TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @TuckerCarlson
reSee.it AI Summary
I examine how the Iran war could unfold and its global consequences. I flag three major trends, explore whether Japan becomes nuclear-armed, and consider the future of South Korea, the energy crisis, the GCC–Iran dynamic, and the Greater Israel Project. I discuss how U.S. ground troops might change the war, offer reflections on Trump, and ask if the U.S. can curb Israel. I survey North America, Europe’s fate, public understanding, and the effort to destroy Western civilization.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Professor Jiang Xueqin on how this war is likely to go and what happens to the world. (0:00) How Will the Iran War Be Resolved? (7:33) The 3 Major Trends We Will See Due to This War (11:28) Will Japan Become a Nuclear-Armed Power? (16:06) The Future of South Korea (20:12) The Energy Crisis (25:23) The Future of the GCC and Iran (29:57) The Greater Israel Project (35:11) How US Ground Troops Will Change the War (36:46) Prof. Xueqin’s Advice to Donald Trump (38:49) Is It Possible for the US to Get Israel Under Control? (45:03) What Role Does Trump Play in All This? (48:21) The Future of North America (54:59) Are We Seeing the End of Europe? (1:00:58) How Many Americans Truly Understand What’s Happening in the World? (1:03:50) The Effort to Destroy Western Civilization
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Joe Kent on why we actually went to war with Iran. https://t.co/ghoSEW6fLy
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss how this war could end, covering why Israel makes the decisions, AI weapons and the bombing of Iran’s girls’ school, whether Israel would consult the US before launching a nuclear weapon, if more Americans will be killed, my advice to Trump on exiting, whether Israel would use nuclear weapons, the possibility of US ground troops, the looming risk of nuclear war, the US military’s views, and America’s future.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Col. Douglas Macgregor on how this war ends. (0:00) Monologue (18:21) Why Is Israel Making All the Decisions? (27:48) AI Weapons and the Bombing of Iran Girls' School (32:59) Would Israel Consult the US Before Launching a Nuclear Weapon? (41:23) Will More Americans Be Killed Because of Israel's War? (49:05) Macgregor’s Advice to Trump on How to Get Out (55:16) Will Israel Use Nuclear Weapons? (1:00:16) Will the US Commit Ground Troops? (1:03:32) The Looming Threat of Nuclear War (1:06:13) The US Military's Thoughts on the War (1:13:22) The Future of America
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
No two countries have the same priorities. That’s why it should be illegal to yoke our military to a foreign power in war. Bret Weinstein on how it happened. https://t.co/ACaJcFD0TZ
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
I rarely read the filth you publish, and have never responded to it, for the same reason I avoid pornography. It’s unhealthy and I don’t want to encourage it. But in this specific case I understand exactly what you’re doing and I’d like to stop it now. I have never said or suggested that “everyone needs to know where their local Chabad is,” or anything remotely like it. I didn’t attack or even criticize Chabad, an organization I’ve mentioned precisely once in my life. Last week I said I believed that IDF soldiers in Israel have received third temple patches for their uniforms from Chabad. I believe that’s true. Please let me know if I’m wrong, not that you care. The point of your post is to blame me preemptively for violent attacks on American Jews that you believe are coming. This is an absurd slander of course. I abhor violence against innocents, which is why I am disgusted by what Israel has done in Gaza and why I argued against the current war in Iran. As a Christian and an American I also vehemently oppose punishing anyone on the basis of bloodline. The concept of “Amalek” has no place in Western civilization and certainly not in my country. I am therefore strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, precisely as much as I am to the anti-Arab hate you promote or the anti-white bias embedded in the US government and our largest institutions. It’s all immoral and indefensible. I believe in the inherent rights of the individual because I believe in God. What you’re doing divides this country more than you likely understand. I hope you will stop.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
How does Israel treat Christians? We spoke to one whose family has lived there since Jesus. His story is shocking. https://t.co/e4U8Jn6v24
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore America’s uneasy relationship with Israel, touching on why we were interrogated there, Huckabee’s links to Pollard, extradition talk, Epstein files, whether Israel is the Bible’s Israel vs today’s secular state, Christian population trends, land rights, Gaza violence, Netanyahu, wars, and sensitive secrets.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
The Mike Huckabee interview, and the truth about America’s deeply unhealthy relationship with Israel. (0:00) Why We Were Interrogated in Israel (25:38) Why Did Huckabee Meet With American Traitor Jonathan Pollard? (34:26) Has Huckabee Advocated to Extradite Sex Offenders Who Flee From the US to Israel? (40:26) Why Are There Still Classified Epstein Files? (46:22) Is the Israel of the Bible the Current Secular Government of Israel? (1:12:53) Is Israel's Christian Population Declining? (1:14:48) Who Has a Right to the Land of Israel? (1:32:09) The Killing of Christians in Gaza (1:44:43) Benjamin Netanyahu's Calls for Genocide (1:49:31) Huckabee Accuses Tony Aguilar of Lying (1:55:08) Fighting Wars on Israel's Behalf (1:55:51) Why Are 9-11 Files Still Classified? (1:57:18) Netanyahu's Many Visits to the White House (1:58:18) The Nuclear Weapons That Israel Stole (1:59:01) Why Is the US Sending Israel So Much Money? (2:00:50) Is Huckabee Okay With Israel Providing Free Abortions? (2:09:33) How Many Americans Support War With Iran? (2:14:52) Was the War on Iraq Really About 9-11? (2:18:55) Israel's Sabotaging of US Negotiations With Iran (2:21:47) How Many Journalists Has Israel Killed in Gaza? (2:22:56) Is Huckabee Concerned About the Persecution of Christians?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
This is Israel’s last chance to blow up Iran with America’s military, so naturally the neocons have reached peak hysteria. Clayton Morris on what happens if they get their wish. https://t.co/bOtvzixvmv
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss why Zach Lahn is running for governor of Iowa and dive into topics like land prices, pesticides and Parkinson's, rising cancer rates, capitalism vs corporatism, the globalist agenda: own nothing and be happy, the AI takeover, what's truly important in life, whether Lahn has been attacked for his ideas, reforming the system, the America First movement, JFK's assassination, the immigration crisis, and why America needs to turn back to Christianity.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
One of the most impressive politicians of this era is running for governor in Iowa. His name is Zach Lahn. Watch this. (0:00) Why Lahn Is Running for Governor (14:58) Why Is Land So Expensive? (22:12) Is There a Connection Between Pesticides and Parkinson's? (37:35) Skyrocketing Cancer Rates (46:03) Capitalism vs. Corporatism (51:54) The Globalist Agenda: Own Nothing and Be Happy (57:17) The AI Takeover (1:05:50) What Is Really Important in Life? (1:09:29) Has Lahn Been Attacked for His Ideas? (1:14:21) Is It Possible to Reform the System? (1:16:44) The America First Movement (1:17:45) The Assassination of JFK (1:21:00) The Immigration Crisis (1:24:45) Why America Needs to Turn Back to Christianity
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss how programmable digital currency completes a global control grid and how biometrics, cash suppression, and CBDCs could enable new power. I weigh the central bank’s role in war, privatized prisons, and crises used to justify control. I touch Epstein, dual citizenship, and China, while considering potential stablecoin benefits. I aim to defeat evil, stay optimistic, and defend free speech online.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Programmable digital currency is the final piece of the global control grid that’s finally snapping into place. Catherine Austin Fitts on how to defeat it. (0:00) The Control Grid (7:28) How Biometrics Will Be Used to Control You (8:36) Why Banks Don't Want You to Use Cash (15:10) What Role Does the Central Bank Play in War? (21:06) Central Bank Digital Currency (32:51) The Evils of the Privatized Prison System (37:31) What Crisis Will Justify Digital Currency? (43:17) The Dark Origins of Israel and the Black Budget (50:56) Why Are They Trying to Destroy Thomas Massie? (54:12) How Dual Citizenship Fuels Secret Governance (56:31) The Epstein Network (59:14) Is China a Threat? (1:02:17) Are There Benefits to Stablecoin? (1:09:27) The Real Reason They Want to Control You (1:16:37) Should We Be Focused on Epstein or the Dow? (1:24:32) What Does America's Future Look Like? (1:25:54) Is the Universe Alive? (1:34:39) How Art Influences Culture (1:41:36) How to Defeat Evil (1:45:02) Will There Be an Attack on Free Speech Online? (1:50:10) Why Is Fitts So Optimistic?
reSee.it AI Summary
I recount my January 6th experience with federal authorities and invite you to imagine yourself in my place. I cover the day, the FBI raid on my home, my jail time and the alleged attempts on my life, the moment I encountered God, and how these events reshaped my life. I address corporate media narratives, explain why I’m running for Congress, who I’m up against, and how you can support me.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Listen to Texas congressional candidate Ryan Zink recount how he was treated by federal law enforcement, and imagine if that happened to you. It could. (0:00) Zink's January 6th Story (15:03) Did ANTIFA Play a Role on January 6th? (31:58) The FBI's Raid on Zink's House (39:45) Zink's Experience in Jail (49:43) How They Tried to Kill Zink in Jail (56:04) The Moment Zink Encountered God (1:00:39) The Impact This Had on Zink's Life (1:11:58) The Lies of Corporate Media (1:14:29) Why Zink Is Running for Congress (1:23:05) Who Is Zink Running Against? (1:32:19) Where Can People Support Zink?
reSee.it AI Summary
I look back at 90 and say the system is going away. I cover America’s potential bankruptcy, why gold reserves haven’t been audited, who the truth tellers in Washington are, whether foreign wars improved life for Americans, why America is getting poorer, why I was attacked for views on Israel, how many babies I’ve delivered, when I started buying gold, my advice to young people, and whether there’s hope for American liberty.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
“The good news is, the system is going away.” Ron Paul looks back at 90. (0:00) Monologue (23:59) Is America Going Bankrupt? (25:50) Why Haven't America's Gold Reserves Been Audited? (35:27) Who Are the Truth Tellers in Washington? (40:33) Have Any of These Foreign Wars Made Life Better for Americans? 43:49 Why Is America Getting Poorer? (47:13) Why Was Ron Paul Attacked for His Views on Israel? (57:03) How Many Babies Has Ron Paul Delivered? (58:31) When Did Ron Paul Start Buying Gold? (1:06:47) Ron Paul's Advice to Young People (1:14:17) Is There Hope for American Liberty?
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore how civilizations cycle, why democracies fracture into authoritarianism, the dollar and debt, why gold endures, what gold might cost, how America can head off crisis, the difference between wealth and money, whether democracy can survive, civil war concerns, who controls money, what a government-issued digital currency means, and practical steps to secure our future.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ray Dalio on how to prevent another American civil war. (0:00) The Cycle of Civilizations (07:15) How Democracies Break Down and Turn Authoritarian (18:10) The Dollar, Debt and the End of Monetary Trust (26:53) Why Gold Always Survives System Failure (38:15) What Will the Price of Gold Be In 5 Years? (40:34) How America Can Avoid Crisis Before It's Too Late (46:09) The Difference Between Wealth and Money (52:00) Can American Democracy Survive? (53:17) Should We Worry About Civil War? (55:26) Who Actually Controls the Money? (58:11) What Happens if the Government Issued Digital Currency? (1:00:48) Actions Everyone Should Take Right Now to Protect Their Future
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Thanks for this. I’d love to. We’ll reach out to your office today to set up an interview. Much appreciated.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain that Pizzagate is basically real, per Ian Carroll. I cover what Pizzagate is, the elites’ alleged ritual abuse, government cover-ups of Epstein, the essential questions we need answered, Epstein’s links to the financial crisis and global events, his money laundering, whether this corruption continues, where to find the Epstein documents and sources, and Epstein’s fixation on genetics.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
It looks like Pizzagate is basically real. Ian Carroll explains. (00:00) Monologue (12:01) What Is Pizzagate? (26:28) The Elites' Demonic Ritualistic Child Abuse (32:16) The Disgusting Governmental Cover-up of Epstein’s Atrocities (40:04) The Essential Questions We Need Answered (49:22) Epstein’s Involvement in the Global Financial Crisis and Global Events (53:54) Epstein’s Long History of Money Laundering (57:52) Will This Corruption Continue? (1:06:41) Where to Find the Epstein Documents and Ian Carroll’s Sources (1:10:27) Epstein’s Fixation on Genetics
reSee.it AI Summary
I present accounts of how Christians are treated across Israel, the Holy Land, Gaza, and Jordan. Topics include Israel’s treatment, Jewish extremism in Jerusalem, Jordan’s funding of Christian sites, a Christian hospital in Gaza bombed eight times, barriers to Holy Site visits, safety comparisons between Jordan and Israel, and prospects for Gaza and the region.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
How does the US-funded Israeli government treat Christians in the Holy Land? We asked some. Listen carefully to their accounts. This will shock you. (00:00) Monologue (05:28) How Are Christians Doing in the Holy Land? (16:57) Do Christians in the Holy Land Receive Support From Christians Around the World? (22:25) Jordan’s Muslim King Funds Christian Holy Sites as Huckabee Fails Jerusalem’s Christians (29:56) The Christian Hospital in Gaza That Was Bombed Eight Times by Israel (33:21) How Many People Have Been Killed in Gaza? (35:00) How Are Christians Treated in Israel? (41:38) How Much Has Jewish Extremism Increased in Jerusalem? (44:19) West Bank Reality and Christian Life in Jordan (51:54) How Are Christians Treated in Jordan? (1:01:56) How Has Jordan Remained Stable Despite Refugees and Energy Shortages? (1:08:28) Why Israel Makes It Difficult for Christians to Visit Holy Sites (1:15:07) Why Christians Are Safer in Jordan Than Israel (1:20:07) What’s Next for Gaza? (1:24:31) Where Is This All Going?
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m summarizing a Cenk Uygur discussion: he says most Americans want a sovereign country that cares about them, not a partisan issue. Topics include why he said yes to the conversation; Israel/Gaza genocide and media gaslighting; the Israeli lobby; Americans’ debt to Israel; dangers of identity politics; the US–Israel memorandum; whether politicians hurt us; the death of free speech; consequences of opposing Israel; Americans killed in Israel; Epstein, JFK, and 9/11 files; tribalism; the 2008 financial crisis; the Venezuela invasion; the IDF’s terrorism; and the cost of lying.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Most Americans just want to live in a sovereign country that cares about them. That’s not a partisan position. It’s a baseline demand. Cenk Uygur explains. (0:00) Why Cenk Said Yes to This Conversation (2:37) Israel, The Gaza Genocide and Media Gaslighting (16:18) The Israeli Lobby (28:01) Do Americans Owe Israel Money? (39:06) The Dangers of Identity Politics (52:51) The U.S- Israel Memorandum (59:51) Are Our Politicians Trying to Hurt Us? (1:09:07) The Death of Free Speech (1:16:17) The Consequences of Opposing Israel (1:19:51) The Americans Killed in Israel (1:22:40) The Epstein, JFK, and 9-11 Files (1:36:43) The Dangers of Tribalism (1:54:04) The 2008 Financial Crisis (1:56:31) The Venezuela Invasion (2:09:05) The IDF’s Terrorism (2:18:59) The Cost of Lying
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that leaders cling to the supernatural and push disbelief on us. I cover giants, pyramids, remote viewing, government coverups, ancient tech, floods, and Apollo myths, asking why the truth is suppressed and how the pyramids were built. I also mention funding spots: paid partnerships with Hallow, Black Rifle Coffee, and Cowboy Colostrum with codes.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
The people who run countries believe in the supernatural. It’s the main thing they believe in. Why do they try so hard to convince the rest of us it’s not real? AJ Gentile on giants, the pyramids and remote viewing. (00:00) Why Does the Science Community Refuse to Admit When They’re Wrong? (04:10) What Do We Know About the Pyramids and Giants? (11:29) Why Would the U.S. Government Suppress the Truth About Giants? (17:55) How Were the Pyramids Built? (24:33) Has the Egyptian Government Covered up Information About It’s Monuments? (28:27) Is There Physical Evidence of a Great Flood? (32:12) Ancient Civilizations and Their Advanced Technology (42:58) The Chambers Under the Great Pyramid of Giza and Ancient Egyptian Discoveries (51:46) The U.S. Government’s Knowledge and Use of Advanced Technology (1:04:45) What Is Remote Viewing? How Did the CIA Use It to Spy on the Soviets? (1:19:42) What Was Seen on the Apollo Mission and Did We Land on the Moon? (1:24:21) Does AJ Gentile Ever Feel Driven to Craziness By His Job?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Paid partnerships with: Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/Tucker Black Rifle Coffee: Promo code "Tucker" for 30% off at https://www.blackriflecoffee.com Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% off your entire order with code TUCKER at https://cowboycolostrum.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain chaos spreading through Minneapolis, break down what’s actually happening, discuss the militia’s takeover, a claimed mission to destroy Western civilization, and consider how Donald Trump could fix this.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Chaos spreads like cancer in Minneapolis. What happens next? (0:00) Monologue (1:04:50) What Is Actually Happening in Minneapolis? (1:11:50) The Militia Taking Over Minneapolis (1:17:51) The Mission to Destroy Western Civilization (1:29:22) How Can Donald Trump Fix This? https://t.co/kEz59zpzKy
reSee.it AI Summary
I outline why I started buying gold, argue inflation is misrepresented, reveal claims that the government rigs the economy, and say unemployment is higher than official rates. I cover the Big Beautiful Bill’s impact, the housing bubble, why college and healthcare are so expensive, compare crypto with gold, ponder Bitcoin as a global reserve, why corporate channels hate gold, and the alleged gold scam.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Gold has so dramatically outperformed the S&P this century that you’d think CNBC would be recommending it to investors. But they’re not. Peter Schiff explains why. (0:00) Why Schiff Decided to Start Buying Gold (10:45) You're Being Lied to About Inflation (23:39) How the Government Secretly Rigs the Economy (25:25) The Unemployment Rate Is Much Higher Than You Think (27:27) What Was the Result of the Big Beautiful Bill? (30:10) Is the Housing Bubble About to Pop? (36:20) The Real Reason College Got So Expensive (40:30) The Real Reason Healthcare Got So Expensive (43:50) Crypto vs. Gold (58:11) Will Bitcoin Be the New Global Reserve Currency? (1:02:11) Why Corporate Financial Channels Hate Gold (1:15:04) The Secret Gold Scam Stealing From Americans
reSee.it AI Summary
I follow Rubin’s journey, examining who facilitates mass immigration from Africa and the NGOs tied to the crisis. I view undercover footage of a UN representative speaking frankly, then watch Rubin and his brother being attacked by immigrants. The film cites a Europe-wide “gay immigrant operation” and asks whether the invasion is reversible, noting how this experience changes Rubin.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Europe is being invaded and destroyed by Africa, in a crime orchestrated by global leaders. A new TCN documentary shows how it’s happening. (0:00) The Beginning of Rubin's Journey (2:08) Who's Facilitating Mass Immigration from Africa? (3:44) The Role of NGOs in the Immigration Crisis (7:21) Rubin and His Brother Being Attacked by Immigrants (13:56) Undercover Footage of UN Representative Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud (19:51) Europe's Gay Immigrant Operation (26:03) Is the Invasion Reversible? (29:26) How Has This Experience Changed Rubin?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Armed enforcers of the Great Replacement swarm ICE officers in Minneapolis. A report from the scene. https://t.co/SPaOYSR7Rh
reSee.it AI Summary
I reveal the West isn’t tolerating mass migration—our governments are funding it. In Replacing Europe: Following the World’s Deadliest Migration Route, we hear migrants, locals, and officials who admit what the public isn’t told. Watch now on TuckerCarlson.com.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
The West isn’t just tolerating mass migration. Our governments are funding it. In our new documentary Replacing Europe: Following the World’s Deadliest Migration Route, our cameras uncover what no one wants you to see, speaking directly with migrants, locals, and officials who quietly admit what the public is never told. Watch it now only on http://TuckerCarlson.com.
Video Transcript AI Summary
You can feel these people here. They just came out of the dunes. We've got around a hundred of them, and now a boat's going to try to come around and pick them up.
In a single generation, Europe has changed forever, more than it has in the last two thousand years.
This is the result of decades of mass migration, and that migration has destroyed social unity. It's reshaped the cultures of Europe completely. It's transformed once beautiful cities into slums. In many cities, natives are now the minority. This was not an accident. It didn't happen organically. You're not imagining it.
Well, the police do that because they are working with the criminals. The world will smuggle people.
The governments of Western Europe and The United States and Canada, New Zealand, and Australia did this on purpose to their own people. They opened their border and they paid for the rest of the world, the third world, to move into their countries.
Whatever happens, happens, I suppose.
How exactly did they do that? Our cameras found out. We followed one of the deadliest trade routes on earth, from Africa to the Canary Islands to Spain, France ending in The UK.
This is what happens when you let a bunch of foreigners completely overtake your country.
Along the way, we uncovered the entire system of criminal networks, NGOs, and criminal governments coordinating together to destroy the West.
Every boat that arrives here, the mafia gets between 50 to €60,000. All played a role in this massive human trafficking scheme, moving people across borders to reshape the West. Europeans are being replaced racially, spiritually, culturally in their own homeland and so are we.
We inform them what to do and not to do. What what So they don't catch them there and then bring them back to space.
The only question is will Europe awaken before it has disappeared?
Do you think we could get killed? If not killed, at least you will get, like, beat up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You can feel these people here. They just came out of the dunes. We've gotta be around a 100 of them, and now a boat's gonna try to come around and pick them up.
Speaker 1: In a single generation, Europe has changed forever, more than it has in the last two thousand years.
Speaker 0: Woah. Easy. Easy. Easy. Woah.
Woah. Woah.
Speaker 1: This is the result of decades of mass migration, and that migration has destroyed social unity. It's reshaped the cultures of Europe completely. It's transformed once beautiful cities into slums. In many cities, natives are now the minority. This was not an accident.
It didn't happen organically. You're not imagining it.
Speaker 0: Well, the police do that because they are working with the criminals. The world will smuggle people.
Speaker 1: The governments of Western Europe and The United States and Canada, New Zealand, and Australia did this on purpose to their own people. They opened their border and they paid for the rest of the world, the third world, to move into their countries.
Speaker 0: Whatever happens, happens, I suppose.
Speaker 1: How exactly did they do that? Our cameras found out. We followed one of the deadliest trade routes on earth, from Africa to the Canary Islands to Spain, France ending in The UK.
Speaker 0: This is what happens when you let a bunch of foreigners completely overtake your country.
Speaker 1: Along the way, we uncovered the entire system of criminal networks, NGOs, and criminal governments coordinating together to destroy the West.
Speaker 0: Every boat that arrive here, the mafia gets between 50 to €60,000. All
Speaker 1: played a role in this massive human trafficking scheme, moving people across borders to reshape the West. Europeans are being replaced racially, spiritually, culturally in their own homeland and so are we.
Speaker 0: We inform them what to do and not to do. What what So they don't catch them there and then bring them back to space.
Speaker 1: The only question is will Europe awaken before it has disappeared?
Speaker 0: Do you think we could get killed? If not killed, at least you will get, like, beat up.
Speaker 1: Watch Replacing Europe only on tuckercarlson.com.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow for saying immigration was wrecking the country, and I conclude Brimelow was right. The chapters cover rethinking immigration, Buckley’s betrayal, Shapiro, Brimelow’s exit from National Review, Israel, demographic change, Letitia James, white populations worldwide, the Murdoch angle, a silencing lawsuit, Trump and the white working class, America’s future, DOJ, and Brimelow’s hopeful view.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right. Chapters: (0:00) It's Time to Rethink Immigration (4:11) How William Buckley Jr. Stabbed Brimelow in the Back (13:44) Why Did Ben Shapiro Attack Brimelow? (14:05) Why Brimelow Was Pushed Out of National Review (21:27) Is Israel an ethnostate? (27:23) The Effort to Make America Less White (31:31) Why Letitia James Is Trying to Destroy Brimelow (46:08) Why Is the White Population Around the World Being Eliminated? (48:52) Brimelow's Experience With the Murdoch Family (56:55) The Ridiculous Lawsuit to Silence Brimelow (1:02:56) How Was Trump Able to Win Over the White Working Class? (1:06:33) What Does America's Future Look Like? (1:11:10) Will the Department of Justice Help Brimelow? (1:14:07) Is Brimelow Hopeful for the Future?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Top Putin advisor warns that if the Ukraine war continues like this, Russia will nuke Germany and the UK. https://t.co/Tzuc6onsyK
reSee.it AI Summary
I cover James Fishback’s Florida governor bid, why he’s running, and how Florida’s economy is allegedly sabotaged. I examine Randy Fine and DeSantis’s anti-free speech laws, Florida’s Israel funding, Fine’s attempts to intimidate Fishback, questions about Byron Donalds, the right’s identity politics, Ben Shapiro’s views, Fishback’s responses, his shift on Israel, his election chances, and Lt. Gov. Jay Collins’ push to limit free speech.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
James Fishback is running for governor in Florida. Pretty soon, all winning Republican politicians will talk like this. (0:00) Why Is James Fishback Running for Florida Governor? (11:18) How Florida's Economy Is Being Sabotaged (15:13) Randy Fine and Ron DeSantis's Anti-Free Speech Laws (21:45) Why Does Florida Give So Much Money to Israel? (28:02) How Randy Fine Tried to Intimidate Fishback Into Not Running (33:43) Is Byron Donalds Bought and Paid For? (40:59) The Identity Politics Taking Over the Right (47:08) Why Does Ben Shapiro Have So Much Disdain for White, Christian Men? (50:19) Fishback Responds to the Attacks Against Him (1:00:07) Why Fishback Changed His Views on Israel (1:05:45) Can Fishback Actually Win? (1:09:40) Florida Lt. Gov. Jay Collins Wants to Limit Free Speech
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain that Eva Vlaardingerbroek was banned from the UK for criticizing the British prime minister. I argue free speech is vanishing in the UK and that your private messages aren’t private. I ask what you’re not allowed to say in Europe, who’s pushing the elimination of whites, and I examine CBDCs, potential revolutions across Europe, Europe’s drift from God, and whether Eva plans to stay in Europe.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
For the crime of criticizing the British prime minister, Eva Vlaardingerbroek has been banned from the UK. England is descending into darkness. Chapters: (0:00) Why Eva Was Banned From the UK (05:53) Free Speech No Longer Exists in the UK (10:08) Your Private Messages Are Not Private (12:31) What Are You Not Allowed to Say in Europe? (13:44) Who's Pushing the Elimination of Whites? (18:37) The Rise of CBDCs (20:42) Will We See Revolutions Across Europe? (24:27) Is Europe Turning Away From God? (27:20) Does Eva Plan to Stay in Europe?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Republican senator/presidential candidate working with the anti-white ADL to suppress speech. You can see why people begin to wonder about the system we currently have.
reSee.it AI Summary
I share Buckley Carlson’s on-camera debut and rise to internet stardom, his take on fighting tyranny, battles with school admins, and his love of dogs. I cover his childhood, the death of creativity, his stance on ALP, why dogs matter, a park-police encounter, and questions about America’s men, the CIA in daily life, demons among us, and Buckley’s sobriety. I close with flying a plane, politics’ decline, his work with Frank Luntz, WASP disdain, and sudden fame.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Twitter phenomenon @buckleycarlson makes his on-camera debut. (0:00) Buckley Carlson's Rise to Internet Stardom (9:39) The Number One Way to Fight Tyranny (10:56) Buckley's War With the School Administrators (20:10) Buckley's Love for Dogs (22:50) The Carlsons' Childhood (28:25) The Death of Creativity (30:55) Buckley's Love of ALP (44:27) Why Dogs Are So Important (52:39) Buckley's Hilarious Encounter With Park Police (1:02:21) What Happened to America's Men? (1:08:50) The CIA's Involvement in People's Everyday Lives (1:15:14) Are There Demons Among Us? (1:21:24) Why Buckley Quit Alcohol (1:28:37) Buckley Falling Asleep While Flying a Plane (1:32:44) The Decline in Quality of America's Politicians (1:37:23) Buckley's Career With Frank Luntz (1:57:22) The Disdain for WASPs (2:07:20) How Does Buckley Feel About Being Suddenly Thrust Into the Public Eye?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Megyn Kelly on Venezuela, Ben Shapiro’s Treachery, and Mark Levin’s Mental Illness https://t.co/hfNq5lYE2i
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss Maduro’s capture and whether it’s a US victory, what the next three years and the next regime change might look like, and which country could be next. I examine America’s institutionalized white hate, 2028 election questions, and why regime-changing Venezuela is pivotal. I delve into Charlie Kirk’s murder and its impact, demons, the spiritual battle, meaning of life, and how ayahuasca changed me.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Mike Cernovich on Maduro’s capture, Charlie Kirk’s murder and how everything is downstream from the spiritual war. (0:00) The Capture of Nicolas Maduro (11:15) Was This a Victory for the US? (25:50) What Do the Next 3 Years Look Like? (30:44) Which Country Will We Regime Change Next? (37:17) The Institutionalized White Hate in America (43:43) What Will the 2028 Election Look Like? (49:21) Why Regime-Changing Venezuela Is a Pivot Point in American History (52:57) How Charlie Kirk's Murder Changed American Politics (57:11) Who Killed Charlie Kirk? (1:02:35) Demons, the Divine, and the Spiritual Battle (1:07:14) What Is the Meaning of Life? (1:18:17) How to Know if Someone Is Animated by an Evil Spirit (1:21:35) How Ayahuasca Changed Cernovich's Life (1:45:22) Should We Be Worried About Demon Possession? (1:47:15) Death and the Final Judgement (1:56:22) Scott Adams (2:01:27) Spiritual Confusion (2:08:06) The Real Reason Demons Want to Harm Humans (2:14:07) How Much of the World's Chaos Is Spiritual?
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain what we know for sure about the 2017 Las Vegas massacre. I cover the event basics, the active shooter at McCarran, the suspicious deaths of witnesses, independent journalists, Paddock’s motive, the multiple shooters question, Jose Campos, whether Paddock died before, censorship, locks tampering, and Paddock’s identity. I also discuss how America changed, possible Saudi involvement, helicopters and hangars, Trump’s visit, diversions, surveillance footage, SWAT, victims questioned, and my next research project.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
The 2017 Las Vegas massacre was by far the deadliest mass shooting in American history. The official explanation for it makes no sense. Ian Carroll explains what we know for sure. (0:00) What Was the Las Vegas Shooting? (10:43) The Active Shooter at McCarran Airport (16:40) The Suspicious Deaths of Witnesses (18:49) The Independent Journalists Dedicated to This Story (25:30) What Was Stephen Paddock's Motive? (27:59) Were There Multiple Shooters? (34:37) What Happened to Jose Campos? (41:25) Was Stephen Paddock Dead Before the Shooting Started? (46:09) Why Is This Story Being Censored? (50:52) Who Tampered With the Locks? (56:47) Who Actually Was Stephen Paddock? (1:05:18) How Did America Change After the Shooting? (1:11:40) Was Saudi Arabia Involved? (1:32:43) The Assassination Attempt on Mohammed bin Salman (1:38:16) Why Were There Helicopters in the Area? (1:47:18) The Shootings in the Helicopter Hangars (1:51:02) Donald Trump's Visit to Saudi Arabia (1:53:36) Was This a Diversion? (1:58:53) Has the Hotel Ever Released Surveillance Footage? (2:00:30) Has Anyone Ever Questioned the Saudi Government? (2:03:45) Where Was the SWAT Team? (2:06:26) Have Any Victims Been Questioned? (2:11:01) The Assassination of Charlie Kirk (2:21:39) Mass Formation Psychosis (2:25:12) Where Did Ian Carroll Come From? (2:35:22) Ian's Next Research Project
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain why veterinary care has grown so costly, tracing it to private equity swallowing small practices. I explore why vets fear investigations, the push to ban telemedicine, how Dutch's service works, and the AVMA’s lobbying. I outline the vet shortage, why I’m dedicated to this issue, and argue that AVMA propaganda misleads about pets.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why’s it suddenly so expensive to take your dog to the vet? Here’s a hint: private equity. Joe Spector on the solution. (0:00) Why Is Veterinary Care So Expensive? (2:55) The Private Equity Firms Swallowing Small Businesses (10:15) Why Are Veterinarians So Afraid of the FBI? (14:53) Why Is There an Effort to Ban Telemedicine? (20:55) How Does Dutch's Service Work? (23:14) The AVMA Cartel Pushing Lobbying Politicians (27:46) The Mass Veterinarian Shortage (33:39) Why Spector Is So Dedicated to This Issue (41:37) The AVMA Propaganda Lying to You About Your Pet
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore the looming debt era, tracing debt trading, the IMF’s role, Ukraine, and the risk of a debt crisis eroding America’s dominance. I weigh gold versus stocks, how the Fed nudges free markets, deflation, and fixing the deficit. I ask where safety lies in stocks, AI’s market impact, climate/ESG, alternatives to stocks, crypto as a reserve, global gold reserves, 2008 bailouts, and a possible U.S. bailout.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
The U.S. government is nearly $40 trillion in debt, a fact that pretty much guarantees exciting times ahead. Coleman Church on what comes next. (0:00) Debt Trading and Emerging Markets Debt (8:58) The IMF's Role in American Foreign Policy (16:08) What Will the Banks Do With Ukraine? (17:17) What Is a Debt Crisis? (23:06) Will America's Financial Dominance End? (25:27) The Seizing of the Russian Reserves (26:19) Why Gold Is a Better Investment Than the Stock Market (28:57) How the Fed Is Secretly Destroying Free Market Capitalism (31:23) What Is Deflation? (34:37) How Do We Fix the Deficit Problem? (45:45) How Safe Is the Stock Market? (53:32) How Is AI Impacting the Market? (1:00:00) What Happened to All the Concern About Climate Change? (1:01:45) What Is ESG? (1:07:59) What Is the Alternative to Investing in the Stock Market? (1:12:07) Is Crypto the Next Global Reserve Currency? (1:23:38) Could Crypto Be Weaponized by the Government? (1:24:23) What Do We Know About Global Gold Reserves? (1:31:51) The Unintended Consequences of the 2008 Financial Crisis Bailouts (1:43:19) What Would Happen if the United States Needed a Bailout?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why are we defending mass murder in Gaza? Because our Greatest Ally demands it. It’s time to rethink that relationship. https://t.co/IZcThHevpJ
reSee.it AI Summary
I tackle why identity politics and censorship are back after our vote, covering antisemitism, government coups and immigration, sovereign leaders, the State Department’s censorship push, Mark Levin’s take on violence, the importance of X, whether Israel tried to jail Gaetz, Barr’s NYT collusion, GOP sabotage of Gaetz for AG, US-Russia talk, Seth Rich, the next election cycle, the nuclear family’s destruction, Kamala Harris, and where we’re headed.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
How did we wind up with identity politics and censorship again? Didn’t we just vote against all of that? Matt Gaetz explains. (0:00) What Does “Antisemitism” Even Mean at This Point? (12:39) Government Coups and Immigration (18:20) Are There Any Sovereign Leaders Left in the World? (21:32) The US State Department's New Censorship Agenda (27:39) Mark Levin's Love of Violence (33:11) The Importance of X (38:02) Did the Israeli Government Try to Get Gaetz Thrown in Jail? (48:57) Bill Barr's Collusion With the New York Times (53:36) How Republicans Sabotaged Gaetz's Chance at Attorney General (1:02:13) Should the US and Russia Be Allies? (1:03:32) The Truth About Seth Rich's Murder (1:09:44) What Will Happen in the Next Election Cycle? (1:21:15) What Caused the Destruction of the Nuclear Family? (1:38:02) Is Kamala Harris Going to Run Again? (1:40:02) Where Is the United States Headed?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Identity politics, deplatforming and ritual denunciation? No thanks. That’s what we voted against. https://t.co/Yf5UAfyb1j
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why would you decide to import primitive Somali tribes and encourage them not to assimilate? The only possible explanation is that you’re trying to destroy the country. Includes paid partnerships.
reSee.it AI Summary
I present James Tour, a highly cited organic chemist who calls the standard story of evolution an absurd fairytale. The piece surveys God and science, the credibility of science, life, lab-made life, cloning, engineered humans, what evolution is, possible God-created Earth evidence, attacks on Tour, evolution as a weapon against God, sleep, Jesus saving Tour, and growing God-consciousness. Includes paid partnerships.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
James Tour is one of the most respected and widely-cited organic chemists in the world. He considers the story of evolution that we’ve all been taught an absurd fairytale. Here’s why. (0:00) How Dr. Tour Sees God Through Science (6:00) Why the Scientific Community Lost All Their Credibility (12:44) What Is Life? (14:47) Has Man Actually Created Life in a Lab? (30:36) What Is Cloning? (31:32) Is a Genetically Engineered Super Human Race Being Created? (40:14) What Really Is the Theory of Evolution? (44:30) Is This Evidence of God Creating Earth? (55:46) The Attacks Against Dr. Tour for Questioning Evolution (1:03:42) Is the Theory of Evolution Being Used as a Weapon Against God? (1:08:47) What Is the Purpose of Sleeping? (1:17:07) How Jesus Christ Saved Dr. Tour (1:36:30) Are People Becoming More Aware of God? Includes paid partnerships.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore a civil war within the American right, with Matt Walsh straddling both sides. I cover why I don’t publicly denounce figures, what leftism means, Israel, defending Gaza, violence for justice, possible revolution, culture, demographics, why labels fail, Canada’s risks, the transgender movement, and how we might resolve a conservative split. I also touch on prayer, media use, and paid partnerships.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
A civil war is consuming the American right. Matt Walsh may be the only person with a foot on both sides. What’s that like? (0:00) Is There a Civil War Breaking Out on the Right? (5:06) Why Walsh Refuses to Publicly Denounce Anyone (16:49) What Is Leftism? (30:34) Why Walsh Doesn't Care About Israel (35:14) Can You Defend Israel’s War on Gaza and Still Be a Conservative? (43:14) Why Does Randy Fine Think the Death of Children Is Funny? (49:04) Is Violence Necessary for Justice? (58:28) Are We Heading Toward a Revolution? (1:02:23) Why Is Restaurant Food Getting Worse? (1:10:04) Where Did All the White People Go? (1:21:35) Why Labels and Name-Calling No Longer Work (1:26:12) The Deadly Evil That Has Taken Over Canada (1:38:18) Is the Transgender Movement Over? (1:40:31) How Do We Resolve the Conservative Civil War? (1:52:47) Is There a Political Realignment Happening? (1:57:57) The Importance of Prayer (2:01:22) Is Walsh Addicted to X? Includes paid partnerships.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Exchange with a New York Times reporter about Andrew Tate. https://t.co/ihbG9gOUD3
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
On Charlie Kirk’s assassination. https://t.co/uuSNjeRXt6
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk was murdered, they have avoided public commentary on the murder investigation out of care for Charlie and respect for the people involved, many of whom they know personally and admire. They emphasize that their goal is truth and justice, and they would not criticize anyone sincerely trying to uncover what happened, recognizing that good motives can lead to wrong conclusions.
They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan that touched on distrust of the FBI. They clarify this did not mean they accused anyone of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, but it gave them the chance to state that they do not trust the FBI. They distinguish personal trust in individuals (e.g., Dan Bongino, whom they like, and Cash Patel) from trust in the FBI as an institution, noting that parts of the FBI can act independently within a large bureaucracy, separate from leadership.
The speaker argues that distrust is not about a general attack on political leadership but about systemic issues. They reference the 2024 election as evidence that major institutions may be corrupt or rot, and they point to January 6 as, in their view, a setup in which the FBI played a key role. They question whether everyone involved in that setup has faced consequences.
They insist that no American is morally obligated to believe everything the government says, especially given a history of the FBI's alleged crimes, illicit participation in politics, manufacturing crimes, or distorting justice—claims they assert as part of the FBI’s track record, which, in their view, is counter to its mission to obtain justice through facts and then explain its conclusions.
They argue that it is not enough to have government officials declare the truth; the public has the right or obligation to demand proof. A central concern is that the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s murder could be overshadowed by debates about what happened, allowing the FBI to go unchallenged or unaccountable. The speaker asserts that the FBI should tell, show, and convince the public about what happened, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources.
Ultimately, they commit to avoiding statements they don’t understand, to staying out of the case, but to maintaining love for Charlie and a desire for justice, while urging others to remain skeptical. They conclude that skepticism is a duty and not something to be ashamed of.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the three months since Charlie Kirk was murdered, I've really tried not to comment on the murder investigation in public, and it's not because I don't care, of course. I love Charlie and knew him well since he was a was a teenager. But I haven't said anything about it. I really tried not to say anything about it. First, because I don't really know anything that everyone else doesn't know.
I've asked around, but of course, how do you know what the truth is? The other reason I haven't said anything is because I know personally a number of the people involved in what's now become a very large story. I know them really well, and I really think a lot of all of them on every side. Candace Owens, I've known a long time. I love Candace Owens.
Blake Neff at TPUSA once worked for me at a couple of different places, and I love Blake Neff. Erica Kirk, I've known since she was dating Charlie Kirk, and I love Erica Kirk. I think these are all really, really decent people. And so it's been my desire for three months not to get involved in any of this. And in general, to think to myself, anybody who is earnestly searching for the truth, whether they're right or wrong, but as long as they're motivated by a desire to find out what happened and therefore honor Charlie's memory by getting to justice, anyone who's doing that, I'm not gonna criticize.
Again, no matter what track they're on, lots of us, and this has certainly happened to me, have good moments, good motives, but wind up in the wrong place. But it's a sincere mistake. So that definitely happens. I have done that, and so I've just wanted to stay out. And then the other day, I had, like, a three hour conversation with Theo Vaughan, and it was not about Charlie Kirk or anything related to it, but that topic came up.
And I said, in effect, you know, I don't trust the FBI. And that gave some people the impression that I was accusing them of being involved in Charlie's assassination. And of course, I wasn't, and I certainly didn't mean to. But it gives me the chance now to say what I think, which is that we should not necessarily trust the FBI. And by the way, why would we?
It's not an attack on the political leadership of it. I've known Dan Bongino, for example, for a long time, and like Dan, and don't imagine he would ever be involved in intentionally covering up a murder of somebody. I don't believe that. But Dan Bongino and Cash Patel, for that matter, are at the top of the org chart, but this is a huge organization, and parts of it act independently from leadership. That's the nature of bureaucracy.
So, saying, Well, I like Dan Bongino and don't think he would do something wrong on purpose, which is how I feel, doesn't mean that I trust the FBI or have to trust the FBI. And again, why would I? If there's one lesson of the last election, the twenty twenty four election, it's that a lot of our biggest systems, our biggest institutions, have rot in them, and that needs to be reformed. And as if we needed more proof of it, we'd learned what a lot of us suspected for years, that January 6 was, in effect, a setup, and the FBI was key to that setup. And it's still not clear that everyone involved in that setup at the FBI has been fired or punished for that.
So, no person, no American is under some moral obligation to believe everything the government tells you, particularly institutions or agencies that have a long documented, factually documented track record of committing crimes, participating illegally in our political system, for example, as the FBI has done, manufacturing crimes, setting people up, distorting justice. That's the opposite of their job, of course, which is to get to justice through facts, and then to tell the rest of us how they arrived at this conclusion to prove to the rest of us that the right people are being punished. So we're not under any obligation. Of course, we shouldn't invent theories to discredit the FBI, but it's not enough to have government officials tell us, Well, this is the truth. We have a right, probably an obligation, to say, Well, can you prove it?
And if you can't, I don't have to believe you. So if there's one thing that bothers me above all about the investigation into Charlie Kirk, is that that is getting lost. As people argue over what happened, we are potentially letting our largest federal law enforcement agency off the hook. It is the job of the FBI to find out what happened and to tell the rest of us, not hide behind, well, it's national security, confidential sources. No.
Tell us what happened. Show us what happened. Convince us what happened. That's your job. And we shouldn't accept anything less.
And by the way, when we do accept something less, then, you know, new explanations fill the vacuum left by the FBI, which we pay to explain to us what happened. And so I'm going to really do my best not to talk about things I don't understand, state things as though I know them when I don't know them. I'm going to do my best to stay out of it because I love Charlie, and I want justice to be done in this case, but the rest of us should remain skeptical. We have a duty to remain skeptical, and we should not be ashamed of our skepticism. Thanks.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore the religion of vaccines and why its adherents are dangerous. I cover the vaccine hesitation heresy, the bribing of churches to promote Covid vaccines, the annunciation of vaccination, vaccine worship, legal immunity for developers, humiliating rituals, demonic forces in medicine, Lucifer and tribalism, humans mimicking God’s language, whether we alter genetic code, the original war on handwashing, and the cancer coverup of the 1950s. Includes paid partnerships.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ritual piercing of the body. The shedding of blood. The promise of salvation. John Leake explains the religion of vaccines, and why its adherents are dangerous. (0:00) The Vaccine Hesitation Heresy (8:11) The Bribing of Churches to Promote the Covid Vaccine (14:20) The Religious Annunciation of the Vaccine (21:03) Vaccine Worship (33:58) Why Do Vaccine Developers Have Legal Immunity? (39:26) Tyrannical Humiliation Rituals (45:49) The Demonic Forces at Work in the Medical Industry (1:07:25) Lucifer, Pride, and Tribalism (1:25:44) Man's Attempt to Replicate the Language of God (1:31:46) Are We Changing People's Genetic Code? (1:48:46) The Original War on Handwashing (1:56:00) The Cancer Coverup of the 1950s Includes paid partnerships.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore why the post-war Western elite worships multiculturalism, arguing they hate their own culture, with Rupert Lowe explaining. Topics include: corruption of Britain's political system; mass immigration; should we worry about China?; why the UK economy is failing; why the UK sends money abroad; can free speech in the UK be saved?; why the government stole Lowe’s guns; the failed multiculturalism experiment. Includes paid partnerships.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why has the post-war Western elite decided to worship multiculturalism? Because they hate their own culture. British MP Rupert Lowe explains. (0:00) The Corruption of Britain's Political System (9:11) Mass Immigration (14:54) Should We Be Worried About China? (19:11) Why Is the British Economy Failing? (25:50) Why Is the UK Sending So Much Money to Foreign Countries? (29:46) Can Free Speech in the UK Be Saved? (37:34) Why the Government Stole Lowe's Guns (43:00) The Failed Multiculturalism Experiment Includes paid partnerships.
reSee.it AI Summary
I cover a wide set of topics: monologue; Why Are You Gay?; Does Conversion Therapy Work?; Is there a demonic aspect to addiction?; When did I decide I’m gay?; Closeted gays in right‑wing media; The fashion industry; My greatest regret; Is Dave Rubin conservative? Is Pete Buttigieg really gay? Is lesbianism real? Are gay marriages monogamous? Is a promiscuous life fulfilling? The gay mafia; Organized promotion of homosexuality; Music industry; DC’s gay scene; My spiritual journey; Bans on conversion therapy; How it works; What I think about my past.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why are you gay? Milo Yiannopoulos explains. (0:00) Monologue (36:01) Why Are You Gay? (47:23) Does Conversion Therapy Actually Work? (51:49) Is There a Demonic Aspect to Addiction? (55:06) When Did Milo Decide He Was Gay? (1:01:53) Why Are There So Many Closeted Gays in Right-Wing Media? (1:10:34) The Dark Truth About the Fashion Industry (1:16:59) Milo's Greatest Regret (1:20:28) Is Dave Rubin Really Conservative? (1:21:00) Is Pete Buttigieg Really Gay? (1:22:10) Is Lesbianism Real? (1:28:02) Are Gay Marriages Monogamous? (1:33:37) Is a Promiscuous Life Fulfilling? (1:45:40) Why You Aren't Allowed to Leave the Gay Mafia (1:50:33) The Organized Effort to Promote Homosexuality (1:56:45) Homosexuality in the Music Industry (1:58:46) Why Is Washington, DC So Gay? (2:01:09) Milo's Spiritual Journey (2:11:24) The Bans on Conversion Therapy (2:15:25) How Does Conversion Therapy Work? (2:27:23) What Does Milo Think About His Past? Includes paid partnerships.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss the moral cowardice I see in some American Christians and urge us to confront evil. I touch life’s priorities, the universal language of music, the music industry’s dark side, prayer, and recognizing the evil one. I address the Charlie Kirk claim, my DHS work against child predators, repentance, fears about preaching the gospel, abortion, dispensationalism, the Mark of the Beast, the Third Temple, and my future.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
John Rich on the moral cowardice of some American Christians. Don’t run from evil; confront it. (0:00) The Moment John Rich Realized What's Actually Important In Life (6:02) The Universal Language of Music (10:34) The Dark Side of the Music Industry (13:54) How Do We Communicate With God? (26:01) How to Spot an Agent of the Evil One (31:03) The Assassination of Charlie Kirk (40:02) John's Work With DHS to Take Down Child Predators (45:20) The Call For Repentance (55:03) Is John Worried About His Career If He Continues to Preach the Gospel? (57:57) John's New Song to Take Down Diddy, "The Righteous Hunter" (1:15:31) The Rise in Abortion (1:20:22) The Aftermath of John's War on Dispensationalism (1:26:54) Will Christians Be Alive to See the Mark of the Beast and the Antichrist? (1:30:05) The Plot to Rebuild the Third Temple (1:31:45) What Does the Future Hold for John Rich? Includes paid partnerships.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that in the U.K. you can go to jail for using the F word, and Piers Morgan responds. I cover: how the U.K. has changed; was the NHS a success; did the West win WWII; the suppression of free speech; transgenderism; the F Word debate; abortion and declining birthrates; London’s murder rates; is the British economy collapsing; the migrant invasion; the global rise of homosexuality; will we see a revolution in the U.K.; foreign wars. Includes paid partnerships.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
In the U.K., you can go to jail for using the F word. No, not that F word. Piers Morgan responds. (0:00) Monologue (21:20) How Has the U.K. Changed? (25:58) Was the U.K.’s Healthcare System a Success? (35:10) Did the West Really Win WWII? (46:14) The Suppression of Free Speech (52:00) Transgenderism (54:16) The F Word Debate (1:00:53) Abortion and Declining Birthrates (1:05:26) The Murder Rates in London (1:07:45) Is the British Economy Collapsing? (1:14:37) The Migrant Invasion (1:15:57) The Global Increase in Homosexuality (1:28:16) Will We See A Revolution in the U.K.? (1:33:28) Foreign Wars Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript centers on a heated, wide-ranging exchange between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan about Britain, Western decline, immigration, culture, and politics, interlaced with reflections on free speech, national identity, and personal values.
- Carlson opens by contrasting Britain's historical global power with its post–World War I decline, describing Britain as once dominating a quarter of the world’s surface and arguing that, after the wars, the empire transformed into a “sad, soggy welfare state.” He frames the discussion as a geopolitical and cultural question: why did a nation that won the two biggest wars become diminished, and what deeper forces are at work beyond mere economics?
- He suggests a broader Western pattern, noting that Britain’s experience mirrors changes across the Anglosphere (Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Ireland) and Western Europe, implying a cultural shift that goes beyond economics.
- The discussion shifts to a visual example: a woman arrested outside an abortion clinic for praying, to illustrate what Carlson sees as a “spiritual phenomenon” and a sign of shifting norms and state power in the UK. He asserts that praying should not be a crime, and argues that the arrests demonstrate how disagreement and nonviolent religious activity are being constrained.
- Carlson then contrasts London’s beauty with what he sees as deeper social decay: litter, graffiti, visible disorder, self-perception and dignity, and a sense that Western societies are displaying the signs of defeat. He connects these phenomena to broader questions about national self-respect, cultural continuity, and the ability to reproduce a population that sustains a civilization.
- The dialogue pivots to demographic and immigration topics. Carlson asserts that London’s demographics have shifted dramatically—from about 100% European white a century ago to a much smaller share now—and claims that immigrant areas are poorer than traditional English areas, framing this as evidence of transformation that cannot be fully captured by GDP or technocratic metrics. He argues that those who celebrate immigration as conflict-free are ignoring the cultural and social costs, and he contends that the West is “being invaded” in a way that erodes national identity and self-respect.
- Morgan responds with a more nuanced, contextual approach. He acknowledges that London has long been multicultural but notes that infrastructure and public services are strained by population growth and immigration, citing NHS pressures and the need to manage both illegal boat arrivals and legal migration. He emphasizes that the debate should consider whether immigration has overall positive or negative effects, and argues for practical solutions to border and integration challenges. He also stresses the importance of not endorsing hatred toward any group, while acknowledging real concerns about public services and cohesion.
- They discuss abortion, birth rates, and national demographics. Carlson cites Britain’s abortion rate and argues that natives are more likely to see abortion as a self-destructive cultural behavior, contrasting that with immigrant populations he says are more likely to reproduce, though Morgan cautions against oversimplification. They debate whether demographic change equates to the erosion of national character, with Carlson maintaining that traditional English virtues—duty, restraint, patriotism, self-respect—are being eroded, while Morgan argues that demographic change is not inherently linked to cultural decline and that many immigrants contribute positively.
- The conversation explores pride, patriotism, and national symbols. Carlson claims that Western nations, including Britain and the United States, have become less proud of their heritage, with flags and symbols sometimes treated as embarrassing. Morgan counters by suggesting that this pride exists in different forms and that some of the decline is tied to political leadership and policy failures, not to ethnicity alone. They touch on public discourse, free speech, and the role of woke-left activism in shaping norms and censorship, with Morgan noting cases where free speech has faced heavy social and legal pressure but also pointing to instances where public backlash compelled shifts in law enforcement behavior (e.g., the Graham Linehan controversy).
- They compare political leadership and the state of democracy. Carlson critiques postwar leadership and argues that Britain’s political elites have repeatedly failed to control borders and to maintain a coherent national project, while Morgan defends a democratic process in which governments are periodically held to account by voters. They debate whether Britain is becoming more authoritarian in its speech laws, with Carlson asserting that arresting someone for a slur like a particular homophobic term signals a dangerous trend, and Morgan acknowledging concerns about overreach but insisting that British law still upholds civil rights and due process.
- The dialogue also grapples with cultural norms, politeness, and masculinity. Morgan notes changes in social behavior and gender relations, including concerns about how younger men engage with women and how traditional courtesies have evolved or been discouraged. Carlson contends that multicultural realities can erode certain masculine norms, while Morgan emphasizes that there are positive examples of cross-cultural civility (e.g., multicultural support at public events like sports) and cautions against essentializing entire groups or cultures.
- The exchange then circles back to the core question: what does it mean to belong to a country, and what does “the West” owe to its historical commitments? Carlson frames the issue as an existential question about what constitutes a people’s identity and the vitality of their civilization, while Morgan strives to separate cultural admiration from fatalism, urging a more empirical assessment of immigration’s effects and the importance of preserving civil liberties within a functioning democracy.
- The conversation ends on a note of mutual recognition about shared human rights, including freedom of expression and conscience, even as they acknowledge deep disagreements about national identity, immigration, and the state of Britain. They reflect on their personal experiences in the UK and the US, the role of leadership, the influence of culture on daily life, and the ongoing struggle to balance openness with social cohesion.
Throughout, the dialogue juxtaposes nostalgic appeals to traditional English virtues with frank, often contentious, observations about demographic change, policy failures, free speech, and the pressures facing modern Western societies. The exchange does not settle these tensions but makes explicit the competing narratives about what Britain—and the West more broadly—has gained and lost in the contemporary era.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Whatever happened to Britain or The UK or England or whatever they're calling it? We can't even agree on what it's called, but England. The England that if you're over 50, you grew up learning about, the England that controlled the world, the England that ran the largest empire in human history. At the end of World War one, Britain, which is an island in a pretty unhospitable climate, controlled literally a quarter of the Earth's surface, and not controlled in the way The United States controls the rest of the world with an implied threat or with economic ties to trade, but actually controlled with administrators and people sitting at desks with eye shades counting things, like, actually controlled a quarter of the Earth's surface, way more than Rome, way more than the Mongols, way more than anybody ever or maybe in the future ever. Britain was the most powerful country in the history of the world.
And then twenty five years later, it was this kind of sad, soggy welfare state, which is to some extent what it still is, except maybe even a little bit worse. What happened? Well, there are a couple of levels I want you to think about this. First is just geopolitical, and I guess they spent a lot of money in these wars and the ruling you know, half class of Eton in 1910 was killed in the trenches or whatever. You can think of a lot of different ways to explain what happened to Britain.
The fact remains, however, they won the two biggest wars in human history. They won, and yet they're still greatly diminished, and to some extent humiliated. It's like, what is that? So again, the first can be described. The first explanation can be described in economic terms.
Well, The United States took over, and the British Empire just moved west to its child, The US. They just transferred the power and a lot of the gold to this new country, which had its systems and some of its customs. Okay. But there's something kind of deeper, actually. If that were the whole story, then Britain would still be recognizably Britain.
The English people would still be recognizably English. They would just be not in charge anymore. They would have less money and less power, but the country would be, by any conventional measurement, thriving, just not running The Bahamas and Hong Kong, know, Pakistan. But that's not what's happened, actually. After winning the two biggest wars in human history, Britain has shrunken not just physically, but in some way that's hard to describe.
Its culture has changed. Some might say has been destroyed, and it's become something completely different. And what is that? By the way, why does it matter what it is? Well, it matters because what's happened to Britain, to England, is also happening to many countries in the West.
Certainly, its heirs, the Anglosphere, and that specifically would be Australia, New Zealand, The United States, Canada, Ireland. It's happening to those countries, but it's also happening to the rest of Western Europe all at the same time. A bunch of different profound never seen before phenomenon are happening to all of those countries, and, again, including ours here in The United States. So it's worth understanding what has happened to Britain. So maybe the best image that describes it is the one that we're about to show you.
And in case there's no context in the tape, what you're watching is a woman being arrested outside of an abortion clinic. And keep in mind as you watch this, she's not being arrested for throwing a fire bomb, a petrol bomb, through the window of this abortion clinic in The UK or even for obstructing access to this abortion clinic. No. She's being arrested and taken to jail for praying outside the abortion clinic. Watch this.
Speaker 1: Before I ask you any questions about what's going on today, I have to caution you, which is just your rights, which is you do not have to say anything. It may harm your defense if you do not mention one question something that you later on in court, anything you do say that it could give you a defense. What what are you here for today? Physically, I'm just standing here. Okay.
Why why here of all places? I know you you don't live nearby. But this is an abortion something. Okay. That's why is you standing to be part of the protest?
No. I'm not protesting. Are you praying? I might be praying in my head. Not bad.
So I'll ask you once more, will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you've broken public protection order. If I've got a choice, then no. Okay. Well, then you're under arrest. I can't suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces protection order.
Speaker 0: So what is that? It's hard to argue that if your government is arresting people for praying, that you're watching a political phenomenon. Because, of course, praying is not simply a nonviolent act. It's not even a physical act. It can't possibly, at least in secular terms, affect outcomes or harm anyone.
Praying for people can never be a crime, but it is a crime in Great Britain. Literally a crime. And the woman you saw is not the only person who 's been arrested for doing it. So clearly, we're watching a spiritual phenomenon here. I mean, there's sort of no arguing it once you see things like that.
But what is that spiritual phenomenon, and what are its effects on the people of this country? And before we go farther, we should just say that if you visit the The UK, as it's now called, or London, its capital and completely dominant city, the first thing you'll notice is it's actually pretty nice. London is the nice parts of London are as nice or maybe even nicer than any city in The United States, certainly nicer than any city in Canada or Australia. Much nicer, actually. It's a great city filled with lots of happy people.
But broadly speaking, this country has changed really, really dramatically, and it's changed in ways that are recognizable. And here's what you recognize. The people of Great Britain are going through a series of crises, and they're all internal. Drug use, alcohol use, their appearance has changed, people are no longer as well kept, the streets, the landscape is not tidy anymore. It's got lots of litter and graffiti in some places.
And to technocrats, these are not meaningful measures of anything. Who cares if you've got graffiti? Does that affect GDP? Well, maybe, maybe not, but it's definitely a reflection of how people feel about themselves. People with self respect do not tolerate public displays of disorder or filth or graffiti or litter because they care about themselves and their family, and they understand intuitively, as every human being does, that once you allow chaos and filth in your immediate environment, you are diminished.
So you just don't allow that, and no healthy society does. But all through the West, these are not just features. They're defining features. All Western cities are filled with litter and graffiti and people who look like they didn't bother to get dressed this morning but are instead wearing their pajamas in Walmart. It's not just in your town.
It's everywhere in what we refer to as the West. The point that underlies all of this is a really obvious one that too few people say. This is the behavior of a defeated people. This is what it looks like when you lose. This is what it looks like when you're on your way out to be replaced by somebody else.
This is what it looks like to be an American Indian. Now one thing nobody in The United States ever says about the American Indians, except in the kind of pro form a white guilt way, is these weren't just impressive people, and no, they didn't write the constitution before we did. These were some of the most impressive people, most self reliant, most dignified breed, any account of early American settlers, people who were pushing west, came into contact with Indians, and, yes, were often scalped and forced to treat their own genitals and roasted over open fires. I mean, these were cruel people. But even the people who were in danger of being murdered by them respected them because the indigenous Americans had a great deal of self respect.
They had what we call dignity. And now hundreds of years later, the opposite is true. The poorest people in The United States are American Indians. Why? Because the federal government hasn't given them enough.
The federal government is completely in charge of the indigenous economy in The United States and has been for over a hundred years, and it hasn't worked. American Indians are still the poorest. Why? Because the Iroquois and the Navajo weren't impressive? No.
They were the most impressive. Again, read the account of anyone who dealt with them. Even people who were dodging their arrows thought they were amazing people because they were. And now they are, by many measures, the saddest people in The United States. Why is that?
Some inherent genetic predisposition to patheticness? They couldn't deal with modernity? Well, they probably could. They were defeated. They were defeated.
And in some deep, the deepest way, they wound up destroying themselves. And it's not unique to them. That's the point. And just to be completely clear, all of this is observed with a great deal of sympathy, not scorn. No one's mocking the American Indians.
Everyone should feel bad about it for real. Again, not in a silly white girl guilty way, but in a real way. These are amazing people, greatly diminished. And the reason it's worth remembering is the same thing is happening to the West. So the beauty of Thanksgiving is that it celebrates real food.
I mean, at the core of the holiday is actual food, not synthetic garbage, the kind that is almost irresistible. So would it be nice if the country embraced if all of us embraced actual food during the rest of the year, ditching your standard and truly disgusting American chip brands for chips that aren't terrible for you that have only three ingredients, would be Vandy crisps. That'd be a great place to start. Vandy is about reviving real food, the kind your grandparents ate, and they look pretty svelte despite the camels they smoked. Why?
Because they ate food that wasn't filled with garbage. And in this case, Vanity Crisps, three ingredients, pesticide free potatoes, sea salt, and 100% grass fed beef towel. That's it. There's nothing in there that's weird. No seed oils, no mystery chemicals, just actual food, and they taste amazing.
If you don't believe it, try the French onion flavor. We just got a new shipment, which go great with our stock from Fanny's sister company, Masa Chips, which clutter our garage until we consume them, which we do. Vandy is offering our audience a Black Friday level offer of 25% off the first purchase. Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order at vandycrisps.com, or head to masachips.com. Simply click the link in the video description, or to make it even easier, scan the QR code for this offer.
Or if you don't want to go online, just go to Sprouts Supermarket, your local Sprouts, and they have them both. Stop by and pick up a bag because they're great. And it makes you realize, especially if you travel a lot, that the problem is not necessarily the immigrants. The problem is what mass migration does to the people who already live there. They're the victims of it in a way that, again, is hard to measure and sometimes hard to notice, but totally real.
So you walk through this city, London, and it's been completely transformed by immigration completely, and the numbers are really, really clear. A hundred years ago, was a 100% European white. Now it's less than 40%. Okay. That's massive, unprecedented demographic change.
Got it. And the immigrant areas are absolutely poorer than the traditionally white English areas. Absolutely. There's just no question about it. But wealth as measured by the government is not the only measurement.
Actually, and this is true in The United States too, lots of immigrants who have a lot less money than the native population seem a lot more balanced and happy, both because this is a huge upgrade for them just in terms of, like, annual income and standard of living, but it's more than that. They're not defeated. They don't hate themselves. And if you have traditional nationalist opinions in The United States, I can confirm this personally, you're never going to be stopped on the street and screamed at by some Guatemalan who's like, you are racist for having your views on immigration. No.
They'll probably agree with you, actually. The only people who ever get mad at you are the people who already hate themselves, and that's always famously some private equity wife or somebody who should be happy about how things are going because they're in the portion of the population that's benefiting from it, but they're not happy. They're angry. What is that? That exact same thing is going on in this country.
Exact. And it's part of a very recognizable syndrome, and it's the most destructive of all. History is just filled with examples of people who get invaded and clubbed to death and have their women stolen from them, and they're fine. They're fine. It's the people who feel defeated inside who no longer exist.
And that is happening to the West. And it's measurable. What other society hates its own national symbols? It's only happening in the West, only in Great Britain. This is coming to be true in The United States.
It's already true in Canada and Australia. What other country finds it embarrassing to fly their national flag? What are you saying if that embarrasses you? You don't hate the flag. You hate yourself.
And it's obvious because people who have dignity, self respect, who believe in their own civilization want to continue it. How do you do that? By talking about it a lot? No. By continuing it through reproduction.
No one is preventing the West from reproducing. And people have come up with these conspiracy theories like, oh, they're doing it. They're no. We're doing it to ourselves. What else is abortion?
Is that empowering for women? Of course not. That's absurd. Anyone who believes that is an idiot. Abortion is the way to stop people from reproducing.
So is birth control, by the way. Of course. So is convincing people that their dumb job is more important than having kids. It's not. It never will be.
Any person who can get clarity for a second will recognize that. It's only about stopping you from having more of you. And is there anything that's a clearer, crystal clear representation of how you feel about yourself than how you feel about having kids? And by the way, it's not just because they're selfish and they wanna go on vacation and don't wanna pay for children or they're worried about how much it might cost. Notice that none of these impoverished immigrants living on SNAP and housing subsidies, they don't seem worried about it at all because they know it'll be fine.
By the way, most of the time, it will be fine. They're having kids when much more affluent natives are not because they believe in themselves and their culture, their civilization. They'd like to see it continue. It's the most basic of all human desires. So here in Great Britain, which has about a forty percent abortion rate, forty percent of all conceived children are killed.
Who's doing that? It's not the immigrants. Because they don't hate themselves. They're not defeated. They're ascendant.
And so they can see the future. They they know that they may not live to experience it, but they're still fully human. And they know you plant the tree not because you can bask in its shade, but because your grandchildren will. This is the most obvious of all human instincts and the most basic. But the native population in Britain is not debating abortion because it's not even a debate here.
Everyone agrees it's just an affirmative good, of course, to eliminate your own people. Absolutely. Again, no one's making them do this. They've decided to do it themselves. But now their most enthusiastic campaign is for state sponsored suicide.
They've already done this in Canada. It'll come to The United States. What is that? That's an entire people saying, we should exit the stage. Our time is done.
It's over. Let's go. Someone else will take our place. Not the first time that's ever happened. This is what defeated people do.
This is what happens when you break people inside, and maybe it'll just reach its terminus. Maybe there's no way to stop it. The great replacement theory. Oh, yeah. A theory.
Okay. No. It's it's the realest thing there is, and it's happening not because unseen hands are orchestrating it, though clearly they are, but because the native peoples of all these countries are participating in it enthusiastically and then enforcing its rules against anyone who questions it. So in Great Britain, if you were to say, wait. What the hell is this?
This looks nothing like the country I grew up in. Guess who's gonna arrest you? Your fellow Britons? The ones whose great grandparents lived here? The whites?
They're the ones enforcing this. They're the ones totally determined to eliminate themselves. Hate to brag, but we're pretty confident this show is the most vehemently pro dog podcast you're ever gonna see. We can take or leave some people, but dogs are nonnegotiable. They are the best.
They really are our best friends. And so for that reason, we're thrilled to have a new partner called Dutch Pet. It's the fastest growing pet telehealth service. Dutch.com is on a mission to create what you actually need, affordable quality veterinary care anytime no matter where you are. They will get your dog or cat what you need immediately.
It's offering an exclusive discount, Dutch's, for our listeners. You get $50 off your vet care per year. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code tucker for $50 off. That is an unlimited vet visit.
$82 a year. $82 a year. We actually use this. Dutch has vets who can handle any pet under any circumstance in a ten minute call. It's pretty amazing, actually.
You never have to leave your house. You don't have to throw the dog in the truck. No wasted time waiting for appointments. No wasted money on clinics or visit fees. Unlimited visits and follow ups for no extra cost, plus free shipping on all products for up to five pets.
It sounds amazing like it couldn't be real, but it actually is real. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code Tucker for $50 off your veterinary care per year. Your dogs, your cats, and your wallet will thank you. So it's with these questions in mind that we decided to sit down with Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, someone we've known for a long time, cable news host. Had a debate with him last year, ran into him in an elevator in The Middle East, and decided to sit down and had a really spirited and interesting conversation with him in which I attacked his country with the fury of someone who secretly loves the country and hates what it's become. And so we're back here in his hometown and decided to have this conversation, and it follows in just a second. But before it begins, just want to be super clear about something. Piers Morgan is clearly wedded, has decided to remain wedded to the neoliberal version of the world where you're not allowed to say certain things and you have to repeat certain pieties, and it's all pretty embarrassing, obviously.
But in fairness, Piers Morgan has single handedly done more for free speech, which is disappearing in Great Britain, than any other Britain. He has done more for free speech than any other person in this entire country. I just want to say this out loud because it's absolutely true, and he's done it the old fashioned way by allowing other people onto his platform, onto his show to debate. People who have no other venue to say what they think. And you may disagree with 50% and agree with the other 50%.
It doesn't even matter. That debate, the real debate about issues that really matter that nobody else in this country is allowed to talk about are taking place at scale on Piers Morgan's show. So if you watch this and you think Piers Morgan has no idea what side is up, why is he defending the indefensible? Keep in mind that here, and this is an authoritarian country where disagreement is no longer allowed, you go to jail for it. By the thousands, people go to jail for it every year, he alone is keeping it open.
So God bless Piers Morgan. With that, here's Piers Morgan. Piers, thanks for doing this.
Speaker 2: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Taking time.
Speaker 2: Welcome to my city.
Speaker 0: Which I've been so mean to, including in a conversation with you last winter in The Middle East, and I'm attacking Great Britain. And I just I want to apologize and tell you the truth about how I feel, which is I think that English culture and civilization is the highest level ever achieved by man in history. I really believe that. Everything about it, it's religion, it's language, it's literature. We've American society has never produced literature.
I'm embarrassed to say like what the Brits produced. And so it was out of sadness and frustration and a sense of connection to your civilization that I went on the rant about how much I hate it, but it was it was was hate born of frustrated love and concern.
Speaker 2: I'm just amazed you're here alive. I didn't didn't think you gave it.
Speaker 0: Well, they're so passive now, and everyone's like bisexual. What are they gonna do to me? Nothing. But I just wanna and and I know you love it. You're a product of What is it?
How would you describe English culture?
Speaker 2: I I would say it's not as bad as many Americans think it is, and it's not as good as many people here when they launched impassioned defenses of our country and our culture and the way things have gone would like to pretend it is. It's kind of somewhere in the middle. There's definitely been a significant change in the fabric of the country, in the makeup of the country, in the types of people who've come here, the volume of people who've come here. That's obviously had an effect on what this country is. Now, the the debate to be had is whether this has been, in totality, a force for good or bad.
And I took your views, your strident views about it when we met in in Saudi. And I I pushed back quite hard because I live here half of the year at least, most of that time in London. It's always been a very multicultural city. There's no doubt about that. And I don't walk the streets as Tommy Robinson
Speaker 0: It has not always been a multicultural. I actually pull
Speaker 2: the numbers.
Speaker 0: It is not it is In my life. Very recent. Yeah. Might be right after you were born.
Speaker 2: Yeah. In my lifetime. I was born in the mid sixties. But, you know, the way Tommy Tommy Robinson, who has a big following in America, the way he talks about it is not something I recognize. Having said that, as I've always said about him, there are issues that he's raised which are perfectly legitimate.
The biggest one is population. You know, in the 50s, we had a population of just under 50,000,000 people. And a lot of the infrastructure, like the National Health Service, the NHS, once lauded as the greatest health system in the world, now has to do with a population of nearly 70,000,000. That is a dramatic increase in the volume of people in this country. And the simple truth right now is our public services are creaking at the seams, and in some cases, like the NHS, pretty well at breaking point.
And that is why there is so much agitation about the simultaneous ongoing issues with immigration, both illegal with this ridiculous farce of these small boats popping up on the South Coast from a channel from France all the time. When the weather's good, they just stream in hundreds, sometimes thousands a week illegally into the country. But also legal migration and how we've abjectly mishandled that since really the turn of the century. You can chart it back to the Tony Blair years, when they pretty well opened the gates to everyone in Eastern Europe. Way too many people came in way too fast.
And then after that, there's just been a complete lack of any form of control. And we now have a situation where they've had to try and put the brakes on legal migration coming in. Because two years ago, we had a net migration in this country of nearly a million people. Now, it's not racist, as some people have tried to brand it, to say that that is alarming. A country like ours, if you don't have an effective border, if you have 50,000, 60,000 people a year coming in as they are illegally on these boats, and then you have a net migration of legal migrants coming in of nearly a million people, the already crumbling infrastructure is going to come under obviously enormously higher pressure.
So it's been a series of governments left and right, I have to say starting with the Blair government, with what they did with Eastern Europe and then coming forward to successive conservative governments, and now the current Labour government, all of whom, in my opinion, have handled this so badly that inevitably we now have a lot of people in the country going, what the hell is going on?
Speaker 0: I wonder though I mean, everything you said is so clearly true, and it was Tony Blair, really the lowest, probably tied with Boris, but really one of the worst prime ministers, leaders of any country ever. But I wonder, I often hear people say, well, it's about the NHS, National Health Service. It's about the roads. It's about you know, NHS is like a very new creation. It's a post war creation.
It was never gonna work. It's never worked anywhere. The Brits were so kind of pathetically proud of it, but it was the whole thing.
Speaker 2: It did work.
Speaker 0: But for a for a time, then it worked for a time.
Speaker 2: By the way, if you if you walk out of here and you fall over and you break your leg, you'll get treatment quickly.
Speaker 0: But the health outcomes were never were never better than The United States. It didn't actually didn't actually work. But whatever. You could argue, but that But it's the cost
Speaker 2: of it. But what's so
Speaker 0: sad different. Is that for your whole life, you've been told that what is Britain? What is this project about? It's about the National Health Service? That's kind of aiming a little low.
Like No. Who cares about some bureaucratic structure? What about England? What about the culture? Like, so in my mind, as a PG Woodhouse reader, lifelong self restraint, duty, courage, patriotism rooted in your religious faith, our lord the king, a phrase that was common until recently.
All of that seems to be gone.
Speaker 2: Well, hang on. We're still a very majority Christian country. Right? Still 40 odd percent of the country are Christians. Right?
That's a fact. So when I hear America
Speaker 0: Whatever that means. I mean
Speaker 2: Well, it means
Speaker 0: get arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic. That's not a Christian country. Well, that's
Speaker 2: a are there are nearly 50% of the country identify as Christian. The the more concerning thing for those who have faith is that nearly 40% now have no religious belief whatsoever. Right? Right. Then we have a lot of other religions.
There's a slight amplification of, for example, the number of Muslims in the country. I There are nearly 4,000,000 Muslims in the country. And that represents about 6% of the population. But 43 or 4% of the population are still Christian. So I do think, again, that the over amplification of the Islam problem, as people put it, or the, you the Muslim problem has been massively overstated.
Well, that's an op, obviously.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Hate the Muslims. No. I I we know where that's coming from.
Speaker 2: Don't like it. I I hate it. In my high street alone, in West London, most of the businesses would have Muslim employees there or people But also,
Speaker 0: how is hate the Muslims better than hate the Christians or hate the Jews? No.
Speaker 2: It's all the same.
Speaker 0: It's not. It's the same.
Speaker 2: And heard you I've heard you say and and this is the point I come from. Hatred is hatred is hatred.
Speaker 0: I totally agree.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't matter who you're hating. The moment you're in the hate game, then I think you're losing whatever argument it is you're trying
Speaker 0: to have. I totally agree. And but moving off from hate and getting back to the world I live in, which is fear and distrust and gut level loathing. Yeah. It's the secular people who are the problem.
I've never had an argument with a Muslim with an actual Muslim. I'm from Bangladesh. I'm a Muslim. You probably agree on a lot. It's the secular self hating whites that stand up from the table and leave when I'm eating with them here.
Just saying. That's true in my country too. But but leave it aside, I'm just sort of wondering and I'm so I'm not hating on the Muslims at all. They're bad Muslims or bad everybody. I just think a country is more than its bureaucratic systems and certainly more than the NHS, which I will never think is impressive.
Sorry. Or your metric system I do
Speaker 2: think they're wrong about that. May maybe I But you're not wrong about the state of it now.
Speaker 0: I mean,
Speaker 2: I'll I'll give you an example. What wouldn't have happened in the sixties and seventies with NHS is what happened to my both my parents recently. So my mother had a heart attack
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: And ended up being put on a trolley in an accident and emergency unit, but out on the corridor with 30 other people on trolleys. It was Dickensian. This was like a third world country. Oh, yeah. And she got hardly any treatment at all while she was there.
Now when she eventually got up and this is the apex of the NHS for me laid bare when she eventually got into the heart unit, she got incredible treatment on the NHS. Didn't cost her anything. She got fixed up and repaired. Turned out she had a blocked artery, and she was home in forty eight hours, and was great. My father broke six ribs recently.
Again, the same story. Just kept waiting on trolleys and so on. This is going on all the time.
Speaker 0: I couldn't
Speaker 2: be Because it it cannot deal with the volume
Speaker 0: We of have the same problem in our country. All the community hospitals are closing. Right? And our emergency rooms are unusable because of illegal immigration. I agree with you completely.
I'm just saying if you have a country whose main source of pride is its, like, health care system.
Speaker 2: I don't think it is. I I I would
Speaker 0: Really? Because in the the fifty years I've been coming here, no matter what you say, they're like, have you heard about our health care system? It's I thought you were about the greater glory of God and, like, subduing the world for civilization and the English language and our literature and history.
Speaker 2: Think we're about listen. We'd certainly I'll I checked a few stats on the way here. Yeah. Oh, bet. Bet you put on
Speaker 0: in the face. Did I. Well, this Christmas, give the gift of sleep with Everybody needs good rest for most of their days, but few know how to actually get it. Eight Sleep's pod 5 is the answer to that. Pod five is a smart mattress that automatically regulates your body temperature throughout the night.
It's proven to deliver up to an extra hour of good sound sleep every single night. That will change your life if you get it. Plenty of people on our staff use the pod five and they are very psyched. That's why they're so focused and well rested. I can see them humming around right now.
The full body feeling of comfort, that's what keeps you in the sack and fully crashed out. We recommend it strongly. Eight Sleep. They run their biggest sale of the year this month from November 10 until December 1. That is 8sleep.com/tucker.
The code is tucker, $700 off. There's a reason it has won the Men's Health Sleep Award. It's the best. 8sleep.com/tucker.
Speaker 2: For example, we bat way above our strength in things like music. Okay? Of the eight biggest selling artists in music history, I think I'm right in saying that five of them have come from
Speaker 0: I believe that.
Speaker 2: The Beatles to Elton John.
Speaker 0: They're very musical people, as as we often say.
Speaker 2: We're very artistic people. We're very scientific people. Yes. We lead the world, actually. Lot of our universities are in the top 10 in the world.
So comparative to our size, which is about a sixth of the size of The United States, maybe between maybe fifth and sixth. But comparative to our size, we continue in many areas to bat above our population strength.
Speaker 0: The Brits in The Middle East and Dubai specifically are, like, one of the engines of the economy. Right. They're amazing people. I'm actually one of them. Half.
So I I agree. You'll never get me to say the Brits aren't unusual.
Speaker 2: The qualities you cite, funny enough, that does resonate with me. We have lost a lot of the qualities, I think, collectively as a country, which did make this country great.
Speaker 0: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But I I agree I agree with you about that because I do think that it's become a bad thing to be patriotic about our country. There's a huge war about waving the Union Jack flag. I never see that war raging in the same way in America. Right?
There's lot of I mean, I'm not giving an example.
Speaker 0: But it will. That's why
Speaker 2: that's Yeah. Why I'm doing this It may well. Yeah. It was very interesting when I discovered The Apprentice. That's where I met Donald Trump.
And this was back in, you know, 2008. And the the organization that I raised money for because it was a charitable thing, had to have a charity was the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, and they had a base down in San Antonio. So I went down there. And I remember distinctly coming off the plane and seeing a load of people with flags, and I couldn't work out what was happening. I knew it wasn't for me.
American flags. And it turned out that they were there greeting every single serviceman and woman who came off the planes from whichever war zone they'd come from, because there was a big center there, a lot of military service people living in San Antonio, a lot of them also being treated for serious injuries and so on. They were just applauding and thanking them for their service as they came off these planes. You'd never see that anywhere in The UK. That just doesn't exist as a concept to do that.
I was very struck by that. I do think America generally is a lot more proudly patriotic than we've become. We've become almost ashamed of being British in a way that I don't like. I think we should be prouder of ourselves and prouder of what we've achieved and prouder of what we could be. But one of the reasons why people don't feel that pride, I think, is because we've had a succession of what I would say are pretty hopeless politicians Well, maybe you have dragged us into a place where people don't like it.
Speaker 0: I I get it. But maybe you got those politicians because the people hate themselves.
Speaker 2: I don't think we hate ourselves. We're just Really? I don't know. I think we've had a shockingly mediocre tear of politicians.
Speaker 0: But I mean, the sort of increase in British masochism, which has famously been part of your sexual retinue for centuries, came me more. No. That's just true. As you well know, I I don't know Americans Brit love
Speaker 2: a bit of Spanky. Totally.
Speaker 0: No. Not in the boarding school way. But anyway, whatever. The point is, that has increased dramatically since the Second World War, and I have done a couple segments on the Second World War that have been very kind of shallow and not even really talking about the details or whatever. You're a holocaust?
Obviously, I'm not. Whatever that means. Hitler killed a ton of Jews. That's terrible. So that's been a diversion, really, that specific conversation from a much more important broader conversation about what that word did to the West.
And I I think it's totally objectively fair to say the West, by specifically by which I mean your country, which is really the seat of the West, has been in decline since the war. So, like, what is that? Do you know?
Speaker 2: I mean, I wouldn't say it's been in decline since the war. There's a lot of recovery after the war. It was a devastating war. I mean, you know, one of the most extraordinary aspects of that war is that Winston Churchill, who many people here to his day believe, pretty well single handedly rallied the morale of the people here to help us defeat the Nazis, albeit with obviously America's help, that he, in the end at the end of the war, he got thrown out of office because so many people came back to a really bad lifestyle. A lot of impoverishment, a lot of, you know, homelessness and so on.
Speaker 0: Well, maybe were there other reasons? Like No.
Speaker 2: No. It was that was why they took it out.
Speaker 0: Did Germany attack you first? Is that what happened?
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 0: Did Germany attack Britain? Is that how you got into war with Germany?
Speaker 2: Germany attacked Poland.
Speaker 0: Oh, but not The UK. No. Oh, okay. Because that that's
Speaker 2: a lot. They wanted to
Speaker 0: voluntarily joined the war? Yes. Okay. Right. I'm not defending Hitler, of course, but it's just a fact that you weren't attacked.
So when you say that Churchill saved Britain, well, Britain got into the war voluntarily.
Speaker 2: Well, voluntarily. One of our neighboring European countries was attacked, and it was quite it was quite clear that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis wanted to take over Europe. This was an existential threat to Europe and therefore to The UK. So
Speaker 0: that he would have come for The UK? 100%. Even though
Speaker 2: Yeah. Think it's very naive to
Speaker 0: Europe politicians and he and but there's, like, not one person who was saying that in nineteen thirty nine four.
Speaker 2: No. Neville Chamberlain wasn't because he totally misread what was going on. Winston Churchill completely read correctly what was going on and came out of the wilderness to actually come and save us. I think without
Speaker 0: think you signed a treaty with Poland that locked you into a course of action that destroyed your country. I'm just saying.
Speaker 2: You don't honestly think the Nazis would have stopped at Poland?
Speaker 0: I I have no idea. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: Yes. You do, Duncan. Come on.
Speaker 0: I'm look. I'm I'm just going by what contemporaneous sources said. I have no idea. Hitler invaded Russia, so obviously, that's deranged and incredibly destructive. So I don't know is the truth.
He was focused on communism. No one doubts that. This was not a communist country, but I'm just saying Britain voluntarily joined the war. It was a war that you were not involved in and you got in. But my question is, why did it destroy Britain?
I don't understand. As the victor destroy
Speaker 2: it didn't destroy Britain.
Speaker 0: Well, look outside. Look outside. We're in the city of London.
Speaker 2: Hang on. There's look. It's Tower Bridge. It's the Tower Of London. Magnificent Well,
Speaker 0: changed it changed London.
Speaker 2: Why do you look at this and see a wrecked country? I
Speaker 0: don't. Well, I don't see an English country. So we're in the city of London now.
Speaker 1: What do
Speaker 2: you mean, though? What do you mean by that? It's not
Speaker 0: well, people whose ancestors built Stonehenge are not here anymore. So the city of London is 36% white, and that's happened in the last, I don't know, forty years.
Speaker 2: But England is about 70% white.
Speaker 0: England. Yes. Okay. It was it was 99% in 1945.
Speaker 2: Okay. So we've evolved.
Speaker 0: But you're on the way to becoming the minority in the country. So no one wants to say that. Think you can get arrested for saying that here. Well, no. It's a That's not white supremacy.
This is the indigenous population of the country.
Speaker 2: Well, it's it's a statistical fact that I think by 2100, we will be a minority white country.
Speaker 0: 2063 as of today.
Speaker 2: Well, I've I've read a bit later, but
Speaker 0: But these are dynamic numbers, so they change.
Speaker 2: But here's my here's my question for you. So what?
Speaker 0: Well, let me refer to the beginning of our conversation when you said that the people who live in a country define the character of that country. And then you said, yes. All the things for which we were famous and in which we had pride like our stoicism, our concern for others, our tidiness, the cleanest country in the world now, it's pretty filthy. All those things change when you get new people moving there. You said that.
I mean, you're the racist, not me. So I'm just using I'm using the parameters that you said. I did not
Speaker 2: I did not say that that was down to
Speaker 0: No. You didn't say you didn't white people coming to the country. Well, that's who lived
Speaker 2: here. That.
Speaker 0: No. But that's what you said. You said
Speaker 2: I said there was creaking pressure on public services No. No. No.
Speaker 0: From the increased population. Also, maybe foolishly admitted the truth. You could get arrested for this. I know the stakes are high. But you said that when the people who live in a country change, so does the culture, which is like the most obvious.
It's like when it rains out, it gets wet. That's not a controversial observation, but it's illegal here because it is true. And my only point is not against I've already said, I like the Bangladeshis better than I like the liberal whites in your country a lot more. They've never yelled at me. I'm not attacking them.
I'm just saying the things that made Britain Britain, England, England. Is there still an England? I have no idea. Those are going away because there are different people living here. And if you think that those are good things in the same way that the Swedes or the Chinese or the people in Burundi and Chad, they like like their culture.
It's their ancestors' culture, and now it's gone. And, like, why can't we say that's bad?
Speaker 2: Well, because you may think it's bad. I have good? I love living in a very multicultural
Speaker 0: But you're rich. I mean, you're rich. And you go to the white parts of London, and they're exactly the same as they were when I was a child. I've been coming here for fifty years. They're exactly the same.
What neighborhood I'm saying is exactly the same.
Speaker 2: Do you think is a white part of London?
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna tell you.
Speaker 2: Well, let's do a little test for you. Which which area of London do you think is white?
Speaker 0: The one I'm staying in right now. The one the one where my relatives live in.
Speaker 2: Where? Where?
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna say.
Speaker 2: No. You don't wanna say because you know that I'll immediately say, come on. There's loads of non white people living there. There's no there's
Speaker 0: By the I'm not against
Speaker 2: non whites. There's no exclusively white area. Okay.
Speaker 0: There's not. Christmas season is here, although it's a bit of a cliche, it really is important to keep Christ in Christmas. Should we focus on cookies and presents or on the reason we're doing this, which is Jesus? Obviously, the point is Jesus. That's the whole point.
That's the only point, and all the decency and good cheer of this holiday comes from Jesus. The hallow apps pray twenty five challenge reminds us of that. It features Chris Pratt, Gwen Stefani, our friend Jonathan Rumi, and many others. This twenty five day challenge guides you through Advent and helps you keep your focus on the true reason for the season, Jesus. Experience the nativity story where Jesus brought peace and calm to a world in chaos.
That's exactly what we need right now is peace and calm and still, and Jesus is the only one who brings it, period. Hallowed was thousands of prayers and meditations and music to help you connect with God all through Christmas and after, including several Christmas original songs and albums. There's a whole world on Hallow. It's like unbelievable. It's changed our family's life.
Check it out. You will not regret it. Get three months for free at hallow.com/tucker. Experience greater peace and stillness this Christmas. I am not now nor have I ever been, and let me just restate.
I think I have a lot more in common with the Pakistani cab driver than I do with the average guardian staffer who's white.
Speaker 2: I just want be that the
Speaker 0: more I'm not inferring anything.
Speaker 2: You're referring the more multicultural that Britain has become in terms of other ethnicities coming to live here, then the worse it's got. And I'm saying those two
Speaker 0: things I'm saying the
Speaker 2: worst. In my view are not automatically linked. And and I There are lots of white people who behave very badly in this country. Well, I've met them.
Speaker 0: Right. And they yell at me. So Right. Yes. I just for the fifth time, I have more in common with the sincerely religious Pakistani cab driver than I do with anyone who works at the Times of London.
That is just a fact. I don't like those people. I don't want to eat with them, and they're white. So all true. All I'm saying is the qualities that made Britain the greatest country in the world were linked directly to the people who live here.
And so, of course, by definition, multicultural means less of some cultures because there's dilution of the dominant culture, and you've it can see that
Speaker 2: are many of people who are nonwhite, who've been born and raised in this country, who've contribute contributed brilliantly
Speaker 0: I would never deny that.
Speaker 2: Success of this country, who've risen to the top positions in top industries, whether it's music
Speaker 0: So defensive. I'm not attacking the nonwhites. Don't Well, a worried about getting arrested. I get it. And by the
Speaker 2: way worried about being arrested.
Speaker 0: When they rush in the door with no guns, little bodies with their sticks. Buy as
Speaker 2: they know you're here. Probably. I'm not worried about
Speaker 0: I got hassled at your airport again. Really? Yeah. Always.
Speaker 2: Well, for being Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 0: You know, we don't know. It's just it's the AI, I guess. But
Speaker 2: Oh, wait. I love that. What happened to you?
Speaker 0: You know, was like, go see the attendant. And by the way, the attendant was some Pakistani woman who's like, oh, we're so glad you're here, which I don't think I would have gotten from the liberal white lady. So, again, once again, I'm not attacking anyone on the basis of their race.
Speaker 2: But you're saying that our culture has changed because we've had other cultures come here. Is that your position?
Speaker 0: Well, it's not my position. It's a fact, and you just said But
Speaker 2: I think our I think our
Speaker 0: So it's better. So what about British culture didn't you like and has been improved by new cultures? Oh, not well. Tell tell me. What didn't you like before?
What are you glad is gone from the Britain you grew up in?
Speaker 2: Let me tell you. If you came to London in the fifties and sixties, the food was crap. Absolute crap.
Speaker 0: Well, it was that way in the eighties when I
Speaker 2: was In edible. Right. Now we have some of the best gastronomy. Amazing.
Speaker 0: So the most expensive too, I wonder. Is everyone eating there?
Speaker 2: No. I I can take
Speaker 0: I paid a thousand dollars for dinner.
Speaker 2: You're Let's a wealthy man leading a very wealthy lifestyle.
Speaker 0: Holy shit. All the food here
Speaker 2: is Come and meet Brick Lane. Come and meet to Brixton. I'll give you a proper meal.
Speaker 0: Love it. You and I will go to the tough parts of town and eat street food, but
Speaker 2: I can give you a great
Speaker 0: But are you really saying the food?
Speaker 2: I'll take you to the top end of Portobello Market. Right? You come with me. If you wanna risk death walking up to Portobello Market, I'll take you and give you some street food, and you'll spend time us.
Speaker 0: Portobello Market. And by the way
Speaker 2: Did you know the the food
Speaker 0: of fact, I'm quite popular there. I will say that. In Notting Hill. I feel no fear at all. In Notting Hill?
Yeah. I will eat. Really? Oh, man. I What
Speaker 2: would thought? They they they're so liberal there.
Speaker 0: Don't don't even get me going.
Speaker 2: Even I get a hard time up there.
Speaker 0: I think they secretly love me because they know that they've been naughty. But whatever. My theories aside, here's my point. What about British culture apart from the boiled menu, which was repulsive? Do you think but the the national character and let me say it again.
Tidiness, self restraint Yep. Selflessness Yep. Courage, fairness Yep. The British system was imported around the world on the basis of one concept, fairness. I think from the Magna Carta.
I think a lot of Has this become a fairer society? It's become completely unfair. You put fucking Julian Assange in prison for years without charges. No. No.
We Because the CIA told you to.
Speaker 2: We have had a massive rising issue with the suppression of free speech.
Speaker 0: Wait. Which is a fairness issue.
Speaker 2: But that has nothing to do with ethnicity or culture.
Speaker 0: Really? So what does it have to do with, do you think?
Speaker 2: It has to do with a very ridiculously draconian view of what free speech But where
Speaker 0: that come from? You've never had that. Governments. No. But of course.
But those are attitudes that grow from the population, or else you would have a revolution. No. No. That's where you're wrong.
Speaker 2: The population does not want this suppression of free speech.
Speaker 0: They they may not, but they keep voting for the fascists every time, whether it's Boris
Speaker 2: Wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. Whether it's Boris or whether it's
Speaker 2: Boris? No.
Speaker 0: He's a buffoon. It doesn't mean he's not an authoritarian.
Speaker 2: He wants it's funny you mentioned the word buffoon. So I once interviewed Well,
Speaker 0: I mean, that's axiomatic. Boris, I'm gonna tell you why.
Speaker 2: Many children
Speaker 0: he I'll
Speaker 2: tell you why. I because I once I once interviewed him for GQ, and I said, Boris, this is two thousand and eight, nine. I said, Boris, I've always thought that lurking beneath the buffoon exterior lies a sharp, calculating political mind that wants to be prime minister. He wasn't even a sort of politician at the time. He looked at me and he said, well, you must consider the the possibility that lurking beneath the buffoon exterior is an actual buffoon.
True. So so he was right.
Speaker 0: No. He was talking
Speaker 2: I can't say we weren't warned.
Speaker 0: But the point is, look. It's not like
Speaker 2: He's not a fascist, Boris Johnson.
Speaker 0: He's an authoritarian.
Speaker 2: But it diminishes the word fascist when you say that about people. I get annoyed
Speaker 0: What is what is fascism, actually? I mean, we're we, meaning the collective West, meaning the allies, meaning Roosevelt and Churchill, meaning America and its cousins in The UK were fighting against an authoritarian system.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: It wasn't just about race hate, it was about full control of a population. We were arguing against that and fighting against it. Of course, were also funding it when we sent money to Stalin, but whatever. It was never fully consistent. But that's what we tell ourselves, and now that's what you have.
There were three times as many people arrested in The UK last year for speech crimes as were arrested in Putin's Russia, and you have half the population. So this is much more authoritarian than Putin's Russia.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's
Speaker 0: not. What? That's How is it not? That's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: If you
Speaker 0: have three times as many arrests for speech crimes Okay. It's more authoritarian. I've not
Speaker 2: seen that stat. If that is true, it's because we have been so appalling in protecting free speech.
Speaker 0: Well, you're appalling. I'm not no no debate there. But I'm just saying No. No. As a like, how do you define authoritarian?
Speaker 2: Idea that we are live living here in a more authoritarian state than Russia comes
Speaker 0: If you're no. Not come on. Those are the numbers.
Speaker 2: You don't believe that.
Speaker 0: Look. I believe in science, Pierce. I believe in science.
Speaker 2: You think England is more authoritarian than Russia?
Speaker 0: Think you're more likely to be arrested for a speech crime in Great Britain, indeed three times as likely.
Speaker 2: What would happen if you criticized them? If If you go on if you went on the airwaves here tonight
Speaker 0: I'm an American. They're not gonna mess with me.
Speaker 2: No. But if you went on the airwaves here tonight and you start abusing and hammering and mocking and criticizing our prime minister, which, by the way, many people are doing
Speaker 0: I'll give you
Speaker 2: Well, mean, no. Let me Yeah. Yeah. Question. If you did that, what would happen to you?
Speaker 0: Nothing. Exactly. But what if I said I thought gay sex was disgusting and should be illegal?
Speaker 2: And if you
Speaker 0: were Wait. Hold on. Hold on. That's nothing. I'm prime minister.
How about I'm opposed to sodomy? How's that?
Speaker 2: I haven't finished my question. And if you went to Moscow and you went on the airwaves and you did that about Putin, what would happen trouble. Right. So there's a difference. No.
Because That's an authoritarian state.
Speaker 0: No. No. That's a straightforward is not. That's a straightforward flawed democracy. No.
This is global homo. That is This is No. No. This is
Speaker 2: Global homo.
Speaker 0: It is global homo. This is What do mean? I'm gonna tell you. I'm gonna tell you. This is a concept that you need to understand.
This is Yes.
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 0: Yes. You do. This is the authoritarianism of the present and future, and it's not it's the feline passive aggressive female version that doesn't tell you what it is. They don't march into your town in jackboots and put a rifle against your face and I do that right, chef. For sure.
It's much more straightforward.
Speaker 2: It's just And they kill you. It's a slut. Fall off a building suddenly.
Speaker 0: Oh, you kill tons of people. Kill tons of people.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree. Oh, yeah. You do a Yeah. Right.
Speaker 0: So let's let's stop at the killing people because you kill tons of people, but as you well know, because you know the people who do it, and I do too. No. I'm saying there's something more offensive about an authoritarianism that will not admit what it is. So instead, people are arrested here and thrown into jail, and I've I've been to Belmarsh Prison. It's awful.
Speaker 2: I've been there.
Speaker 0: It's awful.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 0: But you walk in and there are all these signs about trans acceptance week. It is fascism wrapped in the human rights campaign rainbow logo. It's not any different
Speaker 2: Well, I see.
Speaker 0: From what we were fighting against. Well, I arresting you for saying something bad at
Speaker 2: believe, what and this has been in my big criticism of the woke left. I wrote this book called Woke is Dead, which is more an aspiration than a reality at the moment. But the the point I was making was that the woke left became in the end like the very fascists they profess to hate most. They literally behaved like fascists. Anyone that deviated from their worldview I don't
Speaker 0: want you to devalue the term.
Speaker 2: No. No. I'm not. I'm explaining I'm explaining the I'm explaining the hypocrisy of the left.
Speaker 0: No. I get it. I Which I
Speaker 2: think we could probably agree with. It's if you start to behave like the very people you claim you hate most, you
Speaker 0: are a brazen hypocrite. It's not just the left. It's the right
Speaker 2: Well, the right is doing Unfortunately. Yeah. I agree. Some of the rights do as well. I agree.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, isn't it? Wherever And we see I I do think that this the way I would categorize what's happened here is successive governments, right and left, have tended to a weird sentiment driven by very vocal but small numbers of people that we have to start getting into the suppressing free speech business. And it's been a catastrophic failure, which has diminished this country.
Speaker 0: But why?
Speaker 2: What we're beginning to see is the coming out of that. And I'll give an example. When Graham Linehan, the comedian Yeah. The father 10 genius, right? And he decided to take on this whole trans issue head on.
And a bit like JK Rowling, he got shamed, vilified, canceled. He lost everything. He his family. He lost his jobs. He lost everything.
He became unemployable. Completely cancelled. And he came he did some jokes on X back in April. And they were, yeah, they were just like harmless. Right?
He talked about a trans woman coming into a a woman's space.
Speaker 0: Harmless to you as a non trans person, but genocidal to the trans course.
Speaker 2: Which, again, is ridiculous. So he he he did a joke about a trans woman coming into a a woman's space, and he said, what did you do? Kick him in the balls. Right? It was a joke.
It was an ebonychle joke. If you're oversensitive, you go, oh. Most people just laughed and took it for what it was. Some kind of joke that wouldn't even be considered remotely controversial ten years ago. When he arrived at Heathrow Airport several months later, he was arrested by five armed police officers and taken off to the cells.
And I just found that utterly shocking. So I'm not pretending there's not been a massive problem about free speech, but what was interesting and encouraging was the public backlash. Hence, my book titled, Woke is Dead, the public backlash was so ferocious that within a week, the police said, we're not gonna prosecute Linen. And, actually, they said further, we're never gonna prosecute anyone for this kind of thing again.
Speaker 0: That was
Speaker 2: a bug when I went, we're finally getting a bit of
Speaker 0: sense So the trans thing is absurd. It's so absurd that, like, it's easy for people to say that's absurd. What's actually happening here, as I think you know, is the society is being changed by its leaders against the will of the population. The population hates it. They've always hated it.
No population wants radical demographic change. None. And so it's been so profound since 1997 under Tony Blair that you're not allowed to note that your country is being taken from you. Okay? So you can criticize trainees all you want.
You cannot criticize Israel, as you know. You're not allowed to criticize demographic change, and you can't criticize the rest of the fabled LGBT community. And if you don't believe me, listen to this story, which is like it's unbelievable. This is from the Daily Mail, which is like kind of a ridiculous publication, but I
Speaker 2: I love the Daily Mail.
Speaker 0: I do too. I I do. There's lot about it I like, but I mean, it's like absurd. But anyway, Elizabeth Kinney from Tranmere. Have you read about this?
Go on. She's a mother of four. I think she's a nurse, and she gets beaten up by her boyfriend. He beats her up. She goes to the hospital, and she texts someone, a buddy of hers, a friend of hers, a girlfriend of hers, and describes the man who beat her up and sent her to the hospital as a quote, faggot.
He's a faggot. And she's arrested and convicted of a hate crime. The guy who beat her up is not arrested or convicted. And then she goes through this whole kabuki which is now required where she prostrates herself before the judge. I'm sorry.
It was not a homophobic rant. By the way, you're allowed to be homophobic if you want in a free country. You can have any view you want. But no, because she used the word faggot, she's arrested, and the guy who punched her in the face was not. That story tells you everything.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know that story. If it's exactly
Speaker 0: Daily Mail, baby. Okay. Pictures of her and everything.
Speaker 2: Not doubting it. I'm just saying I need to look into it. But if that is how you've told it, obviously, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 0: Would you say the word faggot on camera? No. Why? Because I I You don't wanna get arrested, do you?
Speaker 2: Doesn't wanna be arrested.
Speaker 0: I Oh, because it's so harmful to people? No. No. I Is that like gay bashing? What's wrong with that?
Speaker 2: No. Actually, my whole issue with the whole trans debate, for example, is you don't need to slide into actually saying derogatory stuff about trans people to make the point that women's rights should be protected. You don't need to Well,
Speaker 0: I agree. So what yeah. Don't believe Sorry. But it's a magic word.
Speaker 2: I don't believe in needlessly smitten you know, sneering Well, I'm not
Speaker 0: smearing anybody. I just think
Speaker 2: But why would you use that word?
Speaker 0: Faggot? Yeah. I just did. But would you use that Faggot. Faggot.
Speaker 2: Okay. But but why?
Speaker 0: And I'm using it because you're not allowed to because
Speaker 2: you're I'm allowed to.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I don't want to.
Speaker 0: Say I love gay people.
Speaker 2: Faggot. I'm I'm allowed to. I just choose not to.
Speaker 0: This chick just got arrested for it and convicted. Right. So that doesn't have a chilling effect on your ability to
Speaker 2: There are people watching this who will be offended by the use of the word
Speaker 0: sure they will. I'm not anti gay. I never have been. I can use any freaking word I want.
Speaker 2: By the use of word cheek.
Speaker 0: Chick. Okay. What are
Speaker 2: I dare you be so sexist I love women to chicks.
Speaker 0: How about this? Let my life, the way that I actually live and treat people, be the testament to my heart. That's how I feel. Right. And if I've mistreated someone I don't believe
Speaker 2: I don't correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe you would call a gay person a faggot to their face.
Speaker 0: Not in a mean way. By the way, the only people I ever hear use the word faggot are gay. Right. Ever. Just like the only people you ever hear use n word are black.
Right. Period. Right. So if you spend any time around gays, and I have spent a lot of time around gays Right. Who Well, of course, I work in television.
I mean, in fact, half our staff was gay. They're great people. And they're the only ones who ever said, faggot. Oh, he's a faggot. I'd be like, ugh.
I have no need to say the word. Actually, it's kind of an ugly word
Speaker 2: Be be
Speaker 0: be be totally honest.
Speaker 2: The argument they use, which is
Speaker 0: Well, they don't use it. They use the word constantly. I've worked with them my whole life.
Speaker 2: Well, I wrote a column, for example, about the use of
Speaker 0: the But I'm not allowed to use it, but you are? Don't play those games, dude.
Speaker 2: Listen. I gotta make a point. I wrote a I wrote a column for The Mail, actually, about the use of the n word, and the Washington Post did a huge report on this and said that every day, on Twitter as it was then, the n word was used half a million times, but almost exclusively by young African American men. So it's cool. Well, they they would argue, and I understood the argument.
Yeah. It's their they've reclaimed that word.
Speaker 0: I don't believe in universal rights either. I think certain standards should apply to certain people based on their blood and but don't apply to everybody.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I mean, that's what you're saying, dude. No. You're The standards have to be absolute or they're not
Speaker 2: standard. I was about to make my argument that I made in the column.
Speaker 0: Getting me so wound up.
Speaker 2: No. No. But I actually made the point in the column that I don't think that works. I don't think you reclaim it. What you actually do is you empower genuine racists to say, well, if they're using that word, I'm gonna use it.
And so I felt it was an entirely self defeating reclamation of that offensive word. I would say the same to gay people. If you constantly use the f word, in your own
Speaker 0: What what's the f word?
Speaker 2: You know what? We've just been saying it. If you
Speaker 0: wanna keep saying it, you keep saying it. I'm not gonna keep saying worse than fuck, isn't it?
Speaker 2: To a gay person from a straight person, yes.
Speaker 0: Have From a straight person, but not from the gay person?
Speaker 2: That's my point.
Speaker 0: I don't So I thought we
Speaker 2: I under understand the reclamation argument that they put up that if they Reclamation. That they're reclaiming the word and they're disempowering
Speaker 0: it That's fine. As offensive. I don't care. I think that's kind of amusing, actually. I sort I
Speaker 2: just don't think it works. I think the more these words get used, then the more
Speaker 0: that about words. I think
Speaker 2: it empowers people who are genuinely racist or homophobic to then use those
Speaker 0: words Okay. They're genuinely racist and homophobic. I don't care. Why don't you pick up the trash? Okay?
That's kinda how I feel. Mhmm. And stop letting people from countries where they can't speak English come to your country by the millions. Like, don't the material things matter? Don't the actual things matter?
Your father lying on a cot in a public hospital?
Speaker 2: I do think that people, when they come to a country, should try and learn the language.
Speaker 0: Of course. But no. But what I'm not again, I'm not attacking anybody. I'm just saying the whole debate about what words are allowed and by whom is first of all insane because, again, standards mean nothing unless they apply to everyone because we believe in human rights, not group rights or ethnic rights. We're against that because we're against the Nazis.
Right?
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So there's that, but it's also a distraction from what actually matters. If your dad is spending hours I'm sure he was a he was a Brit and he spent his whole life here paying taxes Mhmm. And that's what he gets. It's like we should be
Speaker 2: having Completely unacceptable.
Speaker 0: But it is acceptable. That's the problem. Instead, we're arresting that girl for saying faggot.
Speaker 2: Well, there's two things
Speaker 0: Or as we say here, f word.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No. I don't I'd like I said, don't know that story. I'll look into it. But I I do if that is
Speaker 0: Does she look like a faggot user to you? She looks too nice.
Speaker 2: Come on. I'm so sorry. Unbehave yourself.
Speaker 0: No. I can't I I
Speaker 2: know you can't.
Speaker 0: They're making me want to say that because it's so outrageous that you would arrest someone for a word. I agree. And, like, we actually have to put ourselves at risk
Speaker 2: to stop. I agree. Yeah. I agree with you.
Speaker 0: Well, help me now. Let's let's do let's let's have a moment of self liberation.
Speaker 2: I think you're beyond help
Speaker 0: to Hold be my hand. Hold my hand. We're gonna say faggot together. You ready?
Speaker 2: No. We're not.
Speaker 0: Do you say gay and retard? You say gay and retard?
Speaker 2: I say gay. I wouldn't use the r word.
Speaker 0: I wouldn't. I personally wouldn't. You My choice. But I'm legal to abort a Down syndrome baby?
Speaker 2: I am exercising my free speech right not to use that word.
Speaker 0: Totally agree. I actually don't use the n word ever Right. Because I think it's ugly. I just don't
Speaker 2: By your own I don't betard you're
Speaker 0: being I would kind of agree. I'm not even I'm mostly I making fun to make a actually think that we should not kill people because they have Down syndrome. I think they're beautiful people, and I think when you get to heaven, it'll probably fill people with Down syndrome because they are pure in spirit, and I'm not joking even a tiny bit. I really believe that, but people who think it's okay to genocide everyone with Down syndrome through that alpha fetoprotein test are lecturing me because I'm using the word retard. It's like, maybe we're missing the real argument.
That's all I'm saying. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: It does. Although I'm pro a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.
Speaker 0: Including
Speaker 2: And bear in mind
Speaker 0: that aborting someone because he's Well,
Speaker 2: in this country, to be clear, abortion's a very settled issue.
Speaker 0: George Galloway doesn't believe him.
Speaker 2: Well, I know. But, honestly, it's not a contentious issue. In America I know. In America, it's a ferociously contentious issue. It is simply not one in this country.
Speaker 0: Maybe that's part of the problem.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a problem
Speaker 0: all. Who's having the abortions here?
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of people have abortions here.
Speaker 0: Right. It's pretty overwhelmingly, though, people whose grandparents lived here. Have you ever noticed that?
Speaker 2: Who's people who what?
Speaker 0: It's the native population having the abortions. It's not immigrants not having a ton of abortions.
Speaker 2: I know if you
Speaker 0: look at the numbers I know the demographic. But that's true everywhere. And I just a deeper issue. So, like, what is the loss of the will to live? Why if you're not have and you're a huge exception to this.
I know you've procreated, as have I, and God bless us both. But a lot of native born Brits do not have many children, if any. It's also true in The United States. It's especially true in Canada.
Speaker 2: Well, I this is becoming a massive issue, and Elon Musk has been right about this. He is. The biggest problem is not, as we all assumed, overpopulation in the world, but underpopulation. Because a lot of people now, especially as the changing way society has gone with many more women working and so on, that the number of children that are being born actually in places like The UK and The US is reducing quite markedly projected for the next fifty years. And you're seeing in some countries in Asia, for example, it's getting catastrophically low very fast.
This is gonna be a massive South Korea. Yeah. It's gonna be huge.
Speaker 0: There will be no South Koreans in a hundred years. It will only be North Koreans. What does that tell you?
Speaker 2: It's not a good not a good moment.
Speaker 0: No. But where's that I I totally agree with you and with Elon. And, again, I feel like we've all done our part to reverse that trend. Mhmm. But I feel like we spend no time asking why is this?
Speaker 2: Well, don't you think it's as simple in most cases as the changing work practice? You went to the nineteen fifties
Speaker 0: That's part
Speaker 2: of it? Yeah. Nineteen fifties in The UK, most women didn't work. Now when women go out to work a lot more, they probably don't have the time to have three, four, five children that they're
Speaker 0: used There's no doubt. I'm sure that's not Childcare is Right.
Speaker 2: It's very expensive.
Speaker 0: In The United States, it's more expensive than I think any other expense, but for young people with children. Of course, you're right, but there's also something a little bit deeper than that. It's like it used to be just axiomatic that reproducing was not just your duty, but your greatest joy. That was the way you create the next generation, continue your civilization, and that has died since the Second World War. And not just in No.
Speaker 2: No. I think it's inargument.
Speaker 0: But yeah. So but that is like a profound
Speaker 2: What is inargument, actually? Mean, look, like I said, the population here has gone from 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 since the fifties. The the really worrying graph is what happens in the next fifty years.
Speaker 0: No. But that growth in population has been almost exclusively from immigration. And true in The United States and Canada is just like a completely different country. Nothing like that has ever happened in the history of the world. Why is this happening?
Speaker 2: Well, what? In terms of people traveling around?
Speaker 0: No. In terms of people deciding not to pass on their genes, committing mass suicide because that's what that is. Well yeah. Our families lived in this village for two thousand since the beginning of recorded history in this country. Unlike mine, you have a native population.
Speaker 2: You're Just because no one no one
Speaker 0: could You're the Cherokee of this island. Okay?
Speaker 2: I don't wanna give you a history lesson, but a hundred years ago, you know, we everyone traveled by horse and cart. There was no airplane. No. You couldn't leave the country. You couldn't go to other places.
But rather like tribes two thousand years ago, they used to literally just sit in their little area or wherever it may be. Eventually, they ventured out, and so evolution
Speaker 0: I'm for that. I'm not would never argue with Vincent. But once I flew here, actually.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right. Of course. Right. So once you're able to do that, obviously, people are gonna go exploring.
They're gonna wanna try and live in other places. The question then becomes how enriching or damaging or both and in what levels is an influx of people from other ethnicities, other cultures, other countries. I would say on balance, London, in particular, has been almost a template, actually, for tolerance and cohesion and multiculturalism at its best. The stabbings you're talking about? Well, let's talk about the stabbings.
The murder rate in London, do you know what it is compared to any major city in America?
Speaker 0: Probably much lower. I would think it's a way lower testosterone level here. I mean, can feel it too.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's true, actually.
Speaker 0: Every time. Oh, I'm aware. That's true. I'm aware. But look, I'm not You have the worst murder rates Oh, I know.
And by the way, we always have, which is interesting. Yeah. There are a lot of factors for that, and it's one of the saddest things in my country. We've never defend
Speaker 2: The violent the murder rate in London, for example. I checked before I came and saw you because I thought you'd You
Speaker 0: think London's a better city than it was forty years ago, fifty
Speaker 2: years ago? Well, statistically, the murder rate is is actually been plummeting in London.
Speaker 0: Do you know any
Speaker 2: I'm good. I tell you the problem in London. What we really need in London
Speaker 0: Wait. Do you think it's a better city than it was forty years ago? For real? Yeah. You think Sadiq Khan's better than what you had before?
Speaker 2: Think Sadiq Khan is somebody who's won two more terms after his first because, actually, he's not done as bad a job as people say.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's a new statement.
Speaker 2: Nor has he done as well, no. Nor has he done as good a job as as he would like you to believe. But certainly in things like tackling murder, I give him credit. In tackling things like the clean air, where some of the boroughs here were the most polluted
Speaker 0: You have no factories. You don't make anything. How all you do is banking. How could there be dirty air? What are you even talking about?
There's no manufacturing. You lost automotive. You lost aerospace. You lost you lost everything. Steel.
It's clean air because people are idle. They're delivering food to people who work at banks.
Speaker 2: There's more is there is more What? There is more traffic now in London than there was even four years ago. I'm sure. Right. What's called tourism?
So my borough, Kensington and Chelsea, for example, one in twelve people there was a big study on this a few years ago one in twelve people were dying from pollution related illness. Right? I had a lot of issues, which I thought were allergy issues. Eventually, I was told, right. Here's what you should do.
Check your air quality app every morning. When it's really high, don't go out and shut the windows. Secondly, get air purifying machines in your house for the rooms you use. I did both. Guess what?
I've had no problems since, and I didn't have any allergies.
Speaker 0: Well, that's amazing. And It's a And all it cost was a total destruction of your economy. So Well do you think the air was polluted before?
Speaker 2: Well, alright.
Speaker 0: Because people were burning
Speaker 2: Economy is not being destroyed. We're still one of the biggest economies in the world.
Speaker 0: What what is the economy here? What's it based on?
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 0: Like, what what's the British economy? I say I I look at the economy of, I don't know, Wales in 1900, and it's like, it's coal. They mines. They dig coal. People burn it.
That's what their economy is. Look at the economy of Sheffield or Birmingham a hundred years ago. Well, of course, it was steelmaking. What's the economy It's
Speaker 2: a lot of manufacturing in The UK. A lot
Speaker 0: of it. But but as as a percentage, your
Speaker 2: economy manufacturing could be a lot less.
Speaker 0: A lot less? It's almost nonexistent. Yeah. Right. So But
Speaker 2: we still have one of the biggest economies in the world.
Speaker 0: Now But what is that economy based on?
Speaker 2: A lot of things.
Speaker 0: Okay. What's the main one?
Speaker 2: Well, in the city, there's lot of manufacturing.
Speaker 0: That's the main one?
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of technology stuff going on. There's a lot of scientific stuff going on. There's a lot of all sorts of industry.
Speaker 0: You haven't you haven't mentioned the biggest one by far
Speaker 2: Well, go on.
Speaker 0: Was lending money to people. It's banking.
Speaker 2: Banking. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: That's number we're in the city of London right now. Sure. How many things are being made in the city of London other than debt?
Speaker 2: It's one of the financial hubs of the world. We're right in the city here.
Speaker 0: I I know a city in the city of London right now run by CityCon.
Speaker 2: Right. But, again, it's not as bad as people think it is.
Speaker 0: But but hold on. Is that really an economy? If your economy is real estate, that's London's other big economic Mhmm. Center, is buying and selling and leasing pieces of property again and again to different people. Nothing's being created.
Speaker 2: That's not true. That's not true. We are creating things here. A lot of things. Like what?
There's a lot
Speaker 0: of money here. Barata. Okay. Yeah. There's a lot of of course, there's a lot of money because people from around the world stash their money here because it's a system based on fairness.
Speaker 2: It's all the manufacturing. Not as much as there was eighty years ago. How much
Speaker 0: is in London, man? Your biggest city. I don't
Speaker 2: know the percentages. So we have
Speaker 0: to check. Pretty much unless you're talking about, like, burritos being manufactured or whatever, I I don't think there's really any.
Speaker 2: The bigger problem for us is not what economy we're doing. It's how we manage the economy.
Speaker 0: So it doesn't matter where the money comes from?
Speaker 2: No. It does. But successive governments have dragged us to a place where we have almost zero growth. Without growth, you can't have a successful thriving country.
Speaker 0: That's not true. Have you been to Japan? It's like the most successful thriving country in the world that has had no growth for a long not not real growth. And we've gotten these lectures from the bankers for, like, thirty years. Japan is dying.
Ever go to Japan? You get their four year old girls in the subway alone? There's not one speck of litter in all of Tokyo and it's one the biggest cities in the world. 12,000,000. It's an incredible society.
It's the opposite of New York, London, Baltimore, Detroit. It's I know you've been there, and I know you've had these naughty forbidden thoughts like, wait a second. I thought we dropped a bomb on them. How are they so great?
Speaker 2: No. No. No. I like I like going to Tokyo.
Speaker 0: But No growth. How'd they do that with no growth? No. I was assured by libertarian economics, if we had no growth, things would be Well, look at this.
Speaker 2: I like getting in Japan, but I wouldn't swap it for London.
Speaker 0: Right. Fair. You're you're English. That's kind of the point. Right.
This is your homeland.
Speaker 2: Mean And I genuinely do love London.
Speaker 0: No. I bet you do.
Speaker 2: When I lived in America full time, I really missed a lot of the I
Speaker 0: hope so. This is where your ancestors are from. I get it. That's the whole point. That's the whole argument I'm making.
It matters where you're from. The culture really matters. It's not about growth. It's not about any of this crap. It's about do I am I on the same page with my neighbor?
Do we have something in common? Do we have the same gut instincts about things? Those are the most important questions they're all.
Speaker 2: But economic prosperity raises all the ships.
Speaker 0: Is that has that been true here?
Speaker 2: It should be true.
Speaker 0: Is there more poverty in London now than there was forty years ago?
Speaker 2: There's more child poverty.
Speaker 0: Yes. I know.
Speaker 2: In fact, the child poverty rate is worse here than it is in America. A lot worse. The general poverty
Speaker 0: rate So how is this so great even though they have volatile?
Speaker 2: Rate is actually lower than it is in America. But child poverty specifically
Speaker 0: Is there anything that matters other than child poverty? Mean Probably not. Not really.
Speaker 2: So I agree.
Speaker 0: Look, I'm not slagging on I love your country. I really thought a lot about this since I was so mean during that conversation. I was just wounded because I feel like the destruction of Britain has effects on our entire Anglo civilization.
Speaker 2: Did you actually look out and see a destroyed
Speaker 0: No. It's just beautiful. I mean, is No. Again, this is the rich part of town.
Speaker 2: This is take I take you to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff. I could take you to How
Speaker 0: are they doing?
Speaker 2: They're all doing great. Much better than you think. Honestly, Tucker, you'll walk around. You'll see the pubs packed, the restaurants packed, the theaters packed. You'll see people having a great time.
Go on a Friday night in London. Go go to go to the Devonshire in Soho, the best Irish pub in town, four deep in the streets. Everyone having a great time. Love that. 20,000 pints of Guinness being sold every week.
I could
Speaker 0: say that there are so many things about London I really like. I've been here three days, again, visiting relatives who
Speaker 2: Have you genuinely even felt threatened walking around?
Speaker 0: No. Not at all.
Speaker 2: Of course.
Speaker 0: Again, what's who's gonna do anything? Pakistanis are all super nice to me and the whites are all kinda craving and sad. No. You're totally safe here, man. It's not that at all.
It's just that it's dirty.
Speaker 2: It's what?
Speaker 0: It's dirty. Oh, come on.
Speaker 2: American cities aren't any cleaner than London.
Speaker 0: They're dirtier. They're dirtier. And it's one of the great tragedies, and I can't get anyone to care. I agree. Nobody cares.
Agree. So that to me, if I went to your bedroom right now, I'd Sorry? I'm not going. I'm not going. Especially, I don't have the whole faggot thing.
It's like I'm uncomfortable. I get it. I get it. I get it. And you said you were so liberal.
But but if I went to your house unannounced, I bet I would find it tidy and clean. Yeah. And I bet I would find that just because you have a housekeeper. I don't even know if you do. But because you care, because you have self respect.
Right. That's why you shave and
Speaker 2: But I agree with that part. I think the self respect part, I totally agree with you. We've lost that. We've lost the I think the British were legendary for our politeness, our manners, our arm. That has gone.
We've really
Speaker 0: Dude, that's everything.
Speaker 2: No. But I totally agree with you. So when you talk about the cultural stuff that I really regret that has gone out of fashion, if you like, it is things like that. It's things like, you know, a British person used to speak well and open doors for women and things like that. Now that's frowned upon.
Right? The kind of screaming radical feminists have made it almost a taboo thing. Young men in particular do not know how to behave. When I'm out with them, I notice they don't stand up when women walk into a room or to a table. They don't open doors for themselves because they've been conditioned to think this might be toxic masculinity and all this bullshit.
That kind of stuff really worries me.
Speaker 0: Do you ever wonder where it comes from? Because I know the answer, but I'm gonna like
Speaker 2: Well, you're gonna say it's multiculturalism, but a lot of the other cultures that have come here actually have far more politeness.
Speaker 0: I agree. In the I agree completely.
Speaker 2: So that's the yeah.
Speaker 0: That's exactly my point. Yeah. Is that the cost is to the invaded. You're being invaded. You already said there are boats showing up uninvited.
That's called an invasion. It's happened a lot through history, and it's the people who are conquered, who are vanquished, who suffer. The immigrants all seem kinda happy. It's better than Bangalore, you know, or whatever.
Speaker 2: Don't feel conquered and
Speaker 0: Oh, you but you are, though. I mean, if people are showing up in boats in in your country, no way. I don't know what to do about them. Well, how about sink them? I mean, what?
Just to to put really think
Speaker 2: To put it in to put it in perspective
Speaker 0: Lord Nelson would put up his
Speaker 2: in perspective. In the last five years, we've had about 200,000 people come over our southern border. In the last five years in America, until Donald Trump got a grip of it, you have apparently 10,000,000 come over the southern border.
Speaker 0: Oh, more.
Speaker 2: Right. So I'm afraid there is no comparison.
Speaker 0: Why
Speaker 2: why We have a little problem. You had a gigantic problem.
Speaker 0: Let let me add an amen, as we say in the black church, I totally agree. And that's why Britain is so interesting because for two reasons. One, the people who are being invaded and replaced are the native population. They're the Iroquois of the British Isles. They've been here forever.
Their ancestors bones were at Stonehenge. There's no debate about that, though they pretend otherwise, but that's just a fact. Eliminating indigenous populations is like kind of a sin, I thought, but it's happening here and in Ireland and in Scotland and in Wales,
Speaker 2: a. B Hang on. They're not being eliminated.
Speaker 0: Of course they are. Look at the birth rates. They're not What are their birth rates?
Speaker 2: Not an elimination.
Speaker 0: Of course it is. Over time it is.
Speaker 2: Dude, look That is people taking a decision about their own lives and not having enough children or as many as they used to have.
Speaker 0: Well, a That's not an elimination. A process. You mean it's not a limit. No. No.
It's telling the
Speaker 2: white population of this country, you can't have more than one child.
Speaker 0: Well, that's the point that I'm making.
Speaker 2: Well, they're not, though.
Speaker 0: The well, whatever they're doing, I mean, they're they're certainly encouraging they're aggressively encouraging homosexuality. Use the f word and you go to jail. No. What what is that? If wanna know who's in charge, you can't criticize.
You can't use the word fact. What? That was aggressively
Speaker 2: encouraging homosexuality.
Speaker 0: Jail for using a naughty word about gays, dude. They're not encouraging it. What do you think that is?
Speaker 2: What's wrong with homosexuality?
Speaker 0: Well, if you encourage it and the rate goes up, people have fewer kids. I don't know. You did you do biology?
Speaker 2: Well, no. So the Just to be clear, the Most gay people don't have kids.
Speaker 0: That's the point I'm making. Right. They're not So if all of a sudden you have more people being gay, which you do
Speaker 2: a lot? No. You don't. People don't pretend to be gay.
Speaker 0: Do have the Internet? I don't know. I'm not saying they're pretending. I'm saying
Speaker 2: Well, they've
Speaker 0: way more Yeah. You're gay. Right? Well, you you know, we used to say that, but
Speaker 2: You don't think so?
Speaker 0: Well, I used to think that, but all of a sudden, you're I think lots of people put in their
Speaker 2: hand up saying they're trans. That's a different issue.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's totally different. It's not part of the continuum. It's not like, gender isn't real. I can But pretend it Maybe it's this
Speaker 2: If you're gay, you're gay.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, we were told that, and I believed a lot of things that Do
Speaker 2: you not believe that?
Speaker 0: Well, it's it's demonstrably not true because science tells us that Do think
Speaker 2: people are making it up?
Speaker 0: I don't think they're making it up at all.
Speaker 2: What's your point?
Speaker 0: I think that you can be moved in that direction through propaganda and pornography. Come
Speaker 2: off it, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Well, then then then how do you explain?
Speaker 2: Is there anything that would make you could I make you gay?
Speaker 0: How hard do wanna try?
Speaker 2: Not hard. I can tell you.
Speaker 0: Good. That's the spirit, Pierce. There's a limit. Even an open minded man like you, you kinda hate the gays.
Speaker 2: Could I make you gay?
Speaker 0: A little gay joke, you're like, oh, I'm not gonna be gay. Oh, no.
Speaker 2: Why are you using a gay slayer? That's fine.
Speaker 0: It well, first of all, it the context matters. As I've told you, I mean, that's like coffee table conversation between the gays. I work with Ed Fox. Faggot. So if it's okay with them, it's okay with me.
It's just it it's sort of like it's sort of like racism. Only the
Speaker 2: white people can be persuaded to be gay.
Speaker 0: Well, then why don't you explain the twofold or threefold increase in self identified homosexuals in The United States?
Speaker 2: Can. They used to be repressed. They used to be illegal in this country till the mid sixties. You literally went to jail.
Speaker 0: So all through history Hang on.
Speaker 2: You literally were put in a prison cell if you were openly homosexual.
Speaker 0: More here, actually. You guys did Oscar Wilde. We didn't, but you are so
Speaker 2: I'm saying shocking.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was terrible. You you ruled the world at the time and now you're a joke dependent on four known banks. And you think that's because gay, so it's like a great trade.
Speaker 2: So allowing allowing gay people to be openly gay is what is why we rank
Speaker 0: something masculinity is the fastest way different issue. To servitude. Totally different Pakistani. That's why I like the Pakistanis here. You talk to a Pakistani cab driver, you're like, why are you gay?
And they will start laughing because they've watched the video, and they're like, I'm not gay. I'm a man.
Speaker 2: What's it gonna do with masculinity?
Speaker 0: Single Britain. Why are you gay? They'll be like, well, I'm not gay, but it would be okay if I was. And it's like It would there's no masculine self respect at all. You're sounding quite homophobic.
I'm not afraid of gays at all. I'm just asking actually a
Speaker 2: sex don't even immediately actually think they really exist by the sound
Speaker 0: of it. Well, they exist.
Speaker 2: No. But are they real? Do they is their sexuality genuinely
Speaker 0: Are they sleeping with dudes?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Big time. Well, and women, are they attracted to members of the rights?
Speaker 0: The lesbian thing is way overblown.
Speaker 2: Actually, there are a lot of lesbians.
Speaker 0: How many?
Speaker 2: I haven't counted. I can
Speaker 0: count this lot. Conversation?
Speaker 2: Not recently.
Speaker 0: This is so great. You're gonna get so fucking arrested after this. It's
Speaker 2: be unbelievable. That was arresting me. Okay. That was arresting me, but I'm just curious whether you think the gay people
Speaker 0: actually Let
Speaker 2: me let me actually are gay or whether you think they've been somehow turned.
Speaker 0: For the third time, I think it's completely sincere. Right. Completely sincere. Well, see, the the question I'm not saying have a problem with it. I'm merely saying you get fewer children when more people are gay.
Speaker 2: No. You don't. Well, actually, you do. People aren't gay because more people are
Speaker 0: able to get they're gay. Hold on. You don't get fewer well, hold on. Stop. Okay.
Was it, like, 30% of the population always, like, in Roman times? Or about 30%, would you say?
Speaker 2: I'm just saying.
Speaker 0: No. It was like this is The
Speaker 2: falling birth rates have nothing to do with If
Speaker 0: you have more if you have more gays, do you have fewer children?
Speaker 2: We don't have more gays.
Speaker 0: We've got way more gays. No. No.
Speaker 2: We have more people who are not afraid to say they're gay.
Speaker 0: They're letting their freak flag fly.
Speaker 2: They are actually gay, Tucker. They just haven't been able to admit it.
Speaker 0: So why isn't that the case, like, in Asia? What do you mean? I mean, don't think there's no Asian country, and they're not all, like, putting gays in jail. Malaysia might be. Korea's not.
South Korea. Why why is their self described homosexuality rate so much lower than yours? Japan, same.
Speaker 2: Because culturally, it is not
Speaker 0: a thing So it's genetic. You think it's genetic?
Speaker 2: No. It's cultural.
Speaker 0: No. No. People become gay.
Speaker 2: Now the last World Cup Wait. But how
Speaker 0: do people become gay?
Speaker 2: Let me give you the World Cup is coming.
Speaker 0: The We're talking about soccer.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm telling you
Speaker 0: I wanna talk about the gay thing.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you why.
Speaker 0: How did they become gay?
Speaker 2: One in Why are you gay? One in four countries in the last World Cup actually outlaw being homosexual. It's criminal offense. Do you think that's right?
Speaker 0: I don't care.
Speaker 2: We should care.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: I really care.
Speaker 0: You you You've had people arrested for using the word faggot. That's who I feel sorry for. This chick from Britain.
Speaker 2: So do you so right. So you feel very exercised about that.
Speaker 0: Because she's in Great Britain. She's not in some primitive theocracy.
Speaker 2: As exercised about people being arrested and putting a prison cell for their sexuality if they're gay? Why don't you feel as angry about that?
Speaker 0: Because it's not my culture. It's not my country. It's not.
Speaker 2: Come on.
Speaker 0: Why don't I'm not for arresting any I'm for arresting very few people. Should be arrested for their not. What?
Speaker 2: So you agree with me?
Speaker 0: You're talk about okay. I will as of also a talk show host, you're not gonna get me off my path. And my path leads to this question, how do people become gay?
Speaker 2: They don't become gay.
Speaker 0: What? Are they born gay? Yes. How does that work?
Speaker 2: They're born gay. How? They have a sexual attraction.
Speaker 0: No. No. No. I understand the manifestations, the symptoms.
Speaker 2: The symptoms?
Speaker 0: Yeah. The symptoms. The symptom. My symptoms of my They're
Speaker 2: born gay. Okay.
Speaker 0: So that means that you You
Speaker 2: may not want
Speaker 0: to That no. No. That means
Speaker 2: acknowledge that. No. No.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm just asking how
Speaker 2: works. That.
Speaker 0: So there's a gay gene.
Speaker 2: You said you worked with lots of gay
Speaker 0: Hold on. Hold on. There's a gay gene?
Speaker 2: Have this conversation with actual gay people?
Speaker 0: Yeah. A lot of them say I got molested. That's why I'm gay. In fact, a really good friend of mine who's gay said I got molested. That's why gay
Speaker 2: all gay people are gay because they got molested.
Speaker 0: No. I don't think that. But I am wondering. I don't know the answer. But I was I would say the absolute Yeah.
But what is the
Speaker 2: answer? Gay people are gay because they are actually attracted to members of their own sex.
Speaker 0: No. No. But, again, that's manifestation Period. That's a manifest natural thing. You're not let's let's just do science for thirty seconds.
Of course, you're right. That's the definition of gay. I'm attracted to someone of my Do you believe that? Do I believe that they're attracted to people from their own sex? Yes.
Well, obviously, they have sex with them. Okay. So that's what attraction
Speaker 2: So what's the big deal? Why'd you care?
Speaker 0: My question because the self reported incidence of it has risen. So we were told thirty years ago, and I I have a good memory. It's about ten percent, but the actual self reported people will be mercilessly mocks. Listen. Then but the self reported rate was, five percent.
Then it's ten percent. Now it's, like, thirty percent. So my question is, were they all born that way? Thirty percent of a population is born homosexual? As an evolutionary matter, you tell me how that works.
How do you reproduce?
Speaker 2: It's not 30% of the population.
Speaker 0: In The United States, in a lot of places, is. 30%. It's not here. It's not 30%. Way higher here based on the vibe.
Speaker 2: What is way higher is the number of people compared
Speaker 0: to But 30 where does it come from? Thirty years ago. Is it genetic? And where's the gene?
Speaker 2: Thirty years ago, gay people were persecuted.
Speaker 0: I know. I've heard the story. No. They were We were commemorating Stonewall the other day at my house. You know, I'm on board with all of this Yeah.
The candlelight vigil, we always do it every year. Every February 9, we I arrest my kids in this kind of mock stonewall thing.
Speaker 2: What would you do if one of your kids
Speaker 0: They say, I just wanna be free, and then I unlock the
Speaker 2: hang of What if one of your kids says they're gay?
Speaker 0: I love my kids no matter what. I love my kids no matter what they children.
Speaker 2: Would you think someone had turned them into a gay person? Or would you accept
Speaker 0: them as an actual person? Journalist, so I actually wonder what the real answer is, not the bullshit propaganda answer. Would you say to them? I don't know. That's why I'm asking you.
You say people are born gay. What you would You don't wanna answer because you don't have an answer because you know the answer is bullshit.
Speaker 2: No. My ass is correct.
Speaker 0: That they're born that way
Speaker 2: They're born gay.
Speaker 0: Then is there a gene for it? And you know there isn't. A gene. Tell me a gene. It's it it it's the code that determines your physical and emotional characteristics.
You have blue eyes because you have a gene for blue eyes. Right. If someone is gay, then there should be a gene that we can isolate and say it's the gay gene. And science have been looking for the gay gene for a long time, and my question is, where is it? I'm waiting on my gay gene.
I ordered a gay gene, and it hasn't arrived yet. Where where's my gay gene?
Speaker 2: It must have been like you might be.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm waiting for my gay gene. And if there isn't a gay gene, then it's totally within boundless. It's not homophobia. It's not hate.
I don't wanna arrest people in Liberia or whatever the hell you're talking about. I just wanna know what is this, and no one will answer the question. And I don't know why. It's weird. Right?
Why can't we have a non emotional conversation with, why are you gay? As they say in Nigeria, why are
Speaker 2: you gay?
Speaker 0: And no one will answer it.
Speaker 2: Well, in Nigeria, it's a criminal offense to be gay.
Speaker 0: Like, I don't know.
Speaker 2: You think there aren't gay people in Nigeria? Haven't there are.
Speaker 0: Haven't been there in a while.
Speaker 2: Of course there are gay people in Nigeria.
Speaker 0: But where does it come from?
Speaker 2: But they can't and you
Speaker 0: can't answer the question. Because if they admit
Speaker 2: they're gay, get put in prison. That can't be right. Right? You're you're a guy. You just want you're gonna be
Speaker 0: putting someone in prison because he says he's gay? Of course, I'm against that. Right. I mean, please. Not because he says he's gay, because he's gay.
In extreme third you guys don't bring Nigerians here, do you?
Speaker 2: Well, a lot
Speaker 0: of Nigerians here. What? You import gay haters into your country? I thought you were for the gays. No.
I'm serious. Why would you import? You're just telling me that the Nigerians are bad, and you said you basically hate Nigerians.
Speaker 2: Know, Tucker, there are lots of countries around the world with different laws to hear, different But why would you import them?
Speaker 0: If you love the gays, why would you import people? The only thing
Speaker 2: when they come here, they have to abide by our laws. That's how it works.
Speaker 0: And your values. So what are those values?
Speaker 2: No. Actually, you don't have to come here with our values. Oh. You have to come here and abide by our laws.
Speaker 0: And your laws include not using the word faggot. That's against
Speaker 2: the law. I just think, why would you do that and just be offensive for the sake of it?
Speaker 0: I I totally agree with you. I never use that word. I'm just being honest. I never use that word Right. Ever.
In fact, I think it's maybe the first time I've used it since the eighties. But it's not a matter of custom, it's a matter of law because this woman, mother of four, wound up in prison for it. So if that's going to be the law, it's obviously like the most important it's so important to you that people not insult gays in any way. You can insult straights.
Speaker 2: You can insult gays as much as you like.
Speaker 0: Well, no. You can't. You get arrested.
Speaker 2: Need jail. Know that, I'm gonna look into it. But as I said to you,
Speaker 0: I I'm gonna hand it to you right here. Here it is.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't think people should be arrested for using words like that.
Speaker 0: I agree. There should be social disapproval.
Speaker 2: You should be allowed to be hateful under freedom of speech.
Speaker 0: I totally agree.
Speaker 2: You know, it's they're not actually inciting violence against people, which is a different thing.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 2: We should agree. If you if I say go and stab Tucker Carlson, and he's staying at this hotel right now
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 2: It's a criminal offense.
Speaker 0: Totally.
Speaker 2: There's already a law and statute in both our countries for that.
Speaker 0: So I can tell that we were both born in the nineteen sixties because we totally agree on the underlying human right, which is the core human right, which is the right to conscience and self expression, and both of us are on exactly the same page. Where I lose you is your whole world is crumbling around you. I'm worried that's gonna happen in my country, which is why I'm hassling you.
Speaker 2: My whole world's great. In fact, it couldn't
Speaker 0: be better. The restaurants are better. I totally get it. No. I'd known
Speaker 2: you were in town yesterday, I'd have taken you to the Emirates Stadium to watch my football team Arsenal beat our Northland
Speaker 0: Arrival It for was the most
Speaker 2: joyous, magnificent experience imaginable. You would have seen a multicultural crowd roaring
Speaker 0: as one. It's incredible.
Speaker 2: Jews, Muslims, white, black Love it. Gay
Speaker 0: Love it. Straight, all
Speaker 2: joined as one as Arsenal fans.
Speaker 0: It's what the church used
Speaker 2: to be.
Speaker 0: Except they charge you admission. I get it. I know what Bretton's circus
Speaker 2: the church used to charge you admission in the old We
Speaker 0: we had Martin Luther for that, and we we couldn't fix them. Henry the eighth played along, so god bless you for that. But here's the point.
Speaker 2: No. But here's my point. If I took you to the Devonshire for a pint of Guinness, you'd love it. If I took you to Arsenal to a massive multi country state would. Fans, you'd love it.
60,000 people. No trouble. No aggravation.
Speaker 0: I'm here voluntarily. I love it.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 0: I just don't want it to evaporate in a It's not evaporating.
Speaker 2: Okay. Have
Speaker 0: challenges. Why aren't you more panicked that thousands of people, thousands, by their own admission, the admission of the of the British government arrested every year for saying words, not threats. Words.
Speaker 2: I am. I've expressed sight.
Speaker 0: So why doesn't someone try to overthrow the government? I don't understand. How can they treat you like slaves if
Speaker 2: they put up carry on down down that road.
Speaker 0: Well, they aren't carrying
Speaker 2: it on.
Speaker 0: It's thousands a year. It's getting more.
Speaker 2: Then they will be voted out of office. I can't say it.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's how we Is that what Winston Churchill would say? I think Winston Churchill said, even if a strong man tries to take Poland, a country we've got nothing to do with this, not even close to here, we're going to risk the lives of our citizens to liberate Poland. Poland
Speaker 2: is closer to here than your home is to New York.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's true. That's true.
Speaker 2: So it's all relative. So if Well, it's a tiny
Speaker 0: little Lego Europe. I get it.
Speaker 2: If Maine got attacked, would you expect people in New to
Speaker 0: help to do with Like,
Speaker 2: Maine got attacked, would you expect people in New York to help you?
Speaker 0: It's the same country.
Speaker 2: Okay. But you're actually
Speaker 0: Kind of a big distinction. We we were My country's quite large.
Speaker 2: We were part of Europe, the same continent.
Speaker 0: You were not part of I call bullshit on that. Really? In 1940, you were not part of You don't think well, of course, we're on Europe. Definitely not part
Speaker 2: on the continent of Europe.
Speaker 0: You are not on the continent. You're an island, dude, off the continent separated by a body of water. Do you know what it's called between you and France? It's called the English Channel. I know what it's You are not part of Europe.
That is not true.
Speaker 2: We are part
Speaker 0: of Europe. My ancestors lived here. You are not you are England. We
Speaker 2: are part of Europe.
Speaker 0: France was considered exotic and crazy. That's where the prostitutes and the cheese eaters lived. It's only the brainwashing of Tony Blair and all these technocrats since who have convinced you European. You're way better than European. You're an ancient Germanic Celtic people who ruled the world.
Do you remember that in your wooden ships? Anyway, but the point is the point
Speaker 2: you know what I'm serious? He did. Some crap sometimes.
Speaker 0: No. It's
Speaker 2: Anyways, it's It's totally real. But come on.
Speaker 0: With the mask from Maine, White Pines. But the point is your country went to war to preserve human rights in another country you had nothing to do with, but human rights are evaporating in your own country, and it's cool because you have soccer games with foreigners at them Yeah. And good burrata. Yeah. And I'm just saying maybe something about the heroic British spirit has been diminished with time.
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: But there is a very lovely, quaint notion being built up in The United States driven by people like Tommy Robinson here.
Speaker 0: Who's Tommy Robinson?
Speaker 2: You know Tommy Robinson.
Speaker 0: He seems like a fraud to me.
Speaker 2: Well, he's not even Tommy Robinson. His name's Steven Yaxley. It's not even his real name. He's also convicted of multiple crimes, thuggery, fraud
Speaker 0: y I don't even know anything about him, but he doesn't seem like he's
Speaker 2: that into Britain. We would call him a little shit stirrer. Right? However, he has
Speaker 0: But the real people here, the actual Britain's
Speaker 2: So this idea that that he's driven, that we're on the verge of some sort of civil war here. Do you feel that when you walk around?
Speaker 0: No. Because that's my point. You're so passive.
Speaker 2: But not
Speaker 0: passive. Take your human rights away, and you're like, oh, defending Ukraine is so important. We're so proud to have defended Poland's territorial integrity eighty years ago. It's like, great. I'm so glad.
Speaker 2: I'm very proud of that.
Speaker 0: I apparently. Yeah. But it's all a kind of displacement where you're taking your own frustrations with yourselves and your own cowardice and sort of living in this Walter Mitty world where, like, no. Actually, we're brave. We're gonna defend Ukraine.
It's like, what about defend yourselves against the monsters
Speaker 2: from taking Ukraine.
Speaker 0: It's like eighth on the list. Defend yourself. Defend your human rights. They can't put you in jail for saying naughty words.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: Period. I agree. So march on the capital. Get these people out. Scare them.
Yeah. Do to them what you did to the Germans in Poland, which you would like to do, to the Russians in But the way it works.
Speaker 2: We are a democratic society with a democratic elected government.
Speaker 0: How is it democratic? Nobody wants the invasion.
Speaker 2: If a government overreaches, and I think on free speech, they've lost the plot, if they do, they will get, I can guarantee you, voted out of
Speaker 0: When was the last time Britain's voted for millions of foreigners to come to their country?
Speaker 2: Well, you don't. You vote for a government that makes
Speaker 0: Well, you don't ever vote for that. So the biggest thing that's ever happened in your history nobody voted for
Speaker 2: People flag up what their policies are gonna be. But, actually, what it's been is a systematic failure to control our borders going back, I would say, twenty five years. That's really what's happened.
Speaker 0: Just all I'm saying is it doesn't seem democratic. It doesn't seem that's what the people want at all.
Speaker 2: I agree. It's now become a massive issue. And the big issue, actually, is because they put a lot of these so called asylum seekers, and many of them are not. They're economic seekers who want a better life here. I don't blame them.
It's a great country to come to. But a lot of them are being put in really nice quality hotels. And while they're being processed, sometimes for two years, three years, they're living a very comfortable, luxurious life in neighborhoods where there is real abject poverty. And that is what is causing a lot of unrest, and I get that. And I have great sympathy with the people who live in those areas, who are really struggling to feed their kids, who are seeing these people coming in on the boats illegally and being put in fancy hotels.
That has to stop. And you also have to process these people a lot quicker for their sake and for the country's. Are you a genuine asylum seeker? I never want this country to be a place that rejects genuine asylum seekers. Why?
Well, because, actually, I believe that we have a duty to take care of people who are genuinely free. Your own people? What about fleeing war torn countries where we started the war? What about
Speaker 0: people Stop starting wars. You're doing it again.
Speaker 2: Okay. But one of us opposed the Iraq war at the time, and it wasn't you.
Speaker 0: I've been atoning for it ever since. Was one of the worst defenders.
Speaker 2: Campaign here against the Iraq war. Cost me my job in the end. I led the Good for you. I led a front page assault on
Speaker 0: that You should stick with that. You should stick with that.
Speaker 2: Well, like me, I I take a lot of I I like to look at each war in isolation. Well, I do.
Speaker 0: I do. I get it. I get it. Pierce Morgan, I know you've got a job. You've been so gracious in defending your country.
Speaker 2: By the way, I meant to start with this. Until today, I had no idea that you appeared on Dancing with the Stars.
Speaker 0: I didn't. That's AI.
Speaker 2: Somebody tweeted the clip today with two friends of mine, Len Goodman, sadly no longer with us, Bruno Tonioli, ripping you and you won.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 2: So you're you're dancing. I'm
Speaker 0: gonna I don't I don't really think their had their attacks had much to do with my appearance. You are many things. Stars I'm just suspecting.
Speaker 2: Well, you are many well, I've gotta be there was a point. You didn't really do much dancing. And as Bruno put it, the problem started when you actually danced.
Speaker 0: You know, honestly Has
Speaker 2: your dancing improved?
Speaker 0: My dancing is pretty good. I have a little trouble taking instruction, but, you know, I would just say what they always say when the nude pictures of the porno tape emerge years later. I was young and I needed them all. Okay? Pierce Morgan, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for spending all
Speaker 2: this time.
Speaker 0: To Great to see you. Is it is a lovely country. Actually, I just have to say that.
Speaker 2: Go and have a more car. They're gonna have a pint in the Devonshire. I'll take you to the next asshole game. You'll love it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Christmas is back, and so is our merchandise shop at TCN. Visit tuckercarlson.com to see what we have to offer, and it's awesome. Everyone has a long list of people they need to shop for this Christmas. Our new line can help you brighten the day with gifts they will actually love, not the kind they're gonna throw away.
Well, thank you for, but not mean it. Actually good stuff that's great for everybody. Ornaments, wrapping paper, Christmas sweaters. For real. The TCN shop has everything you need.
Dozens of new styles and designs perfect for the gift giving and spreading the Christmas spirit. That's tuckercarlson.com. We hope you have the very best Christmas.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explain how gold has nearly doubled the S&P since 2000, a fact few know. This is an amazing story. I cover gold’s resilience, how it beat the market, private transactions, who’s buying, where it comes from, its true value, spending, storage, and risks. I also discuss silver, the Fed, and a supposed “secret” gold scam impacting retirement, and why I’m committed to the industry.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Over the past 25 years, since January 2000, the price of gold has nearly doubled the S&P average. Why don’t most people know that? There’s a reason, says Chris Olson, one of the country’s biggest gold wholesalers. This is an amazing story. (0:00) Introduction (4:49) How Has Gold Withstood the Test of Time? (14:22) How Gold Beat the S&P (21:04) How Private Are Gold Transactions? (25:54) Who Is Buying Gold? (26:58) Where Does the Gold Come From? (34:43) What Is the True Value of Gold? (36:37) How Do You Spend Gold? (47:07) How Hard Is It to Store Gold? (48:27) What Are the Risks to Buying Gold? (48:26) The Timeless Circulation of Gold (53:21) The Difference Between Silver and Gold (56:56) Is Artificial Money the Root of All Societal Problems? (1:04:25) The Creation of the Federal Reserve (1:06:39) The Secret Gold Scam Stealing From Your Retirement Fund (1:22:51) Why Olson Committed Himself to the Gold Industry (1:26:40) The Real Value of Silver (1:30:56) The Lies of the Federal Reserve Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on gold, silver, and the integrity of the precious metals market, with a focus on creating an honest retail model and exposing industry practices that exploit investors — especially older retirees with retirement accounts.
Key points and claims:
- Gold’s price dynamics and use as money: Gold and silver are presented as a reliable store of value and a form of money with durable, portable, divisible, fungible, and recognizable properties. The speakers argue that gold has historically served as a medium of exchange and a store of value, and that inflations in fiat currencies arise from arbitrary money creation rather than intrinsic wealth. They claim central banks have, at times, suppressed gold prices to maintain dollar dominance, while gold acts as a barometer for the health of currencies.
- The current gold price environment: The spot price for gold is described as at an all-time high, reflecting a shift away from the dollar and a search for safety amid rising national debt and perceived systemic risk. The guests suggest this is a modern development that underscores gold’s ongoing relevance.
- A critique of certain gold marketing practices: The speakers recount receiving offers from large gold companies, including one near $20 million per year to market gold, which they reject as unethical. They describe a practice in the industry where commemorative or “special issue” coins are sold for well above the underlying gold value (often around 150% of spot or more) with little ability for customers to recoup value when selling. This is characterized as a scam targeting ordinary consumers, especially seniors relying on retirement accounts.
- The need for an honest retail gold company: Instead of being pitched as a commodity, gold is framed as a vehicle for transparent, consumer-friendly purchases with straightforward overhead and fair markups. This motivates the founders to launch Battalion Metals, a company they present as one of the few truly transparent gold retailers, offering low markups and full transparency about costs.
- Christopher Olson’s role: Christopher Olson, described as one of the largest gold wholesalers in the United States with deep expertise, is highlighted as a trusted partner. Olson provides insights on gold’s properties, the gold market’s structure, and the mechanics of price formation, liquidity, and delivery.
- How gold is traded and delivered: The discussion details the global structure of the gold market, including major exchanges (COMEX in New York, London Bullion Market Association, Shanghai Gold Exchange) and the role of refineries, mines, and private mints in producing bars and coins. They distinguish between spot prices, futures contracts, and the realities of physical delivery, noting that the spot price on screen is tied to futures markets and that delivering physical gold involves handling frictions like shipping, insurance, and storage.
- Delivery and privacy considerations: The speakers emphasize that technically 100% of Battalion Metals’ customers take delivery, either to a depository or directly to them. They highlight that many customers physically take possession (north of 50%), and assert that gold can be moved or stored privately with minimal record-keeping beyond standard 1099 reporting thresholds. They discuss privacy as a form of financial sovereignty, contrasting private gold ownership with the privacy negatives of digital or fiat systems.
- Risks of buying gold: They acknowledge that gold is volatile and that putting all liquid assets into gold is ill-advised. They warn about the risk of theft, the costs of securely storing gold, and the need to avoid concentrated exposure. They note physical risks like fire and loss, and discuss the importance of securing, insuring, and potentially dispersing storage. They explain that some forms of gold (e.g., Gold Eagles) may be exempt from certain reporting, increasing privacy but requiring careful dealer practices.
- Silver’s status and pricing: Silver is described as undervalued relative to gold, with a current price around $34 per ounce and a historical gold-to-silver ratio typically around 12-15 to 1. The observed market ratio of about 90 to 1 is attributed to factors including central bank demand and the lack of silver as a current monetary standard. They note that silver supply is not expanding at the pace implied by the current price and discuss possible market manipulation theories, alongside technical factors like mining ratios and industrial demand.
- The broader monetary system and policy critique: The speakers trace the decline of the dollar’s dominance to fiat money and the post-1971 move away from the gold standard. They argue that fiat money enables monetary policy to be conducted without real asset backing, increasing centralization of power and enabling policy decisions that affect everyday people. They discuss de-dollarization and the BRICS push, considering gold as a potential neutral reserve asset or “original cryptocurrency” in a private sense, while acknowledging the debates around Bitcoin’s viability as a reserve asset.
- Vision for Battalion Metals: The hosts describe Battalion Metals as a platform designed to restore trust, with transparent pricing, clear disclosures of the buy/sell spread, and a business model aimed at reducing the typical 40-60% markups seen in some parts of the industry. They emphasize that the mission is to empower consumers, not to enrich insiders, and to re-establish honesty in the gold market.
- Personal stakes and partnership: Tucker Carlson and Chris Olson frame their collaboration as a response to the predatory practices observed in the gold market. Olson stresses decades of involvement in the space and a commitment to integrity, while Carlson notes their practical, customer-centered approach and openness to scrutiny.
The discussion weaves together technical explanations of gold’s market structure with a political-economic critique of fiat money, asserting both the value of physical gold as private wealth and the need for a transparent, consumer-friendly retail experience in precious metals. The conversation closes with an invitation to explore Battalion Metals’ offerings and a commitment to transparency about pricing and spreads.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gold and silver prices are out of control. Have you seen this? Have you checked the spot price for gold? It is at an all time high in world history. Why is that?
Well, because it's the new global reserve currency. That's why. Countries are moving away from the dollar, and they're doing that because our national debt is exploding. The dollar has been used as a diplomatic weapon. And in general, confidence, we say this with great sadness, in our financial system is collapsing.
People know something is wrong, and they're looking for safety. And gold and silver, but precious metals broadly, have been a reliable store of value since the beginning of recorded history, and people know that. They're tangible. They can hold in their hands what they own. And in moments like this, they want to.
So gold is more important than it's ever been. No. It's not an ancient phenomenon. It's a very modern phenomenon. And for the time being, it's the future.
So we were not surprised if multiple gold companies reached out to offer us money, in one case, nearly $20,000,000 a year, to pitch their products, and we're totally for it. We love gold. We've always felt that way about gold. So why would we work for a gold company? But $20,000,000 to market gold?
Wait a second. Isn't gold a commodity whose price is set on the international market? Can't you check it anytime you want on your phone? How could these companies afford to spend $20,000,000 on one guy for one year of selling their product? Well, the answer is obvious because it was a total scam.
They weren't selling gold as a commodity. They were selling it to customers based on the promise that it had real value, but they were selling it for, like, twice its actual value. They were come up with gimmicky schemes like, oh, it's a commemorative coin. No. No.
No. Gold is a commodity, and almost all of the time, the value of your gold coin is the weight of the gold in it. It's not whatever image is printed on the coin. So they're ripping people off, and what was happening, what is happening right now is that people, a lot of them old people, are buying these commemorative coins for, like, a 150% of the spot price. And then when they try to sell them, they realize they can't get their money back.
They've been scammed. These companies are making a ton of money, and that's why they could afford to offer me $20,000,000 a year. We wanted no part of this at all. Wouldn't mind the $20,000,000, but we turned it down because that's wrong. So instead we thought, wait a second.
This country needs an actual retail gold company that sells a couple points above spot for overhead, but in a transparent way, and makes it easy for people, average people, to buy gold and have delivered to their homes if they want. Physical delivery. So we decided to do that. We reached out to one of the biggest gold wholesalers in the country, someone we had mutual friends with, and we found we could trust a man called Christopher Olson. We've been buying gold for him for years, actually.
And together, we launched a new company called Battalion Metals. It's a truly honest gold company. We're not gonna say the only, but definitely one of the few that gives ordinary people, investors, full transparency and the lowest markups possible. Few people know as much about precious metals or have traded in them as long as Christopher Olsen has. No one in this space operates with greater integrity.
He's an amazing guy with an encyclopedic knowledge of the topic. He's been in his whole life. We recently sat down with him where he shared some of his insights that every investor, big or small, should hear, we think, especially now that gold buyers have been vindicated. Boy, have they been. It's crushed the stock market over the last twenty years.
We think now you will find this conversation especially interesting, and we hope valuable. Just to note the obvious, this video was prerecorded, so the values we assigned to gold are set by the markets, the spot price, and they were accurate when we recorded them. Are they accurate now? Well, to find out, visit battalionmetals.com. Chris, thank you for doing this.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So I was
Speaker 0: think I was thinking about it last night. You're one of the biggest gold wholesalers in The United States. Definitely one of the biggest. You could be doing other things, but you're you're really interested in gold. The fact that you're in this business is a little weird if you think about it, because gold is the most primitive, the longest standing, the oldest form of exchange, medium exchange.
And it's like the only thing left from antiquity. I mean, you're not a chariot builder. That would be absurd. There's no use for chariots. But, like, the one thing that connects us to the past, going back through recorded history, is gold as a medium of exchange.
Why in this sort of hyper progressive moment where, you know, we're building AI and visiting Mars, why in the world would gold still be relevant?
Speaker 1: Well, within society, unless you want to have a barter economy, you have to have a form of money of some kind. And money requires certain characteristics in order for it to be good or useful as money. So you couldn't use sand or seashells. And in the past, we've, you know, used lots of different types of money like beavers tails or pelts or tobacco. But with gold, have something that is it's durable, it's portable, it's divisible, it's fungible, it's recognizable, it's scarce.
So there can't be enough of it to satisfy everyone's demand. So it has a certain level of value just intrinsic to the characteristics of the element. And if you were going to look at say the periodic table of elements and and figure out which of those is going to be suitable or ideal for money, the only two that really shine are gold and silver compared to the rest of them. So over the course of history, it's been a natural progression for societies to adopt gold as a medium of exchange simply because it it has those hallmarks and those characteristics that allow it to be useful as a medium of exchange and a store of value. And it's when you go away from that, that you begin to have the horrible problems in society that that come about through inflation or the artificial creation of credit.
Because when you do that, you're you're essentially conveying arbitrary power, purchasing power to entities that didn't really earn it. So it's a form of counterfeiting to build on top of that, to counterfeit gold or create paper claims or to inflate a currency that's backed by gold. All of those things are fundamentally lying and they're fundamentally stealing. And so inflation causes horrible effects within a society that nobody can really diagnose or pin to inflation, but it's really at the root of those things, and it causes the gradual centralization of power towards those that are able to issue a currency without any tether to reality or to manipulate the rules of the system. And so, for example, whoever's closest to new money within a society, has more purchasing power than the market expects that they should have because the signals haven't gone out that there's excess money in society, so prices don't change.
And that's ultimately where inflation comes from. And over the decades
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. That is such an interesting point that I've never considered. The people who are closest to new money have the first mover advantage effectively. Like, there will be inflation, but the system doesn't know it yet, and therefore, they have more money at lower prices than everyone else is gonna have. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: That's the real power in it. See, if if everybody say you lived on some desert island and everybody had a fixed amount of money in their accounts. And on that island, you had a well established economy and there were prices that were pretty stable. And some magical event happens overnight where everybody wakes up and the amount of money in their accounts has doubled, but it's doubled evenly for everyone. And if they were to collectively understand that together, they would realize that the prices of everything should also be doubled.
So just just because you've doubled the amount of money in circulation doesn't mean you've doubled the amount of goods and services or actual wealth. You've just doubled the claims on wealth. Right. So in that case, nobody has an advantage because everybody has equally doubled the money supply. They all know it at the same time, prices double and nothing's different.
You just have more money and higher prices. But if just a few of those people were to get extra money, then the prices wouldn't change and other people wouldn't understand what was happening. So the market that determines prices would not be able to detect or prevent what's basically a hack in a sense. It's it's allowing people who haven't earned a claim on those goods and services to take them arbitrarily. That's why they call it fiat money because it's by fiat, simply I say so, and that's a real problem.
Speaker 0: Well, this country's 200 birthday is right around the corner, and our friends at Black Rifle Coffee are celebrating the right way with bold roasts made by veterans who love this country and live its values every day of the year. Black Rifle makes coffee where people get up early and work until late. We drink it late, by the way. Best at night. It tastes great, especially after their atomic llama formula during this time of year.
Cinnamon and brown sugar. It's awesome for winter. Whether you're hosting family out in the woods, filling stockings for Christmas, this is the coffee that stands for something real, essential, and American. In 2025, Black Rifle supported groups like Folds of Honor, Team Red, White and Blue, and organizations that serve veterans and their families, and in 2026 are going even bigger. We support them.
We know them. They've taken a lot of unfair criticism, but they are great and sincere guys. We can vouch for that. Blackriflecoffee.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 30% off your purchase or your first coffee club order or grab grab Black Rifle at Walmart or your local grocery store.
It's everywhere because it's awesome. Black Rifle Coffee, veteran founded, American roasted. This is America's coffee. It's funny. You're you're a gold dealer, not just wholesale, but retail as well, you know, one of the biggest billions of dollars of gold.
But that's a better explanation I've ever received from any economist, so I kinda wanna just call you an economist now. I doubt you'd accept the term. Can can I just I don't wanna be digressive, but I can't control myself on this. You were saying that from the beginning of time, gold was used as a media exchange because of its inherent physical properties. Right?
But I also find it interesting that gold was used was considered valuable and used for trade on every continent on Earth before we believed there was any communication between those continents. So separate civilizations, the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Incas, ancient African civilizations, every basically, civilization before, again, there was any contact between civilizations, all decided of all the metals and elements out there, we're using gold.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: The first and second temples were adorned with gold, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Right. It almost feels like there's a metaphysical thing going on. I mean, I don't know the answer, but have you ever thought of
Speaker 1: that? Definitely. Yeah. I I think all of reality is symbolic, and I think gold symbolizes something. So it it seems like it's, you know, baked into the fabric of reality itself that if you're gonna need money, if you're gonna have money, then you're you're gonna need something that's suitable to it.
And it's it seems like quite a coincidence that you happen to have two elements that fit that bill so well, and it would explain why
Speaker 0: But that everybody recognized it thousands and thousands of years before the Internet. I mean, independently. Yep. What are the odds?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The odds are astronomical and I think that's why that that explains why that would happen. If if it's basically encoded into reality in a sense, a symbolic, a symbol of wealth that's meant to be viewed as such, then you you would imagine that people would discover that. The ancients were very, very smart. Ancient civilizations were not necessarily as ignorant as we might think they were.
Speaker 0: Well, we're we're coming to learn that. I I don't see anybody building megaliths now. I see a lot of poured concrete garbage. I don't see any megaliths. So, clearly, they were more sophisticated on many levels than we understand.
Okay. So I've talked to I talked to about this last night at dinner, but I think because you have been in this business your entire life, you're a major player in the business, you spend your life with people who understand the value of gold. But outside of your world, gold is constantly attacked, constantly attacked and derided as an investment for unsophisticated people, for the dummies, for the crazies, for the paranoids, who think society is collapsing, don't believe in the US dollar, or whatever. And so I asked you last night to look up the performance of gold relative to let's just pick the markets, the S and P, Standard and Poor, 500 biggest companies in The United States. That's, like, a widely used measurement.
The performance of gold was all it it it beat the market by almost twice. Am I making this up in my mind?
Speaker 1: Well, if we look at performance over the time period from, say, January 2000 until today. Twenty five years. Yeah. Twenty five years. You see gold up roughly a little over a thousand percent, whereas the S and P is up less than 400 over that same time period, including dividends.
So it's clear that there there's something more happening with gold.
Speaker 0: Can you say that one more time? So in the last twenty five years, if you bought an index fund, you if just or let's just say, strictly speaking, the performance of the S and P for the last twenty five years and two months has been what?
Speaker 1: It's up what? It's something less than
Speaker 0: 400%. And gold is up what? Over a thousand. Okay. Over twenty five years.
This is not just like some you know, because there's been a run on gold recently. The spot price has risen a lot to record highs. So anyone who says gold, and I know, like, Warren Buffett or all these other geniuses are, like, all against gold, but, like, actually, if you'd gone in all in on gold twenty five years ago, you'd be more than twice as rich as someone who just kept it in the markets. That's what you're saying? Yep.
Definitely. Okay. So so like, why didn't I know that till last night?
Speaker 1: Well, it's it seems to have been a policy objective of the United States government to discourage the use of gold and to suppress its price relative to the dollar in order to maintain dollar dominance on the world stage. And that dollar dominance has been the primary means by which we've been able to live well beyond our means and command a military budget that's larger than any other country on earth. And if gold is a competitor to the dollar, gold is really it serves as a barometer of the health of the dollar as well. And there have been multiple times in recent history that gold has risen precipitously or silver against the dollar. And whenever that happens, it's it's it's a threat to a a debt based system to see real assets appreciating against the currency in that way.
So, additionally, you've got other foreign governments that are holders of gold, central banks. And if you can suppress the price of gold against the dollar, you can also suppress the purchasing power of those governments against your own. But what we see now, especially since 2022 with the sanctions that were placed on Russia as a result of the Ukraine invasion, the US Treasury debt is no longer a neutral reserve asset. It's not safe from a national security perspective for countries to rely on dollars or to expect that they might not be seized or sanctioned. And so So
Speaker 0: this is the problem with sanctions on Russia, stealing people's stuff because you don't like their politics.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was a huge mistake to do that because
Speaker 0: Suicide.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Because it it really has literally threatened this dollar dominant system of world trade, and I'm not sure why the Biden administration would have been interested in doing that. It seems like they
Speaker 0: really Set out to systematically destroy The United States. Yeah. There's no I I you know, I I don't care what people's stated motives are. I care about what they do. And if everything they do points in the same direction, that's the motive.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Don't look at what they say. Look at what they do.
Speaker 0: Well, that's exactly right. The point of a system is what it does.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And the
Speaker 0: point of the system they created was to destroy The United States, to knock it from its perch, to degrade it, to break it apart. And destroying the dominance of the dollar was something as insane as their reaction to a war that they started on purpose between Russia and Ukraine just tells you everything. But where does that leave us now?
Speaker 1: Well, there's a process underway that many people refer to as de dollarization. And a lot of it's centered around BRICS economy. And you've even seen president Trump talk about threatening sanctions on these countries. I think 100% sanctions if they attempt to move away from the dollar. So he's obviously been advised as to the the threat that that poses to US national security or foreign policy objectives.
But there there is a distinct move to look for a neutral reserve asset that can be used to settle balances of payment accounts between various countries that are trading with one another. And historically, it's been dollars and treasuries for decades now as the world's reserve currency, but now they need an alternative. And the only alternative that's ever truly existed has been gold. Some people talk about maybe Bitcoin could serve that purpose. And I mean, on some theoretical level, maybe it could, but it's also got a number of security issues and technical infrastructure problems that many foreign governments
Speaker 0: Based on electricity, Okay? And people have to generate electricity. All of this stuff is based on electricity. Yeah. All of it.
AI, our whole life is based on electricity, and electricity is like a little over a 100 years old in its current form. So, like, this is a pretty new technology, and it can be taken out really, really quickly. So that's just a fact that no one ever wants to say anything about, but, like, an EMP attack, like, eliminates crypto and the Internet and AI and you know what I mean? Like, it's all sort of transitory actually.
Speaker 1: Right. And it's also not not as private as one might think. Well, yeah. So you you have the blockchain where every transaction is public as it has to be. Yep.
And and so gold is really the original cryptocurrency because I can have value physically, transfer it to you, and truly nobody knows about it because it's it it doesn't need to happen on a blockchain. The gold is the gold. How
Speaker 0: hard is it to transport it privately? And then, by the way, I should say, I think you and I are both starting with the assumption that it is not a crime to have the fruits of your labor. So it's a crime to steal, of course. It's a crime to defraud people. But if I've earned money, I have a right to have it.
You have no right to know where I have it or what I'm doing with it as long as I'm not doing something illegal. And so, like, let's just say that's our core assumption, all this money laundering nonsense, which is really just a way to control our population, not to stop money laundering, which is the basis of our government in the first place. Alright. So with that in mind, it is it is not only okay, it's virtuous to have money in a in a in a private form that other people can't see or control. That's okay.
It's okay, because you're not a slave. You're an autonomous person. With that in mind, like, how hard is it to have gold, to move gold, to transact with gold outside the view of other people with privacy?
Speaker 1: It's very easy to do. And I mean, you you hit the nail on the head. It's private money is it's it's a foundation of human liberty,
Speaker 0: of freedom. They're to make you feel guilty about it. What? You into kiddie porn?
Speaker 1: Right. Right.
Speaker 0: Says the kiddie porn guy.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Okay. And so it's directly linked to your sovereignty as individuals, as nations, as families. But to transfer, you could move a million dollars worth of gold in a package that's gonna weigh about 35 pounds and and be about, you know, about that big. That's a million dollars worth of gold.
Speaker 0: A little smaller now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It just keeps getting smaller. The value keeps going up.
Speaker 0: Right. Which means it's a denser store of value than it was. Exactly. People worry about the safety of their home now more than ever. SimpliSafe is an amazing solution.
And with the early access Black Friday sale upon us, there's never been a better time to protect your house, your family this way. So typical security systems react after someone's already broken into your house. It seems a little late, really. SimpliSafe takes the opposite approach to stop bad things, home invasions, for example, before they happen. How?
ActiveGuard outdoor protection. Cameras detect threats outside your house, alert real security agents who take action while the intruder is still outside, not in your bedroom. Why doesn't everyone do this? We don't know, but this is a great idea. And SimpliSafe works whether you're home or not.
You can be around the world. It's got twenty four seven coverage no matter where you are. There are no long term contracts. No hidden fees. You can cancel it anytime you want.
It's been repeatedly named best home security system for a good reason. Plus, there's a sixty day money back guarantee, so you're not risking anything. Don't miss out on SimplySales' biggest sale of the year, 60% off. Right now, our listeners get 60% off a SimpliSafe home security system at simplisafe.com/tucker. SimpliSafe, s I m p l I, safe dot com slash Tucker.
That's the kind of safety you want. So is it hard to move it across borders?
Speaker 1: Most you know, you have to declare it whenever you're importing or exporting metal into other countries like you would have to declare any type of good. So there are laws for customs in every country. So you're gonna declare it, but it's in the majority of nations around the world, importing pure gold is not gonna be taxed. They're going to allow it. They're gonna facilitate it.
But
Speaker 0: So there aren't tariffs on gold?
Speaker 1: Generally, no. In in most
Speaker 0: Why? That's interesting.
Speaker 1: Well, it's every country has need of it. Every population has demand for it. So it's it's in the interest of nations to allow their populations or their governments or their corporations to be able to obtain it for the purposes they need it for without making it artificially expensive. Let the market determine the real value of it. Yes.
And so that's the purpose of gold. So that's why nations give it that favored treatment because it's a it's a form of money as it always has been. You don't tax money that's crossing borders. You don't put a tariff on euros or a tariff on dollars. You want the money to be able to flow because it's good for trade.
And the same is true for gold and silver in most cases.
Speaker 0: So with that, obviously, with that betraying the privacy of any of your clients, but you and I should just be clear about one of the things that you do is supply gold to people. You know, like, someone wants gold, I want $10,000 worth of gold, I want $10,000,000 worth of gold, and you're one of the people, aren't that many actually, who can come up with it reliably. And you send it to him. Who's buying gold? Like, the categories here, not people, of course.
Speaker 1: Well, in general, retail investors buy gold. Hedge funds, family offices are interested. Absolutely. Yep. Even though you
Speaker 0: are a key player in some sense in the country's financial system, actually, because gold is a part of that system, you probably are not watching a lot of CNBC. Right?
Speaker 1: I don't have much time for mainstream news. There are many mainstream investors in gold. Many very intelligent advisors are constantly advising for it and have been for a long time. And I think it's always been kind of a standard piece of advice amongst wealth managers and advisors to have say 10% of your portfolio in gold. That used to be a standard recommendation.
It just because it's always been understood to be a hedge against inflation and volatility. It's an asset that moves contrary to other assets. So it's a way to balance a portfolio to some extent.
Speaker 0: Where does it come from? Well I want to buy I call you and I say, which I'm not going to do because I can't afford it, but like, I want to buy a $100,000,000 worth of gold. Yep. You might I I have no idea if you have that, like, on hand. But if you don't have it on hand, where do you get it?
Speaker 1: Well, in the gold market internationally is primarily operated through exchanges such as the COMEX operated by the CME Group out of New York, the London Bullion Market Association in London, the Shanghai Gold Exchange. There are other gold exchanges in say Russia and in India as well. And so that's where the bulk of the trading occurs, where they're clearing hundreds of millions of dollars every single day in contracts. And that's being fed primarily by refineries who are purchasing the gold from mines and also are trading gold that already exists. So that's the major source of gold and that's usually in the form of large exchange traded standardized bars in bulk.
Like the COMEX contract here in The United States is settled in a 100 ounce gold bar. And so that would be a single futures contract that firms like us would purchase or other people who need to buy and sell futures contracts will purchase that type of a commodity. From that point, bulk gold is taken and it is further processed into smaller coins and bars by private mints and by government mints, specifically for the purpose of making it available to people that want to buy it in formats that are useful to the average person. And so that the primary source is gonna be big banks, funds, ETFs that are trading, mines, and and also the secondary market where there's whenever there's a large amount of liquidation that's happening, if there's more than the retail market can absorb of retail dealers, let's say. And and I'm referring to that as just the the non exchange traded markets, just this is the open market in The United States, for example.
If people sell too much as they have been for the last year and a half, what that market needs to do then is absorb all of that selling pressure. And a lot of times they'll have to send it to a refinery and have it melted down so that it can be cast into formats that can be delivered into the futures markets where there's deeper liquidity, there's more money to absorb the purchasing power or or the the selling demand of the market. So even the secondary market will at times be feeding back into that. So there's a lot of plumbing internationally that provides for the efficient flow of precious metals and price discovery and trade execution and settlement. It's a very well established system that operates internationally.
Speaker 0: And without too much friction?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. There's there's always a little bit of friction involved when it comes to stuff that's when you're moving precious metals or changing it from one form to another. So the the least amount of friction is gonna be like unallocated pool positions in London, but that's also the highest amount of risk. So it's it's always a trade off.
If if you wanna derisk it a little bit, you'll get allocated bars. But now that means that you've moved it out of the unallocated pool, you've gotten serial numbers, and it's in another section of the vault. That's gonna have some friction. But if you want to further take possession of those things, now it has to flow out through dealers and operators that can take possession of those big bars. And now cars.
You're insuring it. You're financing the position that you have to carry for a period of time that costs you interest and opportunity costs with your capital. And you'll have to then reformat the big bars into smaller coins and bars, and that requires capital equipment and labor, other inputs. And so there is friction to to move it between the major sources of liquidity and the and the different markets. And so as you're doing that, that's where actually the premium comes from.
So when when you look at say the price of gold that you see on your TV screen, the reason that you can't buy it for that price from a dealer of coins or bars is the product that they're selling, well, it's based on that price. It's got multiple layers of friction that have been added into that product. Of course. And so that's where the premium
Speaker 0: Because it is a physical product. It's not theoretical.
Speaker 1: Right. It's
Speaker 0: Someone has to actually put it in, you know, has to melt it.
Speaker 1: And that's all friction. Yeah. But, you know, if you if you wanted to buy gold at the spot price, the only way to do that is to actually buy futures contracts on the commodity exchanges, which is where that price is being ultimately set. But that's usually not the best option for your average investor. You don't have possession and control of it.
And if you want to take possession and control of it, you're going to add some friction back into the asset.
Speaker 0: What percentage of your customers take delivery? Have it sent to their homes?
Speaker 1: Well, technically, 100% of our customers take delivery as it's strictly defined under the law, which means it leaves our possession and it's going to go to either a qualified depository that's acting as an agent of the customer or it's gonna go directly into the possession of that customer physically. So we the the percentage that takes it home and, you know, buries it somewhere in their backyard or wherever, it's it's probably north of 50%.
Speaker 0: Really? Yep. Like real amounts of gold.
Speaker 1: Real amounts of gold and silver.
Speaker 0: Yep. Damn. We've got a new partner. It's a company called Cowboy Colostrum. It's a brand that is serious about actual health, and the product is designed to work with your body, not against your body.
It is a pure and simple product, all natural. Unlike other brands, cowboy colostrum is never diluted. It always comes directly from American grass fed cows. There's no filler. There's no junk.
It's all good. It tastes good, believe it or not. So before you reach for more pills for every problem that pills can't solve, we recommend you give this product, cowboy colostrum, a try. It's got everything your body needs to heal and thrive. It's like the original superfood loaded with nutrients, antibodies, proteins, help build a strong immune system, stronger hair, skin, and nails.
I threw my wig away right back to my natural hair after using this product. You just take a scoop of it every morning in your beverage, coffee, or a smoothie, and you will feel the difference every time. A For limited time, people listen to our show get 25% off the entire order. So go to cowboycolostrum.com. Use the code Tucker at checkout.
25% off when you use that code, Tucker @cowboycolostrum.com. Remember you mentioned you heard it here first. What's interesting about it doesn't if you do that, it pays no dividends. So you gotta really believe in it.
Speaker 1: Right. But profit and value is not always expressed in dollar terms.
Speaker 0: So What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Well, there's a lot of value to having your wealth under your control and in your private possession, which maybe it's worth the trade off of not having dividends being distributed from What do
Speaker 0: think the value is?
Speaker 1: Well, you have sovereignty. You have control. You've eliminated essentially all counterparty risk. So you're the one who knows. It's actual wealth delivered.
It's not a claim on wealth anymore. It's not a hypothetical. It's not some paper certificate that says, I owe you this or we promise that you have this here.
Speaker 0: We promise. We promise. Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's a and and you can trust some people's promises. There's always trust involved in a system. But there's there are other promises that maybe you shouldn't trust. So you wanna derisk a little bit. But once you have it in your possession, that's wealth delivered.
It's no longer a claim on wealth. Like, it's a settled debt. If you look at say Federal Reserve notes, the Federal Reserve notes are not actually wealth, they're notes, which means they're debts. They're debts of the Federal Reserve. They're a claim on the assets of the Fed.
And so whenever you pay somebody with a Federal Reserve note, you're not actually settling your debt to that person. You're exchanging one debt for another. So they haven't actually taken possession of actual true wealth, which is what gold is or any other type of asset or capital asset. But when you have gold, now you have actual wealth crystallized physically incarnate, so to speak, in a tangible form that is no longer subject to any other counterparty's duty to perform on your behalf. Amazing.
Speaker 0: How do you spend it?
Speaker 1: Well, right now, because of the way our economy works, you need dollars for practically everything. Even Bitcoin, as popular as it's become, you know, if you if you go to a merchant that accepts Bitcoin, that merchant isn't actually taking the Bitcoin and keeping it on a wallet somewhere. They're converting it to dollars almost instantly in most cases. So the the same is true for gold at this point largely that, you know, you you can't really easily spend it directly because most people need dollars to operate on a daily basis, to pay their taxes, to pay their mortgage, to go buy food at the grocery store. So to spend it, it usually involves converting it back into dollars, selling it to somebody who's making a market for it, getting the money, and then using it.
Speaker 0: So which seems reasonable at this point in time. And, of course, that will evolve as all systems do. Exactly. You know, maybe not in our lifetime, but, of course, it all evolves. We don't use Drachma anymore or Denari or whatever.
How do you do that? How do you convert so I so I buy, I don't know, 30 ounces of I buy 30, 1 ounce coins, and I keep them in my safe, and then I have a need for them. How do I convert them to US dollars?
Speaker 1: Well, you could usually contact the firm that sold them to you. And if they're in your possession now, you're gonna have the challenge of getting them back to that firm. You're gonna transport them through a common carrier like FedEx.
Speaker 0: How hard is that?
Speaker 1: It's it's usually not hard, especially with gold. Silver is a little more challenging just due to the mass. But there is some risk involved in that. So there's there's the cost to ship it. There's the cost to insure it.
So that's added friction. Normally, when you're dealing with a a a major market maker or distributors who who's involved in precious metals, they're gonna they they should normally, in most cases, have a a strong repurchase price. So it's often in your interest to do it that way. But you could also practically every major city in this country has multiple dealers who would be more than happy to buy your gold coins from you in practically any major city. You could walk in with two gold eagles and walk out with $6,000 cash
Speaker 0: or they'll So will they give you spot price ish for those coins?
Speaker 1: Usually, if they're honest. Yep. And and you can, you know, you can check the price. You can call around and and people do that all the time, see what people are paying and just, you know, make sure to keep them honest. But, you know, there there are dishonest dealers out there
Speaker 0: for sure. But given that you can get the spot price on your phone twenty four hours a day, and I'm like, you know, gold is 3,025 or whatever, and I look it up, and then I call the coin shop and say I've got two, you know, double eagles or whatever. I've got two gold coins. Assess if they're real, and if they are, will you give me spot? Is it possible you're gonna get that?
Oh, certainly. Yep. Okay. And for
Speaker 1: and for some coins, you might get more than spot. You know, they some of them command a premium Yes. Depending on market conditions and the type of coin.
Speaker 0: So when I get the cash for those coins, how private is that transaction?
Speaker 1: It's a very private transaction. So there there's no specific reporting requirement that says that dealers have to report every purchase that they make from the public. Once you get to large volumes of certain types of gold or silver, they technically require a ten ninety nine report, which really just discloses the amount of gold and silver that they purchased from you and the price they paid. It doesn't disclose the profit or loss that you made in that because they have no way of knowing that. So so in But if
Speaker 0: I want it totally private, what's the threshold at which it has to be reported? Do you know?
Speaker 1: Well, that threshold is subject to debate amongst people within the industry. There's some obscure regulations.
Speaker 0: Okay. But roughly
Speaker 1: typically it's like 25 ounces of gold or say a thousand ounces of silver, but it has to be in specific forms. Like for example, The US Gold Eagle is specifically exempted in law from ten ninety nine reporting. So, you you could sell a million dollars worth of Gold Eagles and no one in the government needs to be notified that you did that.
Speaker 0: So it's totally it's totally private. So if I have Gold Eagles or if I have up to 24 ounces, which is I'm not good at math, help me now, Chris. Oh. 3,000 times 24 is
Speaker 1: Roughly 75,000.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Can just walk in any coin shop and give them that, I get bills.
Speaker 1: If they have them?
Speaker 0: If they have them. Mhmm. Yep. So that's like that's kind of what they promised me Bitcoin was going to be. I I was super excited about crypto, not as an investment.
I'm not much of an investor, that's for sure, but I do believe in privacy, and I think it's a fundamental human right. So I was hoping that you could use Bitcoin for that kind of thing, not don't wanna buy, you know, anti tank weapons or whatever. I just wanna buy, like, dinner or whatever I wanna buy. But it's not bad, but I just want privacy. But gold, I could take gold that's sitting in my safe at home and go and get $75,000.
We're unlimited if I have certain kinds of coins, and there's no record at all. I just get the cash. Correct. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: Now the dealer's gonna have their own records.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Whatever. But yeah. But that that is privacy. True.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. It's the original cryptocurrency.
Speaker 0: It's so weird that I feel awkward even saying this out loud. They've they've sold the lie that, like, if you don't want them in your face at all time in your bedroom monitoring all your behavior on your iPhone, that there's something wrong with you. You know what I mean? They wanna put Ed Snowden in jail for disclosing that they were spying on me. Who's the criminal here?
The people spying me are the criminals, not Ed Snowden for telling me the truth. But they've so brainwashed everybody even I think I'm pretty off grid mentally. I don't look at the media either, ever. But I still feel like, oh, you know, it's kind of embarrassing to talk about wanting privacy. Do you feel that?
Are you you so off the grid that you don't even know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 1: No. No. I I definitely feel it. I mean, just even talking about it in this interview, it's like, are are you saying something wrong? Are you allowed to say that?
Is that is that dangerous? Is that
Speaker 0: a Even so brainwashed. It's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Is is it a threat to the regime? I mean, the the the system of control, taxation, monitoring, everything done in the name of safety.
Speaker 0: No. But it's just so funny because I because I know you. I don't think I'm giving away too much. You're like a faithful Christian with six kids. Like, you're not doing anything wrong.
You're like a law abiding person, and even you are like, oh, I feel weird.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. The the positive law is what they call it. Like, you haven't actually harmed anyone, but, know, it's kind of the the Department of Precrime wants to make sure that you're doing okay things and not potentially a threat to somebody. So even though you
Speaker 0: have Only certain people. They don't care if you're a threat to others, but it's like
Speaker 1: Selective enforcement is always very interesting.
Speaker 0: A threat to their power, which this is, by the way, just to be totally blunt about it. And, you know, privacy is a threat to their power. That's why they're opposed to it. You know? Exactly.
Tough luck is my view.
Speaker 1: Privacy and sovereignty, and and that's why they're opposed to gold. And and that's why you you want to keep everything in Federal Reserve notes and heavily regulated. You have Bank Secrecy Act. You have everything that relates to dollars in terms of what you can do domestically and even internationally. So it's a very powerful tool for control.
Add to that income tax laws where they you know, we didn't used to have an income tax
Speaker 0: From where?
Speaker 1: In this country. We were we were a free country once. But once they need to get in and figure out how much did you earn as though it's their business, you got to pay your fair share. It's it's not even about paying your fair share. It's about managing the wealth of your citizenry and making sure that some people are not richer than they ought to be.
Because if the government wanted to pay its debt some other way, it easily could. But instead, they choose to use the people as a source of revenue. That's think of the percentage of time that you work for the IRS every year so that you can fund regime change operations or some other bizarre foreign policy objective like we see with USAID in some foreign country. It's like that entire system is just fundamentally unjust and undemocratic, and and it really doesn't represent the will of the people. It doesn't allow them to be as free as they could be.
It doesn't allow families to preserve and transmit generational wealth, and it's all done in the name of this obscure concept of fairness, which is defined by bureaucrats and politicians thousands of miles away from you. So it's it's a horrible system. And, yeah. You're you're right. They they you you can't be allowed to have privacy or sovereignty.
There there should be no ability for you to opt out. You cannot secede. You cannot be different. You can't you're you're all subject to this system of control and monitoring to ensure that the policy objectives of whatever administration or regime happens to be in control at that time decides is what's good for you.
Speaker 0: It's scary. How hard is it to store gold?
Speaker 1: Gold is relatively easy to store because it is so small. You can concentrate so much value in such a small piece that you could hide it in your bookshelf. You can use security by obscurity. You can stash it in different places. You could you know, hide it inside your wall.
Speaker 0: A jar of peanut butter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Jar of peanut butter. You could get a one of those little pop can fake pop can saves that you put the soda can in your fridge and hide it in your refrigerator or bury it in your backyard. Gold doesn't rust. It doesn't tarnish unlike silver.
So, you you could bury it. So it's very easy to to to store gold on your own. It's When you have a lot that it becomes more of a security risk and
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Then you need to get a little more strategic.
Speaker 0: Can we talk about the downsides? I like to assess I'm not an investor, but my goal, if I make money, is I have no expectation of becoming Larry Fink. I don't wanna be Larry Fink. I just don't I think it's fair not to wanna lose what you earned. That's how I feel about it, personally.
And so how do you and be I know you are honest, so I'll just say, how do you like, what are the risks to buying gold?
Speaker 1: Well, the risks of buying gold primarily are gold gold is volatile like any other asset just because of the economic system that we're in. And so prices are gonna swing. There are gonna be corrections. It's it's hard for anyone to know what should the true value of gold actually be. And even if you did know that, what are the things that prevent that from actually happening?
So there there's always some level of uncertainty. So if you're, you know, if you if you put all of your money into gold, let's say, because you think the world's gonna end tomorrow or which in which case you wouldn't need gold, but you know. Fair.
Speaker 0: But Probably want to buy macaroni, but
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you'll you'll need you know, if the world doesn't end but it comes close, you're you're gonna need some system to barter and trade with. And in that case, gold gold is perfect. But, say you put all your money into gold and it turns out six months later, you need that money for something. And the price of gold is maybe down 10% at the time.
Well, now you're gonna be forced to liquidate. So, as with any asset, you don't want to put too much of your liquid assets into it or you could potentially be at a loss. So, never want to put too much money into anything. You need to have that spending money for all of your daily affairs So and that's one risk. The other risk, of course, is going to be storing it securely.
It could be stolen from you. You could be robbed or or you you wanna make sure that people don't know that you have gold or especially if you have a lot of gold. You'd you'd wanna make sure that that stays really private because there's always gonna be the risk that somebody could come and take it and walk away with it. And there's no no reversing that. You you can't you can't cancel that check.
Sort of like cryptocurrency. Once it's gone, it's gone. Or maybe you'll forget where you put it. So you gotta you gotta have a trusted treasure map that Yeah. Only trusted associates have.
So beyond those risks
Speaker 0: What about fire? So you put it in your house. I've got, you know, $500 of gold in my wall. Worth let's be honest, it's not gonna be stolen. No one's gonna find that.
Like, it's impossible. But the house burns down and the gold melts. Much value does it lose?
Speaker 1: A few percent.
Speaker 0: That's it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Maybe maybe four to five, depending on how contaminated it gets. You probably have to, you know, smelt it down and get it refined again. And so you'll you'll shave off, you know, between 25%, but you'll be able to recover it all.
Speaker 0: So it doesn't burn up?
Speaker 1: No. No. It'll just melt. You'll have a slag of melted coins sitting at the bottom of the ashes of your house.
Speaker 0: You ever seen that? We have. Yeah. Really? Oh,
Speaker 1: yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We've we've bought many many times we've had packages come in from other dealers or from other customers that are melted gold or silver coins, and that's exactly what we have to do, smelt it
Speaker 0: down and get it refined. But it's not a huge loss?
Speaker 1: Not a huge loss. No.
Speaker 0: So it's durable? Very. How much of the gold have you ever wondered, because gold has circulation since the beginning of recorded history in a very, very famous way. I mean, there's I don't think there's a book of the Bible that doesn't mention gold, for example. But many ancient texts mention gold.
So do you ever wonder, like, in this coin that I'm holding, was any of this gold, you know, in the second temple?
Speaker 1: Oh, it's certainly possible. Pretty much all of the gold in circulation has remains in circulation. So there's always new gold being mined and added to the supply, and that's about one to 2% per year of the total That's it.
Speaker 0: Yep. So gold inflation is one to 2%.
Speaker 1: Right. Very manageable. But typically, gold is not lost, unlike silver. Silver's used in industry and silver is typically not It's not worth recovering through recycling in a lot of cases. And it's used in electronic components, photovoltaic cells for solar, that type of thing.
So it's it's an industrial use metal. Gold is also used industrially, but typically it's gonna be worth it to recycle it and recover it. And so most of the gold that's ever been mined in human history is still with us today. And so, yeah, you very you very well could have some some of the molecules in your gold bar or coin could have been in the second temple or who knows where. Interesting.
Speaker 0: You you keep referring to silver. I wanted to just keep that separate. I know much less about it. Let's start with the price. What is silver trading for right now ish?
Speaker 1: A little under $34 right now. An ounce?
Speaker 0: Yes. For silver. Okay. Give me perspective on that. Is that a lot or a little or
Speaker 1: It's not much at all. We think it's highly undervalued. A lot of people do. Why do you think that? Well, throughout history, gold has typically had a a value relation to silver of between 12 ounces of silver to one ounce of gold or maybe 15 to one.
It's kind of floated around there. That's typically been How far back can we track that? Oh, we can track that many centuries. There's plenty of evidence for it.
Speaker 0: That's the cool thing about precious metals, people keep records. Yes. I mean, there's a continuity to it. Like, is we're not the first people to have this conversation.
Speaker 1: Right. We're not reinventing any wheels here. No. Like, this is a tried and trued method of running economies.
Speaker 0: So it's 12 to 15 x. Gold is 12 to 15 x silver, typically.
Speaker 1: Typically. Yeah. Today, right now, the ratio is about 90 to one, which is very high. 90 ounces of silver to one ounce of gold. Well, there's a lot of reasons why people say that that is, you know, and suppression is one of the main ideas that
Speaker 0: Or just ask the obvious question. Has there been a big expansion in supply?
Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. The supply the supply continues to go down. And if you look at what the miners pull out of the ground, you know, people are mining gold and silver is often found with gold. Really?
Vice versa. Yeah. Typically. And what's coming out of the ground, the ratio is about seven ounces of silver to every one ounce of gold, roughly. It's between 10.
It depends on the mine, but seven to 10 is the ratio
Speaker 0: copper 90 around. Times the silver. Correct.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: So Well, then that doesn't make any sense. So if there hasn't been a massive expansion supply, but the value, relatively speaking, has dropped like dramatically, then what is that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's part part of it has to do with the fact that silver is not a medium of exchange right now. It's not used in the marketplace. And also central banks typically don't carry silver on their balance sheet. So we look at the price of gold right now, the vast majority of that price run up is the direct result of central bank purchases who are preparing for some type of potential revaluation event it would seem. Silver on the other hand
Speaker 0: doesn't Wait. Hold on. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Well, what's the real value of gold? What's the real value of the dollar? It would appear that we're on the cusp of a new international monetary system Yeah. Which is the result of certain foreign policy decisions that were made in the previous administration, as well as just the underlying nature of the the game, the the economic system, like the rules of it have changed We're
Speaker 0: not encouraged to, like, probe that too much. It's more like, hey, go have a race war.
Speaker 1: Right. Do you know
Speaker 0: what I mean? White people are bad. Black people are bad. It's about the trans community. It's like, okay.
But the one thing we don't talk about is this sort of thing. I can't believe how ignorant I am of some of it, and I'm interested. It's it's a theory
Speaker 1: of mind that really this is the root of almost all of our problems.
Speaker 0: What does that how?
Speaker 1: I I I think, you know, the the ability for the creation of artificial credit or money by powers, central powers, let's say the banks or primary dealers of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve System, the government. It gives too much power and too much control to too small a group of people.
Speaker 0: Well, I've noticed that. Yeah. Okay. Now we're getting warmer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so, you know, the the changes that have occurred in our society over time, none of these things would have been possible without the ability of the government to just artificially inflate its credit and monetize its debt and inflate the currency. Otherwise, it would have to come to the people and tax them directly. But instead, they're able to levy a hidden tax against every holder of a US dollar, which is not just the American people, but people throughout the entire world.
Speaker 0: Just the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So it gives a lot of power to certain forces that are at work. And I don't think those forces operate for the benefit or the good of common people like you and me. They have different plans and there are different goals associated with these centralized powers. And so not being tethered to some kind of a standard has just given them too much freedom to do too many things that people normally wouldn't agree with or wouldn't pay their taxes to allow.
And that's happening globally. So the necessity of change has never been more apparent for every reason that we've discussed and plenty more. We could go on and on and on about the evils of that type of a system. And so in the interest of fairness and honesty and honest dealing and a proper valuation of what is a thing actually worth, it's going to require a lot more work. We used to be on a gold standard, which was a result of agreements that were made internationally after World War II, which and even before World War II, actually.
But it pegged the value of the dollar to a certain amount of gold. And that gave everyone dealing in dollars the ability to actually properly account for what is a dollar. What what even is it? But as usually happens, we just continue to print more dollars than we had the proper amount of gold. Yeah.
And we thought we'd
Speaker 0: just fight a war in Vietnam, kill 60,000 Americans, and like we couldn't continue. So in the early seventies, the president took us off the gold standard. Is that a fair summation? Exactly.
Speaker 1: Yep. The the expansion of the money supply, all of our unfunded liabilities, other people that you know, foreign governments that held dollars saw the writing on the wall and they started demanding their gold. And the gold was flowing out of Fort Knox and we had hundreds of tons. I don't have the exact figures, but we were losing tons literally of gold to foreign redemption. And at some point, someone had a meeting with the president, said, mister president, we're
Speaker 0: They're emptying the vaults.
Speaker 1: They're emptying the vaults and, you know, may maybe the vaults are empty. We're not sure. I I guess the president's gonna find out maybe at some point if they let him. But yeah. So so they decided to suspend redemptions.
And at that point, the price of gold was allowed to float. So there became this sort of secondary market that was no longer part of the government, but it was relegated to banks who began to make markets and determine what is the value of foreign exchange, what's the value of the dollar versus the British pound or the German Deutsche Mark. But a lot of that was also it continued to be related directly to gold. And so gold had a floating price at that point. And so the floating price of gold becomes a benchmark and a barometer of the health of any individual currency, which then becomes part of the reason why the government is now interested in managing that price of gold as a matter of policy.
And just like they had a gold standard at one time, but they had to default, and that's what that was. It was a default by the US government. It declared bankruptcy and revalued its debts. Then the system became one of, okay. Now let's let's manage this.
And and you'll notice nineteen seventy one, seventy two, that's like a a that's that's a that's a bright line in human history where we see the purchasing power of the American middle class steadily decline from that point forward every single year. And and almost any benchmark of any of the ills in our society go right back to that time frame because that unleashes certain forces that nobody can properly diagnose. There's a there's a quote by by Keynes, John Maynard Keynes, who he he said something. I can't remember the exact quote, but that inflation works havoc and and basically misery on a society in ways that not one man in a million can diagnose. And so it's a very subtle change that occurs within the body politic when you begin to debase a currency.
And as you debase a currency, you're you're kind of debasing the people, and you're committing fraud and institutionalizing it on a grand scale. And that's really an abomination in the eyes of God. The Bible talks about unjust weights and measures being an abomination. And so there's a real price to that type of activity being allowed to occur at scale on an institutional level within your society, and we've globalized it. And from that point And it's not as though there weren't many evils that we had prior to that point.
There were plenty. But at that point, they became leveraged in a sense. The ability to maximize certain effects on society through the use of money and artificial money creation, sort of like alchemy in a sense, gave certain powers just enormous ability to manipulate and control society in every level. I believe it was JP Morgan who said that, give me control of the nation's money. I don't care who makes it law makes its laws, something to that effect.
And and that's very true. If if you have control of the money, it doesn't matter who's in charge. It doesn't matter who's elected. It's money rules. And and so that But
Speaker 0: you have control of the food and the shelter and the water. I mean, it's like you have control of human life.
Speaker 1: And and you'll notice that it it was during the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914. That's the same year that the income tax
Speaker 0: Well, I did notice that.
Speaker 1: Was instituted. So those two things seem to go together. They seem to be two part two parts of the same tool. And so we've watched that tool just expand grotesquely to the point where it is. And since 1971, just every ill that you can conceive of in society has expanded consistently from that date.
And so now we're at a point where all of the fruits of that have come home to roost in every possible way. And I'm convinced it's directly related to the money. And we can point to lots of other problems, which they are problems. You've got symptoms. You've got other secondary causes.
But I think a lot of those symptoms and secondary causes would have never had the power that they do have if it weren't for the ability of certain forces to enact their will using the money system to which they're they're they're untethered to to any outside force or to to anything that should ever hold them account or check their power other than their own determination. Fiat money. We decide what percentage of the Fed's balance sheet should be gold. It used to be 40%, then it was changed to 20, then it was changed to, I think, maybe 10% or 5%. And then finally, they said, whatever amount we want.
We'll just call it whatever we want. So they've got carte blanche to decide what money is and how much money there is and to regulate its use in every possible way. So money really is at the heart of maybe almost every problem right next to spiritual realm.
Speaker 0: And they're connected.
Speaker 1: And they are directly connected. Yes. There's a reason that there's a force called mammon that's referred to throughout scripture. So, yeah, it's a dangerous master. Truly is.
So let me
Speaker 0: just ask you to describe you don't need to use the names of the companies. They're all famous. But, like, how does this sleight of hand work where these companies convince mostly older, mostly conservative Fox News viewers, really, people I love, convince them to buy gold at twice the price. How do you do that?
Speaker 1: It's a huge problem, and it's been happening in the industry for decades. Everybody knows about it.
Speaker 0: I didn't know.
Speaker 1: No. Everybody in the industry at our level understands what's happening. And basically, it involves companies that will receive a call from some individual, usually someone with a retirement account, who believes that they need to buy gold. And it's a good idea. You you want to get gold.
So but where do you go to get it? And so Right. It's it's a trust based transaction in the first place. Some major media figure has endorsed them as they tried to get you to endorse them for large sums of money. And and now that that media figure's entire audience is is a potential customer now and a potential trusting customer who doesn't understand the way money works or how gold works because as as we've discussed, it's not a topic of daily conversation or activity for people.
But you
Speaker 0: feel that it's important. That's what drew me to it. I was like, there's something about this that's important, and then I'm interested in history. And I'm like, everyone else has thought that since the beginning of recorded history, so maybe there's something there. Mhmm.
Right?
Speaker 1: Yep. And and so not knowing how it works, they they call them up and they say, you know, I have a retirement account and I'd like to put a $100,000 of gold into the account. And the salesman says, yep. We can help you do that. Just sign this agreement, and we'll get the paperwork started, we'll sell you a $100,000 worth of gold.
And the the typical understanding of most people is they they think it's like buying a stock. So they're assuming that if they've bought a $100,000 worth of gold, that it's worth a $100,000.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, that that's the assumption.
Speaker 1: And and if there was some fee associated with that transaction that it would be disclosed or that it would
Speaker 0: be It's fine. You take a a VIEG. That's that's okay.
Speaker 1: You know? One or 2%. Totally. Maybe three or four if it's silver. You know, you you you've got you've got a range of acceptable percentages associated with precious metals transactions depending on the format and the size and the delivery requirements.
And so there there is a certain percentage which which is fair and and typical. But what happens in these types of transactions is the the customer is charged forty, fifty, 60% above the price of gold or silver, and they don't know it. And I've I've received receipts from customers of of these types of brokers, and I've looked at the numbers. I've seen them in hand showing people paying 75 or $80 an ounce for silver coins when the price of silver was 25 or paying And that's disgusting.
Speaker 0: Old people.
Speaker 1: Old people who don't understand what they're doing. And when they turn around to try to cash out, they want to buy piece of real estate or help fund a grandchild's college education, They they see that silver and gold are both up maybe 20%. They go to their IRA account, try to liquidate, and they're underwater. They haven't earned any money. They're still down from their original investment.
Lost money. They've lost money.
Speaker 0: Even as the metals have risen.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Exactly.
Speaker 0: So how does that work?
Speaker 1: And it's because the the people that sold the metal marked it up 50 or 60 or even a 100% in some cases I've seen. And and and they'll try to justify it by saying, oh, this is a scarce coin or a special issue coin. And and often that is part of the game is they'll get these obscure
Speaker 0: coins that are an exclusive mint issue from one of the major mints, and and they'll get access to that exclusive coin
Speaker 1: and so that if you try to look it up online, you won't find that coin anywhere, and it'll be some special gold or silver coin that only they have access to. But fundamentally, there's nothing intrinsically valuable to it other than its gold or silver content.
Speaker 0: It's still a commodity, isn't it?
Speaker 1: It's still just a commodity. It's not a collector's piece, and that's typically not what people the people are not looking to invest in collectibles in their IRA accounts when they're looking for gold. And so you've got bait and switch tactics. You've
Speaker 0: got Wait. So just to prove the point, if you're a in addition to being a gold seller, you're obviously a huge gold buyer from a lot of different sources, but one of them is from dealers around the country. Someone comes in and says, I want to liquidate. So you get a special issue mint coin or a commemorative coin brought to you. What do you pay for it?
Speaker 1: Typically, it's gonna be very close to the spot price.
Speaker 0: Right. So you're buying it for the gold, not for the spooky voodoo of commemorative
Speaker 1: There there's no market for it. It's a modern coin. It's not valued by collectors. It's it was it was minted specifically for the purpose of being kinda scarce, but at the end of the day, people don't care about that. There's no reason to value it higher than other gold or silver coins of the same purity and weight.
So
Speaker 0: So it has, in real terms, no added value, no extra value because it's limited edition Right. From the New Zealand mint or whatever. Yep. Rich Corinthian leather.
Speaker 1: It's it's all just speculation that it should be worth more. But when when it comes down to it, and they try to liquidate these special issue coins or whatever type of coin they were overpriced and sold, they come to the market and find out the market values their assets at the price of gold or silver. And and it's not just us. They could go to any dealer in the country and get the same story. Now they might go to the original dealer that ripped them off, and that dealer will often try to save face and prevent a bad review online.
And what they'll do is maybe offer the customer more than anyone else in the market will pay. And they'll try to pay them off to just, you know, be satisfied or go away. So it's a little game that they play. But, you know, if they pay 30% more than the value of the gold or silver for that coin, then the dealer that bought it back is not gonna be able to get that price from the normal market, so they have to go find another mark to pawn those off of.
Speaker 0: Classic Ponzi right there.
Speaker 1: In a sense. Yeah. Yeah. Very close to that.
Speaker 0: So I don't know what you know, how I can describe this without getting sued, but this seems really wrong to me. Do you think that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It is. There was a bill. Actually, it was a regulation change. I I can't recall offhand which agency it was.
It was probably consumer protection. They were considering a rule change to require anyone that sells anything to retirement accounts to be forced to act as a fiduciary. And right now, there is no requirement for that. And if this change were implemented, it would significantly change the enforcement tools that the government might have to go after companies like this. And right now, they really don't have any enforcement
Speaker 0: So I guess what offends me, this is what so you told me this, I think, when we first spoke, and that's when I decided I wanted to start a gold company, which I'm not qualified to do, so I partnered with you. But the outrage I felt stemmed from the fact that they were doing this with retirement accounts. That just seems over the top. I mean, some drunk rich guy calls in and you fleece him 40% on a gold sale, it's it's immoral, but it's not quite the crime that you're describing, which is some old Fox News viewer calls and then goes, it's my IRA, my individual retirement account. And you're selling stuff that, like, you know isn't worth what you're selling it for, but, like, by a lot.
I mean, it's a full scam of old people.
Speaker 1: A full scam. And I've I've seen story after story of
Speaker 0: But why does nobody say anything about it? People have
Speaker 1: attempted to say things and do things about it. There there there was a court case against a company in California specifically, very large company, And it it was brought by the state of California who actually looked into this dealer's practices and ultimately forced that dealer to settle on a number of these counts and to change their practices. Though even after changing those practices, there were still issue after issue of different types. So so there was that one case where some action was taken to a certain degree, but, you know, if if one of these dealers folds or goes bankrupt or gets sued out of existence, they'll just pop right back up. It it's so easy for Really?
Speaker 0: So I actually asked for a list of all the media people who are shilling for these think they're criminal enterprises, that's my view, but certainly, it's it's not defensible if you know what actually have you can't defend it. It's wrong. And so I asked for a list of all the media people, because I was in the media my whole life, and, you know, there are a couple people I really dislike on that list, but there are also way more people I really like, including a couple, like, actual friends of mine. So I decide it's all publicly available if you're interested, do good up yourself. So I decided I was not going to call anybody out by name, but I really hope that this tape circulates, and that they decide, you know, I doubt knowing a couple of these people are, like, legit good people.
So the best people in the media, actually. And I just don't think they have any idea. Like, some agents, oh, you know, Gold Company X is going to pay you whatever. Who turns down millions of dollars? I just don't think they know.
But I hope they do now, and I just want to be clear that the business that you and I are about to roll out is is a response at least I'll speak for myself, it's a response to this. I think it should be easy. I think gold's important. I don't think anyone should put a 100% of their money in it for the reasons that you described because it's a commodity and it goes up and down. But as a long hold, it doubled the markets.
Like, what's the argument against it? So I really think it's important for people to buy gold. I buy gold. In fact, any profit we make from this, I'm taking in gold personally. But I just think it should be easy for people.
And, you know, you don't make you know, you make whatever, 4% rather than a 100%, but, like, that's okay. That's a normal business. Right?
Speaker 1: Right. Right. Be be transparent, be upfront, And and that's gonna be part of our goal in the operating of
Speaker 0: this new
Speaker 1: venture is to be as completely transparent as possible. A 100%. And part of that is to give customers the the indication of what would you pay me today for the product you just sold me. And that difference between the bid and the ask Yes. The sell price and the offer price is called the spread.
Yeah. And and the spread is really the determinant of what is the cost of the asset that you're investing in. What what is the friction? If you need to sell it tomorrow, how much are you gonna lose? And, you know, if you sold it back and the market didn't change, you should expect to take, you know, three to 5% off of your your value.
Right. Because that's that's the typical profit margin of of of an honest
Speaker 0: better than a new car. I'll tell you that. Sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well and and and this is a commodity money. So, you know, there there's only so much that should be added in terms of value and processing and costs to that transaction. You know, we're talking when we're talking forty, fifty, 60% that that you're you're just taking. You're just taking at that point.
There's no justifying.
Speaker 0: But you're taking from the best people in the world. That's what you know, obviously, I was glad to be fired from Fox. I'm really grateful I don't work there. But the viewers, you know, I really love the viewers. And I met a lot of Fox viewers.
I'm related to a lot of Fox viewers, and that's the one group I you know, like, they have enough problems. The government hates them. Mhmm. And you're stealing from them?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's it's a tragedy. It really is. And I've seen the stories.
And the people that are promoting these companies, the people who have large audiences, need to do a little investigation
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And and check out check out the actual practices of the companies that they're recommending and understand what is the spread on the typical deal that these companies are offering to their customers, to to the audience members of those people they
Speaker 0: Well, they don't even put their prices on the website. So that tells you everything. Like, you're you're selling something. Tell me what's your cost.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or if they do, they'll do the bait and switch. You'll call for that, and they'll say, well, you know, you should maybe get this because they'll they'll say something like the government can't confiscate this coin, or they'll tell you some secret story, some secret sauce about the thing you should really buy that's gonna cost a lot more, but there's a story behind it. So, yeah, you you that's that's one of the the typical signs is they don't have ecommerce or they're they're not gonna display prices. No.
There's plenty of honest companies too that are telephone only. They just they're not into technology, and they're honest brokers. We we work with people like that. So that that's not that's not a guarantee, but these companies almost always will not display their prices or their spreads because they don't want you to see that. And and it's typically very high profile celebrity endorsements because it's a con job.
They're relying on your confidence, their your trust.
Speaker 0: They're stealing the trust. And by the way, in some of these people, some of the media figures who are promoting this stuff are just not just not good people. I know them well. But there are also a bunch of them who I, as I said, I know really well, and they are good people, and they're basically really honest people. And that's why they're popular, by the way, because they're honest, and they've earned that trust over a long period.
And so, anyway, I think it's a tragedy for them. It's misleading, probably unintentionally, to their viewers, just the whole thing. One of the reasons I was glad to grateful to partner with you is that even though you're in the money business, you don't worship money. Right. Yeah.
At all. So and also, you don't need to do this. You've been successful enough. I, just being honest, don't need to do it either, and I I don't expect to get rich doing this. But I I really believe in it, and I think it's a it's a good thing.
I mean that too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I agree. You know, we we've been very successful. We've been in business since 1976. We've sold and delivered over $5,000,000,000 worth of metals in in the lifetime of our company, and I've been in it since I was born.
My dad started the company. So it's it's always been a part of my life, grew up doing it, and I came on board to help my dad. And I wanted to do things right. I wanted to help him do things right. I wanted to support our customer base, which at the time was primarily wholesale dealers that we would supply, retail dealers that we supplied as a wholesale dealer.
And so those have always been my motivations. I never when I was a kid, I didn't think I would be in precious metals. I wasn't interested in what my dad was doing, but I wanted to help him. He needed help. And so that's what I did.
And I wanted to do things right. And we've been very successful and we've been transparent and honest, and that's been a cornerstone of the way we've operated for decades. And I've known about these companies and never really felt that it was something that I could do anything materially to affect. So when you first contacted me and you had this idea about doing something about it like this, I jumped at the opportunity because, like you said, I don't need more to do in life. I wasn't really planning on expanding my list of projects.
I've been wanting to scale back, honestly, because I've been successful and I've I've been working really hard a long time. But this opportunity to me was of greater value than just the business. If it had just business, I wouldn't have been interested. But to be able to actually disclose this particular problem on a platform like yours is of so much value to the people that you and I love, the American people, the Fox News viewers, just average Americans who are trying to protect themselves from the predation and corruption that's rampant everywhere in this country.
Speaker 0: That's true.
Speaker 1: And and like you said, it's not it's like they need this kind of abuse. One more thing to get they've been hit from every single angle. The people are suffering so badly, and I've read these stories. So the idea that that you would that you would talk about this particular issue and and bring it up in in such a way that your audience is gonna know about it, the industry is gonna take notice, the people that are promoting these companies are gonna hopefully think twice and go back and do the math and ask some really hard questions, that's something that is of such huge value that, you know, just this interview alone is worth everything to get that information out. So.
Man, I almost took the money.
Speaker 0: It was like I was like, wow. How great. You know? It's like Right. I honestly think I've been fired for less than a week.
And, you know, most of our staff came over from Fox, paying their salaries. It's like, wow, I've got quite a burn right now. And I was, like, very psyched. I was like, oh, gift from God. And it was only because I was on a long drive, like a five hour drive, just spacing out, thinking about it.
And just in, like, a hyper autistic way, was like, oh, it doesn't make any sense. And I'm terrible at math. I know nothing about math, but just, like, I can smell like things that just aren't obviously true. Like, how does that work? And that just led down this rabbit hole.
So, anyway, I'm super, super excited. Let me just ask you one last question because I I of course, I keep stepping on your answers as usual. Silver. People buy a ton of silver. Yep.
It's it was traditionally, you said, about one twelfth or one fifteenth as valuable per ounce as gold. Now it's one ninetieth? Yes. I just don't understand that. It's got tons of industrial uses.
Why is it $30 an ounce?
Speaker 1: That's a really good question. We think it's gonna change. And if you if you look back at the when the the first major high in silver was about $50 an ounce in 1980 when the Hunt brothers were cornering the market, which is an interesting indication of maybe what its real value is, maybe not. But the inflation adjusted number, if you wanna calculate that to today's dollars, is about a $190. So we're we're nowhere near
Speaker 0: That's how much inflation we've had since 1980?
Speaker 1: Yeah. $50 is then is a $190 roughly today. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Oh, man. I remember 1980 really well. I was 11. I mean, that was a wow. Really?
That's a lot of inflation in forty five years.
Speaker 1: That's the problem we're talking about. But, you know and and then most recently in in 2011, silver again tested that nominal figure, but adjusted for inflation. That number is today in today's dollars, maybe $70.75 bucks. So we're nowhere near any of those previous highs. And historically, since since about, you know, maybe 1915 to present, if you look at all of the fluctuation of the the gold silver ratio, it's roughly the average has been roughly 53 to one instead of 90 to one.
So even if we just changed if the ratio was to be the basis for revaluing the price of silver, it would be over $50 right now based on the price of gold. It's where silver maybe should be if if you think that the the ratio is a fair comparison.
Speaker 0: And to restate, there has not been a radical expansion in supply. Correct.
Speaker 1: In fact, the supply that's coming out of the ground, like I said, miners report it being roughly a seven to one ratio, maybe 10 to one ratio depending on the mine that you're extracting from. So it has industrial demand. Certain amount is lost every year, so there's some amount of a deficit, I think. I don't have the exact figures, but then the amount that's coming out of the ground is nowhere near a 90 to one ratio or even 50 to one. It's 10 to one or less.
The possibility Well,
Speaker 0: that sounds like market manipulation, maybe.
Speaker 1: That's what a lot of people claim. I'm not enough of an expert in some of that inside baseball. I'd I'd let other people talk about that issue who who have a lot more information than I do. But to my understanding
Speaker 0: motive for that that you can think of?
Speaker 1: Well, it I'm not sure what the motive may be. It it may be residual to previous positions that were taken when silver was more of a monetary asset. There from what I understand, there are a lot of short positions by certain bullion banks that trade paper contracts to sell positions that they don't ever actually intend to deliver on, which is a standard practice. You just roll those contracts and and, you know, buy it back, sell it again. And and there are legitimate reasons for doing that, but also there are reasons that are purely economical or even manipulative.
And from what I understand, there are positions on the books of various banks where every dollar silver goes up, they're losing hundreds of millions of dollars collectively. So that may be potentially part of the motivation. I'm not sure exactly what the motivation would be apart from also the fact that silver is very closely associated with gold. So there there's probably a number of of reasons why it may be happening that I'm not aware of.
Speaker 0: What is what is the US government, I've read this, but I can't recall, price its own gold at? Biggest holder of gold in the world, I think, or supposedly.
Speaker 1: Yep. $42.22 per ounce. Is that
Speaker 0: less than the market price?
Speaker 1: Oh, quite a bit less.
Speaker 0: Like $3,000 less, almost. That's how how do you how do you do that?
Speaker 1: Well, the Fed can choose how it wants to value its assets. Can either
Speaker 0: So the Fed is magic? Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: It is. Yeah. Yeah. They can mark their assets to market or they can mark them to cost. They they have the amazing power to value or revalue different assets on their books.
That's part of the magic that we all enjoy. So so, yeah, it's it's it seems undervalued. Now
Speaker 0: Can I buy gold from the US government at forty two bucks? Is
Speaker 1: it possible? Wouldn't Yeah. It be So there there are people who have you know, who watch the value of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and market to market. Because there is enough information I think that people are able to do that. Or you could look at the money supplier or take other barometers of what is in circulation.
But there have been a number of times James Rickards, who is a famous commentator on these topics, he's written a few books about this topic. And he describes in one of his books, I believe it's The Death of Money, where he discusses the fact that the the Federal Reserve, technically on paper, marking everything to market has been underwater a couple of times. You know, essentially insolvent. Ouch. But that that didn't include marking the gold to market or revaluing it to some other price, which may be arbitrary or it may be an actual market price.
And so it would appear that the gold on the Fed's balance sheet has always been sort of a standing tool, like an ace in the hole to say, if we need to revalue this asset to rebalance the balance sheet of the Fed, of our currency, then we'll revalue that asset.
Speaker 0: What would happen to since The United States is supposedly the world's largest holder of gold, what would happen to the to the gold price if they did that?
Speaker 1: It depends on what metric you would want to use. People talk about the old gold standard under the Federal Reserve where we had a 40% reserve ratio. 40% of the value of the dollar had to be backed by gold. There's other ways to determine it. So if the value of gold were set to say 40% or some other number, it's gonna be between maybe 20,040, as high as 40,000 to to get that ratio back.
Now, many things could happen between now and that point, which could change the the makeup of the balance sheet of the Fed. So who knows where that number would actually end up, but it would multiples higher of where it is right now. I think it was Luke Gromen who said that if we wanted to get to a one to one parity with Chinese yuan, we would need roughly a $22,000 gold price. And that Per ounce? Per ounce.
And and and and that's if we have the amount of gold that we actually say we have. If we don't have that much gold, then the price goes up because the dollar goes down in relation to what gold we do have. So and that seems to be one of
Speaker 0: The dollar just evaporates at that point.
Speaker 1: Depends how much gold we have in that scenario, but it it would be a serious blow to the confidence of other central banks into what is the dollar really worth in some future scenario where international currency settlement gets tethered to gold of some type. And I think that everybody's preparing for that. Are Central Banks net purchasers of gold since 2005 and just upped it since 2002? So a revaluation and a rebalancing has to come for peace and for prosperity and for fairness. It's gonna If
Speaker 0: you're I mean, if you were actually, as you so wonderfully put it, tethered to reality, gold is reality, if you were tethered to reality, you couldn't have a ton of neocon wars. They've never been popular. They wrecked the country. Everyone kind of hates them. But it doesn't matter what people think because you make up the money supply when you need it.
I don't think we would have any of these wars if if we were tethered to gold.
Speaker 1: Right. And we probably wouldn't have hollowed out our industrial base. No. Globalism wouldn't be possible, at least in terms of the American version of globalism without that fiat currency aspect. And and if we wanna have say, like Luke Gromen, who you've had on the show here.
Speaker 0: Very smart guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Incredibly smart. And and his his idea of the revaluation of gold to obtain a parity of Chinese yuan to the US dollar of one to one, that would be good for us as well because the the Chinese yuan is so incredibly cheap compared to the dollar, and I think that's been people have accused China of being a currency manipulator to maintain that artificial cheapness because it makes Chinese imports so cheap, and American exports to China very expensive. So that's helped to fuel a lot of the offshoring of our industrial base to China over the last almost thirty years now, since roughly '97, I think is when that began in earnest. But that that also is sort of a side effect of maybe this fiat currency system that not only are we able to manipulate the world, but maybe other people are also able to use that system that's set up against us.
And and and that's probably what's been happening too in in terms of our relationship with China. So I I think there's a lot of problems that we could solve internationally and even domestically if we were to return to some form of an honest money standard, an actual standard that everyone is held to. Yes. A set of norms. And and and that makes everyone forced to deal honestly so that your word is your word, and your currency is your currency, and we disclose what these things are and we're transparent.
That would be a first step towards maybe rectifying so many of the the evil things that have happened in the
Speaker 0: Well, lying is evil. And if you're in a society that's or you just you can't even get to the truth, then you know you have a huge problem. Anyway, I hope our small effort moves the needle a tiny bit, and I'm grateful to be in it with you. So thank you. Chris Olson.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: So as you heard, that was Chris Olson, one of the biggest gold wholesalers in The United States and a genuinely, in my view, honest man. And we are starting a company together that will allow people, just normal people, to buy gold in a very clear way. Price is on the website. You can check the spot price, and you can know exactly what the markup is. We're not in this to get rich.
Hope it's successful, but that's not the point of it. The point of it is to make it easy and transparent for people to buy gold because we believe it's important for the reasons we just described. And and that's all sincere. But you can judge for yourself because full transparency. So if you're interested, the company is called Battalion Metals, Battalion Metals, and the web address, not surprisingly, is battalionmetals.com.
And we're open to any questions about this. We wanna bring honesty back to this business. There's no reason it should be a scam or shrouded in secrecy. By the way, secrecy is a tell for dishonesty. Someone is hiding something, there's a reason they're hiding it, and we are not hiding it.
But you can judge for yourself. Battalionmetals.com.
reSee.it AI Summary
I follow Breitweiser as she exposes a perceived cover-up around 9-11: demanding truth, probing the attacks, beneficiaries, government failures, and why reports stay classified. I consider foreign involvement, foreknowledge, Flight 93, the hijacking story, Building 7, and her call for a new 9-11 task force under Trump. I note DOJ hedge fund issues, managers, the ADL’s role in anti-terror laws, and how those laws have changed.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Kristen Breitweiser’s husband was killed in the South Tower on 9-11. Over the decades since, she’s watched the cover-up in real time. (0:00) The Families of 9-11 Victims Are Demanding the Truth (5:35) Were the 9-11 Attacks Planned? (14:16) Who Benefited From the 9-11 Attacks? (18:04) Why Didn't the Government Stop the 9-11 Attacks? (21:05) Why Are These Reports Still Classified? (27:47) Which Foreign Governments Were Involved? (35:40) Foreknowledge of 9-11 (47:52) What Happened to Flight 93? (57:11) The Suspicious Hijacking Story (1:05:14) What Happened to Building 7? (1:12:07) Breitweiser Calls on Donald Trump to Create a New 9-11 Task Force (1:15:45) The DOJ's Hedge Fund Scam to Rob the Victims’ Families (1:31:24) Do We Know the Names of the Hedge Fund Managers? (1:36:19) The ADL’s Involvement in Anti-Terrorism Laws (1:40:35) How Have America's Anti-Terrorism Laws Changed? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kristen Breitweiser and the interviewer discuss the ongoing puzzle of 9/11, focusing on what happened, what was known, and who hasn’t been held to account. Breitweiser says that after 25 years there is no complete understanding of what happened, and that this lack of a credible accounting is “a stain on the country.” She emphasizes that the families of the victims have never had a credible opportunity to use the rule of law to seek accountability and justice, and she argues that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that told a story rather than the truth.
Breitweiser recounts the climate after the attacks: fear was exploited to promote a war in Iraq, and anyone questioning the attacks was silenced as unpatriotic. She describes her personal loss—her husband was killed in the towers—and the broader atmosphere in New Jersey, including the anthrax attacks, which compounded the fear. She notes that the government’s post-9/11 response emphasized going to war rather than learning lessons to prevent future attacks. She suggests that the attacks may have served as a premise for preemptive war, and she asserts that there has been no accountability for the war in Iraq or for the broader intelligence failures.
When asked whether 9/11 was staged or allowed to happen to justify the Iraq war, Breitweiser says there are theories, but that the facts could point to the CIA standing down or “greasing the wheels” to let certain findings come out in order to learn more about Al Qaeda. She cites the Yemen switchboard, the Al Hada switchboard, as a crucial example: the CIA reportedly learned about Bin Laden’s communications in 1998 but did not shut down the line, even after the embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack, which Breitweiser says would have delayed or prevented 9/11 if the line had been shut. She attributes a pattern of government failures, including the FBI and NSA, and she argues that there was no credible holding of bad actors to account.
The conversation turns to Saudi Arabia. Breitweiser notes that from early on, Saudi Arabia was pushed as the “usual suspect,” a narrative she questions. She argues there should be broader examination of other foreign governments, including Israel, and mentions that 28 pages from the joint congressional inquiry were redacted. She emphasizes that there was no real examination of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, or other intelligence agencies’ roles. She adds that there may be information about Israeli involvement or awareness, including Mossad agents near Ground Zero, and a broader call for declassification of information (including the 28 pages and the 9/11 Commission source files) so the public can evaluate what happened and why information was missed.
Breitweiser argues that the day-of response was insufficient: the F-16s should have scrambled within minutes to intercept the hijacked aircraft, but instead three planes were allowed to be hijacked over nearly an hour and a half, with different base choices for interceptors. She notes eyewitness reports of military aircraft near United Flight 93 but says the final orders and outcomes remain opaque. She questions the integrity of the radar record for Flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon, and points to the absence of visible plane debris or consistent evidence at the crash site. She cites reports that suggest unusual radar anomalies, and she questions why there is not more comprehensive drone or aircraft evidence released.
Breitweiser and the interviewer discuss the absence of accountability within the Department of Justice and the broader national security apparatus. Breitweiser highlights that 3,000 people were murdered and argues that the CIA and FBI could and should have prevented it, and that the NSA had enough information to stop the attacks. She argues that there is a systemic cover-up and that the more time passes, the less interest the public shows, making accountability more difficult. The conversation shifts to the aftermath: the victim’s compensation fund was introduced in the wake of the attacks, with liability caps for airlines and cities; widows and children were excluded from certain compensation streams and faced a no-fault scheme that precluded discovery, cross-examination, and trials. Breitweiser describes the fund as a mechanism that favored those who could promote profits for hedge funds and for law firms, rather than providing equitable compensation for all victims.
She details how the 9/11 widows and children eventually secured certain Iran judgments, but that the compensation fund barred them from full participation and that a group of victims who had sold their judgments to hedge funds benefited disproportionately. The discussion points to the influence of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez and other legislators who pushed measures that redirected funds to hedge funds and to other political beneficiaries. Breitweiser contends that the fund’s structure created multiple lines of collateral that protected hedge fund profits, while widening the gap between the highest-paid victims (often military families and others who sold judgments) and civilian victims who did not receive comparable compensation.
Breitweiser also raises concerns about “the couches” in Building 7—an offhand mention that bombs might have been placed in couches as part of a broader theory about controlled demolition or explosive devices—which she says she has heard in the course of interviews, along with other claims about explosives and demolition. She stresses that these ideas are part of a larger conversation about the truth and that she has encountered many different sources, experts, and inquiries, including Able Danger veterans and others who offered information.
The interview ends with a strong call for a true truth commission or an independent investigative process with a special prosecutor and a fully empaneled grand jury, with immunity for whistleblowers and a mechanism for truth-tellers to come forward. Breitweiser argues that people who covered up or failed to act should be held accountable and that the families deserve justice and closure. She notes a desire for the president to address these issues and to deliver a sense of closure to the families. The conversation closes with a pivot to the New Commission Now movement and a call for public action: newcommissionnow.com, advocating for a renewed, transparent inquiry into 9/11 with a comprehensive, non-partisan approach to uncover the truth. The dialogue emphasizes the public’s right to know how foreknowledge, financial interests, and institutional failures intersected with the events of 9/11 and the decades that followed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Kristen Breitweiser, thank you. I'm so glad to meet you. I have watched you on and off through the years, and even when I, you know, I bought every part of the official story, like the little Washington robot that I was unknowingly. Even then, I I admired your doggedness and your intelligence, rigorous mode of thinking, and your bravery for not letting it go. So you you haven't let it go.
You've been on this for almost twenty five years. Are you more or less satisfied that you understand what actually happened on 09/11?
Speaker 1: No. I mean, I think twenty five years out, there's absolutely no complete understanding of what really happened. I think that's unconscionable. We live in The United States Of America, and to think that 3,000 people were massacred in broad daylight in Lower Manhattan and that there's not been a full accounting that is credible. There's not been the ability for the widows and kids to avail themselves of the judicial system, of the legal system.
I just think it's a stain on the country. I'm someone that believes that we are a nation based upon the rule of law. Yeah. And the reality is this nation's worst terrorist attack, the families left behind, have never been given the opportunity to use the rule of law to give us a sense of accountability and justice for the murder of our of our loved of our loved ones.
Speaker 0: Or even a coherent story. I mean, that's what I'm really struck by is that twenty five years on, it's less obvious what that was. That is weird. Why?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think initially in the beginning, everyone was really scared. Yes. I think that, first, there was fear, and I think that that was ginned up sort of by the Bush administration. And then once this question about that. Yes.
I could speak to that firsthand. And I too was really scared. I mean, I think we not only had the attacks. My husband was killed. I was left alone.
We lived in New Jersey right across the water from where the attacks took place. We could smell the air, which was horrible. And then we had the anthrax attacks, and that happened in near where you know, in New Jersey and near Princeton. And so it was a really scary time. And then subsequent to that, when things started to maybe subside where people sort of regained their sense of reality, we had to queue up to the war in Iraq.
And anyone who questioned anything about the attacks and how they could have happened and who could be behind them, you were silenced because we were a nation at war, and it was unpatriotic to raise any questions, to to question anything, and to demand answers, certainly not allowed. And so that sort of took, I think, quite a bit of years. And now, believe it or not, I think for many of us, it's twenty five years moving into the twenty fifth year, and I do not think that we've been told the truth. I think as hard as we fought for a commission to try to learn the lessons, to try to understand better why and how the attacks happened, I think that commission was a whitewash. I think it told a story, not the truth.
And there's a difference between a story and the truth. And I think we're owed the truth as to what happened that day and why the country was attacked and why we did nothing in a defensive posture to even mitigate the damage on the day of nine eleven. It's bad enough when you look at the facts leading up to the day of nine eleven, and you see the many instances of where things were sort of overlooked, facilitated in some situations. But the day of nine eleven as well, there were failures, systemic failures that cost lives. And so for me, initially, in the beginning, I was like, you know what?
Like, we need to do better. The country needs to learn lessons so that more lives could be saved if and when another terrorist attack happened. And for whatever reason, president Bush wasn't interested in doing that, but he was interested in the war in Iraq. And to me, twenty five years looking back, twenty four years looking back, I do wonder if the attacks were to serve as the premise to allow for preemptive war. I think that when you do examine what had happened in the government since then, it certainly laid the groundwork for preemptive war.
I'm not a person who supports war. I think that as someone who lost a loved one, I know the devastation war brings to a home and a family, and it makes me sick to think that no one was really held accountable for the war in Iraq, for the hundreds of thousands of lives, for the tens of thousands of US soldiers. And it's I'm just confounded with the fact that the American public never demanded that, and that for all intents and purposes, they got away with nine eleven, and they got away with the war in Iraq.
Speaker 0: I agree with every word that you just said, and thank thank you for saying them because they're true. The one part where I would ask you to clarify, clearly, nine eleven was used as a pretext as an excuse for the war. Iraq was used to justify it on, you know, famously false grounds. But that's a very different thing from nine eleven was staged or allowed to happen in order to justify the war in Iraq. Do you think that's possible?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's certainly theories out there, but I think when you look at the facts, it's it would be certainly more comforting for the government to come forward and prove that that's not the case. Right? Like, it's uncomfortable as an American citizen to think that members of our intelligence apparatus, our intelligence community stood down, greased the wheels, facilitated different fact scenarios that enabled the attacks that may or may not have already been underway. And so there's a story out there that that happened that, you know, the CIA might have allowed certain things to happen and to move forward because they were letting the line out to try to learn more about Al Qaeda or terrorist groups, to learn more to get the big fish, quote, unquote. Right.
You know, I think that that's an interesting, nice way to look at things, certainly a less diabolical way. But there's a rule supposedly in the intel community that when you have actionable intelligence, you're supposed to roll up the operation. And so one of the biggest questions that I have centers on the Yemen switchboard, the Alhada house switchboard. The CIA apparently learned about that in, I think, '96. They officially learned about it in '98 through the embassy bombing.
And, of course, my question would be, if the CIA is monitoring the Al Hadda switchboard, all of the communications that Bin Laden is sending out to his operatives around the world to carry out attacks When the ninety eight embassy bombing happened, why didn't they go in and shut down the Alhada switchboard? They didn't. They, I guess, wanted to leave the line out and continue to learn more information, and they didn't wanna tip-off Al Qaeda or Bin Laden that they had ears on him and his operations. Okay. So the embassy bombing happens kind of not great.
But then the USS Cole happens. In 2000, seventeen sailors were killed. Again, that information flew through the Al Jada switchboard, and the CIA still at that point doesn't go in and shut it down and stop it. I believe that if the Al Jada switchboard was shut down, it would have at the very least delayed the nine eleven attacks, and perhaps my husband would be alive today.
Speaker 0: Well, Grand Canyon University is not like most American colleges. It focuses on the things that actually matter. It is not a rip off. It is the real thing. It's private, affordable, Christian university located in the heart of Phoenix, one of the largest universities in the country actually.
At Grand Canyon University, education is more than academics. It is about opportunity. The chance for every student to live out the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Rights are not given by the government. They were bestowed at birth, at conception by God.
That's just a fact, and Grand Canyon University is not gonna lie to your kids and claim otherwise. It tells the truth. So, you know, you're thinking a quality education is rare, so this probably costs a fortune. Colleges constantly jack up their costs. They probably do the same.
Well, they don't actually. GCU has maintained the same tuition for seventeen straight years. They're not in education to get rich at the expense of students. The whole thing is actually about learning. How refreshing.
With flexible online classes, hybrid learning options, GCU offers 340 academic programs. Students benefit from a collaborative learning environment, dedicated faculty, personalized support to help them achieve their goals. The pursuit to serve is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University private, Christian, affordable, g c u dot e d u.
So the question is why wasn't it? And I think the explanation that people sympathetic to the CIA would give is that it was just it was just too great having a window into their private communications. And, like, why would you shut that down?
Speaker 1: Well, because, first of all, the embassy bombing happened, and I know it was only, you know, like, 13 Americans or something like that. And, mostly, it happened in East Africa. So most of the casualties were African. And maybe they thought, like, yeah. You're right.
The cost benefit analysis. Like, we'll just you know, we lost 13 military, whatever. But then the the coal happens at 17 sailors. Each one of those lives means everything in the world to their family.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And and then nine eleven happens. Three thousand people are killed. At some point, you need to hold the CIA accountable. And instead of holding the CIA accountable, people like Cofer Black, George Tenet, we had George Tenet getting a medal of freedom. But more disturbing to me was that you took the same director of the CIA that had so utterly failed before nine eleven, utterly failed with the USS Cole, and you relied on him to give you intelligence for the WMD in Iraq.
And somehow you thought it was gonna be credible and worthwhile. It's inconceivable to me why president Bush would have done that. Right? But he did, and we relied on it, and it turned out to be a lie. Okay?
And so what you see is this systemic long term carrying out of policy by American leaders, whether it's a president, a vice president, whether it's members of congress, the intel committees, that are sort of looking past these failures of the intel community. And, again, it's not just the CIA. The FBI's got plenty to explain with regard to the nine eleven attacks, and they're never held accountable. They sort of act with impunity, and people make cool movies about them, and everyone thinks that, you know, they're above the law. The reality is is that 3,000 Americans were killed on US soil, and the CIA and FBI 100% could have and should have prevented it.
The NSA, who does all the eavesdropping around the world, the wiretapping, they 100% had enough information to stop the attacks. And for whatever reason, the attacks weren't stopped. So, you know, naturally speaking, when something happens, a reasonable person is like, well, who benefited? Right? Like, who benefited from not stopping this, from not preventing this murder of 3,000 people?
And maybe in the early days, it was kind of hard to sort of decipher that. I think now twenty four years out, it's not that hard to figure out who benefited. I know certainly who didn't benefit, but I think that that's something that the American public needs to start considering and start wondering why we have a government that's not willing to hold people that are responsible for this nation's worst terrorist attack accountable for their failures and for their, you know, in some ways, negligence, I believe criminal negligence and not stopping the attacks.
Speaker 0: What's interesting is that what you said is identical as far as I know to what an awful lot of people who are involved in nine eleven think now. You know, government officials who were at whatever level were around the events, were making decisions based on the events, you know, who were right there. They all kind of think what, as far as I know, having asked a lot, because we made this documentary series that you were nice enough to participate in, the view you just expressed is, like, very common. You're not some lone wacko on the Internet at all, and you've been deeply involved in this for a quarter century, but all these other people have reached the same conclusion. So why is no one saying this out loud?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that there's an institutional block on saying it out loud. I think it's exceedingly uncomfortable to think that, you know, there's blood on the hands of the United States government and its intelligence community. And I think that, you know, there's a long game here where the more time that passes, the less and less interested the American public is. Right?
Speaker 0: And not just the US government, by the way. I mean, I don't know your views on this, but I can I don't know the answer? Well, I would have put it in the doc series if we'd found out. But I just know for a fact that a lot of non crazy, highly informed people think that the US government, parts of the CIA specifically, which saw its role expand, its funding expand, it it won. And, also, you know, an allied government also got a lot out of this.
Like, that's what they think. Why will no one say that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think it's peculiar. I think that for me personally, my initial focus was on the US government failures. I was very interested in what the US government knew, why the attacks weren't prevented, and, you know, that was my original focus. And then, certainly, we were sort of corralled into considering the kingdom Of Saudi Arabia that happened through, you know, a confluence of things.
The joint inquiry of congress did an investigation. They left 28 pages blank, blacked out, redacted, and, you know, the whisper campaign began that it was the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that had a strong hand in the attacks. They logistically and financially supported the hijackers. And, you know, undoubtedly, there's information there that could support that scenario. There's also historic facts that show that The US intelligence community and the Saudis work together, you know, speaking here about, you know, Iran Contra, speaking here as well about the years in Afghanistan with the mujahideen.
But then as years and years go by, you start to consider about other foreign allies that might have played a role. And what I think is most curious is the fact that we not only don't call for an examination, a real examination of our own intelligence community, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, DIA, defense intelligence. There's been no clarion call for that. There has been somewhat of a drill and focus on the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, and yet there's been nothing about, you know, the other ally in the region, which is Israel. And I think that that's curious.
I think that there are facts and circumstances that would warrant asking questions and asking what Israel knew about the hijackers time in The United States for the eighteen months before nine eleven. And I think that there is, you know, some FBI three o twos that talk about alleged Mossad agents, you know, filming near ground zero. There were a series of art students sort of shadowing the hijackers for the year before nine eleven. You know? And I don't understand why that information isn't just offered up.
Like, if no one did anything wrong, which is what everyone says, then why is that information not offered to the American public, in fact, to the world to just say, here's everything we did. Here's what we knew, and here's why we missed it. But instead of that, what you have is, like, pretty much a cover up, and everything is shrouded in secrecy. Everything is overclassified. And to me, that makes things look kind of suspicious.
And so that's what I would hope. I would hope that at this point, we should declassify everything. And when I say everything, I mean, Richard Clark did a look back. President Bush, like, I think two days after nine eleven, told Dick Clark, who was head of counterterrorism, the counterterrorism czar, go back and look three months, pulse the files, find out what we knew about these this impending attack. Clark did that, and then Bush said, you know what?
Go eighteen months. Now what's curious about that is when you go eighteen months from nine eleven, you get to the millennium 2000. Right? And that is the the time period where not only the two hijackers that are always talked about, you know, Khalid Midar and, Noah Falzahazmi, who came into The United States. The CIA knew that they were coming here.
They should have informed the FBI because the FBI does domestic surveillance of terrorists, but the CIA didn't. The CIA withheld that information purposely. They knew that two known identified Al Qaeda operatives were coming into The United States. They purposely did not tell the FBI. Those two hijackers lived here for eighteen months, planned, met up with the other hijackers, ultimately carried out the nine eleven attacks.
In fact, those two hijackers were the ones that allegedly flew the plane into the Pentagon. Having said that, so we have Richard Clark's look back back all the way to the millennium 2000. In addition to the two hijackers that came into the country at that point, we also had the arrest of Ahmad Rasam. He was picked up over the border coming into Seattle. Rasam was connected to the Al Qaeda cell that carried out nine eleven.
So that happens in December 2000. This is when Clinton is ending up his presidency. Actually, I'm sorry. December 1999. Clinton is in there full time.
Berger is the national security adviser. Susan Rice is in there. They nab this guy, a terrorist coming across who's on his way to LAX to blow up LAX. Okay? He gets caught.
January 15, these two hijackers come in that the CIA knows about into LA LAX, like, literally two weeks after Massam was planning on blowing up LAX, and they're all connected back to the camps in Afghanistan. Yes. But, again, the CIA doesn't do anything. And, apparently, according to the official story, the CIA knows these two guys are coming here, the two hijackers, and just forgets about them. Doesn't do anything.
Okay? What I think happened is I think that the Clinton administration was like, this is not good. We have these two guys coming in. We need to do something. Let's farm it out.
We can't trust the FBI. Let's give it to some foreign intelligence to keep an eye on these guys and see what they're up to. Now if that happened, what we do then is we find out that the USS coal bomb goes off in October 2000. So that's now nine months, ten months after these guys come in. The CIA supposedly lost track of them, but they go and they carry out the coal bombing overseas.
Okay? At that point, if the Clinton administration did put together this op, like, let's try to recruit these hijackers. Let's let the line out. Let's see what we can learn. They're listening into the switchboard.
At that point, seventeen sailors die. You need to stop what you're doing, and you need to roll up the operation. You need to end it. And yet that didn't happen. So when president Bush, two days after nine eleven, looks at his terrorism czar and says, I want you to do a look back.
I want you to get everything out of the files that were connected to this. Do you think Richard Clark goes back to December 1999 when they arrested Rassam? These two hijackers are coming into the country. He, Clinton, Burger, Tennant, are sitting in a room, and they're like, what do we do? What should we do with this?
Do you think that that was in that review that Bush asked Dick Clark to do two days after nine eleven?
Speaker 0: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Neither do I. But don't you think that the American public should know what Dick Clark found?
Speaker 0: We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah. Good luck. So most people, when they think about this, wanna carry a firearm, and a lot of us do.
The problem is there could be massive consequences for that. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious on on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway. That's what the anti gun movement will do.
They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm, and that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Berna. It's a proudly American company. Berna makes self defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.
There are no background checks. There are no waiting periods. Berna can ship it directly to your door. You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Berna pistol. Visit Berna, byrna,.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get yours today.
Berna.com. So that's never been released?
Speaker 1: It's never been released. And the other report On what grounds? They just don't release it. And Clark did another report. Well, I'll tell you why the second report can't get released.
The second report that he did was the after action millennium report, and that was they caught Rissam at the border, and they, you know, they have the two hijackers coming in to LAX. Right? Same airport that Rissam was gonna blow up. And, Richard Clark, terrorism czar, Clinton administration, draws up the millennium after action report. That report is reportedly what Sandy Berger, former Clinton national security adviser, stole out of the national archives, stuffed in his socks, permanently destroyed it.
What would have been so important that Sandy Berger, who was, I guess, a fairly reputable former executive branch official
Speaker 0: National Security Adviser.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Go to the National Archives and steal, like, I think, seven sets of the Millennium After Action Report. Like, what could have been in there that, like, he would have gone and done that? Meanwhile, we
Speaker 0: don't destroyed Sandy Berger's reputation.
Speaker 1: Did it, though, because he got community service.
Speaker 0: You did no. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, we have other people that, like, leak to newspapers, and they're in jail. Right? I mean
Speaker 0: So what do you think was in that?
Speaker 1: I think it was the operation to try to recruit the very hijackers that ultimately carried out nine eleven. And I think that that's what they were covering up. And what's interesting to me is that Burger got, you know, pinched during the Bush administration. It was actually during the commission, the nine eleven commission, and Berger said that he was going to look at the documents to refresh his memory. What's really interesting is that the Bush administration who was highly political and, you know, run by Karl Rove, the strategist Sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Never really caused a ruckus about it. Like, they just sort of, like, looked past it and, like, let Sandy go do his community service. And to me, that meant that whatever he took must have protected both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration because the silence and the absolute, you know, vacuum of Karl Rove going after Sandy Berger during, you know, a midterm election year kind of, like, to me speaks to what he must have taken and who whose mess he was really cleaning up. So those are two documents that I think need to be released to the American public to shed some light on what could have been done to prevent the attacks. Richard Clark's look back two days after nine eleven that president Bush ordered and the millennium after action report.
Then we've got all of the NSA files. Now the NSA had been listening to the El Hata switchboard from, like, '96 on, so that's a wealth of information, not only about nine eleven, about the embassy bombings in East Africa, about The US's coal bombing. I think that those files that have never been investigated, never been examined fully, Phil Zelico, the staff director of the nine eleven commission, just didn't really see the need for it. Those should all be fully released. I think the inspector general's report for the FBI failing to share information should be fully released to the public.
No redactions. I think the CIA inspector general report. I think the NSA's, I don't think they have an inspector general. I think treasury's FinCEN
Speaker 0: even bother.
Speaker 1: They don't have to. I think those types of IG reports need to come out the classified version. It's now twenty five years later. There's no sources and methods. No.
There's no need to protect national security. There's no Musawi trial. Those are all the things that we were always told. We can't tell you this information because it'll hurt the Musawi trial or its sources and methods.
Speaker 0: And so It'll hurt the trial.
Speaker 1: Right. And I think that all of those things need to come out and be released. I think the 28 pages, the classified and unclassified versions without redactions need to come out. And I think the nine eleven commission source files need to be fully available to the American public, ideally released to some sort of, like, doge like staff who could digitize it and put in, like, some sort of, you know, like, database searchable system so that the American public can actually search those files. The problem with the nine eleven commission source documents is that they're almost impossible to look through.
They're all at the national archives. What is digital is highly redacted, and they're impossible to find. There's no finding aid that makes any sense. And I think that's on purpose. But those are the types of things that I think twenty five years out, like, why aren't we getting them?
And why isn't president Trump demanding their release?
Speaker 0: I I don't understand. Except, of course, I do understand, which is that there's something awful at the heart of this. I mean, that's just so clearly true. We know that from the behavior of the people who are keeping the secret. So in the decades that you've been dealing with US government officials on the question of nine eleven, have you ever gotten any indication from any of them, you know, off the record, that this is not what it looks like?
Have you ever talked to anyone who works for the US government who seems to understand that this is a that there's a big lie at the heart of this?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that it's the biggest open secret in Washington DC.
Speaker 0: Is that true?
Speaker 1: I feel like in many ways, like a lot of members of congress know. I feel like certainly the intel committees know. And that kind of blows my mind because I feel like
Speaker 0: You're sure of that?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not sure, but, obviously, they all have clearances. They have access to the files. You know, anyone could have gone in and read the 28 pages, the secret 28 pages. If you're a member of congress, you have clearance. You go into a skiff.
You're allowed to read that. I don't know why every member of congress didn't go and do that. Frankly, if I was a member of congress, I would have went and recited them on the congressional floor for the American public to
Speaker 0: arrest me.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, I mean, it's America first in my mind.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And I don't think we should protect any foreign ally or nation. If you've had a role and you could have prevented the murder of 3,000 people, the American public needs to know that and needs to make their own determination as to whether or not you
Speaker 0: are allowed. The heart of this is protecting a foreign country.
Speaker 1: I think it's protecting a few foreign countries probably, and I think it's also protecting The United States intel community. Yeah. I mean, there's no doubt.
Speaker 0: So you you said a couple of things I don't wanna let slip through the cracks. One, that from the very first days of the investigation into this, Saudi, the kingdom, KSA, king of Saudi Arabia, was sort of steered toward you as a a culprit.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. They were like the usual suspect. Right? And isn't that convenient? It's like it was all Saudi all the time.
Right? And so
Speaker 0: I bought that completely.
Speaker 1: Well and, I mean, it's listen. It's, it's what's done. Right? You're using it's distraction. It's a totally political strategy to distract people from reality.
Right? And so and, frankly, the Saudis aren't completely innocent when it comes to you know, they have a lot of things that have happened in the past that would, you know, fit the bill for why they might be the usual suspect. But I think, you
Speaker 0: know Well, I don't know. The Saudis are not into no Arab monarchy is into regime change.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: So anything having to do with the toppling of Saddam, they would not have been for that. Oh. It's not how they see the world at all.
Speaker 1: I would agree.
Speaker 0: They don't like chaos in Saudi.
Speaker 1: Right. And I'm so for the war in Iraq, I don't I don't know how that that how anyone could credibly explain that the kingdom did nine eleven because they wanted to queue up Iraq. I don't think it makes any sense.
Speaker 0: They hate chaos. I mean, they're long term stakeholders. It's a monarchy.
Speaker 1: Right. And that's what I ask a lot of people that are always like the Saudis, the Saudis, the Saudis. I'm like, well, okay. But why? You know, for
Speaker 0: me Exactly. It's like, why?
Speaker 1: Would have been the motive? Why would the kingdom of Saudi Arabia want to to attack The United States, kill 3,000 people? What was in it for them? You know, if you're if you're an evildoer and you're over in Saudi and you're like, hey. Let's do this.
What were they thinking they were gonna get out of it? And realistically speaking, what did they get out of it? Right? And from what I see is they've been tied up in litigation now for twenty four years, being blamed for nine eleven. And so, you know, I don't know whether they did it or not.
I don't have access to the classified files, but I don't think that they're alone. I think that there are other foreign governments that should also be examined. And I think it's peculiar that for whatever reason, there's no questions about the other foreign governments. And to me, that sticks out. And it's like, well, are we just being distracted with the kingdom?
What about the kingdom and other foreign nations? What about the kingdom, other foreign nations, and the US government intelligence apparatus? Because, you know, there's a reason why no one wants you asking those questions. Right. And that in and of itself should raise the hair on the back of your neck.
Speaker 0: It does. And I was slow to pick up any of this. I I bought it completely until I was told by someone who's a very knowledgeable person, works for the US government. Like, it's not Saudi we're protecting. Woah.
That had never entered my tiny brain.
Speaker 1: Said that to you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Someone who would know, would seen the documents.
Speaker 1: Someone said Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're not and I don't know. I think of myself as above average in IQ, but apparently, I'm not because I had never had never entered my brain. I was like, really? What?
And I think it is because Saudi, like every American grows up with mixed feelings about Saudi, clearly dominant in the energy markets, and that's good for us, has been good for us. Saudi Aramco's good for us. But, you know, too foreign, polygamy, beheadings, veiled women, like, everything about it is just so far away and kinda scary that when somebody says it was the Saudis, know, you're like, yeah. Probably Saudis. I know they seem weird.
You know? But I'm just it's just dawning at me that maybe some of that but dawned on you early. This is being pushed on you. It was the Saudis.
Speaker 1: Well, because it was really overt that it was being pushed on us.
Speaker 0: Really?
Speaker 1: Well, I think so. Yeah. I mean, we asked the lawyers to sue a whole slew of countries, you know, because I think that there were some fingerprints there for several countries, and we were told no, you know, not to
Speaker 0: get told you couldn't sue foreign countries?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Certain ones that I wanted to sue. You know, the reality is all of the financing for the hijackers flew through Dubai. I was like, why aren't we suing the Emirates? Pakistan.
I was like, why aren't we going after Pakistan? I'm not saying that they had a hand in either of those countries had a hand in it, but I was like, why aren't we at least looking into it? And I think one of the biggest frustrations for me is the US government's Department of Justice's failure, abject failure to prosecute anyone. The US government didn't investigate anything. They didn't look into Saudi.
They didn't really credibly look into UAE. They didn't look into PAC they did nothing. They literally have not, to this day, successfully and pro fully prosecuted anyone for the nine eleven attacks. How is that possible? 3,000 people were murdered.
If you're a US attorney, your job is to go out and investigate that murder and prosecute people, have a grand jury, hold people accountable, put them in jail. You're telling me that with all of the money that flew in and out of this country connected to the hijackers, there wasn't one bank account. There wasn't one stock trade that you could drill down on and find out that someone had foreknowledge. And if they had foreknowledge, well, how the hell do they have the foreknowledge?
Speaker 0: If you watch this show, you know that we love PureTalk. It is amazing wireless service with absolutely the best prices. And all the time we've been telling you about PureTalk, we've never seen an offer like the one we're about to describe. And here it is. Unlimited talk, text data with a 30 gig hotspot for just $29.95 per month.
Not just this month, every month for life. This is PureTalk's top tier plan, $29.95 a month. We'll save over 50% a month every month for your entire life, and you stay in the exact same five g network that Verizon and AT and T offer, but for $1,600 a year cheaper for a family of four. That's why it was provable by the way. This isn't some false claims, not disinformation.
It's real. PureTalk's customer service meanwhile is located in The United States, not in Bangladesh. Nothing against Bangladesh, but you're talking to Americans you can understand. They can switch you in just minutes. You keep your phone, keep your number, and you start saving in a really big way.
Unlimited for life, $29.95 a month. This is a short term offer. Long term consequences short term offer. Puretalk.com/talker to switch today. Puretalk.com/talker to switch to America's wireless.
PureTalk. Taxes and fees not included. Go to the site to get all the details, but those are the basics. You know, that's the case on 09/11. It's also the case with Charlie Kirch's murder.
You know, it was people had foreknowledge because they bragged about it online on X, And those people have not been arrested. I don't know that they've been questioned, by the way. Maybe they have been. I just don't know. I've asked.
Can't can't quite get an answer there. But I know on 09/11, there were stock trades that proved foreknowledge Absolutely. Of the airlines, of the banks, in the buildings that were hit. And the US government said, yeah. We know who did those.
We executed those trades, but we were not gonna tell you. Isn't that unbelievable? What is that?
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying. Like, how unbelieve and so what happened is when the US government doesn't take it upon itself to to have a prosecution, to have an investigation, it's left to the victims' families to hire lawyers and do it on their own. And you're really hamstrung to do that. Like, you're talking about a terrorist attack where all the documents are classified. It's all held by the government.
Everything that you need to to learn about your case to build your case is in the government's hands, and the government refuses to give you that information. And so we're kind of left in this limbo where the US government didn't do its job to prevent the attacks. Then the Department of Justice after nine eleven didn't do its job to prosecute or hold anyone accountable and provide justice to the murdered victims' families. And so the murdered victims' families turned to the civil litigation process, which if everyone remembers OJ, you know, was what Nicole Simpson's family had to do. You know, it's kind of a shitty second.
Yeah. It's really not helpful. And so that's what we were relegated to. And then those attorneys, not all of them, but many of them were just unwilling. First of all, they were unwilling to sue the US government.
Like, and I asked. I've got the emails to prove it. And then I asked
Speaker 0: Why were men willing to sue the US government?
Speaker 1: They just told first, they told us we weren't allowed, which is not true because in the wake of, you know, the last twenty years, you see the Emmanuel Church family suing. You see the Fort Hood family suing. You are allowed to sue the US government. Our attorneys initially told us that we couldn't. Of course, we were also forced into what the government did, which was the victim's compensation fund, which was retroactively taking away our right to sue by capping liability levels from nine eleven.
So what happened was nine 11 happens. The towers collapse. You know, the country is worried about being destabilized. The economy is gonna create
Speaker 0: a The airlines.
Speaker 1: So supposedly, congress swept in, you know, heroically and created the airline stabilization bill. And I don't know how they wrote that bill because it's pretty precise, but yet somehow they wrote it in, like, nine days. And in doing so, retroactively capped liability levels for anyone, for the airlines, for the city of New York. Later, like, two months later, president Bush capped the liability levels for Boeing Airlines. And, essentially, the widows and kids were left being told, you're not gonna be able to sue because there's not enough money to pay you.
There were so many people killed. There's just not enough money, so you're gonna have to go into this victim's compensation fund run by this special master, and you'll be paid an amount of money, and it's no fault and go away. And, you know, as an American citizen, a lawyer, I was like, wait a You're not allowed to take away someone's right to sue after the murder. Like, that's not how it works. And yet we weren't given a choice.
It was shoved down our throats, and so that's what we were left with.
Speaker 0: And the legislation that created this was written in nine days?
Speaker 1: Like, nine days.
Speaker 0: So you're
Speaker 1: And it's pretty comprehensive.
Speaker 0: You're a lawyer, as you just said, how hard would it be to write so you can take the first three days off because, like, it's right after 09:11. The country's in chaos.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Condie Rice, immediately after 09:11, is sitting with the National Security Council, and I was like, how can we capitalize on this opportunity?
Speaker 0: So She said that?
Speaker 1: She said that. Capitalize on this opportunity. So evil. The pile was still burning, and she's how can we capitalize on this opportunity? My head split in half when I read that quote, literally.
Like, I just was like
Speaker 0: been rewarded. She runs Hoover. Close friend of Philip Zelicos. Exactly. Yeah.
So the
Speaker 1: So my point is we were not allowed to like, first of all, the US government did nothing. We were relegated to this fund that was, quote, unquote, no fault. There was gonna be no trials, no investigation, no hearing, no discovery, no cross examination, no jury. And so what we were allowed to do was to sue the coconspirators. But, again, the US government didn't go after any, quote, unquote, coconspirators.
They threw them all down at Guantanamo and waterboarded them, tortured them. So there's no, you know, going after them. Right? And so we were left with the civil litigation system. Lawyers, many of whom were, like, aviation attorneys.
One group is former tobacco big tobacco attorneys, and they were willing to go after the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia. And the rest of these entities, whether it was a foreign government, Emirates, Pakistan, or the US government, we were told, no can do.
Speaker 0: What about Israel?
Speaker 1: Oh, that would have never come up. Why? I don't know. That's what I'm saying. Like, to me, when you're not asking very, you know, pragmatic, obvious questions and people don't even ask the question, or if you do ask the question, you just sort of get shut down.
To me, that makes me suspicious. Right? Like, why aren't we going after those countries? Why isn't my country looking into those countries and what they knew? And yet there's never been an interest.
And I think that that's suspicious.
Speaker 0: Well, by definition. By definition. I mean, science and law enforcement are one thing in common. Every possibility has to be considered. Maybe immediately discarded, but if you don't consider a possibility, then you're clearly not working to get the truth.
Right.
Speaker 1: You're not doing your job.
Speaker 0: You're covering something up, not trying to illuminate it. Yeah. Again, by definition. I can't let this pass. I don't wanna forget to ask you about it.
At the outset of our conversation, you said not only did the US government fail to protect the country, pardon me, but they did nothing to mitigate the effects of the crime once it happened, something like that. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Right. So not only did they fail to prevent the attacks from happening,
Speaker 0: which
Speaker 1: Tom Kane, commissioner chairman of the nine eleven commission, clearly said. The nine eleven attacks one hundred percent could have and should have been prevented. There was enough information in the pipeline for it to be stopped on a number of occasions. It's not just, like, one instance, several instances where the plot could have been unraveled, stopped, 3,000 lives saved. Okay?
Or at least the attack delayed in enough time to learn more and really stop the ultimate attack. That's number one. But on the day of nine eleven, the US government did absolutely nothing in a defensive posture to mitigate the damage of the attacks. What does that mean? First and foremost, my husband was on the 94th Floor of the 2nd Tower.
He called me after the first building was hit, and he's like, I don't want you to worry. It's not my building. Don't worry. And I said, you know, what's going on? I'm truncating the story, and he said, they're telling us to stay at our desks.
Well, an elevator in the World Trade Center went to top to bottom in a minute's time. If at 08:58, the Port Authority and the companies didn't tell people like my husband to stay at their desks and told them to evacuate, those people would have gotten below the zone of impact and survived in the second Tower. In my opinion, there is no excuse for any loss of life in the second Building. And in the first Building, the only loss of life should have been above the impact zone. Okay?
That's one way that lives could have been saved and damage could have been mitigated. Number two, Christy Todd Whitman told the rescue workers all of New York that the air was safe to breathe. We were told early on when people caught, you know, that we were you know, the Jersey girls were fighting and trying to get the truth. We were told that the sniffers that were put around Ground 0, they're supposed to be at a certain height above the ground to sniff the air. They were above the point where they were supposed to be so that the air that they were testing wasn't the actual air that people were breathing.
Okay? Another prime example. The air was not safe to breathe. I don't know what was used in those attacks, but I know that it's caused a lot of cancer. Okay?
But tell
Speaker 0: I think that's pretty much proven at
Speaker 1: this point. I think it's pretty much proven. And so when the US government goes and tells thousands of people, I think at this point, there's 70,000, that the air was safe to breathe, they're responsible for that. All of those people have been injured and harmed. Some of them have died since then.
That is an example of devastation, illness, disease that could have been stopped, might not have even ever happened if the US government did its job. The biggest one that I think speaks to what doesn't make a lot of sense is the scrambling of the jets. So on the day of nine eleven, there were a series of procedures and protocols in place for hijacking of planes. And the North American air defense, NORAD, scrambles jets. So what happens is, you know, people forget, but, like, in the seventies, there were a lot of hijackings.
Speaker 0: Oh, of course. To Cuba.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. And they were kinda commonplace. Like, I've read a couple of articles recently where, you know, an eastern plane was hijacked.
Speaker 0: 100%.
Speaker 1: Everyone was chill about it. They just, like, served cocktails, and you went to Cuba for, like which is kind of surreal.
Speaker 0: 90 miles out of your way?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was like
Speaker 0: There were no fatalities.
Speaker 1: Free booze. Like, enjoy right. And they were just kind of like a nuisance, and the pilots were chill about it and whatever. And so were the flight attendants. Everyone was trained.
But regardless, what happened was a couple of things. Like, number one, you know, they started the Sky Marshal program, which required that if there was something suspicious about someone going on a plane, a sky marshal whose job it was to keep an eye on things and keep the plane safe was on the plane. The other thing that happened was that they had a protocol that f sixteens, if there is a hijacking or the suspicion of a hijacking, were supposed to be scrambled, to go up, to meet the plane, and to do a series of things to sort of find out if it isn't a hijacking and to stop it, to thwart it, to threaten, whatever. Okay? Well, on 09/11, for some reason, the first plane, flight 11, was confirmed hijacked at 08:14 in the morning, 08:14.
And the planes did not scramble according to the nine eleven commission until after the Pentagon was hit at 09:38. So that's, like, an hour and twenty minutes. Typically, historically speaking, the f 16 scramble within a few minutes. They're up airborne at, you know, full speed. And the saying back in the day was that if you had a plane that was not behaving normally, you'd find an f 16 on your tail within ten minutes.
That was actually a bit of grace. It was really, like, five to six minutes. And for some bizarre reason, on the morning of September 11, those f sixteens didn't get up in time. More to the point, the air bases where there were f 16 squadrons that could have gone and intercepted the the errant planes on 09:11. They didn't call the the f sixteens from there.
They called them from bases that were further away. A perfect example, Maguire Air Force Base in New Jersey had f sixteens. They brought the planes from Otis, which was, like, I think, 200 miles away from the city and away from the planes. Down in DC, instead of running the f sixteens out of Andrews, they ran them out of I can't think of the name of the but out of Maryland instead. And so what happened was the planes were hijacked and just allowed to crash into the buildings with no interception.
Speaker 0: Except for the final plane, flight 93 over Pennsylvania. A number of eyewitnesses, many eyewitnesses, saw military aircraft near that plane.
Speaker 1: Yep. They did.
Speaker 0: So what was that?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, obviously, there's talk that it was shot down.
Speaker 0: Well, Dick Cheney gave the order.
Speaker 1: He did give the order.
Speaker 0: Right? And then they said, but we didn't actually do it. And then there was a very elaborate story about what happened inside the plane, kind of a heartwarming, wonderful story. The protagonist was called Todd Beamer, and he, you know, let's roll, and they rolled a drink cart against the
Speaker 1: It's a heroic story.
Speaker 0: I mean, this is a wonderful story. And they they made a movie about it and all this stuff, But that was celebrated, and it should be celebrated. It's a great story. I'm not attacking anybody, of course. But it did have the feeling of, like, we're gonna make this into a great story.
And it did make me wonder, like, whatever happened to that shoot down the plane order, and there were military aircraft next to the plane? Like, what should we think about that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think that you could drill down on that. Go to Otis Air Force Base and, you know, get the files, find out when those f sixteens left, if they were armed, and if they came back with the same amount of missiles that they left with. It's not that hard to figure out. You could test the soil
Speaker 0: for done that?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know if anyone's asked. You know? If you don't ask, you don't get. But I know that there were eyewitnesses at the crash at 93 that said that it was unlike any crash scene that they'd ever seen, that there was no fuselage, that there was no, you know, evidence of the plane seats, of luggage, of you know, it was just a black hole.
I read a lot of books, and I'm really good at going to used book sales and finding old books. And there's a lot of nine eleven books that you can pick up at used book sales, and one of them is a group of reporters that put a book together with their photos and their recollection from the day of nine eleven. And I read with great interest the two sections of that book, one on the Pentagon and one on flight 93. Because when you read these reporters' information about both crash sites and what they experienced that day, it doesn't really match up to what we've been told.
Speaker 0: Can you give me an example?
Speaker 1: Sure. Like I said, the crash site at in Shanksville, these reporters had seen airplane crash sites before. They've reported on them. They're mainstream reporters. And they just said it was, like, really curious.
There was no visible sign of a plane anywhere. There were no engines. There were no seatbacks. There were no luggage. There was no nothing.
I will say, I think that was one of the planes where they did find a passport. Yeah. Yeah. The eyewitnesses that were literally there, they came from Pittsburgh, I think, and got to the scene quite early. And then suddenly, you know, like, federal agents came and, like, pushed them all back, pushed them all back, took film, took cameras, what have you.
I think that that's curious, so that doesn't really you know, raises questions like what happened. And I think the Pentagon is obviously a really good question. I think that we've been told that Hani Hanjur, the hijacker that flew that plane, you know, was responsible for what is considered in pilot circles an extraordinary maneuver. And Hani Hajur, a month or two before nine eleven, almost got kicked out of flight school because he was that incompetent. He didn't speak English.
How someone like that would have been able to pull off that maneuver, putting aside the fact that the air defense that was on top of the Pentagon and at the White House also didn't lock on to the plane and shoot it down, or they weren't even I you know, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the missiles that were on top of the Pentagon defense missiles that were designed to protect the Pentagon from anything, They didn't go off, and neither did the ones at the White House. So I think that that's kind of weird. I also think it's weird. We had a real long conversation with the commission about the lack of radar evidence of flight 77 from the Kentucky, Ohio border all the way back to the Pentagon. I remember the call quite vividly, and we were told that in all of history before and the time after, there has never been an anomaly in the radar.
Just by way of background, The United States has several layers of radar. You know, everything from traffic radar all the way up. And yet this, like, 12 or 13 layers of radar coverage was this anomaly. It all broke down at one time. Every single system completely just didn't work from the time that flight 77 flew from the Kentucky, Ohio border to the Pentagon.
There's no evidence of it whatsoever. And so
Speaker 0: There's no radar image at all of flight 77 flying toward the Pentagon?
Speaker 1: Not from the Ohio Kentucky border, which is where the last
Speaker 0: Louisville area. Yeah.
Speaker 1: To the Pentagon, like the DC aerospace was when they picked it up again. And I think what's interesting is that initially flight 77, three things happened to that plane at the Ohio Kentucky border. And typically, historically speaking, when those three things happen, it's always an airplane crash. So the first thing that happened was the transponder was disengaged. The second thing that happened was the primary radar of that plane went away.
Primary radar is when radar waves hit an object in the sky, if it's a bird, if it's a plane, what have you, and it bounces back. So at this one place over the Ohio Kentucky border, the transponder disconnected and the skin radar for flight 77 disappeared, which means it was no longer in the sky. And then the third thing that is really, really odd is that the ELT went off, the pinger, and that only ever usually goes off if there's a catastrophic emergency on the plane. Right?
Speaker 0: It went off not at the Pentagon, but at the Kentucky, Ohio border.
Speaker 1: Right. With the transponder and the the actual primary skin radar disappearing off the scope. And so simultaneously to that, there are reports in the, you know, police reports from the area that there was a plane crash. And in fact, in the There
Speaker 0: was a plane crash where?
Speaker 1: In the Ohio Kentucky border where all those three things happened. It was pinpointed, and there was a plane crash there. And the state police were rushing towards the crash. And reports of that? Yeah.
There are actually police reports that you can read. And then at the very same time in the situation room, it was also reported that that flight 77 or a plane that they thought was flight 77 crashed at the Kentucky, Ohio border. And then subsequent to that, the commission came out and said, no. No. No.
No. That was just false reporting.
Speaker 0: But that happens to be the last place it was seen on radar.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And then, of course, if you look at the FBI photos, there's a bunch of, you know, theories out there, conspiracy theories, or what have you. It doesn't look like a plane hit the Pentagon. Right? Like, you look at it looks like a punched hole.
And, you know, flight 77 was a rather large plane. There were no plane parts. There was no fuselage. The jet engines weren't on the outside of the Pentagon, and the footage shows that whatever pierced the Pentagon sort of, like, leapfrogged and, like, crisscrossed, which kinda defies the rules of physics. But, again, if you raise these questions, if you ask these questions, you're immediately shut down as a conspiracy theorist.
But, like, the facts are the facts. You can look at a photo. On top of it, the Pentagon, you know, our home of our defense. There's no video footage of the plane except for a gas station video that has been partially released to the American public. How is that possible?
Like, how is there no other footage of the plane flying into that building? It doesn't make any sense. So why twenty four years out, why don't we just get all that information? Why won't it just be released to the American public to sort of shut down these theories to clarify what happened and to give, you know, the families an understanding of how the nation was not only attacked, but how our department of defense did nothing in its own defense while under attack. Like, I don't understand how that happened, and there was no need to, like, really, like, ream some people out.
Right? Like, if you're the president and your Pentagon just got attacked, like, wouldn't you be like, where the fuck were you guys? Like, what happened? Like, where were the air to surface missiles?
Speaker 0: You're literally the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, you're the Pentagon.
Speaker 0: Like, how department.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying. Like, how and and it's not like the defense department was hit first. It was hit, you know
Speaker 0: Third.
Speaker 1: An hour and twenty minutes after the first confirmed hijack of flight 11. How is that possible? And if it did happen, why didn't heads roll? Why wasn't our entire government petrified? Here we are for years fighting the great bear Russia, and they're like, you know, we've got NORAD and fighter jets, and we're worried about nukes coming in.
And somehow, some non English speaking incompetent Al Qaeda operative who couldn't even fly a Cessna, let alone a jumbo jet, is able to pull off a fighter pilot maneuver and fly, I don't know, 15 feet off the ground into the side of the Pentagon. But meanwhile, there's no radar track. There's no evidence of it. We're just told that that's what happened, and it's the Pentagon. Like, I don't I don't understand how we were attacked at our Department of Defense, and president Bush wasn't outraged.
But they didn't want any investigation. And keep in mind that the joint intelligence committee that did investigate was only investigating intelligence community failures. That's the NSA, the FBI, the CIA. They weren't investigating the failure of the department defense to defend itself on the day
Speaker 0: of nine eleven. Or the actual crime. I mean, just the mechanics of the crime itself as presented to us, the public, hard to understand. And I but I don't have any secret theory. I would just say it if I did.
But they're telling us that these guys who were not pilots who went to flaky flight schools in Florida or Arizona or wherever and didn't do very well, as you noted, infected so badly that they alerted law local law enforcement. Like, what is this?
Speaker 1: That's how bad they were. They stuck out. Like, they were so grossly incompetent Right. That, like, the flight school were like, what is going on here?
Speaker 0: But they murder the pilots of these planes. This is a story. Maybe And it's true. I have no idea, but it's it's hard to it's hard to understand it. So they murder the pilots, and the plane's flying in the other direction.
They're not American, in at least one case, they don't speak English, and they somehow turn the planes around and then go to, like, the precise play you know, to the side of the Pentagon to the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan. Was the idea that they programmed that into the computer, or how does that work?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know how they even got the pilots out of their seats to take control of the plane. I you know, again, like, flying it so in other words, a cockpit is a small place. Like, the pilot and copilot are in their seats. They're flying the plane. The they the hijackers, according to the official story, burst into the cockpit.
They, you know, decapitate. You know?
Speaker 0: That's the official story.
Speaker 1: The official story is that they were decapitated. And so then they had to lift those bodies out of those seats not to be macabre and then jump into those seats and fly the plane. But, like, I don't I don't know how that works. Like, I do know that at 30,000 feet, there aren't street signs. So when you take over a plane at 30,000 feet somewhere over The United States Of America, I don't know how you know which way to turn.
I don't know how you know where the Pentagon is. I mean, I know it looks like a Pentagon, but when you're 30,000 feet up, you know, and you're over Kentucky, like, how do you know which direction to go to find the Pentagon? Because according to the official story, the hijackers were not communicating with the ground. Typically, when planes navigate across The United States, they must communicate with the ground. You check-in with different, you know, sectors.
And when you cross over the sector, that's how everyone knows where that particular plane is. That didn't happen on 09/11 when the hijackers took over, and somehow the planes were able to navigate exactly to the precise target. Coupling that with the fact that the hijackers were just grossly incompetent. They didn't speak English. And just sort of, like, the story itself, like, I don't understand these high trackers were, like, little guys.
How did they get the pilots and copilots out of the cockpit area, get in the seats, clean up all the mess from the violence, and then fly the plane? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Our understanding of what happened, again, comes from the nine eleven commission telling us what happened and comes from the cell phone calls that gave an awful lot of information about the hijackers. And, again, there, there's been a lot of, you know, talk about how that was possible. When planes are, you know, flying at 30,000 feet, how in 2,001 was there able to be a connected cell phone call?
More to the point when the planes are being flown sort of, like, haphazardly and herky jerky, and, you know, the way cell phones work is they connect from towers to the ground. Well, when a plane is moving all over the airspace and flying at maximum speed, it's really, really rare for a cell phone to connect at 5,000 feet, let alone 30,000 feet. And so that raises questions. Our entire understanding of what took place on those planes literally comes from the cell phone calls. We asked the FBI about that, and we didn't really get any clear answers.
And to this day, we still don't have many clear answers.
Speaker 0: But you don't have clear answers about pretty central questions.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 0: These are not ancillary questions. These are, like, the most basic like, how'd they do that? I mean, my biggest know?
Speaker 1: No. We don't know. Like, my biggest questions aside from the cell phones and what have you and how the hijackers themselves were actually able to, you know, navigate from the middle of nowhere to the precise targets that they went to when they were so grossly incompetent and not speaking to the ground. My biggest question is where was our air defense? I know as a fact, because I read all the rules and the procedures and protocols back in the day, those f sixteens should have been up within five minutes.
They should have been flanking those planes, and they should have stopped those planes. And at the bare minimum, they should have been communicating down to the ground, the f sixteen pilots to say, we can't get these guys to stop, you know, and put people on alert. Right? But for some reason, three planes were allowed to be hijacked over the course of almost an hour and a half, and The United States Of America did nothing to stop it. So putting aside all the failures to prevent the attacks for the eighteen months two years before nine eleven.
Okay? You look at the day of, and we get back to your original question. How could the devastation have been mitigated? One simple way is that if the f sixteens had done their job, had done what they were trained to do, which, by the way, there's also evidence that there was a drill, a military drill on the day of 09:11 about a plane being hijacked and flown into a building. Okay?
These f sixteen pilots are trained to do that. That was the procedure and the protocol. For some reason, on 09/11, it didn't happen at all.
Speaker 0: You've asked these questions, I assume, to members of congress.
Speaker 1: We were told that it was the fog of war. That's what
Speaker 0: we were told. That was the answer? Yeah. Did I mean, but at some point, you know, like, the rest of us were watching this on TV. So, I mean, clearly, whoever's commanding those aircraft knew that this was happening also.
Everyone knew. I mean, I was here. You were here. Right. That I mean, did the person who prevented those planes from taking off ever get punished?
Did anyone get punished?
Speaker 1: No one's ever been punished. I think the commission's we like to say that the commission's finding was everyone was at fault. Therefore, no one is at fault.
Speaker 0: Right. No.
Speaker 1: And so
Speaker 0: We're all guilty.
Speaker 1: But, you know, again, 3,000 people were murdered, and I think that my husband was one of them. And I don't understand. I go back to the rule of law. We are a democracy. We are a nation founded upon the rule of law.
How has our entire legal system failed the nine eleven widows and children? How has the Department of Justice failed the widows and children not only before nine eleven, on nine eleven? And I'll tell you something in the wake of nine eleven. Because if there is one entity that has revictimized and horribly treated the nine eleven widows and children, it is our department of justice, and they should be held accountable for
Speaker 0: what they have done. Interesting. That's I wanna hear that story because I I can tell you know a lot about it and you're passionate about it. But before we get to that, just one last question about the day of, about 09:11 itself. What what was Building 7?
Speaker 1: So I'm full disclosure, I have always focused my studies and research and expertise, if you wanna say that, on the intelligence failures.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: I did watch your series. I listened to it. I didn't watch it. I don't like to watch myself. No.
That's what mean. But and I I do know Building 7. There's a lot of talk that it doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, I think that there needs to be some questions to special ops as to whether or not as way of fact that any bombs were planted in the couches of that building.
Speaker 0: The couches? The couches. What does that mean? A couch? Like, you sit on a couch?
Yeah. Why do you say couches?
Speaker 1: I you know, listen. Over the years, we've had people that came and approached us and tried to give us information, all kinds of different people.
Speaker 0: I bet.
Speaker 1: And I think that one of the things that needs to be examined is Building 7. I think that hard questions need to be asked as to how and why that building fell.
Speaker 0: Do you say couches?
Speaker 1: I just happen to wonder if bombs were planted in the couches by special ops.
Speaker 0: You happen to wonder? I mean, that that's not something you would arrive at just sort of randomly, the couches. Everyone talks about the columns and the fireproofing, but you're saying so you you it obviously, you
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, listen. Like I said, we had a lot of people approach us. We had air traffic controller people in the beginning. We had an Iranian a former Iranian give us information.
We had able danger guys come to us.
Speaker 0: Bet you did.
Speaker 1: We had foreign governments try to give us stuff. We had death threats. We had all kinds of stuff. So, you know, I'm just throwing that out. Building 7, that's what I could say.
It's not my area. It's not what I focused on.
Speaker 0: I I get it. Totally get it.
Speaker 1: Is a total anomaly that that happened. It doesn't make any sense to me. And what's interesting is, like, it's something that I had never studied before. And, you know, it's true. Like, it's kind of odd, and I think that we should get some answers.
Speaker 0: The couches. Okay. Sorry. I'm gonna Couches. Yeah.
No. It's just such a was
Speaker 1: I don't know nothing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. I get it. But, clearly, you know, you were a kind of clearinghouse for this stuff Yeah. Just because of your role for those people who aren't around or don't remember you were
Speaker 1: No. I mean, like, one of the things that sticks out to me that we had heard, one of the nicer sometimes you hear information that I believe is sort of like a limited hangout or to try to, like, explain the real story, but, like, soften it. And so one of the things that we heard is, yeah, we were following them, but, you know, you know, we thought it was gonna be November 9 instead of September 11. We reversed the numbers. And I was like, oh, that's interesting.
You know? So you were following them or you weren't following them or you're on the practice runs or you're not on the practice runs. But that was one of the stories that we had heard from, like, a source that, like, yeah, like, they were getting followed. We were you know? But we thought it was gonna be eleven nine, not nine eleven.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense because we had the NSA listening into the conversations between Bin Laden and the other operatives. And as everybody knows now because senator Hatch leaked some of the information that, like, tomorrow is zero hour, you know, the big wedding. It's two sticks and an upside down birthday cake. I think that there was plenty of information out there to let people know that it was actually 09:11. And more to the point, one thing that gets skipped over often, my understanding is that Ramzi Youssef, the '93 bomber, his the fifth anniversary of his conviction, was 09/11/2001.
And if you know anything about Al Qaeda, if you study Al Qaeda, they like anniversaries. And so, to me, I think that for whatever reason, the attacks weren't stopped, the American public wasn't properly notified or warned. Certainly, there are people inside the government that were probably given warnings. I think there's evidence of that. Mhmm.
I just wish for them. Yeah. I just wish that my family had known because when my husband called me, I would have been like, holy shit. Just get the fuck out. Like, get out.
This is not a bad pilot as the president said. This is it. Like, get out of that building. You know? It was already a target.
The people that worked in that building knew it was a target. I think it's interesting that the women many of the women that worked in my husband's firm survived. And I I, you know, point to women's intuition. The women were just like, I'm getting the fuck out of here. Yeah.
And they survived, and my husband didn't. And I feel like if the public was made more aware over the summer that, you know, director Tennant's hair was on fire and that we were in the crosshairs and that there was an impending attack because we had warnings from Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan, our own intel communities, surveillance of these cells. I think many, many more lives would have been saved. I think, frankly, the attacks would have been a 100% prevented.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I think it's entirely fair to ask since they weren't prevented and since they've been covered up with maximum aggression for twenty five years, they're still being covered
Speaker 1: A systemic cover up.
Speaker 0: Systemic cover up. That's correct. Very extensive cover up. I mean, that's not a guess.
Speaker 1: That's facts. I think the cover up is so big that, like, you couldn't even hold accountable the people that have covered it up. And, honestly, the other limited hangout answer to that would be like, well, we were told that we couldn't tell you the truth because it was a matter of national security.
Speaker 0: Always.
Speaker 1: And isn't that convenient?
Speaker 0: Well, sure. But, I mean, this was the, you know, greatest violation of national security in my lifetime, so it doesn't really make sense as an argument. But because Yeah. All of that
Speaker 1: of national security. Like, the Department of Defense, an hour and a half later gets attacked and no heads roll. Does that make any sense to you?
Speaker 0: No. So I I think it's totally fair to ask who benefited from it at that point. I think it's totally fair. In fact, I think it's mandatory to ask that question, and there should be prosecutions.
Speaker 1: 100%.
Speaker 0: How would you you're a lawyer. How would you do how would you structure the response now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I love that you want the commission. I think that
Speaker 0: I don't know if that's the right answer. I want people I wanna know the truth.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think that that's a truth commission is is a great idea. I think that I would like it tweaked a little bit. I'd like, you know, a special prosecutor with a full time, fully empaneled grand jury ready to issue indictments. I'd like, you know, the offer of immunity to anyone immunity and anonymity for anyone who comes forward with information on, you know, the failures and the day to day of, like, what happened.
And I think people should go to jail, and I think people that covered it up should be held accountable. And I think the families deserve answers.
Speaker 0: And I Who wouldn't want that? I mean, I think if if if Donald Trump announced what you just said tomorrow, I'm just imagining the scene on x on social media. Like, who would be opposed to that, do you think?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Everybody knows who would be opposed to that. I know exactly which commentators would have a fit Right. If he did that. And so what does that tell you?
Speaker 1: But then explain to me how president Trump put together a joint terrorism task force for the October 7 victims. He put together, Pam Bondi led it, you know, a task force to find everyone who was responsible for October 7. And yet he ran on America first, and I was like, wait. I'm sorry. Could we get a nine eleven task force?
It's gonna be the twenty fifth year. For the twenty fifth year, could you appoint a nine eleven task force? We have Doge. How about Doja? Right?
How about the Department of Government Accountability? And why don't you put that together and have the Doge guys get the access to the information, throw it into AI, whatever they do, and figure out who's responsible and what really happened.
Speaker 0: Know exactly what would happen. What? Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, there would be a a lot of people have to answer really hard questions.
And Exactly. And I don't, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: But I think that the American public is owed that Are you kidding? And, you know, 3,000 people were massacred, and the families are owed the truth, and the families are owed, you know, proper compensation for our losses. We have not been properly taken care of. We were railroaded into that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now I wanna get into the DOJ. Thank you for indulging my all my many questions. I still wanna ask you off camera about the couches. What the hell does that mean?
Sorry. I'm not gonna push you. Know. Yeah. Well, it means something, clearly.
Okay. You've had problems with the DOJ. RDJ I
Speaker 1: wanna just say this. Anyone who knows anything about the couches in Building 7 and the planning of explosives should get immediate immunity and anonymity if they come forward with the information. Of course.
Speaker 0: Of course. This is all
Speaker 1: And if there is no one, then no one gets immunity.
Speaker 0: Right. What I never never understood, like, what's the problem with finding out what the truth is about anything? I don't I don't understand. And there is a certain persistent chorus of the same people, hysterical people, telling you that you're not allowed to ask this or talk about that. And it's like, why are you saying that?
I mean, I look. I understand. I'm not for, you know, hounding people, attacking them. I don't think you should slander people. These are the slanderers, by the way, who are insistent, by the way, that you're asking questions.
But whatever. I get it. Don't be impolite. Don't make a scene for no reason. But I I But in this case, 3,000 people dead, it's totally fair that I what the hell?
Speaker 1: The truth is really important everywhere all the time. But when 3,000 people are murdered, yeah, we're owed an investigation. We're owed Oh, you radical. No. Right?
I mean, we're where is the justice system?
Speaker 0: Oh, I agree.
Speaker 1: And it's unbelievable. The stories that I could tell you about how we've been treated by our own Department of Justice Okay. Would, you know
Speaker 0: Then I want you to tell me those stories, and let let's take a quick break right now midway. So we're back. We took a quick break. Should say it's the October, and we're in a northern climate, and it's freezing, so I went and put my highly unattractive vest on. That explains the costume change.
Anyway, you were on the cusp of explaining your what you describe as mistreatment by the Department of Justice and related agencies and law firms. Can I just give you the two sentence understanding that I have? So The United States has set aside a huge amount of taxpayer money to compensate the victims of terror, all terror attacks, nine eleven being, of course, the biggest and most famous of all terror attacks in American history. So I'm a little surprised, and I think that's true. Correct?
There's a big pile of money, taxpayer money. Right. But you said the victims of nine eleven, the spouses surviving children, have been undercompensated. Like, tell I'll start let you go from there.
Speaker 1: Right. So in 2015, certain members of congress put together some legislation and created a fund run by the Department of Justice. And the fund was supposed to be funded through terrorist sanctions, predominantly from those who do business with Iran, let's say. Bank Pariba was the first deposit that went into the fund. That's a whole another story in itself.
It's kind of interesting. But suffice it to say out of a $9,000,000,000 fine with Bank Paraba, I think 1,800,000,000.0 went to the victims, and the residual money went to the state of New York to build a bridge that ultimately got named after the governor's father. Actually? Actually. I don't know what the Tappan Zee Bridge had to do with terrorism,
Speaker 0: but I Was it ever bombed by Iran?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, but I do like to make the joke. My daughter went to college in Upstate New York, and when I would go over the bridge and pay the toll, I'd be joking that it should be going to the nine eleven widows and children since the money that went towards the bridge reconstruction came from the power of our money, as I understand it from reporting, instead of going to victims of terrorism. How can that be? Well, you know, the Department of Justice runs a lot of their sanctions programs sort of like a slush fund. But at any rate, this fund was created.
Bank Paribaba put together, like, I think 1.8 or 1,900,000,000.0 of the first deposit into that fund. The widows and children were excluded from joining that fund and being compensated even though we were given the right to sue the coconspirators of the hijackers when we were forced into the victim's compensation fund back in 2002 when the government took away our right to sue. We were allowed to sue the terrorists, the coconspirators of the hijackers, and we did. We we were able to get a default judgment, sorry, against Iran, and the widows and kids have Iran judgments. And we sought to be compensated for those judgments because it was the only way that we could Iran judgments?
Iran judgments. I know not a lot of people know that we have Iran judgments. But
Speaker 0: May I just ask a dumb question? What does Iran have to do with nine eleven?
Speaker 1: Right. So the evidence that was presented to the court for Iran's role in the nine eleven attacks is that Iran cleansed some of the passports of a few of the hijackers when they went through Iran after being in Afghanistan. That evidence was used. Iran doesn't show up in court in The United States. So I think at this point, probably close to twenty thousand nine eleven victims have been given copycat judgments off that basic evidence that Iran cleansed these passports.
And this is the only way that the widows and children of the 3,000 killed are in any way able to hold terrorists, quote, unquote, accountable. We are supposed to be able to get compensated for our Iran judgments in this government fund. Okay? A Department of Justice Fund.
Speaker 0: But just big picture, not to be ornery about it, but, like, everything we've talked about for the last hour, which is about the event itself and how it happened and what we don't know and who might have benefited from it and who might have paid for it and facilitated it, Iran didn't make an appearance in that conversation, and I've never heard anybody make a case that Iran was actually behind 09:11 in a meaningful way.
Speaker 1: I would agree with that. But, nevertheless, Iran doesn't show up in court, and you can get a default judgment. And that's
Speaker 0: It just seems like a lot of tragedies in this country are blamed on Iran. I'm not working for Iran. I'm not that sympathetic to Iran. I'm not Iranian. But I just noticed this, that Trump gets shot in Butler.
It was Iran. Right. Right. It's always Iran, and it does feel like
Speaker 1: A convenient narrative.
Speaker 0: Well, yes. Yep. Yes. Okay. I just wanna
Speaker 1: say that. Listen. You know, pragmatically speaking, when you're a widow and it's the only judgment you can get
Speaker 0: I get it. I get it. You know? But that's not a decision you made anyway. Right?
I mean, you didn't decide to go after Iran.
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. I wanted to go after the US government and their failures because I didn't look to Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other foreign government to protect my husband and my family on the morning of September Good point. I looked to the United States government because I'm an American citizen and the attacks happened here. So at any rate, we were able to get these Iran judgments, I think, at this point, like, 20,000 people.
You know, that's including the decedent's families, the widows and the kids, and the decedent's siblings, parents, and then all of the inhalation injury people at ground zero who breathed the bad air, they're also holding Iran accountable. That ultimately will be about 70,000 people seeking to be compensated in this government fund. Well, the problem with the government fund is that compensating nine eleven victims gets in the way of the other victims that want to be compensated. And so back in 2008 and then a little bit before that and some other legislation, things were rewritten for American military to be able to sue the enemy. So you have victims from the embassy bombings in the late eighties.
You have Iran hostages that aren't allowed to have judgments because a part of the Alger Accords was that they weren't allowed to sue Iran, but they're given just a flat number that they're allowed to be paid in this government fund. They're a victim of state sponsored terrorism, the Iran hostages. The embassy bombing in Beirut victims and then the Kobar Tower victims, that was a bombing in Saudi Arabia. And then you have The US's coal families, also victims of state sponsored terrorism, and the East African embassy bombing families. These are all military, or foreign service families that because the law was rewritten, they are allowed to get judgments against Iran for Iran's participation in those attacks.
And so those victims have really powerful lawyers. They were the ones that reportedly created this government fund that's run by the Department of Justice, and they came up with the idea that we're gonna fund the fund from terrorist sanctions. And what does that mean? Well, that means that when The US Government gets information that a company, a ship you know, a tanker is doing business and buying Iranian oil, that tanker or that company gets sanctioned. The Department of Justice goes after those entities, and they find them.
You know, first, they have a case, and then they, you know, usually typically settle the case for billions of dollars. And that some of that money is supposed to go into this fund to pay victims.
Speaker 0: This is why we never pull back sanctions even when they're counterproductive because it's a scam that people are getting rich from.
Speaker 1: Well right. But so it was designed Sorry.
Speaker 0: I had to say that.
Speaker 1: Well, so upfront, it's being sold as a a fund to pay victims. Turns out many of the military families had attorneys who encouraged the families to sell their judgments to third party investors' hedge funds. I know all of this because What? Right. I know all of this because the SEC happened to investigate one of the hedge funds.
And so I read all of the SEC files, thousands of pages, and so that's how I know this information. I'm basing it all on these SEC files of this investigation. So at any point, these victims that were supposed to be the ones getting compensated in this fund run by the Department of Justice, sold their judgments, not all of them, but a lot like a lot of them. They're very unsophisticated military families. This, you know, hedge fund guy comes in and says, listen.
You've got a judgment for 2,000,000. I'll give you 400,000 right now. They're sitting at a the kitchen table in the middle of Iowa. I'll write you a check. So these families sell the judgments because they're like, first of all, their young son or daughter was in the military.
They never thought that they could sue the enemy. Right? Because you're not supposed to be able to do that if you serve in the military. You don't sue the enemy. But the special law was written, and so they were just happy to get the 400,000.
Right? Like, they're sort of astounded. So they they take the money. The hedge fund then owns the right to compensation of the judgment. No
Speaker 0: way. So it's like a payday loan. We'll give you a portion of
Speaker 1: your check. Yeah. Exactly. And they, in my opinion in my opinion, took advantage of the military families, which I think is disgusting. Okay?
But these arrangements, according to the SEC documents, were put together by the lawyers of the people. So the lawyers brought in the hedge funds. Okay? And so the same lawyers create reportedly, from what I can understand, in my opinion, I'm being very careful, created this fund to be run by the Department of Justice who, you know, treats their, you know, fines and sanctions and prosecutions sort of like as a slush fund. You know, the Department of Justice wields power when they send money to local districts, to police departments to buy vests, what have you.
They wield a lot of power that way. It's frankly how the money ended up, you know, at the Tappansey Bridge cutting deals with, you know, the governor at the time. Nevertheless, these hedge funds buy the rights to the compensation, and they're actually the ones in this fund getting paid. Initially, the widows and children from 09/11 weren't allowed in the fund.
Speaker 0: This is such a perfect metaphor for modern America. Well There's a victims of terrorism fund, but the actual beneficiaries are, wait for it, hedge funds.
Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. And can you guess what senator wrote the legislation to
Speaker 0: put this together? Can't imagine.
Speaker 1: Which senator from the state of New Jersey is in prison right
Speaker 0: now? I would say mister Robert Menendez.
Speaker 1: That is correct. Senator Menendez was the person who just ironically enough happened to write a lot of pieces of legislation that, you know, maximize the profits to the offshore hedge funds that had purchased these judgments for
Speaker 0: offshore hedge funds?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. They're in the Cayman Islands.
Speaker 0: Oh, come on.
Speaker 1: Well, it's true. And so what gets really bad is that the widows and kids aren't allowed into the fund because, quote, unquote, there's just too many of you and that you'll take all the money. Right?
Speaker 0: And the hedge funds won't be enough for the hedge funds.
Speaker 1: Well, the problem is in the actual purchase agreements, again, according to the SEC documents, the underlying purchase agreements of the Iranian judgments of these military families, the second line of collateral security guaranteeing the rate of return between 13 and, I think, 62% is this fund that was created by the Department of Justice. What? Guaranteeing the profits to the hedge funds. It was the second it
Speaker 0: it's in Fund is a guarantor?
Speaker 1: Fund. Yes. The third line of collateral security according to the SEC documents is the law firm's receivables. So that means if the fund doesn't churn and burn and provide that profit, then the lawyer's receivables get rated so that the hedge fund investors make the return. So you can see there that there's an impetus, a drive for the attorneys not to want that third line to get tapped.
They want the money to come from the fund because then it's not coming out of the attorney's pocket. Right? So that's why the widows and kids, in my opinion, were not allowed to go into this fund and be compensated for our Iran judgments even though we are the nation's largest group of victims of terrorism, the nine eleven widows and kids. We're blocked in this fund. We're not allowed in.
Takes us three years to get the widows and kids in. We get into the fund, and the law is written by senator Menendez with the support of senator Schumer and others so that the money is split in a way that continues to maximize the profits to the hedge fund. Okay? Then two years later, because the widows and kids were wrongfully excluded from being compensated in this fund in 2015, we were owed a catch up payment. I came up with the name.
It was a lump sum catch up payment. I'm like, you wrongfully excluded us. This was really wrong. We're owed back compensation. Okay?
We go takes us two years to get that through congress. Okay? We get there. We get almost a unanimous vote in the house. It goes over to the senate, and the bill gets hijacked.
And I use that word purposely. It got hijacked. It got hijacked by that same group of lawyers and plaintiffs who had sold their judgments to the hedge fund. And out of nowhere, totally unwarranted, they asked to get this lump sum payment for themselves. Even though they were never wrongfully excluded from the fund, they were never owed back payments from the fund.
They were allowed to get what's called the Beirut COBAR catch up payment worth $3,000,000,000. The $3,000,000,000 to pay ultimately, in my opinion, some of these hedge funds in the Cayman Islands and also some victims too that didn't sell their judgments, right, comes from US taxpayer dollars. $3,000,000,000
Speaker 0: Come on.
Speaker 1: So it gets worse.
Speaker 0: So you believe that some of that money actually went to hedge funds in the Cayman Islands?
Speaker 1: I believe that it's definitely possible because the SEC documents talk about these this particular group of victims getting, you know, approached to sell their judgments. The SEC talks about the contractual agreements of the sale of the judgments. And when you look at the numbers sometimes, like, I'm really good at, like, seeing patterns and then, like, looking at evidence and then undoing it and, like, going back and trying to figure out things. It just so happens that the groups that are mentioned in the SEC documents happen to be the highest paid groups of victims of terrorism, which first off makes no sense because they're military, and military live on kind of, like, humble economic dam like, their economic damages are very small as compared to civilians who were working on Wall Street on
Speaker 0: 911. Because damages are calculated on the basis of income Economic losses.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. Lost wages. And so oddly enough, these military, as compared to the nine eleven civilian widows and children killed on US shores, okay, not serving overseas, not in hostile territory, civilians killed in America at work, innocent civilians, have received less compensation in this fund than these groups who just happen to also have this exposure to these third party investors and hedge funds. Okay?
So the legislation gets written. They're given $3,000,000,000 of US taxpayer money to pay this payment that's totally unwarranted, came out of nowhere, was not justified. Senator Menendez wrote the legislation, wrote a loophole in the legislation saying that, quote, successors in interest thereof can be compensated this money from The US taxpayers. I believe the successors and interests thereof are the third party investors slash hedge funds. You mentioned
Speaker 0: investing in a victims of terrorism
Speaker 1: fund. Well,
Speaker 0: it's you do have any idea?
Speaker 1: Profiting from murder and terrorism, and you're using a Department of Justice government fund that is being billed and sold to members of congress as a victims fund to compensate victims of terrorism with restitution. Okay? And it's being, you know, exploited, and it's being used as, like, a profit model, an investment vehicle for third party investors and hedge funds. It's Do
Speaker 0: we have any idea the identity of these hedge fund managers or investors?
Speaker 1: No. No. But I will tell you this. I was able to read in the SEC documents some of the investor groups that were approached by the hedge fund guy from New Jersey, and I cross referenced those with open secrets and donations, contributions to members of congress. And I believe there is a pattern there, which is why we as
Speaker 0: Menendez do in that group. Was he pretty popular?
Speaker 1: This that in the SEC documents, there's a deposition of one of the attorneys, and there's a series of depositions, and the initials r m are in the documents. And senator Menendez passed legislation in 2012 that was also signed off on by president Obama to make the first round of payments to this group that had sold their judgments, many of whom had sold their judgments to the hedge funds. So senator Menendez's hands are all over this. You know, we turned to congress. We said, could you just investigate?
Could you investigate the anti terrorism legislation done by senator Menendez? He's in jail now. Like, it deserves a look see. No one would do it. This fund that's had $9,000,000,000, approximately $9,000,000,000 flown through it since 2016 has never had one hearing.
We have asked repeatedly, very loudly for hearings. We've begged for hearings. We can't get hearings on this. With all of this information, we met with the chief of the money laundering asset recovery section at the the Department of Justice, the person who's in charge really ultimately over this fund. And we're having this meeting, and we're like, it's really unfair.
The governing statute says that we're supposed to be treated fairly and equitably. It's the United States victims of terrorism fund. In The United States Of America, everyone's supposed to be treated equally. Is there a reason why nine eleven widows and children, this nation's largest group of victims of terrorism, are receiving anywhere from six to 66 times less percentage value for our judgments? Is there a reason for that?
And she just was like, well, you know, there's you know, we don't really have and congress tells us and this and that. Went to senator Schumer's, spoke to his counsel. She just said, well, there's just too many of you to treat you fairly. There's too many of you to have equal justice. You know, the words on the Supreme Court when you walk in the door is equal justice under the law for all.
Speaker 0: Why not take it out of our foreign aid budget?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good question. I will tell you this, that some victims of terrorism in 2020 were paid out of the state department's defense special budget, and maybe or maybe not, those guys had some third party investors that ultimately got that money.
Speaker 0: Who were they, and why were they paid by the state department?
Speaker 1: East African embassy bombing victims and the USS coal victims. The same group of lawyers represent there's, like, a cross pollination of the lawyers. It's like a little cabal of lawyers that work for these victims groups. They're also the same group of lawyers. They So not only created this fund, they've also really played a very strong hand in rewriting anti terrorism laws in The United States from 1990 on forward.
And ironically, all of these laws are always billed after nine eleven as nine eleven, you know, for the nine eleven families. But what's weird is that the nine eleven families never benefit or get anything out of these laws. In fact, we get revictimized. It's kind of incredible.
Speaker 0: Wait. So
Speaker 1: now we're just say this. So we met with DOJ, and we really thought maybe maybe, you know, this chief person of this department doesn't know about these hedge funds. Like, we need to alert her. Right? Like, we need to tell her.
And she just got really funny at the end of the meeting. We were like, well, we wanted to talk to you about the hedge funds because the statute says that you need to be a natural person to be compensated in the fund. And even though senator Menendez passed legislation that allows successors and interests thereof to get compensated. We think it's kind of unseemly, and, you know, we're not being treated fairly, and we shouldn't be penalized because there's so many of us. Like, that was one of my talking points.
Was like, as someone who fought for the nine eleven commission, it's not our fault that there's so many of us. It's the United States government's fault because the United States government didn't prevent the attacks and didn't mitigate any of the damage on the day of nine eleven. So you're punishing us for our government's failure and there being 3,000 victims. That's why we can't be compensated fairly and in alignment with the law. And with all of these other victims, you can't treat us fairly because there's just too many of us.
And so we say this to this chief of MLRs, and she just got funny. She's like, well, no one briefed me that you were gonna bring up the hedge funds. I'm not prepared to discuss it. And that was the end of that. And so I just think that the American public should know that this is the kind of stuff that goes on.
And I'd really like to know why, you know, one of the laws that's currently they're trying to get passed right now is backed by the ADL. It was written by the ADL, reportedly.
Speaker 0: The ADL?
Speaker 1: The ADL.
Speaker 0: What do they have to do with this?
Speaker 1: That's what I
Speaker 0: wanna know.
Speaker 1: I wanna know why the ADL is involving itself in anti terrorism laws. I wanna know why October 7 victims are in my congress, lobbying congress and writing legislation that harms the rights of nine eleven widows and children. I'm not asking
Speaker 0: What does that mean? How how does that led they're I don't know why they're writing legislation in the first place, but since they are
Speaker 1: saying they
Speaker 0: they don't
Speaker 1: Hamas did the October 7 attacks. These individuals don't even have Iran judgments, and they're writing legislation to change this fund, this government fund that's supposed to be for American victims of terrorism. And that's fine. Okay. Wait.
Wait. Wait. Wait. My congress and Foreigners
Speaker 0: will get some of this money now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they're well, they're dual citizens, and they're trying to expand the law so that they're very involved. I don't know. You know?
Speaker 0: Were the US government is going to pay victims of a terror attack in a foreign country that has nothing to do with and we do you know, we're not responsible for October 7 that I know of.
Speaker 1: Right. But I they're using their they're trying to get an Iran judgment for those attacks to say that Iran underwrote Hamas, and then they're going to try to get paid in this government fund that was designed for United States victims of terrorism. Actually? Actually.
Speaker 0: That's an outrage.
Speaker 1: Well, I think what's outrageous is that we know that they tried to once again amend the governing statute of this fund, and they tried to do it in a way that really was going to financially harm the widows and children. We're not seeking special treatment. We just wanna be treated fairly.
Speaker 0: But I I just can't get past this. What I mean, you know, October 7 bad, as I've said many times.
Speaker 1: But you know what? Israel already took care of them.
Speaker 0: But also what does that have to do with us?
Speaker 1: Well developed system for victims of terrorism, and they've been taken care of in Israel. And my question is, why aren't they going to their own congress? I don't know much about Israel's congress or their laws, but, like, congress? Why aren't they in Israel using Israel's
Speaker 0: But why would The United States taxpayer pay the victims of October 7?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a really good question. And, again, the lawyers behind these groups would come forward. The ADL would probably say, well, it's not the taxpayers. You know, they're using sanctions, fines, and money.
Speaker 0: What does it have to do with us?
Speaker 1: That's what I would question. I don't understand why people that go overseas and get killed on buses, even if they're American citizens, why they're over, you know, in The United States. And, again, if you wanna be compensated, that's fine, but don't harm the rights of the widows and kids. Why is it more important to pay people that are injured overseas on buses or in military installations or as foreign service members to pay them six to 66 times more a percentage when we live in The United States Of America and every person is supposed to be treated equal under the law.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, that's clearly not happening. This is yeah. And yeah. This is why people's attitudes are changing in a way that's
Speaker 1: And I would like to say that the lawyers that were that third line of collateral security combined, all of the lawyers, the nine eleven and the non nine eleven lawyers, they've made approximately $2,000,000,000.
Speaker 0: The lawyers?
Speaker 1: Yeah. From the fund. And so, obviously, I'm not stupid. Like, I know some of that money gets, you know, reshuffled around and made into contributions to members of congress to reward them for their efforts in writing legislation. But I think $2,000,000,000 to plaintiff's attorneys is kind of unseemly.
Speaker 0: In a terror victim
Speaker 1: In a victims fund that's supposed to be for victims. Why
Speaker 0: haven't I heard any of this before?
Speaker 1: Why haven't you heard the truth about nine eleven before? Well, that's fair. Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh. It's been it's been a I always knew I would like you if I met you, and I really do. No. I mean it. Now here I'm bragging about my good sense about people, but I do have good sense of people, and I was right.
So you said something. You said so many things. I'm just trying to make sure I don't miss anything. You said a few moments ago that our terror laws have been completely rewritten since the nineties by the same group of rapacious lawyers. How how have they changed, and what are the implications of that?
What are you talking about exactly?
Speaker 1: You know, when you go back and do a study on all of the anti terrorism laws, what you find is that there's been a whole restructuring, and it's a system that doesn't it looks on the outside like it's serving the victims, but what it's really doing is it's broadening a base and allowing for almost an innumerable amount of people to sue for a terrorist attack. Right? And I confronted counsel of one of the more prominent members of the senate, and I said, you know, you guys wrote this law, and it opens the courthouse doors to so many people. You're harming the rights of the direct heirs of the actual widows and children of people killed. And, like, why would you do that?
Why didn't you hold a hearing on the ramifications of how you're rewriting this law? Why didn't you have widows and kids testify as to how they're being harmed and their rights are being watered down? And the guy turned to me and said, you know, we just wanna open the courthouse doors to as many people as possibly because that serves anti terrorism policy. And I said, it doesn't really serve anti terrorism policy. And I said, you're you're not really serving the heirs of the people killed properly.
And I said, and you're giving an awful lot of deference to judges, and you're assuming that judges are gonna police a docket and police a case and a system. And I said the judges aren't doing it because the judges in many cases are not really good judges, and they're allowing thousands and thousands and thousands of people to enter litigation. And what that does is twofold. Number one, it blocks and, you know, logjams the actual case itself, and the case can never resolve. Where there is one upside when a case doesn't resolve, you're suing a defendant, and the case goes on and on and on for two decades.
Right? What happens is in some people's minds, I read a book on this, is that the actual litigation process itself ties up certain entities that certain other entities believe fund terrorists because they're so busy paying lawyers and being stuck in court. They're not funneling money to terrorists. Well, that's a really noble idea except for the fact that it's a huge disservice to the victims who are entitled to have speedy justice for the harm that they've suffered. Right?
You have litigation that lasts two decades. Widows and children are being disserved by that because we're owed immediate justice. We're not owed justice a quarter of a century later. The second thing that it does is it waters down the rights of the people under the law who are the most prioritized because you're letting in all of these other people. What actually ends up happening when you open the door and you let all those people in is that lawyers make more money.
And so you have a situation where it's not the victims that are being protected by these laws that are getting rewritten. It's actually that, you know, lawyers and this sort of scheme that's come out of anti terrorism laws and these funds that get created and these deals that get struck between lawyers and members of the justice department, the treasury department, the state department, certain foreign governments, it ends up becoming sort of like a scheme. And the real victims of terrorism, like the nine eleven widows and kids who are this nation's largest group, are revictimized. And that's just a fact. And all I ask is for there to be a very hard look see, if you wanna call it, into these anti terrorism laws, into this fund that is being run right now that is, in my opinion, you know, a Ponzi scheme on top of a shell game that's really revictimizing the nine eleven widows and kids.
Honestly, if I could send one message to president Trump, I would beg him to give closure and peace to the thousands of widows and kids. We've waited twenty four years to have a modicum of justice. We've been abandoned by this country. We were abandoned by our Department of Justice. Our husband's lives have been exploited, used to go to war in Iraq based on lies, used to roll in privacy rights to expand the patriot, all of it.
We've been exploited, and we've been left behind. And I would just ask for president Trump to recognize that and appreciate it and just deliver closure and peace to us. I think that there's a way forward for that. And if there's ever been a president that would be able to stand apart from the intelligence community and to have the courage to do that, I think it would be president Trump. And I know he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize or appointed or nominated for his role in the Gaza peace process.
I think if he resolved nine eleven and provided closure to the widows and kids, he would probably be nominated and
Speaker 0: win that prize. He would certainly get my vote. Kristen Brightwiser, that was an amazing conversation. Thanks. Makes me emotional.
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this.
Speaker 1: Thank you for giving me
Speaker 0: the opportunity. Come back anytime.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it, and the widows and kids appreciate it, so thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We've got a new website we hope you will visit. It's called newcommissionnow.com, and it refers to a new nine eleven commission. So we spent months putting together our nine eleven documentary series. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that in fact, there was foreknowledge of the attacks. People knew.
Speaker 1: The American public deserves to know.
Speaker 0: We're shocked actually to learn that, to have that confirmed, but it's true. The evidence is overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in The United States. They knew they were planning an act of terror. In his passport is a visa to go to United States Of America.
A foreign national was caught celebrating as the World Trade Center fell and later said he was in New York, quote, to document the event. How did he know there would be an event to document in the first place? Because he had foreknowledge. And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor, shorted American Airlines and United Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers used on nine eleven, as well as the banks that were inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks. They made money attacks because they knew they were coming.
Who did that? You have to look at the evidence. The US government learned the name of that investor, but never released it. Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't actually. And by the way, it doesn't matter whether there is or not.
The public deserve to know what the hell that was. How did people know ahead of time? Why was no one ever punished for it? Nine eleven commissioned the original one was a fraud. It was fake.
Its conclusions were written before the investigation. That's true, and it's outrageous. This country needs a new nine eleven commission, one that actually tells the truth that tries to get to the bottom of the story. We can't just move on like nothing happened. Nine eleven commission is a cover.
Something did happen. We need to force a new investigation into nine eleven almost twenty five years later. Sorry, justice demands it. And if you want that, go to newcommissionnow.com to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this, we're doing this because we really mean it.
Newcommissionnow.com.