, dictating emotional response. We have things like the fight or flight response. These are all part of the program and the response program.
So another reason they don't want people to expand their awareness and open their minds is because it overrides the program. Suddenly, the impulses of the program are overridden.
Speaker 0: Well, that's what I was gonna ask you. How do you how do you fit how do you, David, Ike, fit into this then because you have managed to override this program in a lot of way almost, I think, many ways. Are a glitch in the matrix then because you've expanded your consciousness to such a degree that you see all of these rungs of the ladder and they don't want they certainly don't want more of you. Right?
Speaker 1: But every person or every consciousness that expands into the greater reality is a glitch in the matrix. That's what they're terrified of. They're terrified of. The whole Neo character in the Matrix movies was like a glitch in the Matrix, expansion of awareness. Awareness of actually what the game is and what this reality is.
Alone kind of is massively disruptive for the matrix itself. And so this is what we call awakening. And that's why I've been, I think, a little frustrated to say the least, is that I've seen in many ways present company accepted by the way I've seen the mainstream of the, alternative media as all the mainstreamers have come in since COVID, squeezing the sense of reality into politics and and and corporations and banking and all this stuff. And what we need to do is is continue to expand our awareness beyond that because that has gone from there to there. We need to go much deeper into our expansion of awareness, because then we override the program.
We don't react the way the program would normally react. Now, if you just sit quietly and you can listen to your thoughts. You can do it. Just sit quietly. Just listen to your thoughts.
Just observe your thoughts. If she said this to me, I'd say that to her. That woman in 1963, she was the one responsible for my life. This chatter, this constant chatter going on, you can observe it.
Speaker 0: Eckhart Tolle said in I think The Power of Now or The New Earth, he wrote about it years ago, he said, If you've ever seen a crazy person walking on the street just sort of chattering out loud, making nonsense, He's like, we're no different than that person because we're just doing it quietly in our own brains. We're just nonstop chattering in our brains, but this so called crazy person is doing it out loud on the street.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So when when you observe your own thoughts and you observe that chatter, who's doing the observing? What's the chatter? It's not you. You're observing it.
What is it? The chatter is the program. The observer is consciousness beyond the program. And if we can impact the perceptions of consciousness on the body, we can break the program of the body, including many things that, happen to the body that we can override. You know, I was told in when was I?
I was 21. 21 maybe maybe it was a bit earlier, actually, when I was told this. And I had rheumatoid arthritis. I was a professional footballer. And the doctors said, you can't play again.
Yeah. This was about when I was 19. You can't play again. It's, it's impossible. And, oh, by the way, you could be in a wheelchair in your thirties with this.
And I I I thought, no, I won't. No, I bloody won't. And they gave me think it was called Indecid. It was a big jar of bloody pills. Right?
So it'll take these three a day. I said, well, will that get rid of the arthritis? Oh, no. But it will take the pain away. I said, well, he can stick them then.
I don't want them. I'll override it. I didn't say that because I wasn't aware of the way things worked in those days, but I thought, no. I'm not having it. So I played for another two years with rheumatoid arthritis, professional football.
Ludicrous, you think. And then my career ended when I was 21, and the arthritis was progressing, and it got to the point where it was really, really bad, and I could hardly function. I was a television presenter at the time. It was very difficult sometimes. And then it it reached a a real extreme point where, I'm I'm going on a trip to India to see a a friend of mine, and, I'd never been to India before.
And I'm at a terminal at Heathrow Airport in London, and the arthritis is so bad, I'm having to shuffle my my feet along the ground because I can't walk. And I, you know, I I sat, in the departure lounge until the last person was going on so that I didn't have to stand. It was a nightmare. So I I I then get to I then get to India, and then I thought, hold on a minute. By this time, I was I was into all this stuff.
I thought, you're saying that mind consciousness can override the body program. Yeah. Okay. Well, bloody do it then.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And I'm now 73. This hand is like that. It's been like that since way back. But the rest of me, fine, fine.
Speaker 0: So you can walk fine?
Speaker 1: I play football with my grandkids. Wow. I walk fine, and at this time, I should be, whizened away with arthritis completely, taking over my body. I'm not having it. I'm not having it.
My consciousness is more powerful than this program, and we can do this. But we're not told any of this stuff because they want the body program to prevail. And it's my view that if you do not open your mind to consciousness, and come to how that works in a minute, then the body program is running your life. It's your thoughts. It's your emotional responses.
That's why people are so bloody predictable because the body program is predictable. But if you can open your mind to consciousness, you can override the program, and it ceases to dictate your life. You start dictating your life from a much more expansive state of being. Know, again, you know, I said earlier that things are much simpler than they're portrayed. You know, in the early days of the nineteen nineties, the only people that groups that would put me on and and listen to me what I had to say at all, and even that was, you know, in the back room at the end of the evening, was what was then called the New Age.
And as a result of speaking at some of these conferences in the 1990s, I saw the the the guru figures of the new age, and I'd see them getting massive audiences, thousands of people. And I would I would listen I would listen to them and all their stuff. And it all sounded terribly complicated. Like you have to go on a quest or drink green tea or something, and and you you have to do this, you have to do that, you have to do the other. And I'm thinking, I can't believe it's that bloody complicated.
And and this is my conclusion. To expand your consciousness into the beyond the simulation realm of knowledge, which is when you see it oh my god, so that's what's going on then all you need to do is redefine your self identity. If you self identify with being human, not as an experience, that's what it is, but as an I, you enter the realm of severe limitation, of I can't, of it's not possible. You enter the self identity dictated by the labels of a human life, income bracket, color, race, religion, all these things. You are operating in the matrix, in the simulation, and you are of the simulation.
And therefore the simulation is dictating your entire sense of reality. However, when you self identify not as a human, that's an experience, but as the consciousness ultimately at the infinite expansion of consciousness, you self identify with that, you are expanding your self identity from little me, I've got no power, to I have the power of infinity if I want to tap into it. And that self identity expansion automatically expands your consciousness deeper and deeper and deeper into the infinite field where you start accessing expansion of insight, of knowledge, of awareness. That's why the belief systems, they don't care what we have as long as they're rigid and unquestioning, that's why they want us in this situation because we're not going to go there. What are you?
Oh, as long as I believe in Jesus, I'll go to heaven. Yeah. You'll go into the astral and you'll be back here, mate. Expand your awareness by expanding your self identity, and suddenly the world is completely different because you are completely different. You're no longer little me.
You are increasingly, as you expand, you are infinite me, and you see things that you never saw before. You see how it all fits together in a way you never saw before. But all the pressure is to remain in the box. What will people think of me if I, if I say this? Oh, I better not say it then.
Sod that for a game of soldiers. Have some of this, mate.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Many things you've said there, so powerful, and I love what you're saying about people who've maybe had this awareness over the past few years since COVID and they're thinking like the banking cabal, they're thinking, you know, Klaus Schwab. They're thinking in sort of smaller yes. More expanded, but they're still thinking within this narrow framework, and we need to go much bigger.
When you talk about death then, I guess maybe the final question then is you talk about that Buddhist wheel of sans sera, like in going back into the mix again if you don't break that. If you do expand your consciousness to this level that you're talking about, are you able to break free of that wheel?
Speaker 1: Oh, god. Yes. Oh, yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: And then what happens? I guess that's the ultimate Okay. Question
Speaker 1: Okay. This simulation, whether it's the human level of material density, illusory material density. I mean, you know, Einstein realized that there's no such thing as the material world. It's just energy condensed to a slow vibration. A slow vibration within what?
With invisible light. I'm I'm looking around this room now, and I can see a couple of lights. I can see a computer and a microphone and a wall and a door, and what I can see is form. What is form? It's energy that has been condensed into a vibration slow enough for me to see it with invisible light.
Between the form appears to be empty space. It ain't empty space. It's infinity, but it's outside of visible light, which is why it seems to be empty. And so we are living in this illusion, and the illusion is designed to keep us, whether it's in the human world or in the astral world, within the frequency band of the simulation. So again, every time we think and feel emotion, perceive, we are generating energy.
And that energy is dictating our energetic field and its nature. So when someone is in a high vibrational state, they might say something like, oh, I feel so light today. And the reason they say they feel light is because their emotional mental state is generating high frequency high frequencies, and they are vibrating their energetic field into a higher frequency state, which is why they feel lighter because it's faster and it's more ethereal, if you like. And then you've got people who say, I feel so so heavy today. Oh, got the weight of the world on my shoulders.
That emotional state is sending out, loose, low vibrational, slow low frequencies, which are having the effect on your energetic field of making it far more dense so we feel heavy. Now, so our perceptions, our self identity, is a a frequency field which we are generating. The idea of this simulation and its nonhuman manipulators, bunch of prats, as I said, is to keep both in this material world and in this astral dimension, to keep the target population, if you like, vibrating, perceiving thus vibrating within the limits of the simulation. Some people call it the ring past not, or the Ouroboros, as some groups have called it over the centuries. It's a vibrational limit, and if you're within it, then you're on the wheel of samsara.
Because what do the Buddhists say?
Speaker 0: Joy or sadness, you're still within that range.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're still within that range. But the thing is that the Buddhists talk about the fact that to break and and, you know, I've got a lot of questions about Buddhism as well. But on this, I I'm in total agreement. They're saying that you to escape the wheel of Samsara, you need to reach a state of, quote, enlightenment. What does that mean?
A state of awareness, a state of expanded awareness, where your field is vibrating so quickly that no way can this simulation, field keep you within itself. You're straight through it. It's like it doesn't exist. This limit of the simulation doesn't exist because it's like a radio station passing through another radio station. The one radio station is of a completely different wavelength.
The other radio station can't stop it. And and and and this is why they want to keep us in ignorance both in the human world and in the astral soul world, keep us in ignorance, to keep us within the the limits of the the the simulation. And and and if we say sod that for a game of soldiers, I am all it is, has been, and ever can be having a brief human experience. I will decide what I where I go from here and what I do, not a bunch of prats who who are seeking to entrap me. No way.
I can't be entrapped unless I believe I can be entrapped. Bang. Gone. Out of here. And that's their worst nightmare because as consciousness leaves the simulation, there's less and less and less loose available to feed these psychopathic very strange entities.
Speaker 0: I guess I'll get you out of here on this David, you've been so gracious with your time. What don't you know yet?
Speaker 1: What don't I know yet? Well, it's like Socrates in ancient Greece is supposed to have said, wisdom is knowing how little we know. So massive amounts. I don't know. Massive amounts.
Speaker 0: I guess where where are some of the blind spots that you feel in your vast knowledge that you're still deeply exploring? You know? Do you feel like a white belt in karate in any certain area? Understanding
Speaker 1: the nature of reality beyond the simulation. You can get glimpses of it, you can get sometimes experiences of it, but we're talking about something that is infinite in nature. And thus, it's basically, forever, forever. That's what we're experiencing. We're experiencing forever, forever.
So beyond the simulation, which we are immediately aware of, what lies beyond that? Well, forever does. Infinite possibility. See, what I'm saying that what we call God is, and this brings us back to religion. One of the things that I focus on in part of the roadmap is religion.
About five chapters of the 28 are on religion and and its impact upon human perception and what religion is, and what is this god that people are worshiping through religion. Because there's this great line, very true: energy flows where attention goes. What you focus upon, you, put your energy into. So if your focus and worship is a very powerful, level of, attention, if if you're worshiping something that actually is not what you think you're worshiping, it's a fake God masquerading as the loving God, don't read the Old Testament then, Then you're focusing your attention on that, and thus you're making an energetic connection with it. Therefore, it can trawl your energy.
But if you look beyond that, beyond the simulation, for me, what this god is, I don't use the word god, but, I call it the infinite, it is all possibility, all potential waiting to manifest, and we therefore have an infinity of choices of what to manifest. What we have got caught in is one creation, one possibility, which is entrapment. And we don't have to stay here unless we believe in it, and we believe that we are therefore entrapped and there's nothing we can do. That's what that's what they want. That works at all levels.
You know? Look at what I said earlier about Elon Musk. Human AI fusion is inevitable. Oh, well, you know, you can't stop it then. Well, you you're you're living with an infinite possibility.
Of course, you can stop anything. You can create anything. You can you can stop anything. You can do anything you bloody like, but only if you know that you can. If you don't, you'll be limited by the limits of your perception of what is possible.
It's like there's a guy, I think it was called Schopenhauer, who said something words to the effect of people basically misunderstand the limits of possibility with the limits of their own mind. The limits of possibility compared with the limits of the sense of the possible. They're not the same. If you, talk to most human beings about the limit of possibility, then it it's gonna be here somewhere. But but when you expand your awareness into the realms of infinity beyond the simulation, you realize that anything becomes possible because you're dealing with all possibility.
You know, when people talk about they talk about God being all that is, has been, and ever can be, and you think, well, that's impossible. What what the human mind thinks is that's impossible. Nothing can be all that is, has been, and ever can be, because they think in terms of time, which is another illusion, by the way, which can be easily explained. But what what what is all that is, has been, and ever can be? What is it saying?
All possibility. And if you're dealing with a a realm of all possibility, you're dealing with all that is, all all that has been, and all that can be, because all those are an expression of all possibility. And that's what we're living in. We're living in an infinity of all possibility, and what the simulation and its creators have done is put us in a box that limits our sense of the possible, and that's the only way that the few can control the many.
Speaker 0: Wow. The new documentary that David is a part of is called The Human Antenna, which covers a lot of this AI fusion. So I encourage people to we'll have it linked up for people to go and watch that, but also read David's newest book called The Roadmap. Dive through all of his teachings because I think once you once you go down this rabbit hole, you you're going back. You're never going back.
And you can start to see all of these news stories whether it's Trump in Greenland and Minnesota and all of these things. Once you understand that there's a higher level at play here, it all starts to all those things start to fall apart. It's kind of It's really powerful. So I just want to thank you for expanding the consciousness of all of us, David, and all of your incredible work over the years and your graciousness with your time tonight to be able to sit and talk with us. Really thank you.
Speaker 1: You know, when you spent the last thirty six years trying to get information out, it's no problem finding the time to talk to people like you, I tell you.
Speaker 0: Well, it's been my it's been my great honor and, my great pleasure. So thank you, and I hope I get a chance to sit down with you face to face in the near future. I'll be in the I'll be in The UK over the summer, and I said I would love to I would love to sit down and
Speaker 1: That go would be great.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. David, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We've got a studio in Derby in England where iconic.com comes out. That's our media platform and documentaries, etcetera, all about reality and everything else. So that would be a good place to do it.
Speaker 0: Oh, that would be wonderful. And now that you're back, I guess on YouTube, they've allowed you back the powers that be. People need to dive in and start watching your How many videos do you do a week? Is it one to two per week now?
Speaker 1: I do quite a few. There's well over a thousand videos on that platform now, a number of which were of course pre coming back. I was away for five and a half years banned YouTube. But on that subject, if I could just mention one thing. Please.
The iconic.com media platform has just released a film called Beneath the Surface, which you can see on my YouTube channel, and it's all about the satanic ritual, pedophilia, mind control, and how all that connects into what's happening in the world. So that's worth watching.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. We'll make sure we have Iconic linked up in the description so people can go and watch that film. David, thank you so much again. Really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Really, really great pleasure to talk to you.
Speaker 0: Cheers. Thank you so much, David.
Speaker 1: Bye.
Speaker 0: Bye.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤐 CNN says the CIA is about to establish a “foothold” in Venezuela. About 40 years late to the story. Some revelations arrive right on schedule. @Kevin_Shipp is with us. https://t.co/6pWNKBuAQw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on CNN’s report that the CIA is establishing a foothold in Venezuela, with the claim that the CIA has, for decades, enabled the Venezuelan drug trade. The speakers argue that the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA itself facilitated drug trafficking. They cite CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstitute Venezuela’s intelligence to penetrate the government; the general named Ramon Gulen allegedly ran narcotics and created the cartel of the sun. They claim the cartel is used by the Trump administration as a pretext to stage attacks on boats and in Venezuela and that the CIA, with its long history, was behind the Secret Service and the general in creating the drug trade and the cartel, with the Trump administration leveraging it to circumvent Congress.
There is reference to a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reporting that the CIA collaborated with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The conversation then moves to John Kerry, who in the mid-1980s led the Contra Cocaine Investigation hearings into U.S. government complicity in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted the inquiry, attempted to discredit witnesses, and assigned the CIA to monitor the probe. Ten years later, the HITS report (the CIA Inspector General report authorized under Inspector General Frederick HITS) concluded that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when deemed operationally important, to keep the Contra War alive and to maintain U.S. objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords; the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drug flow into the United States. The Iran-Contra framework is referenced as arms to Iran funding the Contras, with connections to cocaine trafficking, forming a single pipeline, allegedly placing the CIA at the center of these operations.
The panel critiques CNN’s headline as suggesting the CIA’s new foothold is about establishing a presence, arguing the real aim is to block Russia and China’s influence, not democracy or drugs. Venezuela’s oil trade outside the petrodollar with BRICS nations is noted, with claims that the move away from the petrodollar spurred interference and invasion, and that Venezuela later returned to endorsing the petrodollar after a period of yuan transactions with China. The discourse asserts that the CIA’s purpose is to prevent free trade outside U.S. influence and to suppress alternative financial arrangements like BRICS or yuan-based oil transactions.
The participants discuss the idea that the CIA has shifted from operating covertly to openly engaging in such activities, suggesting a normalization of “strategy of tension” and the notion that a third of the population would support the government’s actions, a third oppose, and a third are indifferent, thereby reducing public resistance. They connect these elements to broader media complicity, including Operation Mockingbird and the integration of former intelligence heads into media roles, implying entrenched deep-state influence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, CNN reports today that the CIA is going to create a foothold in Venezuela. Here's their reporting. They're about forty years late on this story, but okay. Way to catch up.
Good job. Now here is why this is crazy. The CIA, I'm going to prove to you, has been enabling the drug trade in Venezuela for decades. So you can't say that the attack on Venezuela was about drugs when your own CIA enabled that drug trade. And then when you finally have influence in that country, you send in more CIA.
That's crazy. Recently, whistleblower CIA whistleblower, Kevin Shipp told us that the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the creation of the Cartel of the Suns, but we can rewind even further than that. Listen to what he said.
Speaker 1: CIA has been involved in Venezuela going all the way back to the cartel called the Cartel of the Sun, which is run by a general who was a proxy of the CIA, who had gone in there and helped reconstitute his entire intelligence service with the goal of penetrating the entire Venezuelan government. And it turns out that the General Ramon Gulen was his name, was running narcotics the entire time, and was the creator and the runner of the cartel of the sun. Now, cartel of the sun is what the Trump administration is using as a pretext to go in and stage attacks first on these boats, and then actually in Venezuela itself. And of course, with its long history of doing this, the CIA was behind the Secret Service and the general in creating the drug trade, and some of the secret dealings back then, and the eventual creation of the cartel of the sun, And the Trump administration is using the cartel the sun as a pretext because that way he can go around Congress.
Speaker 0: Okay. There was proof of this way before when the mainstream media seemed interested in not promoting the US government narrative. Here's a sixty minutes piece from the nineteen nineties. I can't show it to you because sixty minutes always copyright strikes us. But they reported at the time that the CIA had collaborated with the Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into The United States.
On our population, we can rewind the clock even further. Do you recognize this guy? This is John Kerry, former presidential candidate in 1988. Now in the mid eighties, he actually led a high profile series of congressional hearings called the Contra Cocaine Investigation. He was specifically looking for how was the US government complicit in the contra drug trade.
The Reagan administration resisted the investigation. And in fact, they even stonewalled the senate. They attempted to discredit witnesses, and they assigned the CIA to monitor the probe rather than cooperate with it. Now ten years later, Kerry was vindicated by what's called the HITS report. That's this, if you wanna seek it out yourself.
This was the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS, and in the it came out in the late nineties. It concluded that while the CIA as an institution did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when it judged them operationally important in order to keep the contra war against Nicaragua alive and maintained US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting these drug lords for its own purposes. They also concluded that the CIA hid this from congress, including in these probes, and this is how much this is how we got so much drugs inside our own country. We knew it. Our CIA was allowing it and cooperating with it.
Now recall that the Iran in Iran Contra comes from The US secretly selling weapons to Iran illegally and then funneling those profits to fund the Contras, the same network that was tied to cocaine trafficking. So it was just one pipeline. It was arms to Iran, cash to the Contras, cocaine flooding our own borders with the CIA as the pimp in the whole thing. It's funny then that c CNN wouldn't know that and would hilariously publish this headline that they're establishing a foothold. They're just getting there.
They're new here. Now here's this line that really made me laugh laugh that the CIA I know it's hard to see on your screen, the next one, is there to relationship build with the locals. Oh, okay. The same locals that the US government allowed to suffer under sanctions. Yes.
Thank you for laughing at that.
Speaker 2: Well, and also, I you mean the thousands of people in the streets that are still protesting and actually want Maduro back in their country?
Speaker 0: No. Not those people. Oh, those people.
Speaker 2: Yeah. They're just canoodling What
Speaker 3: about what about the the people that are just kinda quietly disappeared by the CIA? Are they or is that building a relationship? Is that what kind of relationship is that? Because if I if I formed relationships like that, if that was my dating strategy, I should and would be in prison for the rest of my life.
Speaker 0: You don't kidnap your dates.
Speaker 2: It's you're not like Dexter. No.
Speaker 3: I do not. Oh. No. Not at
Speaker 0: all.
Speaker 2: Put a bag over their head.
Speaker 0: Right. What about the ones now. The locals that were terrorized by the drug lords that we enabled? Do we wanna do you think they want a good relationship with the CIA?
Speaker 2: They love the CIA down there. Right. They really, really love the CIA.
Speaker 0: You know that toxins and microplastics are everywhere. Scientists estimate that we now consume a credit card's worth of plastic every week through our food, water, even the air we breathe. Pillowcases even have plastic. They've been found in human babies, human fetuses. No one is safe from exposure.
And so there is a way to help make sure that your body is fighting against it. Even if you think, no, I don't eat, you know, plastic food or plastic packaged food, you're still being exposed. You really can't opt out. So that's why you should make sure that your gut can help you fight back with kimchi. And in fact, kimchi one by Brightcore Nutrition is packed with over 900 probiotic strains unique to kimchi and proven to break down BPA, helping you detox from the inside out.
It doesn't just support digestion. It helps protect your cells, your brain, and your hormones and your future. Your body was never designed to handle plastics, but your gut was designed to protect you from plastics and other toxins as well. You just have to give it the right tools. So right now, you can get 25% off with our code redacted at the link below.
You might see it on your screen, or I'll read it to you. It's my brightcore.com/redacted, or you can call them at (888) 404-6312. Again, it's Kim Chi One from Brightcur because health starts in the gut. Use the code redacted. Get 25% off plus free shipping.
So the real question is, what is the CIA really gonna be doing with this new foothold in Venezuela now that their presence is no longer a secret? This gives us a clue from the CNN report. It says they're gonna make sure that Russia and China have no influence. So, basically, it's not really about drugs. It's not about democracy.
It's just about can I use the word c o c k blocking? You know what I mean? That's what it is. It's Sure. Yeah.
That's what they're basically c blocking Russia and China. They just, like, can't have it, which tells us definitively that the capture of Maduro was never about drugs because we were complicit in the drugs. Incidentally, it was because Venezuela had been trading oil with BRICS nations outside of the petrodollar since at least 2017. This hurt the sham hegemony that The US has on the global oil trade through the sham that is the petrodollar. So few years ago, Venezuela starts trading outside the petrodollar.
We invade their country, and all of a sudden, look at this headline from just a few weeks ago, they love the petrodollar. The petrodollar is the answer to all their problems. It's great.
Speaker 2: Of course. That's amazing because three weeks ago, you were settling oil transactions in the yuan Yeah. With China.
Speaker 0: So it's amazing, you guys. Amazing how it why the CIA is there to make sure no one gets any crazy ideas about free trade with other nations, because we don't play fair. That's how we do. So let us know what you think
Speaker 3: about I think it was yesterday.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Go ahead. No. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Oh, I was gonna say, Elliot, I I think I said yesterday that, like, the thing that's so frustrating and just kind of almost amusing in a dark way is that this is what the CIA has always been doing. Like you just said, we've always been there. But but now they're just like, you know what, we don't need to hide it anymore. Yes, that is what we're doing. We're gonna go in here, we're gonna assassinate some people.
This is what we do. And we're we're proud of it now.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Deeply proud of it. You know, we're just it's all out there in the open. Yeah. They used to operate in the shadows.
I mean, look at operation mockingbird, right, inside of the inside of the news organizations, sneaking inside and infiltrating CBS News, right, becoming a part of CBS News, and no one knew about Yeah. We didn't know about it really till the nineteen nineties when we, you know, when we learned about operation mockingbird. Now it's just all out there in the open. Now they're openly on the payroll. I mean, hell, Mike Pompeo is like a Fox News contributor.
Former head of the CIA is now a Fox News contributor, so they don't even have to hide it anymore. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's wild. So let me know what you think of that history lesson. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: And and I think I think it it has a lot to do with it. Like, like, you know, like the strategy of tension being so successful, that now they know they I think they can get away with it, because where before the population as a whole would be up in arms to find out that they're besmirching the reputation of The United States. But now that they know that, like, one third of the population would would gladly kill the other third of the population while the other third watched, like now that they know that's the case, they don't have to worry about us anymore. Strategy of tension has worked.
Speaker 2: But who's gonna
Speaker 0: stop them? Exactly.
Speaker 3: Exactly. Because because they have they have a third of the population that agrees with them, the third of the population that would oppose them and a third of the population that are just too indifferent to give a shit.
Speaker 2: But this is a nation war has worked.
Speaker 0: Right. And then think about welfare of the people of Venezuela who may very well be well served trading their own oil outside of the petrodollar. They don't get that. They you're not gonna have that. We're gonna make sure that you don't have that.
So it's not good for either side, but no one's gonna stop them.
Speaker 2: Anthony Starboy says JFK was killed by the CIA. Yes. And the mafia. The CIA uses the mafia. That's their great partnership in all of this, of course.
And someone else just said, every network go blue forever says all the major networks have a Pentagon reporter. Hello. That's Mockingbird Media right there. It's so obvious. Yes.
When you're embedded inside the Pentagon. Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. They're independent. The reason they get in there, like the Jennifer Griffins of the world and these people is because they are they are basically shills for the deep state. They you know, if they want information leaked to them, the Kenderlinians of the world from NBC News, all of these shills, That's exactly how it flows.
That's exactly where the the information flows. Again, like earlier today when we reported on that New York Times piece, we were talking about Iran. Oh, how did how did the New York Times get information that Trump had a classified briefing from in his intelligence community about Iran. Yeah. Right?
Where did this information come from? It came right from the CIA, right to the New York Times. That's how it works.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
⚠️ Trump just issued a blunt ultimatum to Iran: accept a new deal with zero nuclear weapons or face another US strike. He’s warning that the next one would be far worse than the last. @RealScottRitter is our analyst. https://t.co/58PlwxpDks
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on a tense moment over Iran, with President Trump issuing an ultimatum to Iran: come to the table for a new nuclear agreement or the United States will hit Iran again, with the next strike described as far worse than the last. An armada led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is reportedly moving toward Iran, framed as a ready-to-go force for a potential rapid strike if necessary. The hosts question whether this is genuine leverage for negotiations or a countdown to war.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins to analyze the buildup. Ritter argues that Trump has backed down twice before in decisive engagement with Iran, citing the downing of a Global Hawk and the aborted bombing in support of protesters. He suggests that what is unfolding is part of a broader campaign strategy, including economic pressure that led to protests in Iran, which he attributes to Mossad and CIA-controlled agitators during a “shaking the tree” phase. He contends that Israel has signaled the next strike against Iran must be the last, and believes the planned attack would be a full-spectrum assault involving air strikes, cyberattacks, and support for CIA/Mossad-backed groups inside Iran to dismantle the government quickly. Ritter claims Iran will respond with cyber warfare and possibly shut down critical infrastructure and temporarily seize control of the Strait of Hormuz; he predicts the result would be severe consequences for the region and the United States, including economic fallout. He asserts that Iran will not back down on its nuclear program, characterizing negotiations as unacceptable to Iran and linking Iran’s enrichment program to national pride and existential survival. He also argues that the United States is acting in support of Israel, with Trump’s actions influenced by Israeli money and policy, and labels Iran as not pursuing a nuclear weapons program at this time—though 60% enrichment shortens timelines and complicates intelligence efforts. Ritter emphasizes that Congress should declare war, not the president, and warns that the United States could lose an aircraft carrier and suffer broader devastation if conflict escalates. He also critiques the characterizations of Iran as imminently threatening, arguing that the preemption narrative is not supported by imminent threat criteria and suggesting diplomacy and restraint are warranted.
The conversation then shifts to US preemption rhetoric and the role of Congress. A speaker argues that the baseline presence of 30,000–40,000 American troops in the region, within range of Iranian missiles and UAVs, requires a credible defensive posture. They criticize Marco Rubio for framing preemption as legitimate self-defense, noting that Article 51 of the UN Charter allows preemption only for imminent threat and that such immediacy is not demonstrated. The discussion suggests a need for congressional scrutiny and potential impeachment if war is pursued without proper authorization.
On nuclear questions, Ritter shares his intelligence assessment: Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program and has not reconstituted a full enrichment program, though 60% uranium enrichment represents a concern. He asserts that while Iran is capable of cyber warfare, a broader strike against Iran would likely trigger significant retaliation, including against Israel, which he describes as vulnerable to Iranian missiles.
The dialogue moves to Cuba, with Rubio and Trump signaling aggressive moves toward regime change. Ritter sees Cuba as more resilient than Libya and notes the long-standing US effort to topple the Cuban government, complicated by Cuba’s limited leverage and its trade relations with China, Russia, and Venezuela. The panel discusses the Monroe Doctrine reinterpretation and the broader geopolitical contest with China and Russia, suggesting that Cuba will be a tougher target than the US expects.
In closing, Ritter reiterates that an attack on Iran is unlikely and would be disastrous, cautioning that internal political calculations, including midterm consequences, will influence presidents’ decisions. The show thanks Ritter for his analysis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, today we've gotta talk about Iran because this is starting to look less like political theater and more like the runway to a real conflict right now. President Trump just issued what is basically an ultimatum. Come to the table and accept a new nuclear agreement, No nuclear weapons or The United States is prepared to hit Iran again. And he's warning the next strike would be, quote, far worse than the last one.
Says a massive armada is heading towards Iran right now. No nuclear weapons. Time is running out. It's truly of the essence. As I told Iran once before, make a deal.
They didn't. And there was Operation Midnight Hammer, major destruction of Iran. The next attack will be far worse. And this massive armada is moving towards Iran led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, and he framed it as a ready to go force that can act quickly if necessary. So the immediate question is this, is this leverage for negotiations?
Are they actually interested in any kind of negotiations?
Speaker 1: That would
Speaker 2: be a good question, my darling. If the subject of the deal had not been about completely different things. So first, it was about whether or not they might have nuclear arsenal. Then it was about whether or not they're building conventional missiles. Then it was back to oh, and then it was whether or not they are, you know, hurting their own protesters.
And now it's back to nukes. So can you follow this? Like, what's the deal about? The deal, it could be about anything The United States decides it is in any given time. It's nonsensical.
Speaker 0: Or is this a countdown to a shooting war? That's the other question. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins us now to analyze this latest buildup, this latest bluster. Scott, welcome back to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I was gonna divert for a moment and do that whole, that that whole Rumble Wallet thing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. As someone who was debanked I know I couldn't help it. I'm reading that. I'm like, oh, shit. Scott Scott was just debanked, like, two weeks ago.
They just shut his bank account down. Like, unbelievable. So, yeah, our our hearts go out to you on that. Sorry. Sorry to hear that.
But this is indicative, of course, of, like, you have control and they don't like what you're saying. So they go after people that they don't like what you're saying. And what you you've been saying about Iran is probably rubbing people the wrong way. So what do you make of this latest taunt by president Trump just a short time ago?
Speaker 1: Well, lady, the thing about Trump is that, we know that twice before he's backed down when it comes to decisive engagement with Iran. You know, when the global hawk was shot down, he was all in favor of, you know, bombing Iranian air defense sites, and he was warned by smarter people in the national security system that if he started a conflict with Iran, it wasn't gonna go the way he thought it would, that, The United States would be embarrassed, humiliated, and would take months, if not years, to build up the military force to prevail. And so Trump backed off claiming that he was sparing Iranian lives because he's such a great humanitarian. The most recent time is what just happened a few weeks ago with, you know, where where Trump basically said that they were gonna bomb Iran in support of the protesters, and then he pulled back. My first take on that is that somebody smarter than Trump again whispered in his ear and warned him of the consequences.
We know that Israel and Saudi Arabia allegedly made phone calls, saying to stop the bombing. But the more I reflect on it, the more I take a look at what's happening right now, I think that that was all part of the plan that what we're seeing right now play out is part of a campaign strategy that, you know, unfolded when, United States and others doctored the Iranian currency leading to an economic crisis that in turn led to demonstrations in the streets that were hijacked by Mossad and CIA controlled, violent, agitators who instigated, you know, massive acts of violence that triggered Iranian security response. I believe now that that was called shaking the tree, an old CIA tactic that I'm familiar with where you you, set up a whole monitoring system and then you go in and you you jingle and see what happens. And I think The United States and the Israelis were able to determine specifically, you know, what assets responded to what crisis, where they're located, who controls them, you know, things of that nature. And this has populated the target deck that, we're going to use.
Israel has made it clear that the next strike against Iran has to be the last strike against Iran. Israel said that, you know, they're ready to absorb 700 ballistic missiles coming out of Iran so long as Iran the the theocracy is removed from power. So I think this this attack, if it goes forward, will be an all out, full spectrum assault on Iran that involves not just air strikes that are seeking to suppress Iran's security mechanisms, But I think you're gonna see cyber attacks. You know, we we know that the, you know, National Security Agency and, the the Cyber Command have been, you know, implanting, viruses throughout the Iranian infrastructure, both in terms of industry, but also just day to day life, how to turn on and off the lights, traffic lights, things of that nature. I think you're gonna see the shutting down of Iran in order to create chaos, to create, you know, absolute dysfunction, suppress the security system, and then have the paramilitary organizations that did not participate in the last go around, the Mujahideen al Tulk, you know, the monarchists, the, Beluch liberation, people of Oz, the Arabs, the Kurds, the Azeris, all of these, groups that the CIA and Mossad have been funny over the years.
I think they're gonna make a bum rush on, the major cities, including Tehran. And I think they're gonna seek to remove the Iranian government from power. It has to be done quick. Israel's, you know, can't absorb missile attacks forever, But, you know, that's the plan. I don't think it'll succeed.
I think it'll fail. I think Iran will shut down the Strait Of Hormuz, shut down oil production, kill a lot of Americans, destroy Israel. And hopefully somebody very smart is whispering this reality in Trump's ear up to including the fact that we could lose an aircraft carrier if we're not careful. So, this is this isn't the Hootie that we're playing with. This is Iran Iran recognizing that that, a, they're not gonna make a deal because you can't make a deal.
You know, Karen Knissel, she's a former Austrian foreign minister who currently is in Saint Petersburg, head of the Gorky Center. You know, she bristles when she hears the term deal, especially comes out of Donald Trump's mouth. She says the term deal is the it's the language of gangsters, of thugs, of criminals, of the mafia. Iran doesn't wanna deal with a gangster, thug, criminal of the mafia. They don't want a deal.
Iran wants a treaty, a binding treaty, a binding agreement. They learned the last time they made a deal with an American president, that deal can be broken by another American president on a whim, and that was the joint comprehensive plan of action. Iran's not gonna make a deal with Donald Trump. It could sign a treaty with the world, but, that's not going to back down under the threats right now. So this if this happens, this will be an existential fight, that will bring about devastation for all parties involved.
And just so all the Americans watch this, I mean, it means the end of the dollar, the end of your economy, the end of the standard of living that you're currently enjoying. You're going to see an economic collapse in The United States that'll make the great depression pale in comparison. We can't handle what's about to come. So call your representatives, have them call generals, and have them whisper in Trump's ear and say, don't do this.
Speaker 2: Right. And so I wanna ask you two things. First, can you assess the government narrative that this is preemptive, that Iran is going to strike first, even though they have repeatedly said they will not, even though they never have, even though nothing has been proven that they are antagonistic and they continue to show up for talks. So let's break down that narrative. And then I'd like you to respond to this.
Here's Marco Rubio just a few minutes ago, acknowledging that, yes, this would cost American lives. And how does he make this calculation that it's worth it based on this threat assessment watch?
Speaker 3: On the issue of our presence in the region, here's the baseline I wanna set for everybody. The baseline is this. We have 30 to 40,000 American troops stationed across eight or nine facilities in that region. All are within the reach. Theoretically, not theoretically, in reality, all are within the reach of an array of thousands of Iranian one way, one way UAVs and Iranian short term ballistic missiles.
So short short range of ballistic missiles that threaten our troop presence. We have to have enough force and power in the region just on a baseline to defend against that possibility. That at some point, as a result of something, the Iranian regime decides to strike at our troop presence in the region. The president always reserves the preemptive defensive option. In essence, if we have indications that in fact they're going to attack our troops in the region to defend our personnel in the region.
We also have security agreements, the Defense of Israel Plan and others, that require us to have a force posture in the region to defend against that.
Speaker 2: Okay. So that's the dangers. And we're saying, yeah, we're we're willing to provoke. We've got people in harm's way.
Speaker 0: We need enough missiles to just make sure that they don't all get killed.
Speaker 1: Well, again, just to remind Marco Rubio has never served in the United States military and has no clue what it means to serve in the United States military and has no clue what it means to, serve in harm's way. I have, others have, and, he hasn't. So I'm dismissive of him. I I would also remind Marco Rubio that, you know, we, as a member of the United Nations, you know, the congress has yet to revoke that. We we we haven't withdrawn from the charter.
And so we are held to account legally, for these actions. Now it's never bothered us in the past. We've invaded and occupied Iraq, and we've launched other strikes. But it it's curious that he starts to articulate the language of international law speaking of preemption, Because we know that under article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which calls for legitimate self defense, that nations can invoke preemptive self defense. That is a doctrine, you know, founded under constitutional law and international law.
The Carolina Fair, is an American, British case that, you know, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on, and it, influences international law to this day. But to use the preemptive excuse, there has to be an imminent threat, and and imminent threat is very specifically defined as it's it's happening now. You don't have time to go to the security council, get the security council to vote, etcetera. That simply isn't the case. He can't articulate, genuine imminence.
Second of all, we know that Vladimir Putin has brokered an agreement between Israel and Iran that says neither will attack the other first. So the concept of preemption is absurd. It's been it's been mooted by actual diplomacy. So this is simply Marco Rubio seeking to manufacture manufacture a case. I wish there were more people in the United States Congress would ask questions since he brought up preemption to ask questions about the nature of the imminent threat.
Now Rubio would talk about intelligence. And if I were the senator that I would just simply say, then we're going into immediate closed session, and you're gonna do it right now right now because we're talking about war. And guess what, Marco? You don't get to declare war. The president doesn't get to declare war.
Congress gets to declare war. And so before you talk about articulating the case to go to war where Americans are gonna die, I mean, that's straight up Americans are gonna die. You need to you'd be very specific about the imminent threat coming out of Iran and what would trigger a preemptive strike. And you better damn well come to congress before we do it. We're gonna start to impeach people.
And we need congress to get enraged because we are talking about an existential threat to the health the health of the American nation.
Speaker 0: No one perhaps knows more about, you know, going through this inspection process and knowing what a nation is capable of than you and warning people. I mean, if if we had only heeded your warnings in congress about what Saddam Hussein didn't have, millions of people might still be alive, but they had an agenda. So clearly, they have an agenda here. But I wanna ask you on this nuclear question specifically, what can intelligence like, kind of intelligence do we have in The United States with our buddies in Mossad? What can we actually know versus assume in Iran?
Meaning, what's the difference between a program you know, a nuclear weapons program
Speaker 2: Nuclear energy.
Speaker 0: Nuclear capability, and a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, when we I you know, when we had this conversation or similar conversations, in the lead up to the twelve day war, I made it clear that I felt that Iran was making a, an egregious mistake in, enriching uranium to 60%, that Iran had no legitimate reason to do so other than to position itself as a threshold nuclear, power. And you back that up with statements made by senior Iranian officials about, you know, that, you know, they could produce a nuclear weapon with a matter of weeks if the, supreme leader made the political decision to do so, you know, it becomes problematic. Now the I spoke with the Iranian president, and the foreign minister in September, addressed this very issue with them, and they reiterated forcefully that they had no intention. They don't want a nuclear bomb, etcetera. But 60% enriched uranium, you know, solves a lot of the, the physical processes, and it shortens the timeline and it it makes a more difficult intelligence, you know, problem to be to be resolved because to to solve this, you've gotta have very specific intelligence.
There's certain things dealing with infrastructure. You know, I don't know exactly how much was destroyed during the bombing. I'm guessing much of it was. The stuff that wasn't destroyed, I'm guessing it was been evacuated. I'm guessing we don't know exactly where this material has been evacuated, but there are certain signatures, that are related to reconstitution that we would know if they were reconstituting.
And my feeling is that Iran has been focused on reconstituting ballistic missile production capabilities as opposed to reconstituting a nuclear, you know, energy program at this point in time. It's no reason to rebuild that which could be readily destroyed. So they're in the process of preserving what they retained, and we don't know exactly how much that is. This is a long way of saying that I don't believe intelligence exists that, that that fingers Iran to having an active nuclear enrichment program. In fact, I think the intelligence demonstrates clearly that Iran doesn't have an active, uranium enrichment program because, Iran hasn't been able to reconstitute, what we knew to be the totality of their active enrichment program.
And there's no evidence of them, you know, reconstituting elsewhere. And and so I I I think the intelligence picture, although muddy, is clearer than one would believe. And I think it's clear that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program at this time. I don't believe they ever have been. A lot of people say that because of the attack in June, they have a justification to do so.
But even if they tried to make that political justification, I don't believe they have the physical capability, and there's no evidence that they've they've moved in that direction. What we have here is Donald Trump seeking to, you know, to compel Iran just to give up, to give up on its nuclear program. And Iran's just not going to do that. It's not because they seek to pursue a nuclear weapon. It's because they have made the nuclear enrichment program a symbol of their national pride.
It's a right that they have. They've sacrificed for over two and a half decades to, to preserve and and and move forward with this right. And they're just not going to be intimidated into backing down. They have linked this to the existential survival of their nation. And Donald Trump doesn't Trump is, you know, working on behalf of Israel.
We have to be honest. I mean, the man all but acknowledged that a $100,000,000 that Miriam Adelson gave him, you know, was Israeli money. And he built a cabinet, the the best cabinet that a $100,000,000 can can buy of nothing but Zionists who back Israel. Hell, we even, know, put people in like the former deputy director of the FBI, Dan Budden, who said his number one priority is the security of Israel. The deputy director of the FBI said his number one priority is the security of Israel.
Right. Now you know what I've been debanked because I call this nonsense out.
Speaker 2: Wanna ask Yes. So, in the recent military strategy document, it says that Israel is a model ally. Everybody else take note, this is exactly what we want from our trade and international partners, laughable because this is the model ally that continues to lead us into global wars. I wanna ask you though, because you said that the consequences of this could be utter devastation for this model ally. What does that mean?
Do you think Iran has like a tricks up its sleeve that we would not know? And you mentioned cyber war warfare, shutting down entire societies. That could very well happen in Israel. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: Look. We we know that when, Stuttgneft, the old the the virus originally was deployed against Iran, that there was a follow on virus. It had a different name, Zeus something. Mhmm. And the and the Iranians, found it and repurposed it and sent it back and shut down Aramco Just as a signal of we know what you're up to.
It was the same DNA as the virus we put in there. They made sure that we were able to reverse engineer and understand what had happened. Iran has some extremely capable, cyber tools as well, and, they will deploy those. But this will be the physical destruction of Israel. I think we need to remind everybody in your audience that it was Benjamin Netanyahu who picked up the phone, called Donald Trump, and begged him to bring it into this conflict because the Iranians were starting to bring out the good stuff.
And and, again, this shows the restraint of Iran after a surprise attack that attempted to decapitate their leadership after suffering, you know, significant losses of the military. Iran still didn't go for the kill. Iran was looking for an off ramp to this fight. And, you know but in the end, they did deploy missiles, new missiles that were extraordinarily destructive and extraordinarily accurate, that nothing could shoot down. And Netanyahu finally woke up to the fact that it's over, that if this continues, his country will be destroyed.
So he begged Trump to intervene. Iran still has those missiles, and Israel still can't shoot down these missiles. And this is the reality. Israel says they can take 700. That's the message that was sent to Trump administration if this war goes forward.
We can absorb 700 missiles. Iran's gonna hit Israel with thousands. It will be the end of Israel as a modern viable nation state. It is a small country with limited infrastructure capabilities, and all of this infrastructure will be destroyed by Iran within three days of this fight starting. So, you know, again, this is where smart people have to whisper in Trump's ears, don't do this.
I mean, if Israel's our model ally, I just wanna remind people that, Jonathan Pollard spied on behalf of Israel. He worked for The United States, Navy. He stole the most sensitive secrets of America, secrets that impacted our national security, gave them to Israel at the direction of Israel, and then Israel, this model ally, gave them to the Soviet Union. And many of these secrets dealt with billion dollar programs that we were using to monitor, Soviet missile capabilities, strategic capabilities that dealt with nuclear war fighting, planning, etcetera. Jonathan Pollard, an American citizen working on behalf of the Israeli government, stole the most sensitive secrets, gave it to Israel for money, and then Israel sold it to the Israel's not an ally.
People need to understand that. Israel is not an ally. Israel uses The United States for Israel's purposes, but we're not an ally. Benjamin Netanyahu mocks about how he buys US congress, how he owns The United States. Israel's been spying on us when I was back in the intelligence business.
You know, we still had a system that had been totally bought out by Israel. And, you know, we had Arabists in the state department. We had people who cared about America and the Pentagon, and they viewed Israel as the number one threat. Israel is the largest practitioner of espionage on American soil, not China, not Russia, not Iran. Israel is the largest practitioner of espionage targeting The United States Of America operating on American soil.
And they're our model ally.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, that's what a battered wife would say. My husband's amazing. Right? So this this tracks this model ally bit.
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 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.
+1 806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to 20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase.
Speaker 2: I'd like to move on to Cuba, talking about Cuba because this is what president Trump said on Tuesday, kind of joking. They're gonna fall soon. It it looks a little bit diabolical. Watch.
Speaker 4: Well, we're gonna see what happens with Cuba. Don't know. Anybody interested in Cuba in this room? Not too many people. Is not a Cuba room, but that's alright.
There are plenty of them around, especially in Miami. And Cuba will be, failing pretty soon.
Speaker 1: Is there
Speaker 2: a line?
Speaker 4: Cuba is really a nation that's very close to failing.
Speaker 0: You're talking about
Speaker 4: the You know, they got their money from Venezuela. They got the oil from Venezuela. They're not getting that anymore.
Speaker 0: You were talking about the polls earlier. Clearly, you're
Speaker 2: Okay. What is this about? Well, obviously, Cuba is under long standing trade embargoes, which means they have to do workarounds to get oil. Historically, Cuba has got their oil from Venezuela and Mexico. Now we cut them off from Venezuela.
Now we told Mexico, you cut them off too because we want to inflict maximum suffering on their people to erect a regime change. Now Mexico said, we're not gonna do that. We do what we want. But they did that. Here's proof of that.
China has condemned this action saying that this is depriving the people of Cuba their rights to subsist and develop. Why would China care? Well, because China and Cuba are trading partners, and The US sees that as broader regional contest between Washington and Beijing. So could that be the real reason that we want to harm Cuba? And I wanna show you this, Scott, as well.
The new Trump corollary to the Monroe doctor doctrine basically says, in this hemisphere, we do whatever the f we want, and they use the word prerogative. If we think someone's getting popular here, someone's exerting influence, we do what we want according to our prerogatives. So can you translate why we wanna torture Cuba? Why why are we doing this? What is in our interest?
Speaker 1: Well, there's a couple things, but I think we need to just get down to brass tacks. Marco Rubio. Since Marco Rubio became a senator, he has been singularly focused on on, you know, Cuba. His, you know, father came from Cuba or father grandfather came from Cuba, a Batista man. And Rubio has you know, he's from that Cuban American community that, you know, basically the only thing that gives him relevance is their insistence on, you know, anti communist policies, and they leverage that into, you know, significant political power.
He's now, you know, the the the secretary of state, but more importantly, he's the national security adviser. He's dual hatted. That means it doesn't just, you know, make and implement foreign policy. He's now responsible for coordinating foreign policy with covert policy, the CIA's activities, etcetera. But Marco Rubio is the man who gave us Venezuela, and he's the man who's focused on Cuba.
He's the man who's focused on, you know, having American domination of the, of the entire South American, continent, all of Latin America. And and this is why, we're we're singling Cuba out. Yes. We have the Trump corollary. Yes.
We have the national security strategy. But the the reality is we're talking about, you know, this is Marco Rubio's pet project. This is his pathway to the presidency. This is how he sees he's going to claim the White House in 2028. This is Marco Rubio's private war.
Cuba poses no threat to The United States whatsoever. And the fact that Cuba trades with China and Russia and Venezuela is primarily driven by the fact that Cuba doesn't trade United States, but that's not a decision Cuba makes. That's a decision United States makes because of its sanctions. You know, can we can we collapse the Cuban economy? You know, we've been trying for, for decades.
Does Donald Trump have a plan that's going to work? You know, we shall see. But, yeah, I I just think the Cuba's gonna be a tougher nut than Donald Trump thinks it is. This is a man who continually goes for the for the quick kill, the cheap kill, but he's not willing to, to have a knockdown drag out fight.
Speaker 2: So if this were an SAT question, we could frame it like this. Hillary Clinton is to Libya what Marco Rubio is to Cuba. Right? So both launching wars and utter destruction on the civilian population for their own political gain.
Speaker 1: Correct. Except I just don't think we're gonna succeed in Cuba. I think Cuba has far more resilience, than than Libya did.
Speaker 2: Yes. What we just ran here was the protest today against foreign intervention. This is what you're seeing. I apologize. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: No. No. I look. I I just you know, I've never been to Cuba. I can't claim to be, you know, an expert on Cuba, but I've just studied history.
And I know that from the Bay Of Pigs until today, we've been trying to get rid of, the Cuban government, and we haven't succeeded. So I don't know if Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have the magic, the magic solution. They they talk as if they do, but I just wanna point out that even after we got rid of Maduro, we don't control Venezuela. No. And and that point should be made.
Venezuela is not under our control. You know, they we can sanction Venezuela. We can blockade Venezuela. But, as things stand, you know, the Venezuelan government's still the Venezuelan government. It has been unless the CIA has executed covert contracts with everybody, and they're secretly doing the bidding, which is always a possibility.
You know, we haven't, you know, finalized the Venezuela situation, and I I think it's a little premature to assume American victory over Cuba.
Speaker 0: The CIA, this has been like the crown jewel. They've been hoping for this for decades in Cuba. They failed at every turn from exploding cigars to God knows what else that they've been involved with. I mean, there's, like, museums dedicated to their failures in Cuba. How active do you think the intelligence community is in Cuba, in the way it has been so active inside of Venezuela for the last few decades?
Speaker 1: I think it's extraordinarily active, but I also think that the the points of leverage or the points of access in Cuba are, not as, extensive as they were in Venezuela. Venezuela has, of course, you know, the oil business that produces oligarchs who are politically and economically influential. And The United States has been owning these people for for decades and, you know, we, they never really lost their their place or position in Venezuela. So we were able to exploit that, exploit the elites. You know, Cuba is, you know, communist country.
And I don't while I do believe that we have penetrated Cuba, I mean, the CIA is hard at work doing their job. I believe that the the Cuban government is largely insulated from the kind of, you know, penetration that took place in, in Venezuela. And I I just think it's gonna be a a much more difficult target than Donald Trump and Marco Rubio are trying to sell to the American people.
Speaker 0: Scott Ritter, hey. With thirty seconds left, I mean, just on the Iran question real quick to wrap it. Do you think that an attack is imminent?
Speaker 2: What odds are?
Speaker 1: No. No. And the reason why I say no is we're gonna get our asses kicked, and it's obvious we're gonna get our asses kicked. And I'm I'm just convinced that somebody's gonna bring this up to Trump and say, if you attack Iran, you will lose the midterms, and you will spend the second half of your, administration being impeached. And you may actually get convicted and you will go to jail.
Don't do this.
Speaker 2: Yikes. There's
Speaker 0: a That's personal Scott's way of being half glass full. Yes. Yes. And I'm I've Alright. I hope you're right.
Speaker 2: Hope you're Get out of here, you optimist. You?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Scott, thank you so much as always. Great analysis and insight. No one I'd rather talk to on this. Thanks, Scott.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
📺 CNN says the CIA is about to establish a “foothold” in Venezuela. About 40 years late to the story. Former CIA officer @Kevin_Shipp joins us to explain what’s really going on. https://t.co/an1jwkivUm
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on claims that the CIA has long been involved in Venezuela, has enabled drug trafficking, and now seeks a visible foothold in the country to counter Russia and China. Speaker 0 argues CNN’s report that the CIA will establish a foothold in Venezuela is emblematic of a duplicative pattern: the CIA has supposedly enabled the drug trade for decades, so the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA is involved. They cite Kevin Shipp, a CIA whistleblower, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstruct Venezuela’s intelligence service to penetrate the government. The general cited is General Ramon Gulen, described as running narcotics and creating and running the Cartel of the Sun. The Cartel is portrayed as a pretext used by the Trump administration to stage attacks and operate around Congress, with the CIA behind past secret dealings tied to it.
Speaker 0 then references a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reported on by mainstream media that allegedly showed the CIA collaborating with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The discussion moves to John Kerry, who led the Contra Cocaine Investigation in the mid-1980s, seeking to determine US government involvement in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted, stonewalled the Senate, and monitored the probe. The HITS report (the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS) is described as concluding in the late 1990s that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when operationally useful, to keep the contra war alive and to maintain US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords. It also states the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drugs entering the United States. The Iran-Contra connection is summarized as arms to Iran generating cash to fund the Contras, with the same network tied to cocaine trafficking, implying a single pipeline of influence and criminal activity.
The speakers discuss media coverage and relationships with locals in Venezuela, questioning the claimed “relationship-building” as a cover for coercive activities, given sanctions that harm locals. They criticize the notion that the CIA is simply building positive ties, suggesting instead a pattern of disruption and control.
The dialogue then shifts to geopolitics: Venezuela reportedly traded oil with BRICS outside the petrodollar since at least 2017, which is framed as undermining US global oil hegemony. A recent move to settle oil transactions in yuan is mentioned, with a snide remark that the CIA’s presence in Venezuela aims to prevent any free-trade diversification away from the petrodollar. The claim is made that the CIA’s objective is to prevent alternative global trade arrangements and maintain US influence by blocking competition from Russia, China, and BRICS members.
Speaker 3 adds that the CIA’s actions align with a long-standing pattern of intervention, suggesting that the agency’s open, unapologetic approach reflects a broader strategy of tension, where a third of the population would support such actions, a third would oppose, and a third remain indifferent. They reference Operation Mockingbird and the presence of CIA-linked figures in media, including Mike Pompeo as a Fox News contributor, arguing that mainstream outlets act as channels for the deep state’s messaging, with information often flowing from the CIA to outlets like the New York Times.
In sum, the discussion argues that US intervention in Venezuela is less about drugs or democracy and more about strategic counteraction to Russian, Chinese, and BRICS influence, with a long history of CIA involvement in drug trafficking and media manipulation. The speakers invite audience reactions on these points.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, CNN reports today that the CIA is going to create a foothold in Venezuela. Here's their reporting. They're about forty years late on this story, but okay. Way to catch up.
Good job. Now here is why this is crazy. The CIA, I'm going to prove to you, has been enabling the drug trade in Venezuela for decades. So you can't say that the attack on Venezuela was about drugs when your own CIA enabled that drug trade. And then when you finally have influence in that country, you send in more CIA.
That's crazy. Recently, whistleblower CIA whistleblower, Kevin Shipp told us that the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the creation of the Cartel of the Suns, but we can rewind even further than that. Listen to what he said.
Speaker 1: CIA has been involved in Venezuela going all the way back to the cartel called the Cartel of the Sun, which is run by a general who was a proxy of the CIA, who had gone in there and helped reconstitute his entire intelligence service with the goal of penetrating the entire Venezuelan government. And it turns out that the General Ramon Gulen was his name, was running narcotics the entire time, and was the creator and the runner of the cartel of the sun. Now, cartel of the sun is what the Trump administration is using as a pretext to go in and stage attacks first on these boats, and then actually in Venezuela itself. And of course, with its long history of doing this, the CIA was behind the Secret Service and the general in creating the drug trade, and some of the secret dealings back then, and the eventual creation of the cartel of the sun, And the Trump administration is using the cartel the sun as a pretext because that way he can go around Congress.
Speaker 0: Okay. There was proof of this way before when the mainstream media seemed interested in not promoting the US government narrative. Here's a sixty minutes piece from the nineteen nineties. I can't show it to you because sixty minutes always copyright strikes us. But they reported at the time that the CIA had collaborated with the Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into The United States.
On our population, we can rewind the clock even further. Do you recognize this guy? This is John Kerry, former presidential candidate in 1988. Now in the mid eighties, he actually led a high profile series of congressional hearings called the Contra Cocaine Investigation. He was specifically looking for how was the US government complicit in the contra drug trade.
The Reagan administration resisted the investigation. And in fact, they even stonewalled the senate. They attempted to discredit witnesses, and they assigned the CIA to monitor the probe rather than cooperate with it. Now ten years later, Kerry was vindicated by what's called the HITS report. That's this, if you wanna seek it out yourself.
This was the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS, and in the it came out in the late nineties. It concluded that while the CIA as an institution did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when it judged them operationally important in order to keep the contra war against Nicaragua alive and maintained US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting these drug lords for its own purposes. They also concluded that the CIA hid this from congress, including in these probes, and this is how much this is how we got so much drugs inside our own country. We knew it. Our CIA was allowing it and cooperating with it.
Now recall that the Iran in Iran Contra comes from The US secretly selling weapons to Iran illegally and then funneling those profits to fund the Contras, the same network that was tied to cocaine trafficking. So it was just one pipeline. It was arms to Iran, cash to the Contras, cocaine flooding our own borders with the CIA as the pimp in the whole thing. It's funny then that c CNN wouldn't know that and would hilariously publish this headline that they're establishing a foothold. They're just getting there.
They're new here. Now here's this line that really made me laugh laugh that the CIA I know it's hard to see on your screen, the next one, is there to relationship build with the locals. Oh, okay. The same locals that the US government allowed to suffer under sanctions. Yes.
Thank you for laughing at that.
Speaker 2: Well, and also, I you mean the thousands of people in the streets that are still protesting and actually want Maduro back in their country?
Speaker 0: No. Not those people. Oh, those people.
Speaker 2: Yeah. They're just canoodling What
Speaker 3: about what about the the people that are just kinda quietly disappeared by the CIA? Are they or is that building a relationship? Is that what kind of relationship is that? Because if I if I formed relationships like that, if that was my dating strategy, I should and would be in prison for the rest of my life.
Speaker 0: You don't kidnap your dates.
Speaker 2: It's you're not like Dexter. No.
Speaker 3: I do not. Oh. No. Not at
Speaker 0: all.
Speaker 2: Put a bag over their head.
Speaker 0: Right. What about the ones now. The locals that were terrorized by the drug lords that we enabled? Do we wanna do you think they want a good relationship with the CIA?
Speaker 2: They love the CIA down there. Right. They really, really love the CIA.
Speaker 0: You know that toxins and microplastics are everywhere. Scientists estimate that we now consume a credit card's worth of plastic every week through our food, water, even the air we breathe. Pillowcases even have plastic. They've been found in human babies, human fetuses. No one is safe from exposure.
And so there is a way to help make sure that your body is fighting against it. Even if you think, no, I don't eat, you know, plastic food or plastic packaged food, you're still being exposed. You really can't opt out. So that's why you should make sure that your gut can help you fight back with kimchi. And in fact, kimchi one by Brightcore Nutrition is packed with over 900 probiotic strains unique to kimchi and proven to break down BPA, helping you detox from the inside out.
It doesn't just support digestion. It helps protect your cells, your brain, and your hormones and your future. Your body was never designed to handle plastics, but your gut was designed to protect you from plastics and other toxins as well. You just have to give it the right tools. So right now, you can get 25% off with our code redacted at the link below.
You might see it on your screen, or I'll read it to you. It's my brightcore.com/redacted, or you can call them at (888) 404-6312. Again, it's Kim Chi One from Brightcur because health starts in the gut. Use the code redacted. Get 25% off plus free shipping.
So the real question is, what is the CIA really gonna be doing with this new foothold in Venezuela now that their presence is no longer a secret? This gives us a clue from the CNN report. It says they're gonna make sure that Russia and China have no influence. So, basically, it's not really about drugs. It's not about democracy.
It's just about can I use the word c o c k blocking? You know what I mean? That's what it is. It's Sure. Yeah.
That's what they're basically c blocking Russia and China. They just, like, can't have it, which tells us definitively that the capture of Maduro was never about drugs because we were complicit in the drugs. Incidentally, it was because Venezuela had been trading oil with BRICS nations outside of the petrodollar since at least 2017. This hurt the sham hegemony that The US has on the global oil trade through the sham that is the petrodollar. So few years ago, Venezuela starts trading outside the petrodollar.
We invade their country, and all of a sudden, look at this headline from just a few weeks ago, they love the petrodollar. The petrodollar is the answer to all their problems. It's great.
Speaker 2: Of course. That's amazing because three weeks ago, you were settling oil transactions in the yuan Yeah. With China.
Speaker 0: So it's amazing, you guys. Amazing how it why the CIA is there to make sure no one gets any crazy ideas about free trade with other nations, because we don't play fair. That's how we do. So let us know what you think
Speaker 3: about I think it was yesterday.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Go ahead. No. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Oh, I was gonna say, Elliot, I I think I said yesterday that, like, the thing that's so frustrating and just kind of almost amusing in a dark way is that this is what the CIA has always been doing. Like you just said, we've always been there. But but now they're just like, you know what, we don't need to hide it anymore. Yes, that is what we're doing. We're gonna go in here, we're gonna assassinate some people.
This is what we do. And we're we're proud of it now.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Deeply proud of it. You know, we're just it's all out there in the open. Yeah. They used to operate in the shadows.
I mean, look at operation mockingbird, right, inside of the inside of the news organizations, sneaking inside and infiltrating CBS News, right, becoming a part of CBS News, and no one knew about Yeah. We didn't know about it really till the nineteen nineties when we, you know, when we learned about operation mockingbird. Now it's just all out there in the open. Now they're openly on the payroll. I mean, hell, Mike Pompeo is like a Fox News contributor.
Former head of the CIA is now a Fox News contributor, so they don't even have to hide it anymore. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's wild. So let me know what you think of that history lesson. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: And and I think I think it it has a lot to do with it. Like, like, you know, like the strategy of tension being so successful, that now they know they I think they can get away with it, because where before the population as a whole would be up in arms to find out that they're besmirching the reputation of The United States. But now that they know that, like, one third of the population would would gladly kill the other third of the population while the other third watched, like now that they know that's the case, they don't have to worry about us anymore. Strategy of tension has worked.
Speaker 2: But who's gonna
Speaker 0: stop them? Exactly.
Speaker 3: Exactly. Because because they have they have a third of the population that agrees with them, the third of the population that would oppose them and a third of the population that are just too indifferent to give a shit.
Speaker 2: But this is a nation war has worked.
Speaker 0: Right. And then think about welfare of the people of Venezuela who may very well be well served trading their own oil outside of the petrodollar. They don't get that. They you're not gonna have that. We're gonna make sure that you don't have that.
So it's not good for either side, but no one's gonna stop them.
Speaker 2: Anthony Starboy says JFK was killed by the CIA. Yes. And the mafia. The CIA uses the mafia. That's their great partnership in all of this, of course.
And someone else just said, every network go blue forever says all the major networks have a Pentagon reporter. Hello. That's Mockingbird Media right there. It's so obvious. Yes.
When you're embedded inside the Pentagon. Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. They're independent. The reason they get in there, like the Jennifer Griffins of the world and these people is because they are they are basically shills for the deep state. They you know, if they want information leaked to them, the Kenderlinians of the world from NBC News, all of these shills, That's exactly how it flows.
That's exactly where the the information flows. Again, like earlier today when we reported on that New York Times piece, we were talking about Iran. Oh, how did how did the New York Times get information that Trump had a classified briefing from in his intelligence community about Iran. Yeah. Right?
Where did this information come from? It came right from the CIA, right to the New York Times. That's how it works.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
🤐 Crazy revelations about October 7th! Was it a false flag to steal land and resources in Gaza? Major admissions exposed! Why is the media silent? #Gaza #FalseFlag https://t.co/hDPEdEUFt2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that October 7 was “the ultimate false flag designed for two purposes, to ethnically cleanse and destroy all Palestinians,” followed by a plan “to rebuild Gaza in order to make billions of dollars off of beachfront property and trillions of dollars off of all of the natural gas resources that sit off the coast.” They claim this has “been the plan all along” and assert it was “planned before October 7.” Speaker 0 urges viewers to “Watch Jared Kushner's face when Steve Witkoff admits this on sixty minutes that this was all a plan and it predated October 7.” They say, “Watch,” and continue, “There are plans already,” and repeat “We have plans already. We have a master plan already.” They allege, “Jared's been pushing this and we're working together,” and state, “I love Jared's face. Just admitted. You just kinda let the cat out of the bag that we've been working on this for two years before October 7. We needed October 7, of course, to carry this out. It's a great false flag for us to be able to put my master plan in place.” They add, “And you can't make this up. We're all right. The whole world is a stage at this point.” They claim, “Kushner was like, damn you, you just you just admitted it.”
Speaker 0 then shifts to other reporting: “More on that part of the story in a minute. But first, three more journalists killed by Israel last night.” They state the world is notably silent, noting that among the three journalists killed by Israel was “a CBS freelance reporter.” They claim this is significant because it involves “CBS News that is now run by Israel first and wild Zionist, Bari Weiss.” They allege, “But if you go to CBS's news website that she runs, she's in charge of CBS News.” They claim there is “zero mention of it” on CBS News’s site, while noting “plenty of stories about, oh, the house voting this, Trump's, you know, whatever, the body of a swimmer found somewhere, and you can order a new indoor pizza oven if you want.” They conclude, “No mention of one of their own journalists being targeted and killed by Israel, of course.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: October 7 was, of course, the ultimate false flag designed for two purposes, to ethnically cleanse and destroy all Palestinians. And then after that was accomplished, the plan was, of course, to rebuild Gaza in order to make billions of dollars off of beachfront property and trillions of dollars off of all of the natural gas resources that sit off the coast. This has been the plan all along. Remember, this was planned before October 7. Watch Jared Kushner's face when Steve Witkoff admits this on sixty minutes that this was all a plan and it predated October 7.
Watch.
Speaker 1: We're working with a group of people who have been working on master plans for the last two years.
Speaker 0: So there are plans already.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We have plans already. We have a master plan already. And by the way, and Jared's been pushing this and we're working together.
Speaker 0: I love Jared's face. Just admitted. You just kinda let the cat out of the bag that we've been working on this for two years before October 7. We needed October 7, of course, to carry this out. It's a great false flag for us to be able to put my master plan in place.
And you can't make this up. We're all right. The whole world is a stage at this point. Right? Kushner was like, damn you, you just you just admitted it.
More on that part of the story in a minute. But first, three more journalists killed by Israel last night. And the world is notably silent, of course. But this time it's a little different because among the three journalists killed by Israel was a CBS freelance reporter. Yes, the same CBS News that is now run by Israel first and wild Zionist, Bari Weiss.
But if you go to CBS's news website that she runs, she's in charge of CBS News. There is, you can look at it right now, and I did just a few minutes ago, zero mention of it. There's plenty of stories about, oh, the house voting this, Trump's, you know, whatever, the body of a swimmer found somewhere, and you can order a new indoor pizza oven if you want. No mention of one of their own journalists being targeted and killed by Israel, of course.