reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on the Deep State: "Unelected lifers in the federal agencies make the biggest decisions in American government and crush anyone who tries to rein them in and in the process our Democracy becomes a joke." https://t.co/kT3l2tMIOM
Video Transcript AI Summary
To understand the American government, consider Richard Nixon, the most popular president, who was ousted without a vote, replaced by Gerald Ford, the only unelected president. Nixon, reelected in 1972 by a historic margin, believed federal agencies were undermining the government. In June 1972, he suggested to CIA Director Richard Helms that the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination, but Helms remained silent. The Watergate scandal began with a break-in, involving CIA operatives. Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to intelligence, reported on Watergate, using FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt as his source. Meanwhile, Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned, leading to Ford's appointment. This series of events illustrates how unelected officials influence American politics, undermining democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So if you wanna understand, if you really wanna understand how the American government actually works at the highest levels, and if you wanna know why they don't teach history anymore, one thing you should know is that the most popular president in American history was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon. Yet somehow without a single vote being cast by a single American voter, Richard Nixon was kicked out of office and replaced by the only unelected president in American history. So we went from the most popular president to a president nobody voted for. Wait a minute, you may ask.
Why didn't I know that? Wasn't Richard Nixon a criminal? Wasn't he despised by all decent people? No. He wasn't.
In fact, if any president could claim to be the people's choice, it was Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon was reelected in 1972 by the largest margin of the popular vote ever recorded before or since. Nixon got 17,000,000 more votes than his opponent. Less than 2 years later, he was gone. He was forced to resign, and in his place, an obedient servant of the federal agencies called Gerald Ford took over the White House.
How did that happen? Well, it's a long story, but here are the highlights, and they tell you a lot. Richard Nixon believed that elements in the federal bureaucracy were working to undermine the American system of government, and had been doing that for a long time. He often said that. He was absolutely right.
On June 23, 1972, Nixon met with the then CIA director, Richard Helms at the White House. During the conversation, which thankfully was tape recorded, Nixon suggested he knew quote, who shot John, meaning President John F Kennedy. Nixon further implied that the CIA was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination, which we now know it was. Helms' telling response, total silence. But for Nixon, it didn't matter because it was already over.
4 days before, on June 19th, the Washington Post had published the first of many stories about a break in at the Watergate office building. Unbeknownst to Nixon and unreported by the Washington Post, 4 of the 5 burglars worked for the CIA. The first of many dishonest Watergate stories was written by a 29 year old metro reporter called Bob Woodward. Who exactly was Bob Woodward? Well, he wasn't a journalist.
Bob Woodward had no background whatsoever in the news business. Instead, Bob Woodward came directly from the classified areas of the federal government. Shortly before Watergate, Woodward was a naval officer at the Pentagon. He had a top secret clearance. He worked regularly with the intel agencies.
At times, Woodward was even detailed to the Nixon White House, where he interacted with Richard Nixon's top aids. Soon after leaving the Navy for reasons that have never been clear, Woodward was hired by the most powerful news outlet in Washington and assigned the biggest story in the country. And just to make it crystal clear what was actually happening, Woodward's main source for his Watergate series was the deputy director of the FBI, Mark Felt. And Mark Felt ran, and we're not making this up, the FBI's COINTELPRO program, which was designed to secretly discredit political actors the federal agencies wanted to destroy. People like Richard Nixon.
And at the same time, those same agencies were also working to take down Nixon's elected vice president, Spiro Agnew. In the fall of 1973, Agnew was indicted for tax evasion and forced to resign. His replacement was a colorless congressman from Grand Rapids called Gerald Ford. What was Ford's qualification for the job? Well, he had served on the Warren Commission, which absolved the CIA of responsibility for president Kennedy's murder.
Nixon was strong armed into accepting Gerald Ford by Democrats in Congress. Quote, we gave Nixon no choice but Ford, speaker of the house, Carl Albert later boasted. 8 months later, Gerald Ford of the Warren Commission was the president of the United States. See how that works? So those are the facts, not speculation.
All of that actually happened. None of it's secret. Most of it actually is on Wikipedia. But no mainstream news organization has ever told that story. It's so obvious, yet it's intentionally ignored.
And as a result, permanent Washington remains in charge of our political system. Unelected lifers in the federal agencies make the biggest decisions in American government and crush anyone who tries to reign them in. And in the process, our democracy becomes a joke.
@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •
Mark Levin goes off on the massive conglomerate of intelligence agencies that have become a gestapo for the democrat party. 2024 needs to be the year these intelligence agencies are stripped down and restructured, starting with terminating the entire upper echelon #FBI #DOJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the FBI and the Democratic Party, claiming that the FBI is biased and corrupt, protecting Democrats and targeting Republicans. They argue that the FBI needs to be reformed and have its budget slashed. The speaker also mentions various incidents, such as the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the January 6th Capitol riot, to support their claims. They believe that the Democrats support the FBI because it serves their interests. The speaker concludes by stating that conservatives are the only ones who value civil liberties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Republican Party needs to understand something as do the American people. This massive federal edifice that's been built in Washington, DC works for the Democrat Party. It's an appendage of the Democrat Party. When we have Republican presidents, they sabotage the Republicans. They'll investigate them.
They'll leak against Some when we have Democrat presidents, you don't see that kind of behavior. In fact, they enlist the massive bureaucracy to issue regulations and rules and to sic their political opponents. This report right here, the Dorm report, is actually very, very important because it gives the official seal to what is the American Stasi. At every step of the way, this FBI ignored evidence, did not get corroborating evidence, had no evidence, did everything it could to protect Hillary Clinton, and did everything it could to destroy Donald Trump. It falsified information.
They were told not to take notes. They had no, basis whatsoever for unleashing their investigation. This country went through this for over 2 years. It sparked the Mueller investigation. And Donald Trump is a victim and he's the greatest victim in American political history.
And here's the problem, America. This same FBI edifice is in place right now. Christopher Wray is a fool. He is a bureaucrat. He, does not understand that the Constitution puts congressional oversight ahead of sources and methods.
He is just as bad as the guy before him. It's just a disaster what's going on over there. We now have a U. S. Attorney dressed up as his special Counsel going after Donald Trump again.
That document case didn't have to be criminalized. That's ridiculous to make a to have a warrant, to send down a SWAT team to Mar a Lago, none of that was necessary. That all could have been negotiated. This whole thing about January 6, in terms of, another grand jury to see if Donald Trump was trying to prevent, the the peaceful transition. It's ridiculous.
It was Donald Trump who offered 10,000 armed National Guardmen to protect that building. That should be evidence enough to say, you know what, it's ridiculous to be investigating him. So they're not done. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill need to understand, this Administration, this FBI, this Department of Justice, is targeting them and they're not gonna submit themselves to oversight. So what do they do?
Well, they can litigate it, but they need to do everything they can to slash the FBI's budget. It's too big. It is a massive Police state operation. It's like the Stasi. They're into everything and anything they wanna be.
They're into Twitter, for god's sakes. They're after parents. They're after the Catholic Church. They're after pro lifers. The only thing they're not doing is their damn job, Like prosecuting Democrats who won't enforce the law on the border and so forth.
So I just wanna make it abundantly clear, the reason why the Democrats will fight to the end, even pushed this country into a depression, in a default, is because they need that money to fund this edifice, the federal government. And they wanna expand it. And they wanna create more programs. And they wanna hire more employees, 87,000 IRS agents. Why do you think they wanna hire 87 a 1000 IRS agents?
For good government? No. To unleash them on the rest of us. This is the problem that we have right now in this, Curt. You know, when it comes to the FBI, the FBI is no good.
It's gone rogue. It won't even submit to oversight. We have a whistleblower who says there's a document in the FBI that says that Joe Biden took bribes. That's the president of the United States, for god's sakes. Now, if the bureaucracy if it were Donald Trump as president, the bureaucracy would leak it, right?
Just like they leaked his tax returns. But in this case, you cannot allow a director of the FBI, who's not even in the Constitution, who's not subject to votes, by the American people to say I've got sources of methods? Yeah, we got your sources of methods here too, pal. Here's the report. And your sources and methods are corrupt.
Your sources and methods violate the constitution. And your sources and methods, they're still there. The bureaucracy's still there. He says we fixed it all. No, you didn't.
Why'd you send a SWAT team to Mar a Largo? You didn't fix a damn thing. Why are you violating attorney client privilege by going in front of Obama judges? Why are you doing all sorts of things at the FBI against American citizens? Monitoring them, keeping files on them?
We have the inspector general who said They had 1,000,000, 1,000,000 FISA warrants. Sorry, it was an error. What the hell? That's crazy. So the FBI needs to be have their budget slashed, it needs to be broken down and rebuilt, and it needs to have, Complete oversight by the, by the Congress of the United.
And notice one other thing, John. The Democrats are perfectly fine With the Stasi because it's their Stasi. The New York Times, the Washington Post, you know, what are they gonna do? Turn back their Fine with the Stasi, too. It is only we, conservatives, anymore who believe in civil liberties.
Trust me on this. It's true. That's it. I'm done.
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
WATCH: Never-Trump Neil Cavuto tries to bait Vivek Ramaswamy into flipping on Trump Instead, Vivek delivers a masterclass on how to quickly TURN the tables & DUNK on a dishonest interview When Vivek says he'll "pardon & unite with Trump to destroy the deep state" Neil loses it:
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vivek Rameswami discusses the Georgia indictments against the former president, calling them political persecutions. He believes it sets a dangerous precedent for the ruling party to use police force to indict political opponents during an election. Rameswami emphasizes the need to focus on important issues like the economy instead of these distractions. When asked about pardoning Donald Trump, he states that it would be in the best interest of the country to move forward and avoid a weaponized tug of war between political parties. Rameswami also mentions that he would consider Trump as an advisor on shutting down the administrative state. He aims to build on the America First agenda and unite the country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Those Republicans will be on that debate stage is Vivek Rameswami, he is kind enough to join us right now. Vivek, good to have you back.
Speaker 1: It's good to see you.
Speaker 0: Let me ask you a little bit about, these, Georgia indictments against, the, the former president. You call them political persecutions.
Speaker 1: Explain. Look, Neil, I can't think we look at these indictments without the context of 3 other separate indictments, several of which came in the last 4 months alone. These are 4 different indictments in the middle of an election. I think it sets an awful precedent in our country for the ruling party, the party in power, to use police force to indite its political opponents in the middle of an election. And I say this to somebody who now in some of the recent polls, I'm pulling it 2nd in this race, 3rd overall.
It would be a lot easier for me if Donald Trump were eliminated from competition, but that is not how I wanna win. The way we win elections in this country, at least the way it should be, Is that we convince the voters of this country of our vision and what we stand for. And that's why I've said that I would pardon, at least for the federal crimes, I would pardon Donald Trump To help move this nation forward, I am focused, for example, on your economic message. That's what we actually need to be talking more about, Less about these politicized indictments that have distracted us from the fundamental issue. That's the fault of the Biden DOJ and a lot of the democrat prosecutors across this country.
Instead of explaining why Bidenomics is actually a forest, it is a failure with actual more job openings in this country than there are people looking for work. Price increases that are indeed permanent when wages have not gone up over the same period. That is how we're gonna win this election in a landslide. That's what I want us talking about, But I will be unabashed about standing on the side of principle when I say yes, these prosecutions are wrong.
Speaker 0: But, I I I can understand that, but there are 91 criminal charges in all, Vivek. As you're aware, over 4 criminal cases. They they can't all be politicized, can they? I mean, there's there's something that the former president must have done in any one of these That struck you as wrong, if not illegal.
Speaker 1: I think, Neil, just because the government has brought a case, if we're gonna be a culture that now Starts to say there must be something wrong if the government has charged 91 counts. I think that's a govern that's a people of sheep. And when the people behave like sheep, that breeds a government Of course.
Speaker 0: But you don't think That's the reality.
Speaker 1: It's a no. I think I
Speaker 0: think today, you don't think there's anything in this case that that shows or even Strongly hints of the former president trying to reverse that Georgia, that Georgia contest.
Speaker 1: Neil, you and I have had this conversation before, there's Difference between a bad judgment and an illegal act. And I view this indictment in the context of, as you put it, 3 other independent indictments. The first one beginning in New York for a novel election and and campaign contribution theory to one that has a novel theory of in interpreting the Presidential Records To a novel theory of attorney client relationships, when you have a series of novel legal theories that are used to indite a prior US president and a sitting candidate middle of an election, I just don't think that's good for the country. I'm in this to lead our nation forward, not to be a political commentator or legal analyst On a series of legal cases. But what I will say as a candidate in this race is that I do not think it is good for our country To set this precedent.
Speaker 0: No. I I understand that you're not But when you have the republican governor of Georgia, who has said that this report is And that that this was an attempt at voter fraud, that was scorching. And and you have others who've taken similar views including They state they're a republican who said that Donald Trump went too far. Wouldn't you put your trust or at least your instincts And those guys, republicans, who said that this has been well examined, aggressively examined, And there was nothing to it.
Speaker 1: Neil, I have 1 question in my mind. I'm running to be our next President, I ask what is in the interest of this nation? Do I believe that these prosecutors or these elected officials Or these federal prosecutors are advancing the interests of this nation when they're bringing this unprecedented indictment, not one time, but now 4 times over. No. I think our country is worse off because of this politicization.
Would I have made different decisions than Donald Trump did? Absolutely, I would have. I will remind you that I'm running for US president in the same race that he is. Sure. But I think it is so important, this conversation that you and I are having are evidence enough Of why this is a bad idea?
Because we're not talking about how we improve an economy. We're not talking about how we
Speaker 0: This is a big deal. We can't sort of minimize it or slap it aside That's exactly why
Speaker 1: I'm so let me
Speaker 0: ask you, when you talk about wanting to pardon Donald Trump for this, why? What would be what would be good about that if you became president of the United States to pardon him?
Speaker 1: I think the right answer for this country is to move Forward. Not to get into a weaponized tug of war between 2 political parties that then make a habit of using politicized Police force against their political opponents. That is the stuff of Banana Republics. That is not what I wanna see the United States of America Devolve into we should be able to disagree disagree fiercely with one another, but still sort out those disagreements through our civic process, Culminating at the ballot box, well, every person's voice and vote counts equally. That is how we do things in the United States, not by eliminating our opponents Using backdoor mechanisms.
And so my reason, my chief reason for pardoning Donald Trump, at least in the federal offenses, which will be what's in my power, that includes the New York State offenses because they include the charge of an underlying federal offense as well. It will be to move this nation forward because My motivation in being US president, Neil, is that I don't want to lead us to a national divorce. We're skating on thin ice as a country right now. That is a fact. I want to lead us to a national revival that will take forward that is also why I'm saying even now, When it would be in my self interest as a candidate to see Donald Trump eliminated.
By some counts, that would put me at number 1 in the Republican primary polls. That is not how I want to see it done, which is why I've been so particular about being vocal on this, because I stand on the side of principle over partisan politics.
Speaker 0: Alright. You also spoke recently about the idea of speaking out Donald Trump as someone you would use as an advisor. What what did you Mean by that.
Speaker 1: Well, I I was asked about the cabinet members I would choose. Who would I choose other rivals of mine in the Republican primary field? The answer is I think several of them could be good cabinet members. And then I brought up Donald Trump because I don't think that he would serve in my cabinet, but the role I'd wanna see him play Is to yes. Be an adviser on understanding where he might have fallen short if he were to do it again on shutting down the administrative state, Because that's the top of my domestic policy agenda.
Shut down that administrative bureaucracy. Shut down the deep state. Reduce the federal employee headcount by over 75%. Turns out I've read the law, Neil. Civil service protections, they don't apply to mass layoffs.
And mass layoffs are absolutely what I am bringing To the DC bureaucracy. But I would like to not have to learn those lessons all over again, but to build on where president Trump left off with the America First Agenda. I'm in this race to take that America First agenda to the next level. And yes, in a way that unites this country. And I will take everybody's help, including Trump's help, In making me successful in that role.
Speaker 0: Alright. We'll follow it closely. Vivek, very good seeing you again. Thank you very much. Vivek Ramaswami, the presidential candidate will make that debate state, next week for that big debate.
We have a lot more coming up including the latest on those Tropic wildfires.
@TONYxTWO - TONY™️
This guy nailed it!! “The defeat of the deep state is happening right before our eyes.” Last night was HISTORIC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump's victory last night is undeniable, with 23.9 million viewers on Fox and 165 million tuning in to Tucker's interview with him. This marks the culmination of Trump's eight-year campaign against fake news and the deep state. The interview's significance lies not in its content, but in the fact that it occurred on a platform and with a journalist not controlled by the deep state. This historic moment is a testament to why Trump is important – without him, we wouldn't be here.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trump won last night, and that's not a debate. 23,900,000 viewers tuned into Fox, the mainstream media. While as of this moment, a 165,000,000 people tuned in to Tucker interviewing Trump. This is the pinnacle of the fake news campaign Trump started 8 years ago. The defeat of the deep state is happening right before our eyes.
A 165,000,000 people tuned in to a journalist that is not controlled by the deep state, interviewing a man that is not controlled by the deep state on a platform that is not controlled by the deep state. The substance of the interview doesn't even matter. What last night represents does. This moment is nothing short of historic. And when people ask me, why Trump?
Because we wouldn't be in this moment without him.
reSee.it AI Summary
James Lindsay delivers a remarkable speech, showcasing his deep understanding of the subject. With no notes, he masterfully describes the blueprint, revealing his dedication to unraveling its origins. His breakdown is gaining traction, enlightening many. James has been a tireless advocate, and his extensive work can be found at newdiscourses.com. Check out the print version too: [link].
@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan
This is one of the most important speeches of our time. 30min straight, no notes. That's because James has dedicated his life to understanding the origins and interworkings of this, and how to convey. The way he describes the blueprint here is masterful.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the concept of "woke" and its connection to Marxism. They argue that woke ideology is similar to Maoism, as it seeks to create a class consciousness and challenge dominant cultural norms. The speaker explains that woke ideology encompasses various species within the Marxist genus, such as critical race theory, queer theory, and postcolonial theory. They assert that woke ideology is being exported to Europe and aims to destroy Western civilization from within. The speaker warns against the consequences of embracing woke ideology, comparing it to the oppressive social credit system in China. They emphasize the need to understand and fight back against woke ideology.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello. Thank you. I'm glad to be here. I want to address something Tom just said, which is in fact that woke is supposed to advance equity in Europe. So here's the definition of equity and see if it sounds like a definition of anything else you've ever heard of.
The definition of equity comes from the public administration literature. It was written by a man named George Frederiksen. The definition is an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal. That's a very good question. I think shares equal.
The only difference between equity and socialism is the type of property that they redistribute, the type of shares. They're going to redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to economic and material capital. And so this is my thesis when we say what is woke. Woke is maoism with American characteristics. If I might borrow from Mao himself who said that his philosophy was marxism Leninism with Chinese characteristics, which means woke is Marxism.
That's a very provocative statement. It's something you will certainly hear it is not, that it is different. And the the the professors and the philosophers will spend a large amount of time explaining to you why. No. No.
It's about economics that's a different topic. I want you to think how we organize plants and animals when we study them. They're species, you have house cats, you have whatever, leopards, many different kinds of cats. If we think of Marxism as a genus of ideological thought, the classical economic Marxism is a species. Radical feminism is a species in the same genus, critical race theory is a species in this genus.
Queer theory is a species in this genus. Post colonial theory that's plaguing Europe is a species in this genus and they have something that binds them together called intersectionality that makes them treated as if they are all one thing. But the logic is Marxist and I wanna convince you of that because Marx had a very simple proposition but we get lost. It's a very important thing to do. And so we're going to have a very important thing to do.
And what makes human beings special is that man is a being that is incomplete and knows that he is incomplete. He is a man whose true nature has been forgotten to him, which is social being. He is a socialist at heart who doesn't realize it. And the reason he doesn't realize it is because of the economic conditions operating as a means of construction or production, not just of the economy, but of him, but of man, of society, and particularly of history. Marx said that he had the 1st scientific study of history.
How was history produced? By man doing man's activity, and man's key activity was economic activity as he saw it. And so economic production doesn't just produce the goods and services of the economy. It produces society itself. In society in terms produces man.
He called this the inversion of praxis. And so when he says we must seize the means of production and he's talking about factories and fields, he's actually talking about how we construct who we are as human beings so that we might complete ourselves, so that we might complete history. And at the end of history, mankind will remember that he is a social being and we will have a socialist society, a perfect communism that transcends private property. That's how he put it. He said, in fact, that communism is the transcendence of private property as human self estrangement.
That's a quote from the Economic Philosophic Manuscripts 1944 18/44. So Marx was interested in controlling or understanding and controlling how man produces himself. He writes about this ex exclusively in the 1840s very deeply. How do we do this? And he looks at the economic conditions and he says this is where it is and that's why we get economic Marxism and that's why we think Marx was an economist.
Marx was never an economist. He was a theologian. He wanted to produce a religion for mankind that would supersede all of the religions of mankind and bring him back to his true social nature. This is the true fact of Marx. And what the goal was, like I said, is to complete man.
So what he said is, well, how are we building man currently? All of his economic analysis is about how are we building man at present through what he called material determinism. And he said, well, what we have is a special form of private property in our society. Our society is organized around private property. So all of our thoughts organize around private property.
In other words, there's a special kind of property that the bourgeois elite class has access too. And then they organize society to exclude everybody else from access to that property through exploitation, through alienation, through estrangement, through oppression. And so what Karl Marx was proposing is that economics becomes a vehicle to separate society into a bourgeois class that has access to a special form of property. The people who have access wish to retain that, so they oppress people and keep other people out of that special form of property. They erect a system of classism to do that.
It's enforced by an ideology called capitalism that believes that this is the right way to, engage in the world. And what we have to do is awaken the underclass, the proletariat, to the real conditions and the fact that step out. We this is we we step back from this species, this economic species, homo economicus, and we step back to the genus. When we look at this idea, a special form of property that segregates society into people who have the bourgeois and the people who do not have, who are in class conflict with an ideology that keeps this in place, and the lunder class must awaken with consciousness to fight back and to seize the means of production of that form of deterministic property. And now we say change out class, put in race and watch.
We get critical race theory falls out of the hat just like that. Very simple. In 1993, Cheryl Harris wrote a long article for the Harvard Law Review called Whiteness as Property. She explained that whiteness or white privilege constitutes a kind of cultural private property. She says it must be abolished in order to have racial justice.
Just like Karl Marx said that in the Communist Manifesto, he wrote, communism can be summarized in a single sentence, the abolition of private property. Well, this is why critical race theory calls to abolish white. These are words out of the American lexicon that they've used to describe how how people gain access to the private property. Instead of capitalism, if you think of whiteness as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy as they define it is identical the capitalism it's the belief it's not believing that white people are superior. It's believing that white people have access to the control of society and should maintain that even if you don't actually believe that, if you merely support that, you have adopted the the ideology of white supremacy into your mind.
And so you have the exact same system, and the goal is to awaken a racial consciousness in people so that they will band together as a class and seize the means of cultural production so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode. It's a big mystery in Europe. I know. And the UK, throughout Europe, I hear this question again and again. Why on earth is this very American phenomenon about slavery and so on that doesn't apply to our country.
Why is it popular here? It's because it's not about history at all. It's not about slavery at all, those are excuses that they use. It's about creating a class consciousness that's against this form of property called whiteness, that's against the dominant culture that may just be a matter of fact, say, if you're in Europe. That's why.
Because it becomes a site by which people can come together and they can channel resentment and try to claim power. I wrote a book called Race Marxism and I defined critical race theory as it really is in that book on the 1st page. I said that critical race theory is calling everything you want to control all racist until you control it. But couldn't we say the same about Marxism? It's calling everything you want to control bourgeois until you control it.
But those mean the same thing. They mean exactly the same thing. But what about, say, queer theory? What is woke attack? It's the idea of being normal.
Well, the queer theory thinks that there are certain people who get to set the norms of society. They are privileged. They called themselves normal. They say this is normal. It's normal to consider yourself a man and look like a man and act like a man and dress like a man and eat meat like a man.
And then there are women that should be feminine and pretty and all these things. And so they get to define what's normal. They're heterosexuals, so they get to define the heterosexuality as normal and other sexualities are abnormal. And so you have a conflict across this cultural property of who gets to be considered normal and who is a pervert or a freak or some other term that gets used in their literature. But technically, who is a queer, which sounds like a slur, but they adopted it and it's a technical academic term now.
It means an identity without an essence, by the way. An identity that is strictly oppositional to the concept of the normal as defined by queer theorist David Halperin in his 1995 book, Saint Foucault toward a gay hegeography. I didn't make that up. I'm not extrapolating. So you see queer theory is just another species of the genus of Marxism.
What about post colonial theory, which is plaguing Europe thanks to Franz Fanon and his biggest European fan, Jean Paul Sartre? What about this? Well, it's the same. You have the west as the oppressor. They have access to the material and cultural true wealth of the world because they've decided their culture is the default and have gone and colonized the world to bring culture to the world as they say.
They have to remove every aspect of western culture. So when they come to Belgium or they come to France or they come to the United States and they say we're going to decolonize the curriculum or they go to the UK and say we're going to decolonize Shakespeare. This is what they mean. This is the same system. It's another species in the exact same genus.
And that genus is Marxism, which is a way of thinking about the world. And the goal is always to seize the means of control of the production of man and history and society. Marx merely believed it was through economic means. Now it's through sociocultural means. The evolution into this sometimes called Western Marxism began in the 1920s.
We had a Russian revolution in 1917, and this did not happen in Europe. And the Marxists in Europe were confused. And so Antonio Gramsci sat down and wrote out some things, and George Lukacs sat down and wrote history and class consciousness after the failure of the revolution in Hungary. And they wrote what became cultural marxism. The idea that we have to enter the cultural institutions in order to change them from within because Western culture has something about it that's repelling socialism.
So we have to go inside and change the culture to make a socialist. Now you aren't allowed to talk about cultural Marxism now. They've categorized this as a conspiracy theory. They say that it is anti Semitic. This is not true.
Antonio Gramsci wrote books. George Lukacs wrote books. You can read those books. They have a philosophy. If they don't like the name cultural marxism, we can use the name that other people at the time used, Western marxism.
So much like, I don't know, a virus adapting to the conditions, it changed it changed to try to infect a new host. It worked in feudal societies. Marxism took over in Russia. It took over later in China. It took over in all of these kind of agriculturally driven feudal societies but it wouldn't work in actual capitalist nations because Marx was wrong.
Then several Germans from the Frankfurt School started to study this phenomenon in more depth, and they evolved the idea further. They evolved the idea into what's called critical Marxism. They developed what's called the critical theory. And Max Horkheimer, who designed the critical theory, explained the critical theory. And what did he say?
He said, well, so I developed the critical theory because it is not possible to articulate the vision of a good society on the terms of the existing society. So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to Marxist conflict analysis. But how is that to be done? They sought an answer through the middle part of 20th century and World War 2 breaks out, the Frankfurt School comes to America, which in this metaphor is the Wuhan Institute of Virology because gain of function began to happen on the Marxist virus very quickly in America.
And American universities adopted these professors from Germany and Herbert Marcuse writing in the 1960s said extremely clearly this writing in 1969, not only did he say capitalism delivers the goods, gives people a good life, makes them wealthy and comfortable and happy. The to the working class anymore, which opens up the ability for Marxists who are seeking power to make friends with the corporations. He said it's in the racial minorities, the sexual minorities, the feminists, the outsiders. That's Tszyu said have the energy for a Marxist revolution in the west, not the working class. And so Marxism was able to evolve to abandon the working class.
And so what did they do? Well, all they had studied for 30 years was what they called the culture industry, an industry that commodifies and packages culture and and so we get concepts like cultural appropriation. We get concepts like cultural relevance, cultural this, cultural that, cultural everything and this evolved in America's highly racialized context, and we ended up with woke, a form of identity based Marxism, a a constellation of Marxist species that folk, LGBTQ is a folk. And they get folkish identity there and become activists. The black community is a folk.
How do I know? That's what W. E. B. Du Bois said it would be when he laid down the foundations that became critical race theory later.
They think of themselves as nations. Don't they all have flags? Don't they put them on your buildings like colonizers? Don't they hang them in your streets? Turned civilization.
And so we end up with western Marxism taking many forms, but with one overarching approach. In the approach that they use, I started off by saying is Maoist, not merely Marxist. Now you know the theory is Marx. It's just evolved into different species to attack the west at its weakest points through our tolerance, through our acceptance, through our openness, through our generosity, through our best traits actually, the things that we should be proud of being, the things that we are proud of being. But Mao Zedong knew how to use identity politics.
I don't know how you study in Europe, but in America, we have very red washed education as we might say. The communists have stripped out all education about communism entirely. You don't learn about it in America at all, so we don't learn anything about Mao. And maybe you don't know this, but I tell this to American audiences and they're shocked. Mao used identity politics.
He created 10 identities in China. Five, he labeled red for communist. Five, he labeled black for fascist. And he categorized people into these identity categories. What they are doesn't matter.
Of course, they were communist. They were things like landlord and rich farmer and things like this. Right winger is a bad category in and of itself, by the way. Conservative, all of them, bad, bad influences. That's another one.
You could be a bad influence for just thinking the wrong thing or saying the wrong thing at any time or because the government decides it doesn't like you. These are the bad categories. And if you have a bad category, very importantly, your children have a bad category by default. So they create a social pressure for your children to identify as revolutionaries, at which point they get a red identity, a communist identity, a good identity, and they get rewarded for it. And the youth led the revolution in China because Mao did this identity politics through the children in the schools.
This should feel very uncomfortable to you because here we have, at least in the United States, we tell our children being white is bad. Being white is oppressive. You automatically hurt people of other races by your very existence. But by the way, if you become queer, we'll celebrate you. And you can create a radical army of people who identify as gender minorities and sexual minorities the only thing different is the identity categories have have shifted.
It's Maoist Cultural Revolution with American characteristics, and it's being exported to Europe. And just like how critical race theory has come to Europe even though it doesn't make sense, it will come to Europe whether it makes sense or not, and you will have a cultural revolution here too. Total nonsense. It doesn't matter though. The point is to destroy western civilization from within using Maoist techniques.
Then you bring them into unity under a new standard. Does that feel like what you're being put through? But the words are different. We use words like inclusion and belonging. We'll have a place where everybody feels like they belong.
We just want to have an inclusive space. But, unfortunately, you have racist ideas, and you have to criticize for you we have to criticize you for those. You need to criticize yourself for those. You need to go study in Mandarin, exactly like Mao said. And then we can bring you into unity under a new standard, which Mao called socialist discipline, which we in the west would not buy.
We call it in the west inclusion. And so we have this new program and within inclusion, we have or above inclusion, actually, we have sustainability. We have a sustainable and inclusive future. I see the agenda 2030 here with an x over it. The sustainable and inclusive future is the new socialist standard, that we will have freedom under socialist discipline.
And Mao said the way that that will work is through what he called democratic centralism. We call that stakeholder capitalism. And my shot at the World Economic Forum is taken because it's one of the things coordinating this. My shot at the United Nations is taken because it's one of the things that's coordinating this. So woke is Marxism.
It's advancing through Maoist Cultural Revolution. It's using Americanized identity categories. And while some of those will not work in Europe, I guarantee you the colonial aspect will. They will find your weakness. They will adapt the theory to fit because it's like a virus that will evolve to its host is always of the same type.
It's called middle level violence. They don't come at you with full blown Bolshevik assault very often. It's middle level violence. They provoke, which means if you give in and you do like Jean Paul Sartre said in his forward to The Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon, the the post colonial book, he said, the violence is coming. So Europe's best bet is to give it away so that they don't kill you.
They'll murder you and take it or maybe you can give it away. Give your culture away. Give your countries away, you can read it for yourself, probably in the original French that I can't read. And I think that's the path Europe has followed. So you can give away.
That's one side because they provoke at the middle. Or you can react and overreact, which sadly Europe has had a a rough history in the last century with overreactions. And if they if you overreact, what will they do? They will weaponize your overreaction for a century, forever, and gain moral authority you have to outsmart them, which is not possible unless you know the diagnosis of your problem. It's a Polish proverb.
Never attempt to cure what you don't understand. It will conquer all of Europe and we will have a very, very long sustainable and inclusive future with absolutely no freedom because the goal is to make us into what they call global citizens. Have you heard this term? This term is nonsense. There's no global sovereign, but they tell you if you actually read their literature, what is a global citizen?
It's somebody I kid you not. I make no joke. They say this themselves. It's somebody who supports the 17 sustainable development goals of United Nations agenda 2030. That's a global citizen.
And they say, what are the rights of a global citizen? This isn't a book about global citizenship education published 2 years ago. What are the rights of a global citizen? And the answer 1 paragraph later is we're not that interested in rights with global citizenship. It's more about global responsibilities.
In other words, slavery. This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Western world. The model that they are pushing us toward the look at China. Look at the social credit system. Look at the oppression.
Look at people disappearing for having the wrong opinions. One of their greatest billionaires, Jack Ma, said the wrong thing about the government and disappeared. A billionaire. If you want to know what the future of Europe and America and the Five Eyes or whatever the countries, it's China. That's the model.
So we have to fight back against woke. But to fight back against woke, we have to understand it. And I will close by restating my thesis. Woke is Marxism evolved
@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan
I'm glad to see this reaching so many eyes again. Everyone needs to watch that breakdown from James. Once you have, the top-down systemwide capture all makes sense. James Lindsay has been a warrior on this front. Much of his work can found here... https://newdiscourses.com/
New Discourses
New Discourses. Pursuing the light of objective truth in subjective darkness.
newdiscourses.com
@Theo_TJ_Jordan - Theo Jordan
Print form... https://t.co/vrO6hqosaX
@ThaWoodChipper - TrashDiscourse
I’ve been reviewing @Heritage plan #Project2025 and tonight James Bacon was on @Timcast I have been wanting to thread about this plan for the Presidential Admin in 2025 for a while. This is an excellent opportunity. This is the real deep state and the plan to fix it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Project 2025 at Heritage aims to ensure the right personnel for the next administration and hold accountable the bureaucrats who truly wield power in our bureaucracy. It doesn't involve firing everyone, but rather making sure that those obstructing policy can be dismissed. Candidates often discuss their plans, but without first gaining control over the bureaucracy, no progress can be made.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: With your project with Heritage? Yeah. That's the idea behind project 2025 at Heritage, actually, which is basically an effort to get the personnel right this next administration and also an effort to make sure that the bureaucrats that have the true levers of power in our bureaucracy are able to be held accountable. That doesn't mean we're gonna fire all of them, but if somebody is structing policy, it's making sure that person can be fired. Because, you know, all these candidates love to talk about what they're going to do But if you don't first get the bureaucracy under control, you can't do anything else.
@KeithWoodsYT - Keith Woods
🇺🇲 Wow! Vivek Ramaswamy just stated the Great Replacement is NOT a conspiracy theory, but government policy. Time to mainstream this discussion across the West. #GOPDebate https://t.co/KSQmByREAM
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: 11, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic party's platform. Let's That the twenty twenty election was
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 11, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic party's platform. Let's That the twenty twenty election was
reSee.it AI Summary
Vivek Ramaswamy stole the show at the GOP debate. He questioned Nikki Haley's knowledge of Ukraine and criticized the American political system. Ramaswamy challenged the GOP establishment, called the Russia collusion narrative a hoax, and accused Haley of corruption. He also dismissed climate change as a "new religion." His unapologetic style makes him a strong contender for Trump's VP pick or as the GOP candidate. Read more here: [link].
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
🧵THREAD: @VivekGRamaswamy Stole the Show at the Fourth GOP Presidential Debate The debate kicked off with a discussion on U.S. involvement in Ukraine. During this segment, Ramaswamy questioned Nikki Haley's basic geographical knowledge, which nullified her into a blank stare. "Look at that ... She has no idea what the hell the names of those [Ukraine] provinces are, but she wants to send our sons and daughters and our troops and our military equipment to go fight it."
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was the first to advocate for a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine. Many neocons are now starting to agree, except for Nikki Haley and Joe Biden who still support the war. Neither of them can even name three provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to fight for. It's important to reject the myth that foreign policy experience is gained by having a short stint at the UN and then making millions. It takes an outsider to see the truth. The puppet managers, the donors, are the ones pulling the strings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want everybody at home to note that I was the 1st person to say we need a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine. Now a lot of the neocons are quietly coming along to that position with the exceptions of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden, who still support this, what I believe is, pointless war in Ukraine. And I think those with foreign policy experience, one thing that Joe Biden and Nikki Haley have common is that neither of them could even state for you 3 provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to actually fight for. Look at that. This is what I want people to understand.
These people have I mean, she has no idea what the hell the names of those provinces are, but she wants to send Our sons and daughters and our troops and our military equipment to go fight it. So reject this myth that they've been selling you that somebody had a cup of coffee stint at the UN and then makes $8,000,000 after has real foreign policy experience. It takes an outsider to see this through. Look at the blank expression. She doesn't know the names of the provinces that she wants to actually fight for.
And there's a puppet managers right there. The donors the donors right there that are putting up the pocket. I'm
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ramaswamy then shifted his focus to the dynamics of American politics. He exposed what he called the "dirty little secret" of the system, stating, "The people who we elect to run the government are not the ones who are even actually running the government."
Video Transcript AI Summary
In American politics, elected officials are not the ones writing regulations that they don't have the authority to write. A US president can fix this by reducing the number of federal bureaucrats by 75% within the first year of their administration. They will also shut down unnecessary government agencies and rescind any regulations that fail the test of West Virginia versus EPA, a significant Supreme Court case that deemed unconstitutional any regulations not delegated by Congress to administrative agencies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's the dirty little secret in American politics today. The people who we elect to run the government are not the ones who are even actually that are writing regulations that Congress never gave them the authority to write. And the good news is, A US president can absolutely fix that. That takes a US president with a spine. So what I've said is in my administration, by the end of year 1, We will have a 75% reduction in the number of federal bureaucrats.
We will shut down government agencies that should not exist. We will rescind any regulation that fails the test of West Virginia versus EPA, which is the most important Supreme Court case of our lifetime that said if congress didn't delegate that to an administrative agency, then it's unconstitutional.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ramaswamy made an array of statements that go against the GOP establishment rhetoric. "Why am I the only person on this stage at least who can say that January 6 now does look like it was an inside job?" he asked.
Video Transcript AI Summary
My issue with my colleagues is that they have all supported Donald Trump for personal gain. Ron DeSantis begged for Trump's endorsement and attacked him in his book. Chris Christie lobbied for COVID money and prepared Trump for debates. The real enemy is the deep state that Trump tried to challenge. I'm the only one who can speak the truth: January 6th was an inside job, the government lied about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the great replacement theory is part of the Democratic Party's platform, Big Tech stole the 2020 election, and the National Security Establishment falsely claimed Trump colluded with Russia in 2016. We need someone who won't flip-flop and criticize Trump when it's convenient.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's my issue with all 3 of my other colleagues on this debate stage is all 3 of them have been licking Donald Trump's boots for years for money and endorsements. Ron DeSantis, you've been a great governor, but you would have never been one without actually begging Donald Trump for that endorsement. And you attacked him in your book a year ago. With Chris Christie as a lobbyist, begging them for COVID money for his special interest in New Jersey, prepping him for the debates last time around. These people are now Monday morning quarterbacking some decision he made.
I think the real enemy is not Donald Trump. It's not even Joe Biden. It is the deep state that at least Donald Trump tempted to take on. And if you want somebody who's going to speak truth to power, then vote for somebody who's going to speak the truth to you. Why am I the only person on this stage, at least, who can say that January 6th now does look like it was an inside job, that the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 911, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform, that the 2020 election was indeed stolen by Big Tech, that the 2016 election, the one that Trump won for sure, was also one that was stolen from him by the National Security Establishment that actually put up the Trump Russia collusion hoax that they knew was false.
There's a reason why I'm the only person on the side who can say these things. That's what it's gonna take, not people who are licking his boots one time, and now Monday morning quarterback game and criticizing when it's convenient.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ramaswamy added that the Russia collusion narrative surrounding Trump's presidency was a hoax and that the 2020 election was stolen from him by Big Tech.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ramaswamy's debate performance escalated when he directly accused Nikki Haley of corruption. While holding a sign that read, "Nikki = Corrupt," he charged, "Nikki, I don't have a woman problem. You have a corruption problem. And I think that that's what people need to know. Nikki is corrupt. This is a woman who will send your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Nikki Haley's campaign launch video was criticized for sounding like a woke Bud Light ad, with references to kicking in heels. During debates, there were accusations of corruption and failed leadership. One speaker claimed that Haley would send kids to die for personal gain, while another rejected the use of identity politics in the party. The double standards and frustration with identity politics were highlighted. The transcript ends with the statement that being a woman does not grant immunity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nikki Haley's campaign launch video sounded like a woke Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light ad talking about how she would kick in heels. At the 1st debate, she said that only a woman can get this job done. That's what she said. After the 3rd debate, when I criticized Rona McDaniel after 5 failed years of leadership of this party and criticize Nikki for her corrupt foreign dealings as a military contractor, she said that I have a woman problem. Nikki, I don't have a woman problem.
You have a corruption problem. And I think that that's what people need to know. Nikki is corrupt.
Speaker 1: This is a woman who will send your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house. This is the problem. Using identity politics More effectively than Kamala Harris is a form of intellectual fraud. And actually, there's her donor puppet Masters wielding their puppet right up here tonight. This is how this game is played.
The puppet masters put
Speaker 0: up their puppet, and I reject the use of identity politics in this party. It's been a cancer coming from the left, and I'm sick and tired of the double standards the people of this country are too. Having 2 X chromosomes does not immunize
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ramaswamy, in his closing statements, turned his attention to the topic of climate change, which he described as a "new religion" and a "hoax."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses the topic of climate change, calling it a hoax and stating that it has nothing to do with the climate. They mention a 98% reduction in climate disaster-related deaths in the last century and claim that more people will die from cold temperatures than warm ones. They express concern about an issue in Iowa where farmers are having a carbon capture pipeline built on their land using imminent domain, which they believe is unconstitutional. The speaker warns that the climate agenda is worse than COVID and criticizes it as a new religion that is causing us to lose our modern way of life.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll use this to just address a topic we didn't talk about tonight, but I think is one of the most important topics that needs to be discussed. That is this climate change agenda that is shackling this country like a set of handcuffs. I said at the 1st debate and I stand by it. The climate change agenda is a hoax because it has nothing to do with the climate. That's what we have to see.
98% reduction in the climate disaster related deaths in the last century. Eight times as many people are gonna die of cold temperatures this year than warm ones. Yet against that backdrop, there's an issue coming up in Iowa. It's core to Iowa farmers. I met Kim Junker, Kathy Stockdale, and other farmers who are about to have a carbon capture pipeline built across their land using imminent domain to do it.
That's unconstitutional, and it's wrong. And if you thought COVID was bad, what's coming with this climate agenda is far worse. We should not be bending the knee to this new religion. That is what it is. It is a substitute for a modern religion.
We are flogging ourselves and losing our modern way of life,
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
"If you thought COVID was bad, what's coming with this climate agenda is far worse. We should not be bending the knee to this new religion. That is what it is. It is a substitute for a modern religion. We are flogging ourselves and losing our modern way of life, bowing to this new god of climate. And that will end on my watch."
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ramaswamy stands out as a candidate unafraid to voice his opinions candidly and thoroughly. His unapologetic way of speaking his mind makes him a strong contender as Trump's VP pick — or as the GOP candidate should Trump be absent from the ballot.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for making it all the way to the end! You can read/share this thread in article format here: https://vigilantnews.com/post/vivek-ramaswamy-stuns-nikki-haley-steals-the-show-in-the-fourth-gop-presidential-debate
.png)
Vivek Ramaswamy Stuns Nikki Haley, Steals the Show in the Fourth GOP Presidential Debate
Ramaswamy stands out as a candidate unafraid to voice his opinions candidly and thoroughly.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
And while you're here, check out these other articles I wrote: RFK Jr. Identifies “The Real Shooter” Behind His Father’s Death https://vigilantnews.com/post/rfk-jr-identifies-the-real-shooter-behind-his-fathers-death
RFK Jr. Identifies “The Real Shooter” Behind His Father’s Death
“When I sat down and read the autopsy report, it became clear to me, as it would to anybody who read that report, that Sirhan could not have killed my father.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Ed Dowd Drops Bombshell Data: Hematological (Blood-Related) Claims Up 522% Above Trend in 2022 https://vigilantnews.com/post/ed-dowd-drops-bombshell-data-hematological-blood-related-claims-up-522-above-trend-in-2022
%20(1).png)
Ed Dowd Drops Bombshell Data: Hematological (Blood-Related) Claims Up 522% Above Trend in 2022
“The trends were stable — and then this exploded.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The Daily Beast inadvertently boosts sales of company selling HCQ and ivermectin. https://vigilantnews.com/post/oops-the-daily-beast-inadvertently-boosts-sales-of-company-selling-hcq-and-ivermectin
%20(1).png)
Oops: The Daily Beast Inadvertently Boosts Sales of Company Selling HCQ and Ivermectin
“Being the target of a smear campaign by the Daily Beast is a badge of honor. It shows that the work that we are doing to build a parallel healthcare system - one that puts patients above profit - is working.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, according to numerous studies. https://vigilantnews.com/post/this-is-what-happens-when-you-dont-jab-kids-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-data
.png)
This Is What Happens When You Don’t Jab Kids: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Data
Unvaccinated children consistently have better health outcomes than vaccinated children.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
New-found emails prove Biden White House hid COVID-19 vaccine harms from the public. https://vigilantnews.com/post/bombshell-new-found-emails-prove-biden-white-house-hid-covid-vaccine-harms-from-the-public
.png)
BOMBSHELL: New-Found Emails Prove Biden White House Hid COVID Vaccine Harms from the Public
“Now we have the smoking gun.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The Unvaccinated Will Be Vindicated: A Tribute to the Citizen Heroes of Our Time https://vigilantnews.com/post/the-unvaccinated-will-be-vindicated-a-tribute-to-the-citizen-heroes-of-our-time
The Unvaccinated Will Be Vindicated: A Tribute to the Citizen Heroes of Our Time
Mandates are now becoming a thing of the past, thanks to brave freedom fighters who had the courage to say NO.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Two years ago, I never imagined that I would be reporting on the news every day. It's been a wild ride, and all your support has been incredible. I'm beyond grateful to take this next step with the website. Thank you all 🙏 And don't forget to give @VigilantNews a follow. https://t.co/gYkk4cqTsI
@JoeyMannarinoUS - Joey Mannarino
.@VivekGRamaswamy just absolutely destroyed the mainstream narrative on January 6th on CNN. This is the kind of energy we need from people when discussing this issue. Take notes, downballot candidates! https://t.co/zYH4Sp1SQ0
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses their belief that the events of January 6th were not an inside job, but rather a result of government entrapment. They claim that the government has systematically lied to the public about various issues, such as the origin of COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop. They argue that there is evidence of federal law enforcement agents being present during the Capitol riot, although the interviewer disputes this. The speaker also mentions cases of alleged entrapment by the government, including the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. They criticize the government for cherry-picking footage and argue that the actions of some individuals were influenced by FBI agents. The interview ends with the interviewer expressing concern about misleading the audience.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me ask you about something that you said at the debate last week. You used the phrase inside job to describe what happened on January 6th. The next day, Capitol rioter, Alan Hostetter, highlighted your comments at his sentencing. He is going to prison for 11 years. A hostage threatened members of Congress.
He brought a hatchet, knives, pepper spray, sun batons, tactical gear to the US Capitol. Are you concerned that a convicted felon like that is now promoting your comments in court?
Speaker 1: So here's my concern, Abby. And I want to tell you guys where I'm at. If you had told me it's close to 3 years ago that January 6, 2021 happened. If you had told me 3 years ago, back when I was a biotech CEO, Not steeped in this world. I was just consuming passive media, but was focused on my world of developing medicines.
If you had told me that January 6th was in any way an inside job, the Subject of government entrapment, I would have told you that was crazy talk. Fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. I could tell you now having gone somewhat deep in this, it's not. I mean, the reality is this. We do have a government, first of all, we have to acknowledge that has lied to us systematically over the last several years about the origin of COVID nineteen, about the Hunter Biden laptop that we were told was false By 51 CIA experts and otherwise before we now know that it was true.
You can go straight down the list, the Trump Russia disinformation collusion hoax, all of it. Now we come to January 6th. The reality is we know that there were federal law enforcement agents in that field. We don't know how many. I think it's shame If let me finish this answer.
Speaker 0: Because because it's really important to know that. I'm gonna go ahead and interrupt you here because
Speaker 1: Because I know this establishment doesn't approve of this last time. I know this.
Speaker 0: That there were federal You're saying that there were federal agents in the crowd on on on January 6th. Yep. There is no evidence that there were federal agents in the crowd on January 6th.
Speaker 1: So why before Congress, when pressed on what the number was, they didn't say there were none. They just couldn't say there were none.
Speaker 0: So you're saying that there is no that you have not seeing any evidence So we've seen Mark.
Speaker 1: We've seen multiple informants suggesting that they were we know people were we know people were FBI informants who were asking Is
Speaker 0: there any evidence?
Speaker 1: May I just Is
Speaker 0: there Let me let
Speaker 1: me let me let me clarify. I know it's very uncomfortable for you.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna clarify my question. People, but we have
Speaker 1: to do the truth.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna clarify my question because I wanna make sure that you understand.
Speaker 1: Oh, I understand this deeply. I told you I was in 2 years ago. I'm not here now.
Speaker 0: Evidence
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Where is the evidence that the government Had applied
Speaker 1: do this.
Speaker 0: An inside job
Speaker 1: But no. No. I'm sorry. Inside job. It's all
Speaker 0: not gonna I'm not violence on January 6th.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna let you put words in my mouth. I'm gonna put my words in my mouth, I'm gonna tell you what what I mean by that.
Speaker 0: Evidence that the government was involved Entrapment. Planning or executing January 6th.
Speaker 1: Jonathan, I'm gonna give you I'm gonna give you hard facts. And and if I may, Abby, I know this is gonna be a little uncomfortable, but we're gonna we're gonna go through this, and you can and you can you can push back on it.
Speaker 0: The evidence.
Speaker 1: And you can push back on that. And let's do this fairly. Why did they suppress footage of now what's been released? 200 hours of footage of shooting rubber bullets into that crowd, Shooting tear gas into that crowd. You didn't see that before.
You saw what the response was to that. Now you see footage coming out of actually rolling out the red carpet For capitalists allowing
Speaker 0: Ramaswami again
Speaker 1: right through the front door.
Speaker 0: Majority of that footage
Speaker 1: should have been released before, Evan.
Speaker 0: Mister Bro, from the dashboard, it shows police officers being overrun And I wanna talk about one more piece by violence
Speaker 1: really important. Writers.
Speaker 0: That Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you hard I'm gonna give you some hard facts.
Speaker 0: A show.
Speaker 1: So what here's what entrapment is
Speaker 0: cherry picking.
Speaker 1: He's not cherry picking. He's not cherry picking. Finish, Abby. I'm not cherry
Speaker 0: picking. Examples
Speaker 1: To to the contrary. The country.
Speaker 0: Not a cherry pick example.
Speaker 1: You know
Speaker 0: cherry pickings? That is what happened. The government
Speaker 1: cherry pick 12 hours of footage when there is 200 hours of the cherry picking was the government, not me. Release the whole thing. And let me let me just finish 1 thing too because this is super important as a topic. So when you I think this is a civil libertarian issue of our time. When we talk kidnapping.
I wanna keep it I wanna be really clear on this because it's the same issue in the same FBI, same even part of the FBI. Three people who were in alleged plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer Were acquitted at the end of trial because it was entrapment. That is government agents put them up to do something they otherwise wouldn't have done. They gave them credit cards With spending limits of up to $5,000, encourage them to buy munitions, plan something they weren't otherwise willing to plan. So much so, and I want people at home to know this, Especially CNN viewers to know this is that one of the jurors went to those defendants and apologized afterwards, gave him a hug, Apologize.
Seeing what the government had put a poor guy up to who had to go to some Mexican restaurant across the street to get hot water. These people were exploited with credit cards up to $5,000, FBI agents putting them up to a kidnapping plot that we were told was true but was entrapment. Same thing with the Capitol Police. People letting
Speaker 0: you on the freeway.
Speaker 1: Many of those people then
Speaker 0: put you on the cards.
Speaker 1: The government cannot put you up to do something and then charge
Speaker 0: you for your DUI.
Speaker 1: That's wrong.
Speaker 0: I don't wanna have I don't I don't wanna have I don't wanna have to interrupt you. I really don't. But I don't want you to mislead the audience here or at home.
Speaker 1: I think they misled by mainstream media.
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts discuss concerns about the lack of coverage on certain aspects of the January 6th events and express distrust towards Vivek RamaSWAMPY due to his associations and positions. There is also a mention of Obama's education and a desire to outperform others on stage without plagiarism. Another post suggests it's time for Vivek to step down.
@AmericaShaman - Jake Angeli-Chansley
SO MUCH of what he is said was in my interviews & in my Gateway Pundit article regarding J6. HOWEVER, he DID NOT cover how Pelosi & McConnell stripped CPC Sund's emergency powers b4 J6 or the VERY REAL INTELLIGENCE SUPPRESSION by CPIO Yogananda Pittman, The Pentagon & The FBI! THIS is what the intel agencies DO...they listen to the talking points people WANT TO HEAR...THEN they roll out their assets to speak THOSE EXACT talking points to appease the people...allowing the people to THINK they have a horse in the race...ALL THE WHILE...these people are owned & controlled by the VERY DEEP STATE that people think these "candidates" a railing against! I DO NOT TRUST Vivek RamaSWAMPY! BECAUSE he has YET to give me a good reason to do so...Bio-Tech, Pro-Masks, Wants to get BACK into the TPP trade deal with CHINA, Took $$$ From a SOROS owned foundation, PARROTS BARACK OBAMA...COME ON DEEP STATE...Laughable!
@AmericaShaman - Jake Angeli-Chansley
@AmericaShaman - Jake Angeli-Chansley
@PattyCakes1203 - Lululikes
Listen up Newbies!
@JackStr42679640 - Jack Straw
THIS IS WORTH THE FULL 10 MINUTES Victor Davis Hanson warns America: 'Prepare for what's to come in 2024' Tironianae https://t.co/YJ1MevO8Tg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump supporters fear his resilience and intelligence, anticipating future political retribution. They criticize the left for hypocrisy and double standards, highlighting past scandals involving Obama and Biden. The left is portrayed as manipulative and power-hungry, using tactics like censorship and narrative control to maintain dominance. The message is clear: conform to the left's agenda for protection, or face consequences. Academic bias towards the left is attributed to self-preservation and career advancement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They look at Trump as a vampire, and they put a stake in his heart, but they're afraid that that stake could come out any time, that he's undying, and they're afraid of him. They are terrified of him. You know why they're terrified of him? Because they think he's smarter this time, and he has just caused to really get angry because of what they did to him. They can write all of the Atlantic Monthly, and they can write all the New Yorker clever, glib little essays about Donald Trump was a threat to democracy, or they can write all their little Molly Ball Time essays, how clever and brilliant they were with their cabal and their conspiracies to get rid of.
But deep down inside, they know that if the right ever did that to Barack Obama or Joe Biden, they could have really made something out of the fact that Barack Obama had a hot mic expose where he told the president of Russia, you tell Vladimir that I will be flexible on missile defense. That's the security of the United States of America. If he gives me space in my last election, and Putin did do that, that's an impeachable offense if a phone call to Ukraine is. So they don't understand that, that the right could have done that to them. And they understand now the right probably will do that to them for their own survival, and they are scared.
They're saying that if a MAGA candidate wins and they win the house and the senate were cooked because they're gonna get special prosecutors and they're gonna go after the Biden family like they've never gone after anybody. And they're gonna find stuff because we know Joe is crooked. And then they're going to go after Mary Garland, and they're gonna go after Majorcas, And they're not gonna stop, and that's why they're scared. And they're gonna do any everybody thinks that the danger passed, they got what they wanted. No.
No. No. No. No. You're never gonna see anything like what they're gonna do in 2024.
All this could have been reconciled. All they had to do was say Donald Trump should not be president if that's what they believe, and we're not gonna do any lawfare. We're not gonna try to change the voting laws. We're not gonna pack the court. We're not gonna let in 2 states.
We're not gonna try to abolish the senate filibuster. We're not gonna try to change the voting ID laws. We're just gonna play on the onto the rules that we have. We don't need $419,000,000 by Mark Zuckerberg in Fuse. We don't need Sam Bankman freed, the crook giving us a 100,000,000.
We're not gonna go under the radar with George. So we're just going to show you, the American people, how we think Donald Trump should not be president, and we'll have a feral and they can't do that. They don't trust themselves. They think, you know what? Anybody in his right mind would close that border right now.
Close the border. Anybody in his right mind would recall all of those DAs that have destroyed these major cities. Anybody in his right mind would not beg the Saudis or the Venezuelans or the Russians or the Iranians to pump oil on the eve of a midterm or drain their strategic petroleum when you have so much natural gas and oil and the nobody in their right mind would do that. And nobody in their right mind would ever just pull out of Afghanistan without warning just so Joe Biden can say that on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 or the original October, invasion of Afghan. I am the president that got us out.
Nobody would do that, and nobody would print $6,000,000,000,000 when there's an pent up demand post COVID lockdown, and there's a supply chain disruption and pull that money without any audit or examination of who got it and why and how it was spent, but to inflate the economy and ruin it. Nobody would do that. And so they know that, and they know that they can't take that record to the deductive mind because they're ideologue. So they start with a premise that we're for social justice and for equity of result, and so we're moral morally superior and smarter than anybody else. And therefore, we are entitled to do things that other people don't do.
And so if under the cover of COVID and frightening people about COVID, we can change all the voting laws so that 30 percent, instead of voting absentee and early voting, shall become 70% in most states with very little audit of the level necessary to authenticate most ballots. They just do all this stuff because they start with the deductive principle. We are better. This is the vision, and therefore, the following must happen. And if things don't fit the narrative, then they go after the person.
They censor it. They that's how they work. And if you keep that in mind, then everybody makes sense. And what I'm saying is they go on from one lie to the next. So everybody now knows that Donald Trump, we just discussed it, was impeached for things that Joe Biden got away with.
Okay. Everybody knows the laptop was authentic. Everybody knows that now. Everybody knows it would have made a big difference on that debate when Donald Trump said it was. And Joe Biden said, no.
No. No. 51 authorities. Everybody knew that Dashinko and Charles or whatever is named Dolan and Christopher Steele were frauds, and especially Clinton Simpson, and that Hillary Clinton took over an old never Trumper file, inflated it with a $1,000,000, got the FBI on it to hire Christopher Steele as a consultant informant, hid her so called legal expenses, and she was fined and cited for about violation through Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, VNC, and that that file was a fraud, and it was made up. I said that from the first time I saw it.
Everything in it was false, and yet we wasted 22 months $40,000,000 to know what was obvious. No apology. In fact, not only no apologies, they got Pulitzer Prize winners, some of the reporters. Every time they give these monstrous lies, there's no apologies. They just and they and why should they?
Because in their way, they're just narratives. They're postmodern Foucauldian, Lacan, Derrida, narada narratives. They were useful. So that's what they looked at. Well, they were useful at the time because when we went through the Mueller investigation, when we went through the laptop, we crippled Donald Trump, and therefore, we were able to stop him.
We had anonymous. Anonymous. He was burrowed deep into the Homeland Security. He was a minor official, but we said he was one of the major operatives in the Trump administration. We lied.
And then we printed his op ed because it did what it was supposed to do. It weakened this right wing agenda, so they think. And we got admiral McRaven, and he came in and wrote an op ed and said Trump should leave the sooner, the better. And then we got all of the 4 stars. McCaffrey, McCrystal, all of them to say that Trump was Hitler, that he was Mussolini, that he was a liar, that he was danger.
We got Mark Milley to call the Chinese. We did all of this, and, yes, we do not want this to be done to us. If right now a retired 4 star general says that Joe Biden is senile or he's dangerous or the Afghanistan is a disaster and he should be removed sooner or later or his weaponization of the DOJ or the FBI is moo Mussolini like or his hounding of individual people at school boards or the way he conducted the Mar a Lago raid is remnant of it's Nazi like, and I'm just quoting from what they've said. You know what's gonna happen to those people? You're gonna get Mary Garland to call up the Pentagon, and they're all gonna be slapped with a code 88 uniform code of military justice, and they're going to be court martialed for disparaging the commander in chief.
Trust me. They would in 2 seconds, and that's not gonna happen. 1st, they're not gonna say anything because they're not equally going to apply their standards of correct Right. Behavior on the part of the and second all, they're gonna say something with Donald Trump because they know that that the media and the Pentagon are not gonna do anything to it now. Oh, man.
They would they would destroy them if they ever criticize the commander in chief. They would go after him like you wouldn't believe, and they know that. And so what we're talking about, I guess, to sum up in this, they understand deterrents. They are saying to the American people, we are SOBs. We're capable of everything and anything.
Now which side do you wanna be on? Because if you're on our side, you can do what Hunter Biden is. There's no consequences. If you wanna say that the voting machines are crooked like Jill Stein, go ahead. She did in 2016.
If you wanna be Barbara Boxer in 32 Democrats and say, you know what? We're not gonna certify the Ohio count and hold up the whole election. We're gonna try to do that. Don't worry. They got they did it in 2004.
If you're Al Gore and the registrar and the attorney general says, well, the votes have been counted and they have been certified in Florida. Oh, no. We're gonna sue. We're gonna sue and hold up the entire election for a month. And so you can do all of that as long as you're on our side.
But if you don't do that and you wanna go on the other side, then you're gonna be in big trouble. And that's that's the message that they're trying to say. That's what we're really getting down to. Join the winning side. It's sort of like in the Soviet Union.
If you're part of the and you join the party, you're exempt. If you're not, well, you're on your own. People say to me, well, you're an academic, and you spent your whole life. How did you deal with those 94 percent of all academics are left wing? And I'm just using that percentage because that's a percentage of those who give money to political campaigns.
94% go to left wing or democratic causes. And and they said, why are they so left wing? Is it they have tenure. They're exempt from the worrying about losing their job. They have guaranteed step increases.
They have a 9 month work year. Is it because they teach their 1 or 2 classes a semester? What is it that makes them are they idealistic because they deal with words or I did I said, no. No. No.
No. They understand with if you wanna be get tenure and you wanna be promoted and you wanna be liked, you just parrot the majority cause. If it pay better, they'd be fascist.
reSee.it AI Summary
According to @dbongino, the 51 "intelligence experts" who lied about the Hunter Biden laptop are scumbags and pieces of shit. The Deep State is undeniable, and it's time to dismantle it by exposing and arresting those involved in rigging the 2020 election. #Justice #ExposeTheDeepState
@DC_Draino - DC_Draino
Few say it better than @dbongino He calls the 51 “intelligence experts” scumbags and pieces of shit for altering the course of American history by lying about the Hunter Biden laptop The Deep State is real and there’s no denying that at this point The only thing left is to destroy it Piece by piece Brick by brick Arrest by arrest Expose everyone who helped rig 2020 and bring these scumbags to justice @MaxEvansUMP
Video Transcript AI Summary
They accuse you of what they're doing, using distraction techniques to fearmonger about a potential Trump win. Former intelligence officials are on edge. The speaker calls them scumbags for falsely accusing Trump of Russian ties. They demand an investigation into the officials. The speaker believes the deep state is real and wants accountability for election interference. The conversation shifts to the whistleblower and retribution concerns.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Folks, they always accuse you of what they're doing. And because they're terrified that their tyranny is not gonna if Donald Trump wins, they're now doing this simple distraction technique that has appealed to useful idiots for a long time and been used by commies, socialist, soviets. They've used it forever. They just blame you for exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Politico recently spoke with the former intelligence officials about how on edge the idea of a second Trump term makes all of them.
Speaker 0: Are you freaking kidding me? Are these the same 51 intelligence officers who falsely bullshitted America? These scumbags, scumbags, every single one of them. You hear me? Absolute scumbags.
You don't like the word too bad. That's what you are. A bunch of scumbag fuckwads. Fuck you guys. Fuck you guys.
51 of you pieces of shit who told America before an election. 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accusing me of is a Russian plan.
Speaker 2: During a campaign season, you want to be able to understand everything that the Russians might do.
Speaker 0: This laptop that would have changed the entire course of American history would have kept the border closed if Trump got reelected, probably wouldn't be a Russian invasion in Ukraine, Probably wouldn't have been an October 7th attack either. We'd be living in a different world right now because you 51 intelligent scumbags, knowing you were full of shit the whole time, now you dare. You've got the balls to say that Trump could weaponize the spy services. I'm demanding an investigation if Trump wins into all of these people for a conspiracy to interfere in an election and potentially worse. And Joe Biden's gonna be the first target of that investigation.
We will never ever teach these people that deep state lawfare is wrong without exposing them to the same sets of rules they want to impose on us. Someone did steal an election, and Joe Biden was a field general in that war on election let it go. I don't wanna hear shit about, oh, it's time to move on. It's time to move on. It's time to move on.
Let it go. I don't wanna hear shit about, oh, it's time to move on. It's not time to move on, or they'll do it again.
Speaker 2: It's terrifying. It's frightening. Frightening.
Speaker 0: They stole the stamp thing. They hid that laptop information. You know it. We know it. I want everyone as either I want they better give depositions.
And if they commit criminal activity, I want them charged too. The deep state is real. It's members of the media. It's intelligence your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower. I remember, I
Speaker 2: in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower.
Speaker 3: Rent member, it's, lieutenant colonel Vindman, please.
Speaker 2: You testified in the deposition that you did not know the who the whistleblower was.
Speaker 3: Per the advice of my counsel, I I've been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community.
Speaker 0: It is it is saboteurs inside the Trump administration last time. The deep state is real. The deep state is real.
Speaker 2: Tell me, are you worried about this retribution concept playing out?
reSee.it AI Summary
Vivek Ramaswamy is being praised as a potential VP for Trump. He strongly criticizes the narrative on Ukraine, accusing legacy media and British politicians of lying about various issues, not just Ukraine.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
🚨🌎 Vivek Ramaswamy is arguably the best Politician in the US - he may well become Trumps VP “These people want to send your sons & daughters to go die in Ukraine” “THEY’RE LYING TO YOU” Listen to him destroy the Ukraine narrative & understand that Legacy Media & British Politicians are also LYING to you, not just on Ukraine but practically everything.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Just leave the stage, have a meal, and leave. These politicians want to send our kids to war without even knowing the basics. They lied about Iraq and caused a lot of debt and death. They're frauds. Lipstick won't change that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A favor. Just walk yourself off that stage, enjoy a nice meal Yeah. And get the hell out of this place. Because you've never Excuse me, Chris. I'm speaking, and I'm not done yet.
I have heard a time when you listen up to this. Is if these people wanna send your sons and daughters to go die in Ukraine, they've been arguing for it for a year. Neither of them could even name for you the provinces that they actually want to protect. And this is the people who have been touting their so called foreign policy experience. It is intellectual fraud.
These people are lying to you. The same people who told you about weapons and mass destruction in Iraq to justify that invasion didn't know the first thing about it, yet they sent 1,000 of our sons and daughters to go die. 7,000,000,000,000 of our national debt due to these toxic neo cons. You could put lipstick on a Dick Cheney. It is still a fascist neocon.
Woah.
reSee.it AI Summary
Vivek Ramaswamy criticizes Justin Trudeau, calling him a pawn for a globalist agenda that undermines self-governance. Some suggest Ramaswamy as a potential VP pick for Trump.
@Bret_Sears - Bret 🍁
Vivek Ramaswamy destroys Justin Trudeau. It would be pretty based if this guy becomes Trump's VP pick! "He's a pawn for a managerial class, both within and outside of Canada, that uses people like him as a pawn to advance a transnational globalist agenda that has a single hegemonic view that is fundamentally skeptical of self-governance where people need to be told what the right way is or isn't to live, by a small group of aristocratic elites in the back of palace halls."
Video Transcript AI Summary
He is seen as a follower of Klaus Schwab, serving as a puppet for a globalist agenda that undermines self-governance. Trudeau is portrayed as a mere figurehead controlled by a deeper, permanent state in Canada, similar to the situation in the United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He's like a Klaus Schwab junior, sort of a Klaus Schwab disciple, and I think that he is somebody who is a useful puppet. I mean, it's sound that this guy is some sort of shining intellect that is somehow a visionary in his own right. He's not. He's a pawn for a managerial class both within and outside of Canada that uses people like him as a pawn to advance a, you know, transnational globalist agenda that has a single hegemonic view that is fundamentally skeptical of self governance, does not believe in people's ability to govern themselves, believes in a world view where people need to be told what the right way is or isn't to live by a small group of aristocratic elites in the back of palace halls. That was the old world European view.
It's what's alive and well in Canada unfortunately today. And the idea that Trudeau is actually the guy calling the shots is a joke. He's just a puppet, a pawn for that deeper, what I would call permanent state. And I think that much similar to the United States, I think that that's a big part of what you're seeing happening in Canada now as well.
@eveforamerica - eve
This is the most powerful thing I’ve seen in a long time. This man waited 18 years to become an American citizen, and he is far more knowledgeable about our current state of affairs than many people I know that have lived here since birth. I pray you watch this. https://t.co/PQ5QNSEuzH
Video Transcript AI Summary
As a new American voter, I fear that many are blindly supporting Joe Biden regardless of his abilities. Our country is divided, manipulated by the media, and lacking critical thinking. We must prioritize truth, responsibility, and patriotism over partisanship to preserve our republic. I will continue to fight for America's future and the preservation of civilization.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everyone. So as a new American who will be voting for the first time for president this November, I have 1 big fear for our country. Recently, I've spoken to multiple people who plan to vote for Joe Biden. And the sentiments I keep getting is that it doesn't matter if Joe Biden gets wheeled into the White House every morning. They will vote for him irrespective of his cognitive ability, irrespective of whether he is able to function when we need him to function as president, irrespective of his ability to actually do the job.
Because they have convinced themselves that a nearly dead Joe Biden is better than any alternative. This is where we have gotten to as a country. And as an immigrant who loves this country, this is a sad state of affairs. For far too long, we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated by the media, by propagandists, by alarmists, who have characterized every difference that we have in this country as existential, to the point where reason seems to have taken the back seat to this hyper partisan and divisive culture. We are at a point where you can't rely on the person sitting next to you to be rational, to think logically, to understand cause and effect, to truly appreciate consequences of actions, to think beyond what is sitting right in front of their eyes, towards a future that will exist if we don't change course.
It is unfortunate that we have a country where people revel in being lied to, where people don't seem to have any sense of curiosity, don't seem to want to challenge the powers that be, who are willing to accept prevailing narratives without any sense of responsibility or fidelity to what is true. How do we survive as a country under these circumstances? When I became American, my older brother told me this. He said, now America's problems are your problem, and I hope I can continue to use my voice to wake people up, to get people out of this state of mental slavery, to wake people up to a sense of duty, a sense of patriotism that goes beyond party lines, that transcends tribalism, that puts our country first, and our citizens first. This is the America I had aspire to, when I made my transatlantic journey to come here.
This is the America I aspire to when I waited 18 years to become a citizen, and I'm not willing to watch it go down the drain, because my fellow citizens are abdicating their responsibility to the preservation of our republic. This 2024, let's wake up and recognize that this freedom that we have is not passed down through the blood to the next generation, as Ronald Reagan said. It has to be fought for. It has to be defended every single day, and I'm on that journey to fight for this country, because our continued existence in the world is worth it for the preservation of civilization.
@DsJ0URNEY - D. Valory ✞📖🇺🇸 Ⅹ
🤔The more I learn about J.D. Vance the more I understand why 45/47 picked him for VP. Listen to him destroy the mockingbird media's attempt to frame a false narrative... Again! https://t.co/GXCUG7AMuC
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker defends former President Trump's comments on illegal immigrants and fentanyl overdoses, criticizing the press for focusing on his language rather than the drug epidemic. They argue that Trump's remarks were not targeting immigrants like Adolf Hitler did with Jews, but rather highlighting the issue of Americans being affected by drug poisoning. The speaker accuses the journalist of trying to limit the immigration debate and divert attention from the real problem caused by Joe Biden.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And so there's do you have to say to, the former president's comments over the in the back of ignorance and saying that they're poisoning the blood in their condition? Well, look. I've been asked this question a number of times, and here's here here's my view on these comments. First of all, he didn't say immigrants were poisoning the blood of of this country. He said illegal immigrants were poisoning the blood of the country, which is objectively and obviously true to anybody who looks at the statistics about fentanyl overdoses.
And I I think just one one observation about the press as an organization, you guys seem far more upset about the guy who criticized the problem than you did about Joe Biden who's causing this problem. Let me just go back to his comments, though, when sort of using language that we heard, you know, during World War 2. I'm sure you're a student of history. You're well aware of what that kind of language represents in in historical context. What organization do you represent?
I work at the Associated Press. The idea that I am well aware, you just framed your question implicitly assuming that Donald Trump is talking about Adolf Hitler. It's absurd. It is absurd. Why do you think that Donald Trump's language is targeted at the blood of the immigrants and not at the blood of the American citizens who are being poisoned by the fentanyl problem.
You think he was referring to spending ridiculous. If you watch the speech in context and you look at what's going on, it is obvious that he was talking about the the very clear fact that the blood of Americans is being poisoned by a drug epidemic. The the to to see to take that comment and then to immediately assume that he's talking about immigrants as Adolf Hitler talked about Jews is preposterous. You guys need to wake up and actually do some journalism. Language then?
Because that is language that's Here's here's the problem with that question and that framing. You are allegedly a journalist. You're supposed to hold speak truth to power, and yet you're trying to circumscribe and narrow the limits of debate on immigration in this country. What you're doing is not speaking truth to power. You're trying to police the guy who's criticizing the problem so that Americans don't pay attention to the guy who caused the problem.
It's an absurd question. It's an absurd
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched Vivek Ramaswamy deliver an insightful breakdown of the 2024 election in under three minutes. He argues that the real challenge isn't a single candidate, but a pervasive system that pits the managerial class against everyday citizens. Ramaswamy emphasizes that the true divide isn't about traditional party lines or identity politics, but rather the unelected bureaucrats who wield significant power. He believes we're not just trying to defeat a candidate; we're aiming to dismantle a system that has taken control, echoing Trump's call to drain the swamp.
@overton_news - Overton
WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy Delivers The Greatest Breakdown of the 2024 Election in Under Three Minutes — 'We Are Running to Dismantle a System' | @VivekGRamaswamy This is mastery. The perfect articulation of what is currently transpiring in America. Vivek Ramaswamy just delivered what might be the most incisive explanation of the forces shaping the 2024 election and what Americans are truly facing. "You hear a lot of fellow Republicans refer to Kamala Harris as a far-left ideologue or a Marxist or a communist. You won't generally hear me levelling that critique against her because I think it gives her too much credit." "Kamala Harris isn't ideological particularly. I think last demonstrated this too." Ramaswamy argues that the real adversary is not a singular candidate, but rather a pervasive interconnected system; "We're not even up against a candidate. We're up against a machine. It's a perverted upside down version, hellish version of the San Antonio Spurs under Gregg Popovich or something like that in the sphere of American politics." "You could replace the individual person who's playing in the position, but it's the machine that ultimately achieves its objective, and that's what's really going on in this race." "This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. Not quite. It's not about Black vs. White. It's not about man vs. woman. The media, the powers that be will try to train you. Divide and conquer. Pit groups against one another. Identity politics. Vote bank politics. Don't fall for that trick." According to Ramaswamy, the true divide is between the managerial class and everyday citizens. "It is about the managerial class, the bureaucratic class and the everyday citizen. That's the real divide in this country." "You've seen many former Democrats, even iconoclastic Democrats that have criticized candidate like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, even from a progressive vantage point, now shifting over to support Donald Trump." "So what's going on there?" "I think it is evidence of the fact of the real divide is not really between the traditional Republican and the Democrat, but between this managerial class, the people who were never elected to exercise political power." "Be they in the media, be they in certain parts of the corporate capture machine or especially be they in the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who are writing more laws and setting more policies than even Congress which was elected to actually cary out that function, that's who's actually running the country." "It's not Joe Biden——it's not even really Kamala Harris, it's not their ideology because I don't think they have one." "It is the permanent state." "The fourth branch of government." "The leviathan." "The swamp." "The managerial class." "The committee class." "The bureaucrats." "That's who's running the show today. And that's what we're really up against. We're not just running to defeat a candidate, we are running to dismantle a system." "That's what Donald Trump meant the first time around when he said he wanted to go in there and drain the swamp, and I think this time more than ever, he has the toolkit to actually do it."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many Republicans call Kamala Harris a far-left ideologue, but the speaker believes this gives her too much credit, arguing she isn't particularly ideological like Bernie Sanders. The speaker claims that it's not about Republicans versus Democrats, black versus white, or man versus woman, but rather about the managerial/bureaucratic class versus the everyday citizen.
Dick Cheney's endorsement of Kamala Harris and some Democrats' support for Donald Trump evidence that the real divide isn't between traditional Republicans and Democrats. The speaker asserts that the managerial class, including the media, corporate entities, and unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state, are running the country, not Biden or Harris. The speaker concludes that they are running to dismantle a system, which is what Donald Trump meant by draining the swamp, and believes Trump now has the toolkit to do so.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You hear a lot of fellow Republicans, you know, will refer to Kamala Harris as a far left, ideologue or a Marxist or a communist. You won't generally hear me leveling that critique against her because I think it gives her too much credit. Gives her the credit of being an ideologue. You know, a guy like Bernie Sanders, he's an ideologue. I disagree with his ideology, but I can respect anybody who at least has a clear set of principles who guides them in their actions and their beliefs even if I disagree with most of the content of those beliefs.
Kamala Harris isn't ideological particularly. I think last night demonstrated this too. We're not even up against a candidate. We're up against a machine. It's a perverted upside down version, hellish version of the San Antonio Spurs under Gregg Popovich or something like that in the sphere of American politics.
You could replace the individual person who's playing in the position, but it's the machine that ultimately achieves its objective. And that's what's really going on in this race. This isn't about Republicans versus Democrats. It's not quite. It's not about black versus white.
It's not about man versus woman. The media, the powers that be, will try to train you, divide and conquer, pick groups against one another, identity politics, vote bank politics. Don't fall for that trick. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats even. It is about the managerial class, the bureaucratic class, and the everyday citizen.
That's the real divide in this country. You see in recent days, not only Liz Cheney but Dick Cheney, you know, of from people who've watched my race last year know that I've been no fan of him and his recent endorsement of Kamala Harris has nothing to do with it. But Dick Cheney came out and publicly endorsed Kamala Harris. I consider this one of the less surprising things to have happened in American politics this year. And at the same time, you've seen many former democrats, even iconoclastic democrats that have criticized candidates like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden even from a progressive vantage point, now shifting over to support Donald Trump.
So what's going on there? I think it is evidence of the fact that the real divide is not really between the traditional republican and the democrat, but between this managerial class, the people who were never elected to exercise political power, be they in the media, be they in certain parts of the corporate capture machine, or especially be they in the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who are writing more laws and setting more policies that even congress, which was elected to actually carry out that function, that's who's actually running the country. It's not Joe Biden. It's not even really Kamala Harris. It's not their ideology because I don't think they have one.
It is the permanent state, the 4th branch of government, the Leviathan, the swamp, the managerial class, the committee class, the bureaucrats. That's who's running the show today, And that's what we're really up against. We're not just running to defeat a candidate. We are running to dismantle a system. That's what Donald Trump meant the first time around when he said he wanted to go in there and drain the swamp.
And I think this time more than ever, he has the toolkit to actually do it.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Worth listening
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
An audience member asked John Bolton if the deep state is “real.” He described it as a paranoid conspiracy. I disagreed. https://t.co/VuyfwDZrNv
Video Transcript AI Summary
One speaker disputes the existence of a "deep state," arguing that the idea is paranoid, while another speaker defines "America First" as elected officials running the government and owing their sole moral duty to American citizens. This speaker claims unelected bureaucrats control much of public policy, forming a modern technocracy. They link foreign policy failures to the rise of the welfare and regulatory state, arguing interventionism abroad invites crises at home.
The speakers debate the success of intervention in Afghanistan. One speaker argues the US succeeded in preventing attacks until the Trump/Biden withdrawal, while the other speaker points to the Taliban's resurgence and abandoned resources as evidence of failure. One speaker blames Trump's withdrawal for the Taliban's return, while the other speaker argues the withdrawal could have been executed better. The speaker judges past policies by their results, citing Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan as failures, and advocates for US leaders to prioritize American interests over a bureaucratic vision of advancing democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As to whether there's a deep state, they're not smart enough to be a deep state. If if there were a deep state, we wouldn't be here having this debate. I can tell you there there are a lot of good people, out there trying to do the right thing, but the idea that we're run by a deep state is deeply paranoid.
Speaker 1: I, I respectfully disagree with that actually. We use terms like America first. I'll define it for you. Because sometimes we we are lazy, we bandied around, we don't say what it means. Here's what it means.
2 things. 1 is the people we elect to run the government are the ones who actually run the government and number 2 is those leaders owe their sole moral duty, sole moral duty to the citizens of this country and not another one. That's what it means to stand for America First principles. Let's start with number 1. Today, the people who set most public policy are not the ones who were ever elected to run the government.
In fact, there are 4,000,000 people in the federal bureaucracy including, I'm sorry to say, the National Security Establishment who are not only never elected to their positions but actually according to the supposed interpretation of civil service rules cannot even be fired by the people who are elected to those positions. That's not actually a democracy. That is a new type of modern technocracy that would make our founding fathers, including those you quoted at the start, roll over in their graves that they never imagined. So I do think that a root cause of many of our foreign policy failures is also the same root cause as many of our domestic policy failures including the rise of the welfare and the regulatory state. It is that the people we elect to run the government aren't the ones actually running the government and I do think that the warfare state is upstream of the welfare state.
When you invade the rest of the world, you effectively invite them. That's exactly what's happening to Europe and it's deeply linked to our own border crisis in this country. So So the question is how do we best advance the interest of the United States of America? I'll start again with the question. Well, I mean very quickly because I want to see if we can Just a quick I'll be very quick here.
I just want Ambassador Bolton to give an opportunity to address a question I raised at the outset. If we can pick one example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, any example from the 21st century where that foreign intervention on behalf of the United States actually ended up advancing American interests, I'd wait for the answer to that.
Speaker 0: Afghanistan. Let's start there. Well, let's start there.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Maybe you'll give me
Speaker 0: a chance to finish. After the 9:11 attack, we went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and defeat Al Qaeda and prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. And at least until, 2021, when pursuant to the Trump agreed, withdrawal proposal with the Taliban and the Biden actual withdrawal, we had succeeded. There were no terrorist attacks against the United States from Afghanistan, after 2,001. Now that foreign terrorist fighters are returning to Afghanistan and even the Biden administration has testified publicly that ISIS k has the capability to launch terrorist attacks against the United States today as it launched earlier this year, in Iran and in Russia.
Speaker 1: And this is where we have a difference in opinion. If you call Afghanistan a success, I look 20 years later, that same Taliban is still in charge armed with 80 plus $1,000,000,000
Speaker 0: Because we gave it back
Speaker 1: to our people that we left behind. How hard is that to figure out? The intervention it's it's like a Marxist argument. Right? The Marxists always argue that the problem with the state intervention is we didn't do enough of it, and that's exactly the form of argument that we have for the interventionist philosophy as well.
Speaker 0: We had a very imperfect government in Afghanistan. We were not there to make it into the Switzerland of Central Asia.
Speaker 1: Taliban is in charge today. And had we stayed had we stayed
Speaker 0: I'll I will finish my sentence. Had we stayed, the Taliban would not be in charge. But it was Donald Trump's desire to get American forces out that produced this catastrophic mistake. I suppose you supported the withdrawal. You're responsible.
That position is responsible for the consequences of Taliban being back in control.
Speaker 1: I respectfully disagree when you actually could have executed a withdrawal in the manner that president Trump laid out. Don't do it during fighting season. Do it in an intelligent way. Don't one at a time. I'll let you come back.
Yep. Sure. So the bottom line is I judge a set of policies by its results. Iraq is more vulnerable to Iranian incursion before we showed up. Libya is a failed state.
Syria, Afghanistan, now run by the Taliban. If we fail to learn from our mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them in the future and that's why I think we have to recenter the obligation of US elected leaders to focus on exclusively what advances American interests rather than advancing a bureaucratic state's vision of what they call advancing democracy.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Vivek schools John Bolton on the Deep State. This is from an event held yesterday in Steamboat. https://t.co/FTR7lo5Bz4
Video Transcript AI Summary
One speaker believes the idea of a "deep state" is paranoid. Another speaker respectfully disagrees, defining "America First" as: 1) elected officials actually running the government, and 2) leaders owing their sole moral duty to American citizens.
This speaker claims that unelected bureaucrats, numbering 4 million, set most public policy and cannot be fired by elected officials, which they argue is not a democracy but a technocracy. They believe this is a root cause of foreign and domestic policy failures, including the rise of the welfare and regulatory state. They also claim that the warfare state is upstream of the welfare state, and that invading other countries invites immigration, linking it to the border crisis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And as
Speaker 1: to whether there's a deep state, they're not smart enough to be a deep state. If if there were a deep state, we wouldn't be here having this debate. I can tell you there there are a lot of good people, out there trying to do the right thing, but the idea that we're run by a deep state is deeply paranoid.
Speaker 0: So I, I respectfully disagree with that, actually. We use terms like America first. I'll define it for you because sometimes we we're lazy, we bandied around, we don't say what it means. Here's what it means. 2 things.
1 is the people we elect to run the government are the ones who actually run the government And number 2 is those leaders owe their sole moral duty, sole moral duty to the citizens of this country and not another one. That's what it means to stand for America First principles. Start with number 1. Today, the people who set most public policy are not the ones who are ever elected to run the government. In fact, there are 4,000,000 people in the federal bureaucracy including, I'm sorry to say, the National Security Establishment who are not only never elected to their positions but actually according to the supposed interpretation of civil service rules cannot even be fired by the people who are elected to those positions.
That's not actually a democracy. That is a new type of modern technocracy that would make our founding fathers including those you quoted at the start, roll over in their graves that they never imagined. So I do think that a root cause of many of our foreign policy failures is also the same root cause as many of our domestic policy failures including the rise of the welfare and the regulatory state. Is that the people we elect to run the government aren't the ones actually running the government. And I do think that the warfare state is upstream of the welfare state.
When you invade the rest of the world, you effectively invite them. That's exactly what's happening to Europe and it's deeply linked to our own border crisis in this country. Right. So the question is how do we best
@secretmovement1 - Ajay Khindri
Vivek Ramaswamy delivering a speech expressing gratitude to those who influenced his journey. He visits Yale University offering a glimpse of the campus, New Haven, and a Federalist Society event. https://t.co/NTvpAw1CXq
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're back in New Haven for some speeches and to visit sentimental places. It's great to see familiar spots and catch up with old friends. We had dinner with the chap tie group and plan to enjoy some New Haven-style pizza, with favorites like Bar, Sally's, and Pepe's.
At the event, I welcomed my good friend and co-author, Yvette Romaswada, a key figure in the American conservative movement. I expressed gratitude to him and his wife, Amy, for their mentorship. They exemplify the importance of honesty in caring relationships, pushing us to be our best selves and contributing significantly to our successes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, guys. We're headed back to Yale to New Haven. I'm giving some speeches, but we're taking the family to report what I met, so a lot of sentimental places to visit. Come on with us.
Speaker 1: And now we're off to the Federalist Society event.
Speaker 0: It's good
Speaker 1: to be back in New Haven. It was fun to see the places where we used to hang out. We went to, dinner last night with the chap tie group that we used to get together with. We're going to Mia's now. We might get a meal in escapo, some of our favorite spots.
See if we can get some New Haven style pizza while we're here. My favorite used to be bar. Everybody likes Sally's and Pepe's, and, you
Speaker 0: know, they got a good day
Speaker 1: for us too. So a lot of fun and good living old times with Lina Porta. We'll go see her now. Let's do it.
Speaker 0: Everybody, just keep making your way towards the front of the room, and we're gonna go ahead and get started. Please join me in welcoming my good friend, my co author, arguably the most influential thinker in the American conservative movement, Yvette Romaswada. He's a man who knows a little
Speaker 1: thing or two about being courageous and, you know, him and his wife, Amy, who introduced me last night at the event. I wanna thank you guys for your mentorship over the years. You are I think there's if you care about somebody, you tell them the truth. If you care about yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. And you're committed to caring about the people you love and mentor by giving them the truth even when it's hard.
And Jed and Amy both, I think you embody that in a way that a rare few mentors actually do. And the impact you've had on our lives by pushing us to be the best version of ourselves has allowed us to achieve whatever successes we have since the time we met you.
@Destiny15_FL - Destiny
Reporter tried to bait Vivek Ramaswamy and he shut her down with more than she asked for. This is incredible to watch!!!!! https://t.co/yeFAxSxuGw
Video Transcript AI Summary
I condemn vicious racial discrimination in this country, but I refuse to engage in your divisive games. The real issue is that discrimination exists in various forms today, and the solution is simple: stop discriminating based on race. Unity can only be achieved by treating everyone equally, regardless of their background. Many people, regardless of race, are eager for a revival of unity, but your approach has only deepened national divides. Instead of playing into your narrative, we need to hold the media accountable for its role in this division. Rebuilding trust requires honesty and responsibility, and I won't participate in this flawed game.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can't say that you can do white supremacy. I'm not I'm not gonna recite some catechism for you. I'm against vicious racial discrimination in this country. So I'm not pledging allegiance to your new religion of modern wokeism, which actually feeds fits the test. I'm I'm not gonna bend the need of your religion.
I'm sorry. I'm not asking you to bend the need of mine, and I'm not gonna bend the need of yours. But do I condemn vicious racial discrimination? Yes. I do.
Am I gonna play your silly game of gotcha? No. I'm not. And, frankly, this is why people have lost trust. And I know you're gonna go print the headline tomorrow.
I already know this. We already know how your game works. Vivek Ramaswami refuses to condemn white supremacy because you asked a stupid question. The reality is I condemn vicious racial discrimination in this country, but the kind of vicious and systematic racial discrimination we see today is discrimination on the basis of race in a very different direction. You wanna know what the best way is to end discrimination on the basis of race?
Stop discriminating on the basis of race. Do that, and we're gonna move this country forward. And I don't care whether you're black or white or brown or anything in between. That's how we're gonna unite this country. You people have been responsible for dividing this country to a breaking point, creating a projection of national division.
I meet people from the south side of Chicago to meetings like this one of every shade of melanin, multiple from man to woman doesn't make a difference, who are hungry for reviving unity in this country. And you with your catechism that you try to get this politicians to whatever fake headline you're gonna print on the basis of this conversation tomorrow, that's what's dividing this country for a break to a breaking point. Shame on you. Look people in the eye and tell them what you've actually failed to tell them for the last 5 years. Own the accountability for your own failures as the media.
That's how we rebuild trust in this country. And until then, I don't have a lot of patience to play the game.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
The Deep State Is Now Out In The Open And Must Be Dismantled if America Is To survive! https://t.co/wjTrCp8Qtr
@IslamInvasion - Islam Invasion 🚨
"They think I am one of them so they talk to me.." Must watch this man, he explains their planned takeover: They're not planning with force. They are doing it through politics, softly and silently. And from within! Our guns and 2A won't help us!! https://t.co/48vruTbVUn
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes an encounter with a man who is part of the “religion of peace.” The man approaches and discusses Minneapolis, arguing that it’s a good thing people are sticking up for “his people” and for the white liberal. He claims that many people are coming over and taking over various cities, including New York City, and asserts that they will continue growing and “take over The United States,” and that “there's nothing that Donald Trump and his people can do about it.” The speaker notes agreeing with the man and egging him on, listening as the man explains how “they’re going to continue growing,” and that their movement is peaceful, aimed at “putting their people into politics.”
The man gives the example of Mamdani becoming mayor of New York City, saying that “chip by chip, brick by brick” they will take over, and that the takeover is happening from the inside “peacefully by getting votes.” He says the white liberal benefits from this by giving them votes, and that, beyond employing “refugees” from Middle Eastern countries, they are “planting them here,” who will have kids and keep growing. The speaker, who identifies as a conservative, initially agrees with this assessment and fears that nothing can be done, noting that he would respond with force—“I got my AR fifteens,” “body armor and a helmet,” “I got this and that”—but ultimately relays the belief that there is nothing to stop the takeover.
The speaker contrasts left-wing and “the religion of peace,” claiming they hate each other yet cooperate in what he describes as a “demonic plane” where both groups work with Satan. He asserts that left-wing people love certain figures and celebrations (e.g., “they love the gays,” the month of June and pride), while the religion of peace would “literally take that person who happens to be funny or funny and toss them off of the, you know, like the building.” He reiterates that, despite the apparent threat, “there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it,” and asks whether there is a way to respond: “Or is there? Come together, guys. We need to come together. Don't forget to prep for a take care.”
In closing, the speaker calls for unity, preparation, and care, suggesting that the situation is unfolding “in front of our face” and expressing concern about a potential civil war, while insisting that the religion of peace is “really a religion of hate.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Listen, if you don't want to, don't scroll on. Alright. I'm speaking to a person, just a man and he is a part of the religion of peace. Okay? I have a beard, my skin tone.
He thinks I'm one of them. So, they talk to me and they came over. Hello. We just, you know, got to talking and we started talking about what's going on in Minneapolis. And in Minneapolis, he was saying it's a good thing.
People are sticking up for him and his people And he's talking about the white liberal. And we got to talking about taking over this country. Now I'm there and I'm shaking my head. I'm agreeing. Yep.
Yep. You're right. Of course. Yeah. I don't know.
Hellah. Bullah. You know. His below. Whatever it is.
You know. I'm just shaking my head listening to this guy. And he was serious. He was dead serious about how many people are coming over and how many people taking over this town, that town, and they're taking they took over New York City already he says. Which he's right.
And he's like they're gonna continue growing. They're gonna take over The United States. And he's like there's nothing that Donald Trump and his people can do about it. I was like yeah of course I agree with you. They can't do nothing to us just to egg them on you know.
I want to hear what this man has to say. And they they have their movements of people peacefully gonna take over this country by putting their people into politics. And I mean he gave the example of Mamdani and how that happened in New York City and now Mamdani is the mayor of the most powerful city in all the world. Little by little, he says, chip by chip, brick by brick, they're gonna take over. And he made it clear that there's nothing that Trump and his people can do about it.
Now I know, you're a conservative just sitting there. I'm a conservative laying here. Oh, sitting here. And I'm thinking the same thing. Hell no.
I got my AR fifteens. Ain't nothing going to happen. Hell, I got body armor and a helmet. I got this and I got that. Ain't nothing going down.
I'm a patriot. God bless. No. No. They're taking over and they're doing it from what he described from the inside.
Okay? And they're doing it peacefully by getting votes and getting in office. And the white liberal, they're not all up here, and they're giving them the help that they need by giving them votes. And when they get that votes, they're bringing in besides d d I, They're bringing in people based on, what's it called? You know, refugees, bringing them from the Middle Eastern countries and they're just planting them here.
And once they're here, they're starting to have kids and they're just growing and growing. And really ensure that's that's what's going on. And he's right. There's nothing we can do about it. I mean, what are we gonna do?
You know, civil war? Woo hoo. I'm just worried about it because the religion of peace is really a religion of hate. And it's so funny. And I I made a video about this before talking about how liberals and the religion of peace will never get along.
They literally hate each other. They despise each other. But because they both work in the same demonic plane, the same evil plane, they both work with Satan directly. The left wing and the religion of peace. They don't see the issues that they have between each other.
For example, left wing people, they love Herman Fletcher. Well, that's the coolest thing ever. They love the gays. The month of June, they celebrate it with pride. Yeah?
And this other group, the religion of peace, will literally take that person who happens to be funny or funny and toss them off of a, you know, like the building. Okay? They'll take it off. But yet they love each other for some reason right now because they're both evil. That's why.
Anyway, I'm just making this video to tell you guys, you know, it's going down and it's happening in front of our face and there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it. Or is there? Come together, guys. We need to come together. Don't forget to prep for a take care.
God bless.