Speaker 1: All right, welcome back, and joining us now is Ryan
Speaker 1: Christian from the Last American Vagabond. I wanted to get
Speaker 1: his he's not part of the of the left right,
Speaker 1: Hegelian two step here, so I want to get his
Speaker 1: take on the politics, because you know, it's just going
Speaker 1: to be he said, she said for most of the media,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a different approach to this. And
Speaker 1: I also wanted to get him on because they're going
Speaker 1: to be having live coverage of the UN summit, the
Speaker 1: pack for the future that's going to be happening there.
Speaker 1: That's a very concerning thing that we need to have
Speaker 1: all eyes on because they keep playing this game over
Speaker 1: and over again. But joining us now is Ryan Christian
Speaker 1: of the Last American Vagabond. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2: Ryan, Yay, my pleasure. David, good to see again.
Speaker 1: Good see you. What was your take on the pageant
Speaker 1: last night?
Speaker 3: You just write something up right there as the pageant
Speaker 3: or theater. I mean, what's interesting is to be completely transparent.
Speaker 3: I didn't watch the entire thing, and I have a
Speaker 3: hard time doing that these days in general.
Speaker 1: I know I didn't watch the whole thing either. I
Speaker 1: had to get away from it. I had a friend
Speaker 1: send me a text message and said, this is crazy.
Speaker 1: My dad's listening to it in one side of the house.
Speaker 1: My wife is listening to it on the other side.
Speaker 1: There I got nowhere to go get away from it.
Speaker 3: Well, you know what's funny is I make the same
Speaker 3: point around like the State Department briefings, the White House briefing.
Speaker 3: It's just painful these days. Yeah, I mean, even the
Speaker 3: people in the room, the way they engage with them.
Speaker 3: It's the point is that if I take the time
Speaker 3: to really go through it, I'm going to have to
Speaker 3: take notes because I'm going to want to address it.
Speaker 3: And it's like I end up with like forty five
Speaker 3: pages of notes of like you know, it probably take
Speaker 3: me four hours to cover all the lies that were
Speaker 3: put out. But what I tend to do is look
Speaker 3: at the you know, the different kind of highlights and
Speaker 3: of the supports, the parts people are highlighting from what
Speaker 3: they thought was important, and then if important enough, I
Speaker 3: do tend to go back through it. But overall my
Speaker 3: impression of it, because I was looking at it more
Speaker 3: this morning, it is different than I think people expected.
Speaker 2: But I'm very right out of the gate.
Speaker 3: I want your audience to know that this year, more
Speaker 3: than ever or this cycle, I feel that there's more
Speaker 3: coordinated effort that I've seen in the past. And that
Speaker 3: could just be my own personal kind of feeling about it,
Speaker 3: but I'm saying that because I tend to feel like
Speaker 3: we should be skeptical or questioning more than usual whether
Speaker 3: these things are like being highly coordinated.
Speaker 2: I just want to put that out there, my personal opinion. Well,
Speaker 2: we can't.
Speaker 1: The way they got her in, I mean, no, she
Speaker 1: hasn't gotten a single point, a single vote point that
Speaker 1: a lot of people are trying to make out there.
Speaker 1: She's just installed. You know, well, she got less than
Speaker 1: one percent when she ran as a candidate four years ago.
Speaker 3: The thing about that, though, I find interesting, is I
Speaker 3: think a lot of this is about sort of doing
Speaker 3: the thing that's actually the reality, like kind of making
Speaker 3: like the point is that we already know the primaries
Speaker 3: are kind of an illusion, like the d NCNA. That clear,
Speaker 3: but let's not pretend it's only one side. They don't
Speaker 3: really have to do what we want anyway, So the
Speaker 3: fact that didn't happen is sort of like, well, we
Speaker 3: like it, doesn't I mean, it should happen if it
Speaker 3: was actually being done properly, but it wasn't. So it's
Speaker 3: kind of like a you know, that's where that's at now.
Speaker 3: I feel like you're trying to shove these things in
Speaker 3: your face. But to the point about the actual back
Speaker 3: and forth, it ended up to show where ultimately it
Speaker 3: seemed that Kamala Harris the week's leading up to it
Speaker 3: was almost I don't know whether intentionally, but she was
Speaker 3: like she did very airhead comments, like she was I
Speaker 3: didn't know what's going on all the time. But then
Speaker 3: she came out in this debate and seemed to put
Speaker 3: forward a very you know, most of her responses seemed
Speaker 3: to be pretty good to highlight the claims of Trump
Speaker 3: that were accurate and so on, but the same to
Speaker 3: the point was that everyone's making the moderators seem to
Speaker 3: only apply that fact checking their aspect of one side
Speaker 3: of the discussion, which is true, but they're all lying
Speaker 3: all the time in my opinion, So it's sort of
Speaker 3: like a coordinated thing right there. But it did end
Speaker 3: up in a way to seem to highlight that Trump
Speaker 3: wasn't as strong in a lot of the things that
Speaker 3: they were pretending. You know, I just was clear in
Speaker 3: my opinion, they're both pretty much the same thing, and
Speaker 3: they're both justice dis honest. The way this went out
Speaker 3: or ended up sort of, I don't know. It makes
Speaker 3: me wonder whether or not this might go a different way.
Speaker 3: My opinion is I think Trump is sort of the
Speaker 3: selection with all this. But either way, everyone seems to
Speaker 3: be in the same page that it didn't really change anything.
Speaker 3: People who are voting already made their mind up the moment.
Speaker 3: These people were down their candidacy, and that's the real
Speaker 3: problem with our current political dynamic. It's really it's all
Speaker 3: boiled down to that person a little bit worse than
Speaker 3: what I might be forced into.
Speaker 2: And that's so childish at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: And so that's kind of where I think it ended up.
Speaker 2: It was theater. It was entertainment, and that's what I.
Speaker 1: Talked about yesterday and the run up to this. I
Speaker 1: played a clip from Thomas Massey, who's just had enough
Speaker 1: of this stuff. You get a clip here, we're going
Speaker 1: to do another theater. I've been involved in this. Don't
Speaker 1: expect me to be an actor in this play again.
Speaker 1: Yet again. You always come up with the last minute
Speaker 1: continuing resolutions, so you can justify throwing everything into one
Speaker 1: giant basket called the omnibus bill. And that's really kind
Speaker 1: of in a sense, what happens with our political with
Speaker 1: our presidential race.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: I got an omnibus candidate over here, and I've got
Speaker 1: another omnibus candidate over there, and both of them. It's
Speaker 1: like if you went to the grocery store to buy
Speaker 1: groceries and say, sorry, you can't do any shopping yourself.
Speaker 1: You can't make your own choices. You can pick. We've
Speaker 1: prepared two backs skits for you. This is what then
Speaker 1: basket A, this is what's in basket B. Which one
Speaker 1: of those two baskets do you want? And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, you're going to have to eat everything that
Speaker 1: you take on, you know. And it's like, well, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, but that's what elections are. It isn't like
Speaker 1: an a la carte. I want this or this or
Speaker 1: this and the government. Increasingly, it's now become orthodoxy of
Speaker 1: both parties that the government should do everything. You know,
Speaker 1: when Trump, they hectored him over Medicare for all or
Speaker 1: whatever and what he was going to do about Obamacare,
Speaker 1: and he says, well, I you know, I have a plan,
Speaker 1: I've got a concept of a plan and all the rest.
Speaker 1: But he never questioned the issue of whether or not
Speaker 1: the government should be involved in our healthcare. See, and
Speaker 1: that used to it was only when Hillary Clinton, when
Speaker 1: the Clintons got in. That was what thirty thirty one,
Speaker 1: thirty two years ago, that was when they first started saying, well,
Speaker 1: we want to have the government run healthcare in the
Speaker 1: United States. And that was a big issue. But now
Speaker 1: both parts days have bought into that presumption that the
Speaker 1: government run healthcare. The question is can Trump run healthcare
Speaker 1: better than Wallack can run health right?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: And See, that's the same point, isn't it. It's the
Speaker 2: exact same point.
Speaker 3: It's all being distilled down to this binary dynamic where
Speaker 3: it's the reality nobody, the vast majority does not have
Speaker 3: their needs met if honestly ever with that dynamic, you know,
Speaker 3: but the point to see is not just that it's
Speaker 3: always just two choices that aren't the reality. What we
Speaker 3: want is that they use the illusion of the back
Speaker 3: and forth to bring you into that. The point you
Speaker 3: made about the healthcare so important because I mean, there's
Speaker 3: a valid conversation to be had about why there are
Speaker 3: people and I could take it a further step back
Speaker 3: and acknowledge it's because of other government lacking in policies,
Speaker 3: but that are in need in situations where they can't
Speaker 3: get what they might need and so on. But I
Speaker 3: would I always lean on the side of less government
Speaker 3: to liberty in the same way, even though that would
Speaker 3: bring about problems. The point is I can understan why
Speaker 3: there might be an argument abound around medicare for all
Speaker 3: kind of things. But that was my first point. It's like,
Speaker 3: I'm like, well, hold on, we just saw what they
Speaker 3: would do through COVID nineteen, Like how can we even
Speaker 3: ignore how those things?
Speaker 2: You know, it's obvious what they would do.
Speaker 3: But to your point is that it comes to a
Speaker 3: position now where instead of acknowledging that maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 3: even have them involved, they drive you in a position
Speaker 3: where you're like, well, hers stance on government controlling everything
Speaker 3: is a little bit worse than his stance on the
Speaker 3: government controlling everything, and that amounts to the same thing.
Speaker 3: The basket thing is a great analogy, and I'm gonna
Speaker 3: have to use that. And the point is not just
Speaker 3: yet to eat all You're not going to get half
Speaker 3: of what you want and half of it might I mean,
Speaker 3: the brands your life. But too bad, those are your choices.
Speaker 3: You know, that's crazy. You get home and you find
Speaker 3: that the boxes are empty. There's yeah, any.
Speaker 1: Corn flakes in this thing. You know, it's just an
Speaker 1: empty box. Wait a minute, that's supposed to be border patrol.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in there.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I voted for a border patrol or whatever you voted for. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you go back and you look at it, like you
Speaker 1: point out that, how do we like government running our healthcare?
Speaker 1: Four years ago? I hated that, But of course Trump
Speaker 1: thought it was a great deal. He thought he saved lives.
Speaker 1: And he goes back to this old nonsense about the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventeen flu epidemic again to defend what he did.
Speaker 1: And you know, he didn't make any mistakes. All the
Speaker 1: mistakes that were made in his administration were because of
Speaker 1: the germ game that they played on us. It's just
Speaker 1: insane what they're doing. But they do this over and
Speaker 1: over again, and everybody, you know, keeps falling into this
Speaker 1: same thing. I have so many of these, you know,
Speaker 1: a long time ago, when I was much younger, I
Speaker 1: would hang on these things and I would think about
Speaker 1: what what they're doing and how it's trying to be
Speaker 1: you know, how I was going to be perceived by
Speaker 1: the other side. It was going to be to this
Speaker 1: guy's advanger. I'm just so far beyond that. I'm Mike
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey's like, I've seen this play before, and I
Speaker 1: know that this is just fake and it's just to
Speaker 1: keep people distracted from doing the real things that are
Speaker 1: going to make a difference in their life.
Speaker 3: Can I cover on that point alone? Like, it's so funny.
Speaker 3: I was just thinking about this yesterday. It's difficult to engage, Like,
Speaker 3: for what we're doing, David, we have to be open
Speaker 3: minded enough to engage with the people that are you know,
Speaker 3: maybe they just literally for the first time in their life,
Speaker 3: decided to look into politics today, you know, And we
Speaker 3: have to be open minded enough to be like, okay,
Speaker 3: that we've gone through so much more in the scene here,
Speaker 3: and also that we could just be wrong.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: The problem the reason I'm saying all this is that
Speaker 3: I'm I'm at the point where you where you're saying
Speaker 3: right there, where I'm having a really hard time engaging
Speaker 3: honestly with people that are taking some of these things seriously,
Speaker 3: and so I have to temper myself.
Speaker 2: I'm like, I can't be rude. I can't.
Speaker 3: But it's really difficult because some of this stuff is
Speaker 3: so cartoonish and so obviously against our interests that it's
Speaker 3: hard for me to engage with this as if I
Speaker 3: might want to get you know, it could be the option.
Speaker 3: It's just difficult, you know, But it's I've got to
Speaker 3: be open minded enough to consider there might be other options.
Speaker 3: But like what Thomas Massey is saying is that it's
Speaker 3: it's not necessarily that that.
Speaker 2: Like, I think what we're.
Speaker 3: Saying is that it's like an obvious manipulation where both
Speaker 3: sides are dishonest. I mean, he's kind of saying that,
Speaker 3: but he's also really just saying that they just give
Speaker 3: up with the end, like they want to save act,
Speaker 3: but at the end of the day, they kind of
Speaker 3: know that they're not going to get it.
Speaker 2: So it's more theater in that way.
Speaker 3: But even if you take his point explit just that
Speaker 3: being the only problem, it shows you that they are
Speaker 3: still lying to everyone that they're talking to, the convincing
Speaker 3: them that they're going to get this, and the reality
Speaker 3: being it's only going to come around to the if
Speaker 3: ever at a point when it's not necessary or after
Speaker 3: the fact when they think they need it for the election,
Speaker 3: and all of that ultimately, which we could touch on
Speaker 3: I think as a trojan horse to the digital ID
Speaker 3: which overlaps in the back for the future. But the
Speaker 3: point is, however you look at it, we're all being played,
Speaker 3: and people like Massy, whether he's playing a role that
Speaker 3: I'm just being skeptical here as the one that kind
Speaker 3: of the revelation of the method comes out and shows
Speaker 3: you so you gain the support and you know that
Speaker 3: happens too. Whether whatever it is, it's the truth and
Speaker 3: we are being played, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was an interesting article today, I'm Brownstone at
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Tucker, So that's whatever happened to libertarianism. He said
Speaker 1: this should have been in twenty twenty and on. It
Speaker 1: should have been their moment to shine. Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: was just so it's like, yes, yes, he nailed it
Speaker 1: exactly right, because you know, when you look at what
Speaker 1: happened to the libertarian movement, small L and big L
Speaker 1: the Libertarian Party, there was only one candidate that I
Speaker 1: could find, and that was actually taking on the lockdown.
Speaker 1: That was Donald Rainwater in Indiana, who is running for governor.
Speaker 1: He's running again this time, and he's got some really
Speaker 1: good economic issues that I had him on we talked about,
Speaker 1: but he was the only one who was pushing back
Speaker 1: against it. And all of a sudden, he's up like
Speaker 1: fifteen sixteen points or something like that in the polls.
Speaker 1: And of course, what we always see happen is that
Speaker 1: as you start get close to the election date, everybody
Speaker 1: reverts back to their tribe, you know, and so they'll
Speaker 1: say they're going to vote for an independent or a
Speaker 1: third party candidate, but then they go back, they fall
Speaker 1: back into well, I'm going to vote for a Republican or
Speaker 1: vote for a Democrat. That type of thing always happens.
Speaker 1: But while he was doing that, I was so disappointed
Speaker 1: to see the National Libertarian Party was completely a wall
Speaker 1: and what Jeffrey Tucker talked about. And I didn't realize
Speaker 1: that because I have not really followed them since then.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like, okay, we're done. I used to
Speaker 1: be very active in the Libertarian Party, and it's like
Speaker 1: that's that's it. After what happened twenty twenty. But this
Speaker 1: time around Jeffrey Tucker says, the guy that's running for
Speaker 1: president and the Libertarian Party, he was out there telling
Speaker 1: people they needed to wear a mask. It was a
Speaker 1: cheerleader for Packslovid and all the rest of this stuff,
Speaker 1: and shaming people if they didn't follow this. And really
Speaker 1: the presidential canate was about as bad in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: as he is. But here's a guy that you know,
Speaker 1: now for a couple of election cycles, this has happened,
Speaker 1: he says, So what's happened to the intellectual movement? We've
Speaker 1: really lost that idea of the constitution of individual liberty
Speaker 1: that's just really been flushed to the side. For the
Speaker 1: most part of it.
Speaker 3: It's the same as always, you know, and it shouldn't
Speaker 3: be that we this will It's always the way this
Speaker 3: has gone as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean
Speaker 3: it can't change in the future. So I always want
Speaker 3: to make sure we're you know, thinking about this.
Speaker 2: Hopefully.
Speaker 3: I do believe we can't change, which is why they're
Speaker 3: trying to suppress we're talking about. But it's like the
Speaker 3: Green Party or anything else, you know, it very rapidly
Speaker 3: gets co opted by the same corporate entities and the
Speaker 3: same power structures that want to keep us falling into
Speaker 3: the left right paradigm. And you know, and to your
Speaker 3: point about people falling in line at the end, it's
Speaker 3: we're seeing more aggressively now than I think I've ever seen,
Speaker 3: which is you just how vulnerable it is right now.
Speaker 3: But that it got very quickly dialed in, you know,
Speaker 3: like usually we hear it every year, most important election
Speaker 3: of our lifetime.
Speaker 2: Very quickly we saw it happen.
Speaker 3: Both Kamala and Trump were like gushing about how this
Speaker 3: everything will end if we don't vote one way or
Speaker 3: the other this time. And the problem is that it's
Speaker 3: just it's people want to do what they believe in.
Speaker 3: They want to you know, I want to vote libertarian,
Speaker 3: I want to vote Green Party, whatever it is. But
Speaker 3: then they get convinced by the adult conversation, you know,
Speaker 3: the way that they're projecting it today. Well, all these
Speaker 3: people telling you to vote your third party, your below
Speaker 3: you believe in. There to understand how politics works, an
Speaker 3: adult will recognize the lesser of evils. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: just it's always the same conversation that boil it.
Speaker 2: It makes you ignore your own principles.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, and it's always that way,
Speaker 3: like maybe there's one election out of ten, you know,
Speaker 3: cycles of elections where it seemed that way, and I
Speaker 3: can get the logic of it, but if it's literally
Speaker 3: every time, and literally every time, it's the same narrative.
Speaker 3: And this is why I think they're so desperately trying
Speaker 3: to hold new moves to change the situation, because I
Speaker 3: think people are seeing.
Speaker 2: This more than ever I really do, and so I
Speaker 2: think ahead.
Speaker 1: I think that it's also people want to do something
Speaker 1: right they see this, and that, you know, being passive
Speaker 1: and just letting this happen is not an answer. So
Speaker 1: it's like, what can I do? And the national media
Speaker 1: and the establishment of the government is very quick to
Speaker 1: come out and say, here, you can do this, and
Speaker 1: they give him a fidget spinner, right, And so they
Speaker 1: go sit in the corner and they play with a
Speaker 1: fidget spinner. Think that they're doing something, you know, and
Speaker 1: when there's really things that they need to do, they
Speaker 1: need to do, they need to investigate what's happening at
Speaker 1: a state, in a local level. We had a situation
Speaker 1: here we had an excellent senator who had taken on
Speaker 1: the banking system and he had taken on a lot
Speaker 1: of and actually also put in anything about stopping out
Speaker 1: of state money. But even though he's a Republican senator,
Speaker 1: he couldn't get it passed by the other Republicans, and
Speaker 1: so guess what, out of state money and the banks
Speaker 1: came for him and took him out. And so you've
Speaker 1: got to get involve. You've got to get involved at
Speaker 1: the primary time, because if you don't do that, then
Speaker 1: they're going to put in their people and you're not
Speaker 1: really going to have a choice when it comes to
Speaker 1: the final election. And they're now starting, the big guys
Speaker 1: are now starting to pay attention to the state and
Speaker 1: to the local elections. They don't want you paying attention
Speaker 1: to that. They want you still doing the fidget spenter
Speaker 1: of the presidential election, and everything rides on the presidential election.
Speaker 1: I don't even think that Congress is going to do
Speaker 1: anything to help us. So I'm looking at it and saying, well,
Speaker 1: we need to figure out how we're going to nullify
Speaker 1: what's going on and do it at the state level,
Speaker 1: and do it at the local level. Because that's worked
Speaker 1: for medical marijuana, it's worked for other things. We've seen
Speaker 1: nullification work and in the case of that, they stopped
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions. That was his passion to stop it. And
Speaker 1: yet because he didn't have any constitutional authority to do that,
Speaker 1: they had states all over the place doing first medical marijuana,
Speaker 1: then recreational marijuana. I don't I'm not at marijuana advocate.
Speaker 1: I'm a constitutional advocate. And when people say if you
Speaker 1: start nullifying federal governments overreaching their unconstitutional acts, then that's
Speaker 1: going to lead to civil war, that's not true. And
Speaker 1: you can always point to that, and especially point to
Speaker 1: that for the left, because they're the ones who typically
Speaker 1: support marijuana reform and that type of thing, and you
Speaker 1: can point to and say that was done peacefully, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: And so we can follow that model for a variety
Speaker 1: of things. And I really think that's really about the
Speaker 1: only thing that we've got left in terms of politics.
Speaker 1: And I don't make politics my entire life, but I
Speaker 1: think when you look at politics, that's the key thing
Speaker 1: at this point in time is state and local elections.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I agree, Well, to be clear of my stance on
Speaker 3: that in general, Like Katherine Austin Fishers said in a
Speaker 3: recent interview, in her mind, the presidential election represents about
Speaker 3: one percent of what you can do to actually affect change,
Speaker 3: and I completely agree with that. If anything, Quite frankly,
Speaker 3: I do believe my personal opinion is I don't think
Speaker 3: your vote speaking specifically about the presidential election, but quite frankly,
Speaker 3: I generally think this broadly.
Speaker 2: Your vote is not translated to the outcome.
Speaker 3: And there's a whole conversation to have in there about
Speaker 3: the nuance about that.
Speaker 2: But for two things.
Speaker 3: One one hundred percent agree if you're going to make
Speaker 3: an effect anywhere with a vote, regardless of the circumstances,
Speaker 3: local is where it's at. I completely agree with that.
Speaker 3: And I wouldn't say that they're only now doing that.
Speaker 3: I'd say that's always kind of been the case, so
Speaker 3: they're very aware of how they can use the smallest elections,
Speaker 3: you know, trickle up in that same way.
Speaker 2: But I would argue that.
Speaker 3: We're basically putting it this way that if you think
Speaker 3: your vote makes a difference, obviously I support that, but
Speaker 3: I only ask regardless of my opinion, but I only
Speaker 3: ask that you do what you actually believe in. As
Speaker 3: I was saying before, don't fall into what they convince
Speaker 3: you is what adults the lesser of evils. Just stick
Speaker 3: with what you believe in and vote for who you
Speaker 3: actually believe that's Trump or Kamala. Then I support that choice,
Speaker 3: even though I disagree with it, saying, but I think
Speaker 3: that more people are showing that, Like all the comments
Speaker 3: I see online are all, well, they're both terrible, but
Speaker 3: you know, I'm honest enough to acknowledge that I have
Speaker 3: to do this or she'll win or whatever. And so
Speaker 3: I'm like, well, you stick to Jill Stein or whoever
Speaker 3: else you actually think might make that difference, and stick
Speaker 3: with that.
Speaker 2: I just think that's super important that we're at a point
Speaker 2: where we can't.
Speaker 3: We got to stop compromising our principles because people in
Speaker 3: the adult conversation that they keep framing it that way,
Speaker 3: tell you otherwise, you know it's important today.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, Well, you know, when you look at it,
Speaker 1: as you sho point out, I think, you know, we've
Speaker 1: got the whole thing exactly upside down, because as Musk
Speaker 1: has said, you know, he said, look at what Soros
Speaker 1: is doing. He's putting money behind local district attorneys because
Speaker 1: what he wants is chaos, and that's what he's getting
Speaker 1: with these district attorneys and so he's not focused that
Speaker 1: much on Washington. And so Musk is saying, you know,
Speaker 1: the smart money is going to be focused on things.
Speaker 1: The closer you are to yourself, the more more effect
Speaker 1: that you're going to have, And of course that is true,
Speaker 1: even getting out of the political sphere and focusing on
Speaker 1: your family, focusing on your life, making preparation about your life.
Speaker 1: We don't want to ignore the politics, but we want
Speaker 1: to keep an eye on it so we know what
Speaker 1: we need to kind of defend against, and then you know,
Speaker 1: make some effort to try to nudge things in a
Speaker 1: particular way to the extent that we have the capacity
Speaker 1: to do. But recognize realistically that you're not going to
Speaker 1: have a whole lot to say about that, but you
Speaker 1: do have a lot to say as to whether or
Speaker 1: not you're going to prepare, whether you're going to train,
Speaker 1: whether you're going to make alliances and local area, that
Speaker 1: type of thing that you do have some ability to
Speaker 1: do something about. I think that's really important. But it's
Speaker 1: kind of amazing to me how they get caught up
Speaker 1: and these petty side issues so they don't have to
Speaker 1: talk about the fundamental thing. And of course they talk
Speaker 1: about gun controlled. Trump can't really say much about it
Speaker 1: because he did set a precedent for doing gun control
Speaker 1: by executive order. It's really really crazy, kind of tied.
Speaker 3: It's the interesting thing when you look at them more
Speaker 3: than I've ever seen, and maybe if by design, I
Speaker 3: don't know, their narratives are shockingly aligned right now. Like
Speaker 3: it's really strange, Like there's the typical wedge issues where
Speaker 3: we know they disagree, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: and Jill Stein's want to put out this compilation of
Speaker 3: their different rallies that were basically around the same time
Speaker 3: where they were, you know, it is reel Go against
Speaker 3: Iron four Forward, biometric curveillance wall, like all these different points,
Speaker 3: and they're all kind of cheering, how my guys doing this.
Speaker 2: They're not. They're both like, yeah, yo, pro America.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: It's really an alarming thing where they're framing themselves as
Speaker 3: like the counterbalance. And even in the debate, she Israel
Speaker 3: won't be here tomorrow if she wins, and she's like,
Speaker 3: that's not true of supporters my whole life, and I'll
Speaker 3: support their war. It's like if they're debating about who
Speaker 3: supports israel war and I don't know why the people.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think most people see it. Quite frankly,
Speaker 2: I think the only people driving this machine forward are
Speaker 2: the ones, like we talked about, that are team Sport politics.
Speaker 2: They've chosen already. It doesn't really matter what they have
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh I agree. Yeah, even on the things that
Speaker 1: she's flip flopped on, right, nobody holds her back to
Speaker 1: the fire, fracking, all the rest of the stuff, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: for because she what she does is she does a
Speaker 1: focus group, which is the same thing that all these
Speaker 1: politicians do. The Republicans for years knew that everybody wants
Speaker 1: to push back against They don't like Obamacare, they don't
Speaker 1: like the open border. So I'll talk about Obamacare and
Speaker 1: open borders and then I won't do anything about it.
Speaker 1: And of course she can play that game as well.
Speaker 1: You know, I can do I can support fracking as
Speaker 1: a candidate, and then you know, go the other direction
Speaker 1: when I become present. So they're just tell you whatever
Speaker 1: they know that you want to hear. They have focus groups,
Speaker 1: and they just have positions, and they can change their
Speaker 1: positions just as easily as shifting in a chair. Let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about what's coming up in terms
Speaker 1: of the un Packed for the Future, because you're going
Speaker 1: to have reporters on site covering that as that's going
Speaker 1: through in about eleven days, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's basically so Derek will be on site
Speaker 3: and he'll be doing stuff for t LAB live on
Speaker 3: our show as well, but I believe you'll also be
Speaker 3: putting stuff on Conscious Resistance, so make sure you check
Speaker 3: both out. The interesting thing about this that I find
Speaker 3: so alarming is that it's getting little attention, and I
Speaker 3: find this so what we're talking about is the Summit
Speaker 3: of the Future, and then within it they're talking about
Speaker 3: the Pact for the Future, and that's the real alarming
Speaker 3: part for me because it seems to have all of
Speaker 3: the same possible mechanisms that like during the COVID nineteen discussion,
Speaker 3: we all were and it hasn't gone away, so we're
Speaker 3: clear about that. But the pandemic accord and all these
Speaker 3: different overlapping points were very clearly identified as a problem.
Speaker 3: Right everybody was highlighting this. There were a lot of
Speaker 3: shows about it. Even still right now, we should be
Speaker 3: paying attention to the way that goes forward. But Derek
Speaker 3: and I had a great interview about this where walking
Speaker 3: through the actual points, it seems like it has all
Speaker 3: of the same kind of mechanisms at least potentially, but
Speaker 3: with far less oversight or far less you know, like
Speaker 3: that truly matters anyway, but far less like acknowledge. It's
Speaker 3: very lofty, all these general concepts that could be used
Speaker 3: in the same way.
Speaker 2: And I'm I opened.
Speaker 3: I wondered out loud whether the pandemic accord, which which
Speaker 3: happened a lot through history, was sort of like the
Speaker 3: clumsy on its face, we're going to controller life thing,
Speaker 3: so we all pushed back on it and then we
Speaker 3: accept the lesser of it, you know how they do that?
Speaker 2: Right, That's what I think this might.
Speaker 1: Have said that about the World Economic Forum. You know,
Speaker 1: it was always interesting because uh, you know, we would
Speaker 1: go to the Builderberg Group and we talk about that,
Speaker 1: and nobody was talking about the build of Berg Group.
Speaker 1: But the World Economic Forum they wanted all kinds of
Speaker 1: press coverage. They invited it, and they put this cartoon
Speaker 1: Nazi out there. I mean, you know, clutched, it's just
Speaker 1: like a bond. Yeah, it's such a straight out of
Speaker 1: central casting. And it's like, pay attention to this watch
Speaker 1: this and everybody's like, you know, but where the real
Speaker 1: work is getting done is at Bilderberg, at the Club
Speaker 1: of Rome. You know, they got one after the other
Speaker 1: where they're meeting, and they wanted to nobody to talk
Speaker 1: about these So they basically set up a lightning rod
Speaker 1: of criticism, which is the World Economic Form. And I
Speaker 1: agree with you, and we also see that regardless of
Speaker 1: what their rationale is, you know, whether it's we're all
Speaker 1: going to die because of global cooling, or then we're
Speaker 1: all going to die because of global warming, or we're
Speaker 1: all going to die because of a pandemic, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: it's always the same solution. We've got to have a depopulation,
Speaker 1: we've got to have central control, we've got to have
Speaker 1: tracking of everybody. And so they come up with these
Speaker 1: different mcguffins, I call them to get people afraid, but
Speaker 1: it's always the same solution. Whether it's a pandemic, or
Speaker 1: it's climate change or freezing or heat or whatever, it's
Speaker 1: always the same solution. And so that's really what this
Speaker 1: is about. This is about, you know, creating the structures
Speaker 1: to govern us. And I think the thing that is
Speaker 1: very concerning about it and This was brought up by
Speaker 1: expos A News out of the UK. This said, well,
Speaker 1: where is the discussion about this in the political sphere
Speaker 1: in the UK? Where are our representatives on this? We're
Speaker 1: you know, do we have a say in this? And
Speaker 1: you know why is this going to Well, the same
Speaker 1: thing happened with the Pair's climate accord, and they always
Speaker 1: run this stuff through, They jam it through without getting
Speaker 1: people involved. And I think that's the really concerning thing
Speaker 1: that we really need to pay attention to.
Speaker 3: It absolutely well, the very common tactic today, if not like,
Speaker 3: the only thing they seem to do anymore is use
Speaker 3: the justification like the same, that's it's a climate change model.
Speaker 2: Right, we're all going to die. It's it's our fault.
Speaker 2: We have to do this.
Speaker 3: We can't really wait for democracy because we're all going
Speaker 3: to die. It's like the same, even though we all
Speaker 3: know that democracy the mob rule. Like the point is
Speaker 3: that they ultimately use the act idea that we've destroyed
Speaker 3: this and typically pointing at the other party. That's usually
Speaker 3: how that goes, right, the whole scarecrow thing, and so
Speaker 3: they get us in the idea that we have to
Speaker 3: rush through this and so on and not dive into
Speaker 3: the reality and the facts and so on. And I
Speaker 3: think that the two main things around what this all
Speaker 3: is obviously tied to is just general world governance. I
Speaker 3: think that's what all of these main points are about,
Speaker 3: about driving us to a point to where and obviously
Speaker 3: tech technocratic technocracy overlap where we're not talking about necessarily
Speaker 3: the old classic politician like I mean that may even
Speaker 3: be what Klaus Schwab was supposed to kind of like
Speaker 3: taint us the kids, but more so like the engineers
Speaker 3: and the scientists, you know, and so on, like let
Speaker 3: them decide because we don't know enough. That's the idea
Speaker 3: behind that, And really it ends up just being elitist
Speaker 3: oligarchs in the world that decide these things for everybody.
Speaker 3: And so that's what this is about, is setting up
Speaker 3: this framework to make it look like, no, we're not
Speaker 3: going to have some world government, We're going to have
Speaker 3: a mechanism in place that should there be an event,
Speaker 3: which is really what this is around a world event
Speaker 3: that suddenly justifies that we need coordinated action. That may
Speaker 3: well be what the whole nineteen illusion, amongst a lot
Speaker 3: of other technological experimentation, and you know, memori platform stuff
Speaker 3: may have been one of the main points setting us
Speaker 3: up to go. Look, that's how we failed because we
Speaker 3: didn't have this in place kind of an idea. And
Speaker 3: so now this is about setting up this framework and
Speaker 3: then triggering up what they talk about in this discussion
Speaker 3: a planetary emergency or at least acknowledging claiming for tending
Speaker 3: one whatever to drive these things into place, and then
Speaker 3: never relinquish in that power. This is the Patriot Act
Speaker 3: that never went away. It's the same stuff we've always seen.
Speaker 3: And then the other part of it. And there's more
Speaker 3: than just these two main parts. But me to my
Speaker 3: in my mind, these are the central parts and then
Speaker 3: the digital framework because that right in this main discussion
Speaker 3: they keep highlighting the global digital compact. So this is
Speaker 3: exactly what I'm worried about now. To go back to
Speaker 3: the point we said before the Save Act, Thomas Massey's point,
Speaker 3: all these different it's right now, and that to his
Speaker 3: point where he says they don't even really want it.
Speaker 3: I think it's religious about it. I think they all
Speaker 3: want it. It's a trojan horse for digital ID using
Speaker 3: the real ID compliant identification combined with Biden's mobiles, driver's
Speaker 3: license push. Once that comes into play, that removes the
Speaker 3: other options for paper stuff because it'll be making it
Speaker 3: digital for all of your identification concepts. And then you
Speaker 3: go back to the actual save act and the only
Speaker 3: thing you have are real compliant ideas, and that's the
Speaker 3: digital identification.
Speaker 2: So that's driving us there.
Speaker 3: So when we get to a place where they're having
Speaker 3: a digital compact for the world, all that means is
Speaker 3: the same point, but on a global scale. And as
Speaker 3: we're all highlighting yourself, Catherine, I mean, it's this. I
Speaker 3: don't see how we come back from that. That once
Speaker 3: we get past that step, the censorship will become in
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't want to say it's not possible,
Speaker 3: but let's just say it is. If we recognize right
Speaker 3: now that we're under some massive control, the insurmountable kind
Speaker 3: of effort that they the average person starting a new
Speaker 3: show has no chance today with the level of censorship, right,
Speaker 3: I'm forty times worse once they have a situation where
Speaker 3: it's not even accountable if it is even right now,
Speaker 3: the digital control that boxing you out from websites or domains,
Speaker 3: like just how about just not even being able to
Speaker 3: access the Internet if your social credit score is too low.
Speaker 2: We've all talked about this stuff. Yeah, that's what I
Speaker 2: think this is absolutely about.
Speaker 1: Yeah it. As a matter of fact, you know, Microsoft
Speaker 1: has been working on the Coalition for Content Providence and
Speaker 1: Authentication uh CCPA I call the Chinese Communists Party of
Speaker 1: America where they can mark you, they can use and
Speaker 1: the partnership is with Intel and other processors and as
Speaker 1: well as Adobe. So they got the hardware of the
Speaker 1: software that's going to mark you, and then they've got
Speaker 1: their mainstream media that's going to decide whether you are
Speaker 1: somebody should be allowed to talk or whatever, and you
Speaker 1: won't be able to even upload stuff. You know that
Speaker 1: that's gonna be the interesting thing. And I'm kind of
Speaker 1: in that situation right now with Spotify. Spotify has taken
Speaker 1: the lead and podcasts to ban me. They banned me
Speaker 1: within a couple of months of me starting my independent show.
Speaker 2: And I'm man there as well, by the way, while
Speaker 2: ago and.
Speaker 1: So they've they've talked about giving their you know, or
Speaker 1: leasing or selling whatever their technology to other podcasts so
Speaker 1: they can do the same thing. It's just a matter
Speaker 1: of time before that happens. And so they'll they'll stop
Speaker 1: it on the upload side of things, but it is
Speaker 1: a completely comprehensive thing to shut down anybody that disagrees
Speaker 1: with them. It's just astounding to me to see how
Speaker 1: everyone is pushing censorship, and he noticed there wasn't a
Speaker 1: single question about that, and the xactly right. The so
Speaker 1: called press of ABC doesn't care at all about censorship,
Speaker 1: and neither of the candidates brought it up either, So
Speaker 1: you know, it was just fine for it to happen
Speaker 1: during Trump. It was only a problem when he was
Speaker 1: kicked off. Just like the police state and the swat
Speaker 1: teams attacking people's homes and throwing flash grenades and the
Speaker 1: baby's cribs and stuff. That's only a problem if it
Speaker 1: might have happened and mar A Lago, if had the
Speaker 1: potential to happen, even though it didn't happen in mar Lago.
Speaker 1: But now it's a problem because they could have potentially
Speaker 1: done something like they're doing to everybody all the time
Speaker 1: in our homes. It's that kind of you know, voyeurism
Speaker 1: that is really kind of occupying the average American where
Speaker 1: they don't care about what happens to them or their
Speaker 1: neighbor I only care about what happens to their the
Speaker 1: guy that they've identified as a person who's going to
Speaker 1: save them. That's the only thing they care about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well it's kind of the othering, right, It's like
Speaker 3: the dehumanization. It's the same thing we're seeing in our
Speaker 3: country right now with left and right. It's been that
Speaker 3: way for a long time. But it's it's the idea
Speaker 3: that it only matters if it challenges our worldview or
Speaker 3: our beliefs, or what we want to happen. It's just hypocrisy,
Speaker 3: plain and simple, you know. And it's if you think
Speaker 3: for one second that the censorship digital ed stuff is
Speaker 3: only coming from one side, it's not. It's both sides
Speaker 3: and different flavors. It always is cocon pepsi. It's the
Speaker 3: same thing every single time, you know. And so right
Speaker 3: now they're both clearly pushing digital biometric wall, digital identification
Speaker 3: from different angles.
Speaker 2: It's very very clear. And so they may not even
Speaker 2: know that themselves.
Speaker 3: I'm not convinced that in these individuals necessarily are in
Speaker 3: the know about these larger plans. Frankly, I find it
Speaker 3: more believable that these were useful idiots, all of them.
Speaker 2: Congress you know what I mean. But I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: sure at some level there's inside to it.
Speaker 3: But that's the thing I'm really hoping Americans can come
Speaker 3: to terms with right now, is that this is very
Speaker 3: clearly something that is bigger even than our election system
Speaker 3: or political dynamic. There's something that is global and if
Speaker 3: we can see it like that in other context, the
Speaker 3: COVID nineteen illusion, you know, globalism in general, we have
Speaker 3: to ask or the Israel conversation. I mean, Americans, more
Speaker 3: than I've ever seen in my life, are like openly
Speaker 3: discussing Israel's aggressive control over Congress. And that's important. It's
Speaker 3: not about Jews or Israeli in particular, it's about Zionism.
Speaker 3: But that's important, and that right there is a huge
Speaker 3: part of globalism because of a lot of the right narratives,
Speaker 3: they seem to try to decouple Israel from the obvious globalist,
Speaker 3: you know, direction that they have as well. The important
Speaker 3: things to see that it's one and the same, and
Speaker 3: that it's all about keeping you compartmentalized in all of this,
Speaker 3: and by doing so, we're sleep walking into the very
Speaker 3: control structure that will allow this to continue.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's about it's just okay, whoever wants to
Speaker 1: buy influence. It can be a foreign individual, yes, it
Speaker 1: can be a foreign government. But it's all right. You know,
Speaker 1: she gets a half a billion dollars in one month
Speaker 1: and three hundred and fifty million in the next. Man,
Speaker 1: that's fine, that's good news. That's good news. The medium
Speaker 1: likes that because she's going to spend that money with them,
Speaker 1: and so they're not They don't have a problem with it.
Speaker 1: And you know, Trump is the same thing. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: Israel used to own Congress. And rightfully, so you said,
Speaker 1: is that right? You know, but when you look at it,
Speaker 1: as you're pointing out, they have they have their ways
Speaker 1: that they can channel both the left and the right
Speaker 1: to their common purpose, their common purpose of having digital
Speaker 1: ID and total surveillance. For the right, they're buying into
Speaker 1: it because they're concerned. They want everify, because they don't
Speaker 1: want their jobs being taken by foreign people coming in.
Speaker 1: So let me have set up a system where I've
Speaker 1: got to get permission from Washington to work. Let's take
Speaker 1: a look at you know, what is going on the border. Well,
Speaker 1: let's put all kinds of the technology that we can
Speaker 1: down there at the border to keep people from getting
Speaker 1: into the country or getting out at the same time.
Speaker 2: Right, right, And.
Speaker 1: Then let's also look at you know, what is going on. Well,
Speaker 1: we don't want the kids looking at pornography, so let's
Speaker 1: have an id for people to be able to use
Speaker 1: the internet. You know, it's just you can find an
Speaker 1: issue as and I think, what do you think is
Speaker 1: the common thing here? I look at it as people
Speaker 1: every problem that comes up, they believe that the government
Speaker 1: should be the solution to it, and more importantly, that
Speaker 1: the federal government should be the one to solve it.
Speaker 1: And that's what makes everybody so vulnerable to Well, Okay,
Speaker 1: we got a problem with the border, we got a
Speaker 1: problem with people taking my jobs, or we got a
Speaker 1: problem with the kids watching pornography. What's the government going
Speaker 1: to do about it? And that's what these debates are
Speaker 1: really feeding. What are you going to do about this
Speaker 1: problem in my life? You know, I've got an next
Speaker 1: door neighbor that I don't like. What are you going
Speaker 1: to do about it?
Speaker 2: You know exactly?
Speaker 3: Well, that's the thing is that that's what that we
Speaker 3: were just discussing, is it kind of you know, that's
Speaker 3: the point about how the majority in any election cycle
Speaker 3: of people that don't partake, and then the people that do,
Speaker 3: usually forty percent of them are independent. You know, it
Speaker 3: shows you that it's all about trying to drive you
Speaker 3: in to pretending that the left and right are the
Speaker 3: only things that matter in this conversation, and then making
Speaker 3: forcing you to have to pick between the lesser of evils,
Speaker 3: and that there's no other option there. Right, there are
Speaker 3: people in this conversation that are talking about less government
Speaker 3: or burning it down entirely, but they're never going to
Speaker 3: be allowed to be on that stage. And so a
Speaker 3: lot of the Americans that engage in this are of
Speaker 3: the mind that it's not either not there or that
Speaker 3: it's not prominent enough to be able to be considered
Speaker 3: because while they're not showing it to me, right, But
Speaker 3: that's obviously a false assumption, because clearly there are a
Speaker 3: lot more people that want this change, you know, the
Speaker 3: idea that only government can make a difference in your life.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that most Americans even remotely believe that,
Speaker 3: but sadly enough, we get forced into it again.
Speaker 2: Back to the point, that's why I think all this
Speaker 2: is happening.
Speaker 3: They're cranking up the heat and the violence, because that's
Speaker 3: what drives people back into their comfort zone because right
Speaker 3: now there are people asking questions that they don't like.
Speaker 3: And so when war, people's lives are made more uncomfortable,
Speaker 3: so you become emotional, become vulnerable, and then you fall
Speaker 3: back into line. I genuinely think that. But whether we
Speaker 3: should want government our lives, I mean.
Speaker 2: I think that.
Speaker 3: I mean that it's a kind of quintessentially American to
Speaker 3: have less government our lives. And now here's Trump and
Speaker 3: Kamala and they're both representing basic you know. I mean,
Speaker 3: the funny thing is about whole communism versus that they're
Speaker 3: both authoritarian capitalist all the way through. And it's very
Speaker 3: clear that they have differences, but they are not as
Speaker 3: difference as they try to make them o to be.
Speaker 3: Like you said, more government, more control in your life period.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, Yeah.
Speaker 1: The old paradigms of you know, used to be, well,
Speaker 1: the government, you know, the Republicans are going to give
Speaker 1: you freedom an economic sphere, and the Democrats and liberals
Speaker 1: are going to give you freedom and your civil liberties
Speaker 1: and that kind of stuff. That's all gone away. They're
Speaker 1: all and this idea that well, there's government and then
Speaker 1: there's business, and they represent different interests. No, they've merged,
Speaker 1: and so there's this merger of the parties. There's this
Speaker 1: merger of government and business and all the rest of
Speaker 1: the stuff. So these paradigms that have been out there
Speaker 1: that even people are in the third party aspect. And
Speaker 1: again Jeffrey Tucker touches on this when he talks about it, says, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we have the combination of these two things.
Speaker 1: I've been saying it for the longest time. You know,
Speaker 1: the liberals will say, well, business can do nothing right,
Speaker 1: government can do nothing wrong. The conservatives or the libertarians
Speaker 1: go the other direction. The problem that they don't see
Speaker 1: is that they've merged. You've got a fashion system here
Speaker 1: where you've got corporations and government have merged for their
Speaker 1: common interest. And neither of these paradigms are capable of
Speaker 1: addressing that because that's not even part of their fundamental
Speaker 1: They don't want to. It's not a part of their
Speaker 1: fundamental assumptions, and so they can't deal with this problem
Speaker 1: because their assumptions don't fit reality. Right.
Speaker 2: Well, it's the same as a classic saying, or you
Speaker 2: can't solve.
Speaker 3: A first step in solving any problem is simply acknowledging
Speaker 3: you have one, and they all seem to be pointing
Speaker 3: in any direction other than the obvious problem. And whether
Speaker 3: they see the problem or not, it's not being addressed
Speaker 3: because nobody wants to talk about it. And I think
Speaker 3: it's more so about the fact that you know, these
Speaker 3: are nascars, right, you just can't see all the patches
Speaker 3: and advertisements all over them, like they're being funded and
Speaker 3: been lobbied. And I mean, you know, it's very very obvious,
Speaker 3: and we all joke about it, but yet weirdly, when
Speaker 3: it comes to these important moments, those we're told anyway
Speaker 3: the larger conversation, and this is usually people that have
Speaker 3: their entire wealth or identity invested in the system to
Speaker 3: convince everybody that might be somewhat aware of it that it's.
Speaker 2: Not what you think.
Speaker 3: You got to vote otherwise nothing matters, And we go
Speaker 3: through this form that's really the point of the four
Speaker 3: year cycle.
Speaker 2: It's like, right when people start going maybe there is something,
Speaker 2: we get pulled right back into it.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like every single time, you.
Speaker 1: Know, yeah, yeah, that's why you know, I look at
Speaker 1: this and I just you know, I want to try
Speaker 1: to get people focus on other things, and you know,
Speaker 1: rather than these things that are just kind of a
Speaker 1: sisiphus task. You keep pushing this rock up the same
Speaker 1: rock up the hill, over and over again, and nothing
Speaker 1: ever changes with Yeah, it is crazy. Well, what else
Speaker 1: is on your mind? What they're at last? American vagabond?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I recently covered a really terrifying story
Speaker 3: that I think my impression of where this goes. The
Speaker 3: thing that really worries me is that I see through
Speaker 3: it sort of like the outlines of maybe like a
Speaker 3: new form of governance. Like we've all talked about technocracy.
Speaker 3: It's not a new concept, and it goes back to
Speaker 3: nearly seventies, right, the idea clearly, whether with good intentions
Speaker 3: or not, it was it represents today, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: the opposite of what it pretends to be. Right, This
Speaker 3: is just a very clear technogratic, elitist mindset about, you know,
Speaker 3: overlapping with with eugenics and all sorts of terrifying things
Speaker 3: in my opinion. And the point is that I see
Speaker 3: technocracy sort of showing itself in ways that I think
Speaker 3: circumvent government. Is the best way maybe to put it,
Speaker 3: and so that in Honduras, Peerteal backs a company that
Speaker 3: essentially has tried to start or has started, what they
Speaker 3: are pretending is some libertarian utopia, not even remotely what
Speaker 3: it is in my opinion at all, based on every
Speaker 3: possible metric to sum it up.
Speaker 2: Rather there quickly, there's a lot in this story.
Speaker 3: But in two thousand and nine in Honduras the US
Speaker 3: government back to coup, which is pretty common knowledge these days.
Speaker 3: And yeah, it's Tuesday, right, it's probably happening here.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But so essentially it caused the chaos that we might expect,
Speaker 3: which is usually the objective degree, so they can take
Speaker 3: advantage of all sorts of things. Now, what's important to
Speaker 3: recognize is a series of leaders went after that, which
Speaker 3: caused you know, it's even even to this day it's
Speaker 3: one of the most dangerous places in the planets as
Speaker 3: I understand it.
Speaker 2: The point is at once that happened, it created the
Speaker 2: chaos that they allowed to happen, because these despots are
Speaker 2: doing what they want, taking what they want, and they
Speaker 2: used that chaos to justify the need for sustainable you know,
Speaker 2: special development zones is what we've heard them call before.
Speaker 2: It comes from sustainable development zones, which is a UN
Speaker 2: twenty thirty point. Now in this country they call them.
Speaker 3: Z's or zed zede, which is just another name for
Speaker 3: the same exact thing. So remember it's important to recognize
Speaker 3: these comes from a UN twenty thirty objective.
Speaker 2: This is Peter Thiel's back company.
Speaker 3: They's back in dvanced, that's Trump's cabin It's important to
Speaker 3: see how these things are all connected. But the point
Speaker 3: is that they backed this pretend libertarian utopia city in
Speaker 3: a location.
Speaker 2: Well, first they sorry jomp out.
Speaker 3: They created the z zones under the guys that they
Speaker 3: were going to help people because of the chaos they tried.
Speaker 3: They started to set this up. They got push back
Speaker 3: from the Constitutional Court because they nobody wanted it. So
Speaker 3: what they do the legal thing. They kicked people off
Speaker 3: the judge positions and they put people in place that
Speaker 3: would vote the way they wanted them to, you know,
Speaker 3: otherwise completely illegitimate right, and they got this passed. So
Speaker 3: then once they got it passed, they then started to
Speaker 3: set up these these bake huge libertarian cities. Now it
Speaker 3: hasn't really accomplished anything. People are worried it's already starting
Speaker 3: to absorb other parts of the area. It's a very
Speaker 3: weird dynamic now jumping forward to it. Right now, a
Speaker 3: presidential cabinet ran entirely on the idea that we're going
Speaker 3: to get rid of these zds. The people in Honduras
Speaker 3: are wildly outspoken about how they don't want this, and
Speaker 3: essentially it's importan understand that this zone, this area they
Speaker 3: built one of them is called Prospera. I think it's
Speaker 3: rotan the island. They have their own laws, they have
Speaker 3: their own tax system, they have their own police force.
Speaker 3: Like there's no sovereignty, there's Honduras. They that area is
Speaker 3: no longer theirs. It's wild. So this new government world
Speaker 3: right exactly, This.
Speaker 2: New government got put in place right and then they
Speaker 2: removed the law because they immediately voted for it. Nobody
Speaker 2: wanted it.
Speaker 3: So now it's technically illegal, even though they're already starting
Speaker 3: to build another one, which shows you they don't care
Speaker 3: about the laws. Now, what the important part is they're
Speaker 3: now suing Honduras for eleven billion dollars. The GDP of
Speaker 3: Honduras is thirty five thirty six billion dollars. New York
Speaker 3: Times thinks they're going to win this. So here's my
Speaker 3: point in all this. Right now, they're going forward anyway.
Speaker 3: The current government is telling us. They just on September fifth,
Speaker 3: they openly said they're doing it again. They get their
Speaker 3: marshaling their forces. The US government's going to back another coup,
Speaker 3: which I think they know, which is why they're not
Speaker 3: caring about this.
Speaker 2: But here's what's important. What happens right now? How does
Speaker 2: that make sense? Like what happened?
Speaker 3: Who has control over this area? If they're the ones
Speaker 3: that control, so what does the government mean in that context?
Speaker 3: What happens if they win, which it seems they might
Speaker 3: do they take all the assets of Honduras because of
Speaker 3: a bankruptcy, and what does that mean for the people.
Speaker 3: The government doesn't go away, but arguably this libert a
Speaker 3: technocratic feel backed entity owns everything, so they're technically in
Speaker 3: control of everything even though the government's there. So my
Speaker 3: long point essentially pointing out there's lots of these things
Speaker 3: happening in the world. Is this an example of technocracy?
Speaker 3: These elitist oligar sort of taking control of land and
Speaker 3: land grabs without even going through some illusion of a
Speaker 3: democratic process. It's kind of terrifying, and I think an
Speaker 3: important part is to see how this ties back to
Speaker 3: Teal And you know, Palenteer is Reel all these different overlaps,
Speaker 3: but just that concept alone worries me about where this
Speaker 3: goes and how they're sort of like reimagining the way
Speaker 3: that we should live under technocrats as opposed to elected governments,
Speaker 3: even though that's not even what's happening anymore.
Speaker 2: It's interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, when you look at Palenteer, that's that's
Speaker 1: his connection to Palenteer is one of the things that
Speaker 1: really concerns me about Peter Teel as well. He's not
Speaker 1: what he appears to be. Musk is not what he
Speaker 1: appears to be. And yeah, I guess he wants to
Speaker 1: have like another Rhodesia or something where he's the we
Speaker 1: call it Teleisia or something, right heater Teal Villager. I
Speaker 1: don't know what he would call it, but you know,
Speaker 1: that's the whole thing.
Speaker 2: And uh and.
Speaker 3: Musk musk starlink by the way, I'm sorry, I forgot
Speaker 3: that musk starlink is being allowed to be used for
Speaker 3: these for these areas, but as I can tell, not
Speaker 3: for all of Honduras. So I think that's interesting. I
Speaker 3: think that relates to the military purpose that might be coming.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Sorry, I just wanted to include that's interesting. Yeah,
Speaker 3: So what is your take on it now? I mean,
Speaker 3: are they just trying to set up an example here?
Speaker 3: Is this going to be like the home base for
Speaker 3: them to flee to if they have to? Because in
Speaker 3: the past I tried to Hugo de Garis, he wrote
Speaker 3: about artificial intelligence. He worked in the field, and he
Speaker 3: was a true believer in it. He thought they were
Speaker 3: going to create a godlike intelligence and so forth. And
Speaker 3: he said, but before that, he said, when people realize
Speaker 3: what they're doing, in other words, the technocrats, he said,
Speaker 3: what I think will happen as people will come for
Speaker 3: them in there and to defend themselves. He said, they'll
Speaker 3: most likely set up some kind of a high frontier
Speaker 3: type of thing George K. O'Neil talked about in the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies. You had Jeff Bezos reference did a lot,
Speaker 3: and you saw it in Elysium, you know, where they
Speaker 3: got these toyoid shape things. And so he said, I
Speaker 3: think that they'll set these things up and flee to
Speaker 3: that and then you know, conduct war against us. With
Speaker 3: superior technology. He called them a osthmas. And the people
Speaker 3: that be left on Earth, they call them terrens. And
Speaker 3: they said, you know, I think that they'll flee to
Speaker 3: their space spaces and then you know, as a refuge,
Speaker 3: maybe they're going to just go to Honduras. You know,
Speaker 3: it's funny, as I take as much as you, there's
Speaker 3: there's jokes we made about these people. But I'm tell
Speaker 3: you there's something about that that I take very seriously,
Speaker 3: and that's a terrifying thing. Like even the space aspect,
Speaker 3: I've been saying this for so long, and I don't
Speaker 3: know why it doesn't get I mean, it's probably why
Speaker 3: it doesn't get much attention.
Speaker 2: But how do we don't know what the hell is
Speaker 2: going on up there in space? Like there's been a
Speaker 2: long period where they have the ability to do all
Speaker 2: sorts of things. I mean even like, how do we
Speaker 2: know that they haven't even made contracts with other governments
Speaker 2: to be like, look, let's just black this out. People
Speaker 2: don't need to know like colonies, space wars. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I'm thinking that's happening. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: the fact that we don't know is pretty crazy to me.
Speaker 2: It's a wild West up there for governments and technocrafts.
Speaker 2: So you make a great point in regard to Honduras
Speaker 2: and all the By the way, I love your point there.
Speaker 2: It's a terrifying reality.
Speaker 3: But we have to realize that the point he's making
Speaker 3: is these people are wildly powerful, influential in some cases
Speaker 3: overlap with government, and they could literally be creating a
Speaker 3: situation where they're driving into reality their worldview, which is technocracy.
Speaker 3: That's kind of terrifying, but yeah, the Hondura's point, it
Speaker 3: could be right. So my take on what it ultimately
Speaker 3: comes down to, it could be sort of a test bed,
Speaker 3: you know, like a litmus test to see how people respond.
Speaker 3: Like the main point to make is that the people
Speaker 3: of Honduras, that's again one of the new administration was
Speaker 3: running on the removal of those but the idea that
Speaker 3: they violated their sovereignty, I mean, they're even trying to
Speaker 3: argue that they violated the original contract, even the contract
Speaker 3: with the illegal governments. Both, by the way, the presidents
Speaker 3: that existed during those illegal contracts are both indicted by
Speaker 3: the current government, and even the US government acknowledges that
Speaker 3: both as criminals.
Speaker 2: So it just it just shows you how ridiculous this
Speaker 2: all is.
Speaker 3: But the point is that I think it's really about
Speaker 3: testing to see how we respond to what people will do,
Speaker 3: see how far they can take it. But I mean
Speaker 3: it could be more than that, you know, this could
Speaker 3: be the beginning of something. I just think it's important
Speaker 3: to highlight that if it's that easy, you know, I
Speaker 3: mean it's easy, but military power, quick coup overlapping with
Speaker 3: a corporation swinging in, making a contract with the government
Speaker 3: the illegal government put in place, and then just saying, well,
Speaker 3: too late, you can't take this back, even though the
Speaker 3: laws have changed, even though it turns out you didn't
Speaker 3: even meet the contract to begin with. And now my
Speaker 3: point is that, like I said before, they just posted
Speaker 3: something on Twitter where they're saying they're building another city
Speaker 3: on the island that Prospera's on now, But that law
Speaker 3: has been removed for a long time now. So my
Speaker 3: point is, I'm convinced the people behind this, that's the
Speaker 3: theal company, why would they do that if the law
Speaker 3: doesn't back it. I think that there's something in their
Speaker 3: mind that tells them they're.
Speaker 2: Going to be able to get away with that. That's
Speaker 2: why my feeling is that's why she's saying that about
Speaker 2: the upcoming coup, that they think there's going to be
Speaker 2: a power swing and that they won't have to worry
Speaker 2: about it. That's completely my opinion.
Speaker 3: But so that's all about where this goes and the
Speaker 3: shifting of power and whether government is a thing of
Speaker 3: the past. You know, it's just a thought, but it
Speaker 3: does worry me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is interesting when you go back and look
Speaker 1: at it. And I've talked many times about how Peter
Speaker 1: Thiel's grandfather, you know, was fully on board a technocracy
Speaker 1: back in the nineteen thirties. Is hgu wels is doing
Speaker 1: things to come and shape of things to come that
Speaker 1: they did the movie, they had the book and he
Speaker 1: actually tried to enact that and Canada had to flee
Speaker 1: to South Africa. So there's a certain you know, this
Speaker 1: kind of resembles this in a lot of different ways.
Speaker 1: The idea that you know, they're going to kind of
Speaker 1: hedge their bets to make sure even though they're making
Speaker 1: so much money out of government. And that's the key thing.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk became the king of crony capitalism. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: made so much money and became so wealthy, and he's
Speaker 1: going to make even more doing the fact that he's
Speaker 1: able to get the satellites up and Boeing, you know,
Speaker 1: NASA said, well, we want to have another company's doing it.
Speaker 1: Boeing can't can't get their act together. He's able to
Speaker 1: do that. So he's on track to become the world's
Speaker 1: first trillionaire by maybe twenty twenty seven. So it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, a vertical takeoff in terms of the power
Speaker 1: that these people have. But Teel and the powers and
Speaker 1: the companies that he's put in their palante here, that's
Speaker 1: unbelievably powerful. And so they put themselves into key technologies
Speaker 1: that the government is relying on, and a big part
Speaker 1: of that is going to be artificial intelligence, because in
Speaker 1: my opinion, that's the killer app of AI. It isn't
Speaker 1: that they're going to have autonomous robots that are going
Speaker 1: to come around and try to, you know, kill us individually.
Speaker 1: They want to use their artificial intelligence as a way
Speaker 1: to propagandize and to surveil us. I think that's the
Speaker 1: killer app. I think that's what they've been working on
Speaker 1: for a long time. And so they're insinuating inserting themselves
Speaker 1: into all of these key choke points essentially through technology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one hundred percent. And one of the important overlaps
Speaker 2: that we shouldn't miss with all of it with Musk
Speaker 2: and Starlink and you know, is the idea that what
Speaker 2: this is overlapping with the conversation we just had by
Speaker 2: the way, with the pack of the future and the
Speaker 2: digital or I mean, this might very well be the
Speaker 2: beginnings of what this is meant to kind of the
Speaker 2: need that they're building that need the role to fill,
Speaker 2: and like for example, the fifteen minute city, the smart
Speaker 2: city dynamic, I mean, it may not be exactly the
Speaker 2: same overlap, but it's the same general idea that we're
Speaker 2: simply in an area that is run by technoc or
Speaker 2: technocrats or run by people that are arguing they know
Speaker 2: better about your life.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: And so it's a different flavor of the same kind
Speaker 3: of thing. And so what really should be worrying for
Speaker 3: the people that think they're on the side of the
Speaker 3: party that is against this, right, it's largely people tied
Speaker 3: right back to the administration that's running on Trump's side
Speaker 3: who are building this thing, you know, and that overlaps,
Speaker 3: and there's also so many overlaps to these people with
Speaker 3: the actual who overlap and the World Economic Forum if
Speaker 3: people are just kind of being willfully blind about it,
Speaker 3: you know. But your point is right, and I think
Speaker 3: it's all about building into a position where artificial intelligence,
Speaker 3: digital identification, these things are not just necessary but paramount
Speaker 3: to the way that the city functions. All of course
Speaker 3: always framed on the guys that it's better for you
Speaker 3: and it will make your life more convenient, you know,
Speaker 3: And you know, maybe that's in some minds, maybe that's
Speaker 3: what they're actually doing, but it's like that for that
Speaker 3: to turn into a technocratic nightmare, yeah, you know, and
Speaker 3: that's wh we're all worried about. Is I want the positive,
Speaker 3: if that's something that's genuine, I mean a technique.
Speaker 2: I actually don't.
Speaker 3: I don't want any of this stuff, but I mean, like,
Speaker 3: I'm open to the idea that things might be positive,
Speaker 3: but we need to realize that if you open that door,
Speaker 3: it's like a dual use concept. It is going to
Speaker 3: be used against eventually, and I don't think we should
Speaker 3: take that step.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh, I agree, that's what's happened really to technology.
Speaker 1: But you know, when we look at the technocracy versus
Speaker 1: Marxism versus you know, populism or whatever, you take these
Speaker 1: different approaches and the dangerous things about all of them.
Speaker 1: You know, we're talking about fascism or populism or Marxism
Speaker 1: or technocracy. The thing that makes them dangerous is the
Speaker 1: element of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And they all have that
Speaker 1: in there as a strong aspect of what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and so they can all lapse into that commonality. You know,
Speaker 1: we're so used to thinking that Marxism is completely opposite
Speaker 1: from fascism, and it's not. When you look at the
Speaker 1: Nolan chart, you see that they're down there at the
Speaker 1: bottom because they're both authoritarian or tautalitarian. And the same
Speaker 1: thing can happen with the technocracy. It's just how they
Speaker 1: market it to us. One of them might come in
Speaker 1: and say, well, we want to have a brotherhood of man.
Speaker 1: That'd be Marxism, so you got to give all power
Speaker 1: to me. The other people say, well, we got a
Speaker 1: different mcguffin. We want to focus around our culture and
Speaker 1: our nationality, so give all power to me. They've all
Speaker 1: got just like the other things. It's like, well, we
Speaker 1: need to depopulate the earth. Whatever it is. They've always
Speaker 1: come back to the same thing. They have different ways
Speaker 1: to sell it to you. And the reason I mentioned
Speaker 1: this is because when you look at the dangerous tendencies
Speaker 1: that I see in the electorate, is the idea that,
Speaker 1: as I said before, we got a problem and he's
Speaker 1: to be solved by the government and we need a savior. Well,
Speaker 1: let's get a billionaire who says he's on our side.
Speaker 1: And I see that with Elon Musk. I see that
Speaker 1: so much with the people, the MAGA people who are
Speaker 1: focused on Trump. Look at this guy is rich, he's powerful,
Speaker 1: he knows he's successful because obviously because he's got a
Speaker 1: lot of money. And so if he's on our side,
Speaker 1: and I think he's on our side because look, he's
Speaker 1: given us free speech on Twitter, and I'm not seeing
Speaker 1: any free speech on Twitter, but they imagine that. And
Speaker 1: you've got all these people who are cheering Musk and
Speaker 1: think that he's on their side and he's going to
Speaker 1: be the guy. He's going to save us after Trump,
Speaker 1: and that's such a dangerous thing, and they're playing these people.
Speaker 2: I think, I mean, here, the.
Speaker 3: Thought one hundred percent I completely read everything you just said.
Speaker 3: One thing that's jumped into my head based on what
Speaker 3: we were just discussing. Right, So if we're thinking this out,
Speaker 3: let's just say for sake of conversation, the long play
Speaker 3: is to get Americans comfortable with the idea of technocratic leadership.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: And one thing Matt Ritt and I have talked about
Speaker 3: over the years is he's under the mindset this is
Speaker 3: a very long play like this goes back to power structures,
Speaker 3: bloodlines that go back a long way in the mindset,
Speaker 3: being that at one point in time there was a
Speaker 3: shift from kind of a monarch mindset into something where
Speaker 3: at least we pretend we have the power to elect
Speaker 3: who we want.
Speaker 2: And the argument is is that.
Speaker 3: Was something that was a veils pulled over eyes where
Speaker 3: they convinced us we were choosing, but we really weren't.
Speaker 3: And now we're to point where that veil is being
Speaker 3: removed because they've decided, well, we're going to step back
Speaker 3: out of the shadows for whatever reason, you know. And
Speaker 3: so it's possible to consider the fact that this whole
Speaker 3: thing is about manufacturing Elon Musk into some kind of
Speaker 3: position he's already accepted a position, But whether it actually happens,
Speaker 3: that's still up in the air.
Speaker 2: But he said it, he's accepted.
Speaker 3: That's the Department of Government Energy, which just happens to
Speaker 3: be dozed, which I find ridiculous, you know, the coin.
Speaker 2: He's always I don't know, but he said it publicly.
Speaker 3: Trump stood up in an interview and said, I hope he's
Speaker 3: accepted it, and I think it's good. So my point is,
Speaker 3: what happens if Elon Musk takes a pretty prominent role,
Speaker 3: right and then runs for president next time?
Speaker 2: M hm, right, I mean there you go.
Speaker 3: It's just boom, just like that, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: you've got a literal technocrat, oligarch, elitist military contractor who's
Speaker 3: the good guy saving free speech.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a pretty terrifying step right there.
Speaker 3: I mean, if that happened, my opinion would be that
Speaker 3: would be that's likely coordinated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh, I agree. I agree. It is a crazy
Speaker 1: time that we're living in and things are accelerating very
Speaker 1: very rapidly, and you know, I think it is the
Speaker 1: again we go through. I believe these cycles of history,
Speaker 1: like they talked about Strauss and how talked about in
Speaker 1: the fourth turning. I think we're at the tail end
Speaker 1: of that. And I think this next administration, whoever it is,
Speaker 1: is really going to usher us in through this whole thing,
Speaker 1: because it's going to take us right up to the
Speaker 1: end of it. They want to have their new society
Speaker 1: in twenty thirty. That means that they've got to tearry
Speaker 1: thing down and start rebuilding something else to get it
Speaker 1: there and in place by twenty thirty. And so that
Speaker 1: means whoever this next president that they select that they're
Speaker 1: going to use to do this thing. So it's people
Speaker 1: need to be aware of the overall landscape, understand how
Speaker 1: the you know, how the dangers are shaping up, and
Speaker 1: see what these threats are so that you can prepare yourself.
Speaker 1: That's why I keep calling people, you know, focus on
Speaker 1: your own life and don't live vicariously through these people
Speaker 1: who really don't care at all about you. I mean,
Speaker 1: we can just see that with January the sixth. They
Speaker 1: just use people and cast them aside for their own benefit.
Speaker 1: It's just absolutely amazing. Well, it's always great talking to you, Ryan,
Speaker 1: and tell us a bit more about the last American
Speaker 1: vagabond and is it is it spelled out Last American
Speaker 1: Vagabond dot com. Is that the website?
Speaker 3: Yeah, agree, the Last American Vagabond dot com. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: And we also have our substack at TLA Vagabond. I
Speaker 3: think it's at substack dot com. I think that's what
Speaker 3: it is, you know, But just it's all on the website.
Speaker 3: If you go to the Last Americanvagabond dot com, you'll
Speaker 3: find links to everything. As I say and dissed about
Speaker 3: every interview, don't don't let the platforms be the conduit
Speaker 3: between you and our information.
Speaker 2: Right, go directly to David Knight dot com.
Speaker 3: Go directly to the website, check out our content, you know,
Speaker 3: as opposed to platforms, because I think there's control happening through.
Speaker 2: Those as well.
Speaker 3: But yeah, the platform I think is is right now,
Speaker 3: by the way. I we're under some pretty heavy attack
Speaker 3: as always, I think, but the website.
Speaker 2: I had a really amazing interview with Kathin Austin Fitz.
Speaker 3: It was focused recipally about all this stuff around the
Speaker 3: two party illusion, the election, around Digitaliz's oh, absolute outstanding,
Speaker 3: and she had a really crazy conversation about important and
Speaker 3: crazy around neurological weapons.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you've talked about and I've talked about.
Speaker 3: The neuroscience, but like claim saying that she has experienced it,
Speaker 3: been there, seeing it, and her argument is that's part
Speaker 3: of what's happening in this election anyway.
Speaker 1: People need to check that out at the last American
Speaker 1: vague all.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 1: An excellent interview with Katherine Austin Fitz. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Ryan Christian, thank you all for joining us today.
Speaker 2: Have a good day.
Speaker 5: Let me tell you the David Night Show you can
Speaker 5: listen to with your ears. You can even watch it
Speaker 5: by using your eyes.
Speaker 2: In fact, if you can hear.
Speaker 5: Me, that means you're listening to the David Knight Show
Speaker 5: right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, good job. And you want to know something else,
Speaker 4: You can find all the links to everywhere to watch
Speaker 4: or listen to the show at Ndavidnightshow dot com. That's
Speaker 4: a website.