Speaker 1: I you know, I'm Jewish, but I'm an American. I
Speaker 1: believe in America in my core, and there are no
Speaker 1: chosen people in America. That's the thing. If America is
Speaker 1: actually going to function, the point is what we get
Speaker 1: is a level playing field. Is it ever going to
Speaker 1: be perfectly leveled?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: But what we should want, what we should all collaborate
Speaker 1: on as Americans, is a level playing field in which
Speaker 1: nobody has special access, nobody has special protections, and we
Speaker 1: don't need them. That's that's the objective of the exercise.
Speaker 1: And you can say, well, Brett, you're being naive, but
Speaker 1: I don't think so. And you know, if that's the argument,
Speaker 1: if that's the argument, is that America is naive, then
Speaker 1: let's have it out. Let's have that conversation. I'm fully
Speaker 1: ready for it. But let us not pretend that America
Speaker 1: works and then quietly undermine it by saying, well, but
Speaker 1: there are certain groups that need special protections, blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: that's not how it works.
Speaker 3: Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. This is Clint Russell. Today. I'm
Speaker 3: joined by doctor at Weinstein.
Speaker 2: He is.
Speaker 3: Just an incredibly brilliant guy. I have been fortunate enough
Speaker 3: to do a couple panels with him, and I am
Speaker 3: thoroughly impressed. I think that he's one of the great
Speaker 3: minds of today, and not to say that he's the
Speaker 3: most brilliant man on the planet, but I think he
Speaker 3: is very brilliant, and he's also most importantly courageous. I
Speaker 3: think that's what we lack most of all, is intelligent
Speaker 3: people that actually have the balls to say something truthful
Speaker 3: when it matters most. Brett has demonstrated that courage in
Speaker 3: a way that very very few people have, and for
Speaker 3: that reason, I am thrilled that he was willing to
Speaker 3: have this conversation. We go about as deep as I
Speaker 3: can take him on every topic that you're not supposed
Speaker 3: to talk about. Everything that you're not supposed to say,
Speaker 3: we do so for that reason, I am asking you
Speaker 3: to hit the like button, subscribe and share this around
Speaker 3: because I have a feeling based off of the context
Speaker 3: of this conversation. The algorithm will not treat us kindly
Speaker 3: and it will be left to you if you'd like
Speaker 3: the world to hear it, So please do. We just
Speaker 3: hit twenty seven thousand subscribers, and as you know, the
Speaker 3: more subscribers, the more viewers. The more listeners, the higher
Speaker 3: profile guests I'm able to have on, which is why
Speaker 3: I was able to get Dr Weinstein on, which otherwise
Speaker 3: I would not have been able to because I've been
Speaker 3: doing good views thanks to you guys, and he was
Speaker 3: willing to give me about seventy five minutes of his
Speaker 3: time and it is well worth your time. So I
Speaker 3: hope you guys enjoyed this one. Enjoy I am thrilled
Speaker 3: the day to have on doctor Brett Weinstein. He and
Speaker 3: I have done a couple panels together over Freedom Fest
Speaker 3: and I have always been impressed with his analysis of
Speaker 3: the past five years. I have gone from a passive
Speaker 3: observer of his too, I would say friend, and I
Speaker 3: think that he is an absolutely brilliant human being. So
Speaker 3: thank you so much, Dr Weinstein for joining Liberty Lockdown today.
Speaker 1: Awesome to see you, and I'm looking forward to.
Speaker 3: This absolutely man. All right, so let's start here. I
Speaker 3: think you and I are both I would say pragmatic,
Speaker 3: cautiously optimistic Trump first time, I would imagine Trump voters,
Speaker 3: I don't know if you voted for him many other times.
Speaker 3: This was my first time, and I got to say
Speaker 3: even though I don't think my expectations were extremely lofty.
Speaker 3: As of now, I feel relatively disappointed with the outcome.
Speaker 3: I'm curious what your grades are for him. I know
Speaker 3: that you were kind of more in alignment with him
Speaker 3: because of probably RFK Junior and maybe Tulsi or something
Speaker 3: like that. What are your thoughts.
Speaker 1: I am confused by what I see. Me too, I
Speaker 1: am completely comfortable with having voted for Trump. It was
Speaker 1: my first time because of the apocalypse that was represented
Speaker 1: by the Blue ticket, true, and so I I just
Speaker 1: don't think there was any rational choice. We had an
Speaker 1: absolute emergency on our hands, and this simple ability to
Speaker 1: vote for something that was in some way authentic made
Speaker 1: it the only game in town now. As for what
Speaker 1: is transpiring under the Trump administration, I am aware that
Speaker 1: there is a labyrinth of power and a hidden priority list.
Speaker 1: The administration presumably has things it wants to accomplish. The
Speaker 1: labyrinth of power sets the ground rules as to what
Speaker 1: can be accomplished at what rate and in exchange for
Speaker 1: what I know. I'm not privy to that, and so
Speaker 1: the real question is how does this stack up compared
Speaker 1: to what was possible given the cards that President Trump
Speaker 1: held on inauguration. I don't think any of us are
Speaker 1: in a position to answer that. So, you know, is
Speaker 1: the disappointment the result of the fact that the constraints
Speaker 1: on the president are greater than we hoped and maybe imagined.
Speaker 1: Are they the result of the priorities not being the
Speaker 1: represented priorities. Undoubtedly that plays some role. But you know, again,
Speaker 1: in light of what was you know, we had President
Speaker 1: Biden was not the president in the meaningful sense of
Speaker 1: that term. For them to have attempted to run him
Speaker 1: again and then at the point that that became implausible
Speaker 1: to swap in an empty shirt is such a dire
Speaker 1: commentary on the state of the Republic that I think
Speaker 1: every conversation about how the Trumpet administration is doing has
Speaker 1: to begin with the fact that there was no alternative.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no disagreement there. And I know I've told
Speaker 3: people this and my audience gets mad at me for it,
Speaker 3: but I still don't regret voting for him. I think
Speaker 3: that Kamala Harris is if you thought that, you know,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden was a puppet, she was no better than that,
Speaker 3: for sure. And I do think that there has been
Speaker 3: at least efforts by Donald Trump to de escalate with Russia,
Speaker 3: which was my biggest concern with the Biden administration in
Speaker 3: terms of existential crisis. I thought that we were really
Speaker 3: on the precipice of World War three. And well, lately
Speaker 3: it seems as if the relations between Trump and Putin
Speaker 3: have been chilling. At least it seems as if he's trying.
Speaker 3: Russia today hit Kiev with missiles and drones.
Speaker 2: More than one hundred people kids Russia. I think it's
Speaker 2: disgusting what they're doing. I think it's disgusting. This is
Speaker 2: Biden's war, it's not my war. But I said, if
Speaker 2: I get in, I'll try and get the thing stopped.
Speaker 2: But I think what Russia's doing is very said, a
Speaker 2: lot of Russians are dying. You have a lot of Russians.
Speaker 2: More Russians are dying, but Russians are dying, Ukrainians are dying.
Speaker 2: You know, the United States isn't really involved in that war.
Speaker 3: It shouldn't be.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I made a deal with NATO
Speaker 2: where NATO pays US for everything that we send. We
Speaker 2: send them ammunition, missiles, etc. And we're not paying anything
Speaker 2: for that war. But I will tell you this, it
Speaker 2: should be stopped. It's a disgrace. And the ones that
Speaker 2: are dying or so, they're losing seven thousand now was
Speaker 2: five thousand, they're losing now seven thousand soldiers a week,
Speaker 2: Ukrainian soldiers and Russian soldiers. And they're also losing people
Speaker 2: now in the towns and cities because Putin's hitting them
Speaker 2: with rockets.
Speaker 3: So I guess that's what I was asking for, is
Speaker 3: someone to actually push for peace and to try. I
Speaker 3: am deeply concerned though with much of the So there
Speaker 3: was all these campaign promises. We expected, to some extent
Speaker 3: there to be COVID justice or to be at least
Speaker 3: reforms in the vaccine world. I think RFK has delivered
Speaker 3: on some of that, maybe not as much as I
Speaker 3: would like. I would like to see real investigations, indictments, prosecutions,
Speaker 3: and we'll probably talk about that in a little bit.
Speaker 3: But then obviously just the vast corruption that I think
Speaker 3: has come to the light or at least become much
Speaker 3: more obvious to the general public. And I don't just
Speaker 3: mean Russian collusion, but certainly the lockdown paradigm, the yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean obviously the spying on Donald Trump was crazy,
Speaker 3: the vaccine mandates. How dangerous that was. There was just
Speaker 3: so so many opportunities for a real attack strategy against
Speaker 3: the corruption that exists within the government, within the deep state.
Speaker 3: And what I see the Trump administration, particularly Bondie RFK Junior,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump himself, their focus seems to be on like
Speaker 3: hate speech laws for Israel. When I see them talk
Speaker 3: about issues, they get really like the teeth come out
Speaker 3: when it comes to defa Israel, And I'm just it
Speaker 3: seems like a strange priority for a guy who campaigned
Speaker 3: on America. First. What do you make of that? I mean,
Speaker 3: do you notice it at all? And what are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't help but notice it. And it's
Speaker 1: terrifying because it can only be the result of either
Speaker 1: leverage or delusion, and I tend to think it must
Speaker 1: be leverage. But either way, it is bizarre that we
Speaker 1: are placing the interests of another nation ahead of the
Speaker 1: interests of this country, especially under Trump's banner. So I'm
Speaker 1: never endingly troubled by indications in this direction. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's good for Israel. I don't think it's good
Speaker 1: for the world. I do think something has a set
Speaker 1: of priorities that it has not shared, and it has
Speaker 1: the leverage to make those priorities manifest under an administration
Speaker 1: that campaigned under the inverse. It's very troubling and I
Speaker 1: don't know what to make of it. I think it
Speaker 1: is telling us that we have to find out why
Speaker 1: we can't escape this paradigm. But I did want to
Speaker 1: go back to one thing you said earlier, though. I
Speaker 1: think the de escalation with Russia has two components, and
Speaker 1: you nailed one of them. We do have somebody who
Speaker 1: does seem to be interested in de escalation. It's not
Speaker 1: a smooth road, but I think, maybe even more importantly,
Speaker 1: we have a person who, old as he is, is
Speaker 1: in possession of his mental health faculties, who can respond
Speaker 1: to an emergency phone call about things spiraling out of
Speaker 1: control with Russia and can de escalate in an emergency.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I hold the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: responsible for, and that I would argue means the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party cannot be resurrected, It cannot go clean. Now I
Speaker 1: will not accept the Democratic Party. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: is that they put a non COMPASSMENTUS figurehead in a
Speaker 1: position where he was the failsafe against a nuclear escalation
Speaker 1: and then even more insanely, they escalated with that figurehead
Speaker 1: in that office. And so that seems to me so reckless,
Speaker 1: not only with the well being of the Republic, but
Speaker 1: with the well being of the entire planet that even
Speaker 1: if I had seen no insect stinked towards de escalation
Speaker 1: under Trump, which is not true, But even if that's
Speaker 1: what I had seen, at least having a human being
Speaker 1: who presumably does not want to see a nuclear war
Speaker 1: in a position to take the phone call, to take
Speaker 1: the various options put in front of him by his deputies,
Speaker 1: and to evaluate what the best way forward is in
Speaker 1: a crisis, even that is just a night and day
Speaker 1: difference from what the Democrats handed us.
Speaker 3: Oh, no disagreement, And I think, I mean, despite the
Speaker 3: fact that I'm a very harsh critic of Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: particularly in his second term. Oh, I was a much
Speaker 3: harsher critic in his first term with the lockdowns. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean, the freezing and shutting down of major aspects
Speaker 3: of USAID was a godsend. I was very you know,
Speaker 3: that was a shocker to me. I think RFK Junior
Speaker 3: in tolls, you have delivered on many levels. So I'm
Speaker 3: not it's not as if like it's all doom and
Speaker 3: gloom here. And I completely agree with your assessment that
Speaker 3: it's very important that when you're playing footsy with nuclear war,
Speaker 3: you have a someone wielding the feet that actually is
Speaker 3: able to, you know, pick up the phone in the
Speaker 3: middle of the night and not being asleep at six pm.
Speaker 3: So and Donald Trump may never sleep. I'm not even
Speaker 3: sure if he's a human being at this point, but
Speaker 3: I am very so. I think the reason that, at
Speaker 3: least I'll just speak for myself, the reason that I
Speaker 3: ended up supporting Trump is because after so much abuse,
Speaker 3: after facing seven hundred years in prison, after having a
Speaker 3: bullet grazed his head, after having the FBI spy on him,
Speaker 3: after having multiple, you know, trumped up charges that were
Speaker 3: placed against him, there was just so and then then
Speaker 3: the media twenty four to seven just hit pieces against
Speaker 3: him for eight years straight. And then also understanding the
Speaker 3: nature of the COVID era and how much of that
Speaker 3: was done under the cover of darkness and without his understanding,
Speaker 3: and kind of concluding that that was probably utilized to
Speaker 3: Austin from power the first go around. So take all
Speaker 3: of that in its totality and I think it's rational
Speaker 3: to come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a
Speaker 3: real outsider, Like this guy is not what the establishment wants.
Speaker 3: You had, I mean, we just had all of these
Speaker 3: disclosures over the past forty eight hours, which you and
Speaker 3: I probably already knew about in detail. But Obama, Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 3: Steele dossier, the whole Brennan Clapper, the whole lineup. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 3: this was all true. Like they worked from day zero
Speaker 3: to get this guy out or at least to undermine him.
Speaker 3: So anyways, I say all that to say this, I
Speaker 3: come to the conclusion that this guy is a real outsider.
Speaker 3: And then he's making trade policy based off of whether
Speaker 3: or not Canada will acknowledge the statehood of Palestine, And
Speaker 3: I'm like, I'm like, this is so strange to me,
Speaker 3: Like where is the you just the juxtaposition of like,
Speaker 3: this guy's got to be an outsider renegade, and then
Speaker 3: that making trade policy based off of foreign relations of
Speaker 3: nations that are not our own, that are six thousand
Speaker 3: miles away. I cannot I cannot get these in alignment.
Speaker 3: And I just wanted to circle back to your point
Speaker 3: earlier about it appears to be leverage. What is the leverage?
Speaker 1: I don't know, and I guess I'm less certain than
Speaker 1: I once was that Trump is definitely an outsider, And
Speaker 1: in fact, I'm not even sure we've got the framework right,
Speaker 1: because I think he has to have been a true outsider,
Speaker 1: that the insiders truly feared for them to have unleashed
Speaker 1: some of the amazing law fair against him, for example,
Speaker 1: that they clearly did. But that does not mean that
Speaker 1: there isn't a contingency plan in which so you would
Speaker 1: imagine think of this the way the deep state must
Speaker 1: think of it. And I don't even think the deep
Speaker 1: state is the right description. The deep state is clearly
Speaker 1: some super national cabal. You know, it contains elements of,
Speaker 1: or maybe the entirety of the five eyes. Maybe five
Speaker 1: eyes isn't enough eyes to really describe how many parties
Speaker 1: are in play. But imagine how they must think of it.
Speaker 1: They must think, assuming this wasn't theater from the beginning
Speaker 1: that fooled you and me, assuming that Trump truly was
Speaker 1: an outsider that frightened a certain extra constitutional elite, they
Speaker 1: must have thought, we can stop him. Here's how we're
Speaker 1: going to do it. And if we fail to stop him.
Speaker 1: Here's what we're going to do to arouse him, and
Speaker 1: what I'm concerned. The most parsimonious explanation for what I
Speaker 1: have seen so far is that he was an outsider
Speaker 1: who has now surrendered on a couple of different fronts,
Speaker 1: possibly in order. You know, you could imagine a conversation
Speaker 1: in which somebody sat down with him and said, mister President,
Speaker 1: here's what we've got, and here's what unfolds if you
Speaker 1: go out this like the new sheriff in town. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, you beat us fair and square. We're
Speaker 1: ready to accept that you have the legitimate right to
Speaker 1: change a certain number of things in your direction, and
Speaker 1: we won't stand in your way so long as you
Speaker 1: recognize that these things aren't to be touched. And if
Speaker 1: they were touched, the following would unfold. Right, you could
Speaker 1: imagine a speech like that, and then you could imagine
Speaker 1: that it would cause the temper tentrum that we saw
Speaker 1: President Trump throw over Epstein. President Trump was tweeting at
Speaker 1: us about letting Epstein go. His point was, look how
Speaker 1: much other great stuff I'm doing for you, This is nothing.
Speaker 1: Let it go.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense to me, because it appears that
Speaker 1: Epstein is the label on an architecture for extra constitutional
Speaker 1: control of the United States power structure. So my feeling
Speaker 1: is there's no higher issue, and it has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Jeffrey Epstein. It has to do with what
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein was doing and what role that is currently
Speaker 1: playing in terms of what we are and are not
Speaker 1: able to do in the US, all of which is
Speaker 1: offensive to the idea of the consent of the government.
Speaker 1: We are supposed to govern ourselves, and we are not
Speaker 1: governing ourselves for reasons we don't understand until we get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of what Epstein was, who he was
Speaker 1: interacting with, what he has on them, what they've been
Speaker 1: doing for however many years that leverage existed, and pretending
Speaker 1: that this is about the individual and that his death,
Speaker 1: assuming he died, is therefore the final story in that
Speaker 1: tale is nonsense. So I'm agnostic about what's really going on.
Speaker 1: I think there's a range of possibilities. There's a very
Speaker 1: remote possibility that Trump was, you know, an alternative narrative,
Speaker 1: you know, where we've been given the ability to choose
Speaker 1: between tide and cheer, and that it's not a real distinction.
Speaker 1: I don't. I really don't think that's what happened, But
Speaker 1: I think we have to leave it alive as a
Speaker 1: a formal possibility. Sure, but then I think what I'm
Speaker 1: reading looks like leverage was brought to bear and it
Speaker 1: is now shaping what the Trump administration will and will
Speaker 1: not accomplish from the priorities that I assume it had
Speaker 1: coming into office.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree with all of that. I think it's
Speaker 3: a very fair analysis. I have to wonder if the
Speaker 3: Butler Pennsylvania attack wasn't some sort of an inflection point
Speaker 3: where you know, they got that close to taking him
Speaker 3: out and he's just like and maybe it requires a
Speaker 3: phone call, maybe it doesn't, but you just ultimately there
Speaker 3: is a shift in. But also the shift happens once
Speaker 3: he gets into power. So it's just very hard to say.
Speaker 3: I can't really establish a divination point or whatever the
Speaker 3: word is. It's it's just very frustrating, and I think,
Speaker 3: you know, just to kind of lay my cards in
Speaker 3: the table. The reason I'm so I don't know, exhausted,
Speaker 3: is that I just recognize what I think you probably
Speaker 3: recognized too, is that this is just such an existential
Speaker 3: moment for this country. And not just for this country,
Speaker 3: but for the planet. When it's like America represents such
Speaker 3: a important pivot point for human freedom and prosperity and
Speaker 3: capitalism and all of these things that I really hold
Speaker 3: dear self defense, free speech, and just the lockdown COVID era,
Speaker 3: which Trump did preside over, at least in large part,
Speaker 3: was such a huge diversion from that path of this
Speaker 3: country that I love so much. And it's just like,
Speaker 3: and then you have these proxy wars all over the world,
Speaker 3: but particularly in Ukraine, which really disturbs me. And it
Speaker 3: just feels as if in the censorship apparatus that was
Speaker 3: rolled out during the COVID era, and it's like, just
Speaker 3: all of this right, and then you have thirty seven
Speaker 3: trillion dollars in debt. As a libertarian Austrian guy, I
Speaker 3: can't help but pay attention to that. And it's just like,
Speaker 3: the dollar is on the precipice of collapse. If that happens,
Speaker 3: dollar reserve status ends, then the chickens really come home
Speaker 3: to roost. Inflation can like basically I'm just laying all
Speaker 3: the cards on the table to say, this is a
Speaker 3: really important point for real leadership, not a puppet not
Speaker 3: a guy who's seventy percent a real boy and thirty
Speaker 3: percent not. Like we need a real hero. We need
Speaker 3: someone to risk something, and I mean major And it's
Speaker 3: not to say that Trump hasn't something, but we just
Speaker 3: we kind of need a hero right now. And he's
Speaker 3: not acting in that heroic level of courageousness that I
Speaker 3: would I would like to see, particularly from someone who's
Speaker 3: only got ten or twenty years left on the planet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I exactly agree with that he is not doing
Speaker 1: what I would hope a patriot would do in his shoes,
Speaker 1: with the acknowledgment that I don't exactly know what he's
Speaker 1: facing and what he's been what's been revealed to him.
Speaker 1: But I also have the sense that the various threads
Speaker 1: are not individual, they are not independent of each other,
Speaker 1: That somehow Ukraine is very important for some reason, like
Speaker 1: it's a money laundering operation that is not entirely distinct
Speaker 1: from what's taking place in the Middle East. There seems
Speaker 1: to be a kind of necessity to keep the Ukraine
Speaker 1: conflict going, and I don't think it's entirely independent of
Speaker 1: any of these other structures. I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: connected to trafficking that you need. You need a location
Speaker 1: with sufficient chaos to shield human trafficking. That you need
Speaker 1: a place that you can get the US Congress to
Speaker 1: send American tax dollars where they will become untraceable and
Speaker 1: will circle back into elections and conflicts, and you know,
Speaker 1: they become a black budget for whatever entities are wielding power.
Speaker 1: I know that Benjamin Netanyahu is a diabolical figure, both
Speaker 1: in the context of COVID and the context of the
Speaker 1: war in the Middle East. He is also connected in
Speaker 1: a way that I think is completely unforgivable to October
Speaker 1: seventh itself. That his funding of Hamas means that Israel's
Speaker 1: number one priority after October seventh should have been removing
Speaker 1: bet Yahu from power, and having done priority one, its
Speaker 1: second priority should have been getting to the bottom of
Speaker 1: how exactly that failure could possibly have happened. You know,
Speaker 1: whether that was that you know Hamas or Iran had
Speaker 1: moles inside of the Israeli security apparatus, or there was
Speaker 1: collusion or whatever it was. They needed to get rid
Speaker 1: of Benjamin att Yahu and they needed to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of that, and having done neither, it creates
Speaker 1: a stench surrounding the events in Gaza that I can't
Speaker 1: look past. But again, my point is, I don't like
Speaker 1: the sense that the calamity of COVID and the calamity
Speaker 1: of Gaza and the calamity of Ukraine are all part
Speaker 1: of some story that no one's ever told me. I
Speaker 1: think they're not independent. And given such a thing, we
Speaker 1: need to know there is no higher priority. And Trump
Speaker 1: can't tell us hey, get over this or that and
Speaker 1: I'll do some other cool stuff for you. This is
Speaker 1: really about whether or not there is a United States
Speaker 1: of America that functions under a constitution that we can
Speaker 1: all go read.
Speaker 3: Right, It's like, hey, you just have to let us
Speaker 3: continue to let the intelligence agencies traffic children to the
Speaker 3: rich and powerful to blackmail them, but you get no
Speaker 3: tax on tips. It's like, that's not fucking good enough. Okay,
Speaker 3: excuse my language, but it's just not it's just not acceptable.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's absolutely insane to me. I did
Speaker 3: want to ask you your Your brother Eric actually said
Speaker 3: something very interesting about Epstein. He gave this lengthy, kind
Speaker 3: of cryptic answer where he hinted at Epstein being more
Speaker 3: than just about compromising you know politicians in corporate America,
Speaker 3: figures even, but rather big tech, and he didn't. He
Speaker 3: didn't clarify much, and he kept it kind of vague.
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Epstein conducted a conference called Confronting Gravity. I don't
Speaker 4: know who Jeffrey Epstein was, but I would certainly bet
Speaker 4: money that he was a product of at least one
Speaker 4: or more elements of the intelligence community. I desperately want
Speaker 4: to know why Jeffrey Epstein knew so much about my work,
Speaker 4: and I want to know why he was connected to
Speaker 4: my graduate program. I was in the Harvard Mathematics department.
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Epstein was absolutely connected to the Harvard math department.
Speaker 4: I want to know why. I don't know who he was.
Speaker 4: I don't know who ran him. He certainly was not
Speaker 4: a financier in any standard sense. Really that was a
Speaker 4: cover story. Yes, he wasn't a financier. Of the day
Speaker 4: I met him, he was a weird guy. Didn't seem
Speaker 4: to know a lot about currency trading.
Speaker 3: What the fuck was he doing talking about buddy Gravity.
Speaker 4: It's very important to get Nobel laureates and some of
Speaker 4: the smartest people on earth to come to the Virgin
Speaker 4: Islands and talk about gravity. Stephen Hawkins was there, David
Speaker 4: Gross was there, Lawrence Krauss was there, Lisa Randall was
Speaker 4: there right before his conviction.
Speaker 3: So I'm not asking you to read his mind, but
Speaker 3: I'm just curious what your thoughts are, if you've seen that,
Speaker 3: and if you have any thoughts as to like. And
Speaker 3: I'm not asking for a firm answer, because I realized
Speaker 3: neither of us know. But what do you think Epstein
Speaker 3: was really a doing? I mean, because I do. I
Speaker 3: think it was much bigger than just trafficking.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think you know, trafficking, if you understand it
Speaker 1: correctly in the context of Epstein, is a means to
Speaker 1: an end, and the fact that Epstein and whoever he
Speaker 1: was partnered with were willing to do this in pursuit
Speaker 1: of some other objective is ghastly. But don't lose sight
Speaker 1: of the fact that it had a purpose. The purpose
Speaker 1: was not perversion. The purpose was power. And I think what,
Speaker 1: of course he was seeking to create leverage in every
Speaker 1: realm that's meaningful. Why wouldn't you? Of course you would.
Speaker 1: And so I think the thing is we have been
Speaker 1: left with the job. You and I are doing the
Speaker 1: job that the FBI is supposed to do right. We're
Speaker 1: supposed to be trying to figure out a theory of
Speaker 1: the case, and that's not our job. This is why
Speaker 1: we elected this administration. This was one of the things
Speaker 1: that was a high priority. And it isn't like we
Speaker 1: assumed that when they got into power they would do this.
Speaker 1: They told us they would, and having now told us
Speaker 1: they won't, we got a problem on our hands. What
Speaker 1: we now know is that the leverage generated is greater
Speaker 1: than we assumed. The leverage, whatever its nature, is sufficient
Speaker 1: to deviate this administration from that priority, and it means
Speaker 1: that we should elevate that priority, and in fact, we should,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, hold Trump to it. We should tell
Speaker 1: them we're not gonna jump. We're not going to assume
Speaker 1: that what we're seeing is true. In the age of AI,
Speaker 1: we have to assume. As you know, the longer we
Speaker 1: wait to get that evidence, the less useful it is,
Speaker 1: because the less we know what part of it is real.
Speaker 1: So this is this is a five alarm fire right now,
Speaker 1: and I don't see a higher priority even though there
Speaker 1: are lots of you know, it will not materially change
Speaker 1: our life in the immediate but the ability to get
Speaker 1: the dirty people away from the levers of power couldn't
Speaker 1: possibly be a higher priority if you understand how power works.
Speaker 3: No disagreement. I think that's that's exactly right. And I
Speaker 3: also think that's why the COVID justice is so important,
Speaker 3: because if I'm right, and I don't know for sure
Speaker 3: that I am, again, like you said, you know, this
Speaker 3: is better left to the FBI if we had a
Speaker 3: legitimate functioning FBI, but we don't, so podcasters are now
Speaker 3: trying to figure out former mortgage brokers and biologists are
Speaker 3: trying to figure out, like what the fuck happened here?
Speaker 3: But I think that it was a bioweapon. I think
Speaker 3: that COVID was, and I mean there's a question as
Speaker 3: to the v and the solution as to whether or
Speaker 3: not that was also a web, but whatever, I just
Speaker 3: think that it's obvious to me that that also, as
Speaker 3: you were saying earlier, like all of these stories seemed
Speaker 3: to be intertwined, or at least certain fabrics of them
Speaker 3: are intertwined. I mean, Tulci Gabbard has acknowledged this. You
Speaker 3: had Victoria Nuland acknowledges under direct inquiry from Marco Rubio
Speaker 3: of all people Secretary of State, who I think was
Speaker 3: asking this question expecting her not to acknowledge it, but
Speaker 3: she did, which was that there was bioweapons labs in Ukraine.
Speaker 5: Brain has biological research facilities which in fact, we are
Speaker 5: now quite concerned Russian troops Russian forces may be seeking
Speaker 5: to gain control of. So we are working with the
Speaker 5: Ukrainians how they can prevent any of those research materials
Speaker 5: from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approve?
Speaker 3: And it makes me wonder if that's not a big
Speaker 3: part of the reason that Ukraine is so important, that
Speaker 3: these labs might actually uncover the genuine origin story of COVID,
Speaker 3: as opposed to the Wuhan, which I think may have
Speaker 3: been the finalization phase of the creation of it. Again,
Speaker 3: I don't expect you to have a firm answer on this,
Speaker 3: but I'm curious what your thoughts are as to that.
Speaker 3: Do you think that that's accurate at all? Am I
Speaker 3: a lunatic? Please tell me I'm crazy?
Speaker 1: I wish I could. I would say we are beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt that sars Kov two was generated in
Speaker 1: the course of bioweapons research. Was it a bioweapon? I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's possible that it is an escape and
Speaker 1: that they didn't get to what they were looking for,
Speaker 1: and so it is not a weapon in that sense.
Speaker 1: But it was bio weapons research that added the fern
Speaker 1: cleavage site. I believe I know what they were thinking
Speaker 1: at a general level. They were looking for weaponizable pathogens
Speaker 1: in viral clades that are not capable of infecting and
Speaker 1: certainly not spreading between humans. They were trying to create
Speaker 1: a bug that did that. For what purpose unclear. Were
Speaker 1: they trying to create something deadly enough to be used
Speaker 1: as a weapon in the battlefield sense. Maybe were they
Speaker 1: trying to justify a shot that they had created for
Speaker 1: other reasons. Maybe. I find the fact that the mRNA
Speaker 1: shots trigger the production of IgG four extremely troubling. This
Speaker 1: suggests that they may have inverted the normal expectation for
Speaker 1: a weaponized pathogen. In other words, in general, if you
Speaker 1: were a weapons a bioweapons person, you would want to
Speaker 1: create a deadly pathogen and an immunity generating vaccine. You
Speaker 1: could deploy your vaccine to the population you wanted to protect,
Speaker 1: release the pathogen, and thereby do selective damage. But in
Speaker 1: this case, the vaccine creates vulnerability. Not only does it
Speaker 1: not work to prevent contraction and transmission of the disease,
Speaker 1: but it tells the immune system to stand down in
Speaker 1: response to the spike protein. So instead of a vaccine
Speaker 1: that creates immunity, which is the definition of vaccine, it
Speaker 1: creates a vulnerability. So if you just simply imagine that,
Speaker 1: you don't know who's flag doctor Fauci actually flies. Well,
Speaker 1: what he did was he created an emergency that caused
Speaker 1: people to take an immunosuppressive shot. So, okay, here you've
Speaker 1: got a bioweapons maker, highest paid member of the federal government,
Speaker 1: who just gave every American who would listen to him
Speaker 1: a shot that suppresses their immunity to a pathogen that
Speaker 1: is now circulating. That sounds to me like a very
Speaker 1: successful bioweapons planet, just targeted against the population. I didn't
Speaker 1: expect to be targeted by doctor Fauci. Now, maybe he
Speaker 1: accidentally did that. I just don't I don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on, and I think I will say I think COVID,
Speaker 1: much like Epstein, is the story we have to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of in order to understand what world
Speaker 1: we live in.
Speaker 3: Man that was heavy and I agree with all of it,
Speaker 3: and I've asked myself that, you know, in my my
Speaker 3: scarier hours of introspection, that is which was the weapon?
Speaker 3: You know, because when you really look at it, like
Speaker 3: COVID was relatively benign, especially for the young and healthy,
Speaker 3: it was like almost entirely benign. I got it. It
Speaker 3: was not much more than a flu. Whereas you know,
Speaker 3: my stepdad, who was very healthy after his second you know, shot,
Speaker 3: he had a heart attack and nearly died. And it
Speaker 3: was very very close after a few weeks after, which
Speaker 3: apparently is like the window when a lot of people
Speaker 3: have negative consequences. And I hope that I'm safe to
Speaker 3: talk about it at this point. I think it's just
Speaker 3: beyond the pale reprehensible that we weren't allowed to talk
Speaker 3: about these things when it mattered most, when we had,
Speaker 3: you know, when everybody I knew knew somebody who was
Speaker 3: either hurt or dropping dead from this stuff. But it really,
Speaker 3: I mean, the origin story it comes out of it
Speaker 3: looks as if it comes out of unc Chapel Hill,
Speaker 3: and then you have these murmurings about biolabs in Ukraine,
Speaker 3: and then the official story now is that it came
Speaker 3: out of Wuhan, but the official story prior was that
Speaker 3: it came out of the wet market near Wuhan, which
Speaker 3: John Stewart did a great joke on that. But setting
Speaker 3: that aside anyways, point being, this thing is like global
Speaker 3: in scope. It seems to migrate. So there's also been
Speaker 3: reports that Canada Canadian labs were involved in the creation potentially.
Speaker 3: I can't make heads or tails of it, other than
Speaker 3: to say it's obvious to me that this was very
Speaker 3: important to the government on some level. It looks like
Speaker 3: DARPA actually rejected it because it was too dangerous. Fauci
Speaker 3: offshores it to circumvent the laws that were put in
Speaker 3: place under Obama to prevent this type of shit, and
Speaker 3: then it still happens. But everybody is given immunity as
Speaker 3: the corpse, as the cadaver of Joe Biden is wheeled
Speaker 3: out of the White House, everybody's given immunity, including Fauci.
Speaker 3: And it's just so obvious to me that like this
Speaker 3: was whatever ran that operation really runs the world. Is
Speaker 3: that fair?
Speaker 1: Yeah, certainly the implication, And I would point out there's
Speaker 1: something very odd about the fact that Israel was explicitly
Speaker 1: Pfiser's laboratory colony that surprises the hell out of me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: zev Zelenko, before he died, told me that Netanyahu had
Speaker 1: burned an entire warehouse of hydroxychloroquin, which is highly effective
Speaker 1: against stars Kobe two. So there's something very strange going on,
Speaker 1: and it circulates, you know, Yeah, bioweapons labs in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Israel is Pfiser's laboratory. What the hell is really going on?
Speaker 1: I did want to add a possibility to your to
Speaker 1: your speculation earlier about what the weapon is. Third possibility
Speaker 1: is that the weapon isn't the virus, and it isn't
Speaker 1: the shot. That it's a virus that oh is engineered
Speaker 1: to have the spike protein that will trigger those who
Speaker 1: were vaccinated to suppress their own immunity. Because you can
Speaker 1: now take that spike protein put it on. Any virus
Speaker 1: doesn't even have to be a coronavirus. It just has
Speaker 1: to fly that flag in order to get the immune
Speaker 1: system to fire off this response that has now been
Speaker 1: encoded into the immune systems of a great majority of Americans.
Speaker 1: So the whole thing requires people who are beyond reproach,
Speaker 1: delving and going as deep as they need to go
Speaker 1: to find out what this was and telling us we
Speaker 1: need transparent across all of COVID. The story doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: We've made great headway on figuring out elements of it,
Speaker 1: but we have to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: I don't care that people are sick of talking about COVID.
Speaker 1: This isn't about COVID. This is about next time.
Speaker 3: Yes, oh no, I could not agree more. And it's
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just bizarre to me that, like, people
Speaker 3: aren't sick about talking about JFK, you know, sixty plus
Speaker 3: years later. But like the large just even if you
Speaker 3: take away all of the human suffering and loss of
Speaker 3: life and loss of freedom, it's also the largest transfer
Speaker 3: of wealth in human history. We're talking about trillions and
Speaker 3: trillions of dollars that were transferred from largely the poor
Speaker 3: and middle class to the uber wealthy. Then you have
Speaker 3: the audacity to hear democrats lament income inequality, and it's like,
Speaker 3: you guys were the biggest proponents of the lockdowns. You
Speaker 3: didn't give a shit about the small business devastation that
Speaker 3: was the consequence of these behaviors. I mean, it's just
Speaker 3: that's just a small fraction of the inhumanity that we
Speaker 3: dealt with during that era. As you can tell maybe
Speaker 3: my show being Liberty Lockdown. I still take this very
Speaker 3: seriously and I think it's I think it's the biggest,
Speaker 3: most egregious infringement on so many levels I've ever seen
Speaker 3: in my life. And I just can't believe that people
Speaker 3: are like, let's move on. It's like, I honestly think
Speaker 3: it's so severe, it was so serious, it was so
Speaker 3: brutal that people don't want to think about it anymore.
Speaker 3: What do you think about that? Is that like the
Speaker 3: primary driving force between or by people that want to
Speaker 3: move past this or are they just really they don't care.
Speaker 1: No, it's not that they don't care. I think there
Speaker 1: is a lot of shame and fear. People are ashamed
Speaker 1: of what they participated in, and they fear what they
Speaker 1: did to themselves, and both of those things have them
Speaker 1: wanting to not talk about it. And again my point is,
Speaker 1: this isn't about history. This is about next time, whatever
Speaker 1: it's going to be. So my sense is you either
Speaker 1: have made eye contact with the fact that COVID was
Speaker 1: two things. It was as successful as the tyrants have
Speaker 1: yet gotten in controlling the global population. And it is
Speaker 1: also the best window we are ever going to have
Speaker 1: to understanding what power is really up to. Because we
Speaker 1: made surprising progress, mostly in podcast land, fighting back and
Speaker 1: unearthing the truth about viral origins, about repurposed drugs, about
Speaker 1: vaccine safety and effectiveness, we have a leg up on
Speaker 1: this story, so we have to pursue it. If you
Speaker 1: understand what COVID was, you understand why we have to
Speaker 1: pursue it, whether or not you ever want to hear
Speaker 1: the word COVID again. And the only thing that competes
Speaker 1: with it in terms of importance is Epstein. Right, these
Speaker 1: are the two places where Goliath showed his hand, and
Speaker 1: having showed his hand, those are the things that we
Speaker 1: have to pursue wherever they lead in order to get
Speaker 1: back to consent of the governed. Right. If you surrender
Speaker 1: on either of those issues, you're effectively saying, I'm okay
Speaker 1: with election theater, but I'm not I'm not going to
Speaker 1: die on the hill labeled consent of the government. And
Speaker 1: my feeling is if you're not going to die on
Speaker 1: that hill, it's done.
Speaker 3: Today's episode is once again brought to you by our
Speaker 3: friends over at Crowd health. Health insurance is confusing, it's expensive,
Speaker 3: it's frustrating, and claim denials are becoming more and more common. Fact,
Speaker 3: one in five Obamacare claims were denied last year, and
Speaker 3: that is simply unacceptable. You need a better option, and
Speaker 3: that better option exists. It's called crowd health. Stop sending
Speaker 3: your money to big insurance companies who profit off of
Speaker 3: not paying your bills and check out crowd health. For
Speaker 3: one hundred and seventy five dollars for an individual or
Speaker 3: five hundred and seventy five dollars for a family of
Speaker 3: four or more, you could access to a community of
Speaker 3: people who are willing to help out in the event
Speaker 3: of emergency. You got access to telemedicine, visits and so
Speaker 3: much more without doctor's networks getting in the way. And
Speaker 3: of course, you'll join the crowd group of members just
Speaker 3: like you will want to help pay for each other's
Speaker 3: unexpected medical events. Let crowd health help with your healthcare needs.
Speaker 3: Get started today for just ninety nine dollars per month
Speaker 3: for your first three months by using the code lockdown
Speaker 3: at join crowdhealth dot com. Crowdhealth is not insurance. Learn
Speaker 3: more at joincrowdhealth dot com. That's join crowdhealth dot com,
Speaker 3: code lockdown, let's get back into the show. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 3: and I think it's it's funny because there's such a
Speaker 3: huge percentage of Trump's base, who are, you know, thoroughly
Speaker 3: convinced that he was robbed of the election in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty And maybe it was, I don't know, but they
Speaker 3: there are also some of the same people that are like,
Speaker 3: let's move on from COVID. And it's like, bro, if
Speaker 3: you if you think that the election was stolen from
Speaker 3: Trump just at the ballot box, but you think that
Speaker 3: COVID wasn't part of that, Like what are we even
Speaker 3: talking about here? Just seems like a kind of a
Speaker 3: myopia or myopia, like they're just not they're not seeing
Speaker 3: the full scope. If you think that, you know, a
Speaker 3: lot of the same people will be like totally convinced
Speaker 3: that the deep state tried to shoot Trump Butler Pennsylvania,
Speaker 3: but they can't imagine this COVID thing being rolled out. Anyways,
Speaker 3: I did want to just kind of swing back to
Speaker 3: a broader picture question, and I'll grant I know you're
Speaker 3: already going to say, you don't know what percentage of
Speaker 3: this was just about Donald Trump? The COVID era because
Speaker 3: to me, I struggle to imagine, no matter how depraved
Speaker 3: and sick the people that actually run this country or
Speaker 3: this world are, that they would do that just to
Speaker 3: get rid of Donald Trump. It has to be a
Speaker 3: bigger plot. I do think it's very interesting, very confusing.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm gonna throw multiple questions at just simultaneously.
Speaker 3: But the fact that the creation of it seems to
Speaker 3: as we already detailed, you know, American labs kind of
Speaker 3: the origin, Canada, Ukraine, China. China is kind of the
Speaker 3: talked about enemy of America, at least from the GOP
Speaker 3: side of the aisle. They talk about that all the time,
Speaker 3: and yet we we still talk about them being involved
Speaker 3: in the creation of this virus that killed millions of people,
Speaker 3: but we're not at war with them, so that that
Speaker 3: automatically there's a conflict there. I'm just curious, what do
Speaker 3: you like if you had to guess, and it seems
Speaker 3: like there's multiple factors, but if you had to guess,
Speaker 3: what was the purpose of it? And do you think
Speaker 3: China was in on it with America.
Speaker 1: I've I've gotten better at thinking about this issue as
Speaker 1: i've abandoned the idea that you can look at a
Speaker 1: map and you can see a place labeled China. That's
Speaker 1: a good point to it as one thing. And I
Speaker 1: don't think you can do it with the US either.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 1: I know because I'm an American and I pay attention
Speaker 1: that if you had looked at the b behavior of
Speaker 1: the Biden administration and you had said, well, the Americans
Speaker 1: are trying to do X, you're not speaking for me,
Speaker 1: right The Biden administration was my enemy. And so my
Speaker 1: sense is China is multiple things. One of them appears
Speaker 1: to be partnered with something over in the American deep state,
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Committee. I don't know why, but there's
Speaker 1: something odd about the fact that we're doing bioweapons research
Speaker 1: in partnership with the Chinese. Explain that one to me
Speaker 1: right now. It would make sense if you had a
Speaker 1: cabal that had a Chinese element that wants a bioweapon
Speaker 1: for reasons that are not in the interest of some
Speaker 1: nation but are in the interest of the cabal, that
Speaker 1: would make sense. But I think China, I think the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party is a hazard to us. I think
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party has some kind of a factional
Speaker 1: war going on within it as you might expect it would,
Speaker 1: and that if you don't understand it, and I don't,
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on this topic at all, it
Speaker 1: makes the entire situation perplexing. But I would also point
Speaker 1: out the following observation about domestic policy. I know that
Speaker 1: I voted for an aggressive removal of aliens who came
Speaker 1: in through the border that the Democratic Party opened up,
Speaker 1: that the Democratic Party had some purpose in inviting a
Speaker 1: huge influx of immigrants. And I'm not anti immigrant, I
Speaker 1: am I'm very troubled by anybody who crossed while we
Speaker 1: weren't taking names, had no process, and were inviting them
Speaker 1: using international organizations to facilitate their transit. I mean, as
Speaker 1: you probably know, I went to the Dairien Gap and
Speaker 1: I watched the invasion taking place, and my sense was
Speaker 1: that not only needed to stop, but that so many
Speaker 1: people came in so quickly without us assessing whether they
Speaker 1: were here to join us or to burn the place down,
Speaker 1: that we needed an aggressive reversal. And I've seen aggressive
Speaker 1: immigration policy, but it has targeted lots of people that
Speaker 1: I don't think are a security priority. But what I
Speaker 1: have not seen is did we go looking for the
Speaker 1: large number of military age Chinese males that we know
Speaker 1: flowed into the country. I haven't seen any of that.
Speaker 1: Did I miss it?
Speaker 3: And I haven't seen a single report.
Speaker 1: You would imagine that not only would that be a
Speaker 1: focus of the Trump administration because it would be because
Speaker 1: it's alarming for good reason, but you would also imagine
Speaker 1: that it would be a pr victory for them if
Speaker 1: they were to find out where those people went and
Speaker 1: send them home. And so the absence of that story,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a clear dog that didn't bark. Why
Speaker 1: is the Trump administration not pursuing the vast number of
Speaker 1: people who came from the Middle East or Asia over
Speaker 1: our open border after having campaigned on the horror of
Speaker 1: that very thing?
Speaker 3: Yeah? No, I agree. I Actually I had Chris Martinson
Speaker 3: on my show of like right after I think, did
Speaker 3: he go with you too? The day gap?
Speaker 2: Will?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, And that was one of the scariest conversations
Speaker 3: I had ever had because I that was totally off
Speaker 3: my radar at the time. I was doing the research
Speaker 3: on the NGO networks that were behind some of the
Speaker 3: mass legal immigration that had largely destroyed Europe if I'm
Speaker 3: being honest and was being utilized to I think undermine
Speaker 3: and destroy the electoral process in America. I wanted to
Speaker 3: I wanted to circle back to your broader point about
Speaker 3: how not looking at these as nation states has helped
Speaker 3: in your analysis, and I actually agree with you on that,
Speaker 3: But it then begs the question of, like, if if
Speaker 3: this is not a nation state US versus them type
Speaker 3: of analysis that were participating in, how how do we
Speaker 3: distinguish friend from foe? Like how do we know who's
Speaker 3: on our side who's not? I mean, I think this
Speaker 3: is like the biggest challenge of the past year for
Speaker 3: me is that, you know, like I've got my close circle.
Speaker 3: I got like and Dave Smith and Tom Woods and
Speaker 3: Scott Horton, and you know it, I'll includes you and
Speaker 3: Angela mccartil. It's like, I know these people are for real,
Speaker 3: and then everybody else I'm like, I have no fucking clue.
Speaker 3: Like these people could absolutely be plants. They could be
Speaker 3: FBI informansts that are trying to take me down. Like
Speaker 3: you start to get paranoid because it's just there's so
Speaker 3: many examples of people talking to talk like cash Battel.
Speaker 3: I did the panel with Cashptell and you and and
Speaker 3: then he gets in there and he just like is
Speaker 3: not delivering. So I'm sorry, the real random tangent die try.
Speaker 3: But how do you distinguish friend from foe? Especially if
Speaker 3: Nation States can't even assist us in that process?
Speaker 1: There is no perfect answer to that. Nor if this,
Speaker 1: I believe you could almost prove there's no perfect answer,
Speaker 1: because let's imagine for a second that there was a
Speaker 1: perfect answer, there was some set of characteristics that nailed
Speaker 1: it well, and in a sufficiently significant situation, somebody could
Speaker 1: arrange for those characteristics all to show up in some
Speaker 1: entity who would then five years later, you know, pull
Speaker 1: a fast one. So there cannot be a hard and
Speaker 1: fast rule. However, there are things that increase one's confidence
Speaker 1: and things that should decrease it. And I would say
Speaker 1: a long track record is hard to fake. In other words,
Speaker 1: let's just take me as an example. You can go
Speaker 1: back and you can find you know, the Evergreen story
Speaker 1: is twenty seventeen. Okay, so that was very public and
Speaker 1: I've been a public person ever since. Not only that,
Speaker 1: but you've got me and Heather talking, you know, once
Speaker 1: a week at length on many different topics, and you
Speaker 1: can see that the marriage is real, Like you can
Speaker 1: see that we get annoyed with each other and you
Speaker 1: know it. So the point is, what would happen to be.
Speaker 3: Like a very happy and healthy marriage. To be honest,
Speaker 3: I'm you guys, give me hope.
Speaker 1: It's it's the best. But I guess my point is
Speaker 1: how long ago would you have to have been planning
Speaker 1: in order if you wanted to fake such a thing?
Speaker 1: Like you know, you ever watched the show The Americans,
Speaker 1: which the Russians create a phony family of spies, right, Well,
Speaker 1: the point is that's not inconceivable, but you have to
Speaker 1: have played a It requires a very large budget, it
Speaker 1: requires extensive training, and it's not perfect. You know. The
Speaker 1: whole premise of the show The Americans was that they
Speaker 1: were always sort of in danger of being exposed. You know,
Speaker 1: the FBI guy moves in across the street from them,
Speaker 1: and their story isn't perfect and all of that. So anyway,
Speaker 1: a long track record, an unlikely track record, those things
Speaker 1: increase confidence. The most important one is have you paid
Speaker 1: a price for integrity? In other words, in a case
Speaker 1: where you had an opportunity to profit more, have you
Speaker 1: forgone profit in order to do what was right in
Speaker 1: a context in which we can check what actually took
Speaker 1: place that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: Is there an obvious sacrifice at some point in the
Speaker 3: origin story?
Speaker 1: Yeah, obvious sacrifice. I would say. One thing I've learned
Speaker 1: personally from having been canceled now multiple times on multiple
Speaker 1: different topics.
Speaker 7: Is.
Speaker 1: I lost friends each time this happened. And what that
Speaker 1: tells you is that those weren't really friends in any
Speaker 1: deep sense to begin with. Right, if a friend is
Speaker 1: going to walk away from you because a bunch of
Speaker 1: people who don't know you are accusing you of racism,
Speaker 1: then that may have been somebody who was pleasant to
Speaker 1: be around. They may have been a good cook, but
Speaker 1: they weren't a friend. Because a friend knows you well
Speaker 1: enough to know that what's being said about you is
Speaker 1: bullshit and to stand up and say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't care who you are, you're wrong. So I
Speaker 1: think everybody would in some sense be sadder, but I
Speaker 1: don't want to I take back sadder, but wiser. I
Speaker 1: am not sadder. I am much wiser having been through
Speaker 1: this multiple times, and my friend group is much better.
Speaker 1: Why because all the people who weren't up to being
Speaker 1: friends have been purged over multiple different topics, and so
Speaker 1: what I'm left with are people who don't frighten easily
Speaker 1: and who do the right thing, even when it's painful
Speaker 1: and expensive. So soldiers, Yeah, people, Well, I mean my
Speaker 1: joke is, you know, I'd share a foxhole with you anytime. Look,
Speaker 1: a foxhole is not a pleasant place to be spending
Speaker 1: your time, but the quality of people that you're in
Speaker 1: the foxhole with is everything.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 1: You can endure the horror of you know, the mud
Speaker 1: and the cold if the people who are in the
Speaker 1: foxhole with you are you know, ready to back you up.
Speaker 1: So anyway, I guess what I would say is most
Speaker 1: people do not have the benefit of having been under
Speaker 1: fire and watched a bunch of friends flee and a
Speaker 1: bunch of other people show up and do the right thing.
Speaker 1: If I could, if I could give a gift to
Speaker 1: the average person, it would be that experience. Right, You
Speaker 1: don't really want to be investing in the people who
Speaker 1: are going to flee if somebody hurls a dumb act
Speaker 1: usation at you, It's not worth it. I don't care
Speaker 1: how much fun it is. Yeah, that is not somebody
Speaker 1: you want to invest your time in. So anyway, I
Speaker 1: would just say, pay attention somebody who showed up late
Speaker 1: to your world, somebody who hasn't demonstrated a willingness to
Speaker 1: sacrifice for integrity. Those are, you know, not necessarily fatal.
Speaker 1: A good person could show up anytime and you might
Speaker 1: not have seen them have to sacrifice. But it means
Speaker 1: what you know about them is a lot less than
Speaker 1: you'd like to. Now.
Speaker 3: Look, I may get you in trouble here, but I
Speaker 3: don't think I will. I gotta say everything that you
Speaker 3: just described in terms of a checklist of people to
Speaker 3: be questionable of jd. Vance. Jady Vance is the guy
Speaker 3: who immediately springs to mind. Seems to have been kind
Speaker 3: of just launched out of relative obscurity thanks to in
Speaker 3: part Toker Carlson having him on a lot, but also
Speaker 3: Peter Teel and his five million dollars that got him
Speaker 3: into the Senate.
Speaker 7: Yeah, my political advice to the Democrats is continue to
Speaker 7: tell everybody who thinks Sidney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi.
Speaker 7: That appears to be their actual strategy, and I mean
Speaker 7: it actually reveals something pretty interesting about the Dems, though,
Speaker 7: which is that you have like a normal, all American
Speaker 7: beautiful girl during doing like a normal genes ad. Right,
Speaker 7: they're trying to sell, you know, sell jeans to kids
Speaker 7: in America, and they have managed to so unhinge themselves
Speaker 7: over this thing. And it's like, you, guys, did you
Speaker 7: learn nothing from the November twenty twenty four election. Like
Speaker 7: I actually thought that one of the lessons they might
Speaker 7: take is we're going to be less crazy. The lesson
Speaker 7: they have apparently taken is we're going to attack people
Speaker 7: as Nazis for thinking Sidney Sweeney is beautiful.
Speaker 3: Great strategy, guys, that's.
Speaker 7: How you're going to win the mid terms, especially young
Speaker 7: American men.
Speaker 3: What are your thoughts about jad Vance? Is he is
Speaker 3: he a something to be keeping an eye on for
Speaker 3: good or bad reasons?
Speaker 1: Well, I say, I don't want to convict somebody who
Speaker 1: hasn't done anything wrong that I can see.
Speaker 3: On him.
Speaker 1: Now. No, Yeah, I think you're you're you're asking exactly
Speaker 1: the right question. And in a case like JD. Vance,
Speaker 1: I am absolutely ready to discover that he's a great
Speaker 1: guy with integrity. But I am aware that in terms
Speaker 1: of what I actually know about him, I have no
Speaker 1: security that he's a good guy. So again, that's not
Speaker 1: his fault. The fact that he comes to my awareness
Speaker 1: late is just a fact of history. But it means
Speaker 1: in terms of how much weight I'm willing to put
Speaker 1: on that ice, I'm not willing to put any weight
Speaker 1: on that ice. I would love for him to turn
Speaker 1: out to be a high integrity, courageous guy because frankly,
Speaker 1: we don't have very many of them in positions of power,
Speaker 1: and it would be wonderful if he was one, because
Speaker 1: he's now in a place where he could take over
Speaker 1: the range of power exactly real. So let's put it
Speaker 1: this way. I'm rooting for him, but I'm not a believer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, no, same boat, And I don't I don't
Speaker 3: want to give up all hope all electoral outcomes, especially
Speaker 3: with the description that you gave about, you know, not
Speaker 3: being able to identify nation states anymore as to like
Speaker 3: friend and foe. Yeah, it's you know, if you really
Speaker 3: pay attention, you can probably establish or suss out on
Speaker 3: an individual level, which of these political figures you can
Speaker 3: put some trust in versus those that you should be
Speaker 3: very suspect of. But I was more just thinking about,
Speaker 3: like how how hard it is, Like, I mean, just
Speaker 3: talk about it Israel, you know, Gaza. It's like, if
Speaker 3: you can't distinguish if if the if Hamas soldiers are
Speaker 3: not wearing uniforms, it makes the battlefield just pure chaos.
Speaker 3: It's it's I mean, this is why it's illegal an
Speaker 3: international law to you know, have ununiformed participants in battle,
Speaker 3: because it makes it so that civilians are then jeopardized.
Speaker 3: And it feels as if, even though we're not in
Speaker 3: a hot or kinetic war, it does feel on many
Speaker 3: levels as if we've been in a war for the
Speaker 3: past five years, with our own government kind of punishing
Speaker 3: us uh, and then how to distinguish who's friend and
Speaker 3: foe in that environment, or who's even a domestic participant
Speaker 3: versus an international one. It's just it's all It's like that,
Speaker 3: you know, I thought I was playing chess, but I
Speaker 3: was playing checkers is kind of how I feel with
Speaker 3: my analysis, and and now I'm like, oh, maybe I'm
Speaker 3: playing chess now, but I'm like, I am not equipped
Speaker 3: to play who I'm up against, And I guess that's
Speaker 3: how I feel about it. It's just such it's so
Speaker 3: hard to analyze all these things, and particularly when you
Speaker 3: don't even have a team, because the people with the
Speaker 3: power to force disclosures, to force testimony, they don't seem
Speaker 3: to have the courage to go after it like the
Speaker 3: rabid dogs that we need, you know, we need like
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson to be the ag you know, we need
Speaker 3: someone who's actually willing to risk something. Anyway, Sorry, that
Speaker 3: was a totally random tangent. I do have another question
Speaker 3: for you, but if you have any thoughts on that,
Speaker 3: if what do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, I think we need to start recognizing the pattern,
Speaker 1: which is we beat the odds, We get a certain
Speaker 1: number of our people advanced to the positions from which
Speaker 1: they should be able to do our bidding, and then
Speaker 1: it fails to happen. And that pattern could be that
Speaker 1: we are naive and so the people that we keep
Speaker 1: elevating are somehow being fed to us and they were
Speaker 1: going to disappoint from the get go. Or it could
Speaker 1: be that something happens upon arrival that causes them to
Speaker 1: lose their appetite for doing the right thing. And it's
Speaker 1: probably a mixture. Yeah, but but there's no higher priority.
Speaker 3: No, No, I agree, And I mean that's that's what's
Speaker 3: so frustrating. And I mean if if the threats or
Speaker 3: bribery or whatever that people that get into these positions
Speaker 3: of power, because they can't all be scumbags, like some
Speaker 3: of them have to be for real, sincere, decent people
Speaker 3: that get in there, and they ultimately fail to deliver,
Speaker 3: And it's just like it must be it must be overwhelming,
Speaker 3: because there's just there's just no one that actually or
Speaker 3: other than Thomas Massey is like the only guy I
Speaker 3: really think of that pops to mind. That's like I
Speaker 3: have a full faith that this guy is un compromisable,
Speaker 3: Like he's just he's going to go after it doggedly
Speaker 3: no matter what, whether you're threatening them or whatever. Like
Speaker 3: he just doesn't give a shit. And we need we
Speaker 3: need two hundred and fifty people like that in DC,
Speaker 3: And I think I feel like we could really take
Speaker 3: this this country back. I did. I did want to.
Speaker 3: I know we're running out of time, so I did
Speaker 3: want to ask you a kind of a deep philosophical
Speaker 3: question almost about the the Jewish mindset when it comes
Speaker 3: to the Holocaust. And you know, as you know, I'm
Speaker 3: good friends with Dave Smith, and he's talked a lot
Speaker 3: about this. There's kind of a like the kids of
Speaker 3: Jewish family are like raised into thinking about this probably
Speaker 3: more than is healthy, even you know, in the I
Speaker 3: don't know if that's true, but that's just what he said,
Speaker 3: and it makes me wonder if Israeli behavior in Gaza
Speaker 3: is a product of kind of a broadly traumatized people
Speaker 3: like that they have been so convinced that the world
Speaker 3: is out to get them that when they had their
Speaker 3: own kind of mini nine to eleven, that they have
Speaker 3: now essentially gone mad. And I'm not saying Jewish people broadly,
Speaker 3: but like Israeli's specifically. What do you think of that?
Speaker 6: Is that?
Speaker 3: I mean, is that crazy or is that play a
Speaker 3: part at all?
Speaker 1: It's a difficult question for a number of different reasons,
Speaker 1: and I will ultimately come back to the view from
Speaker 1: thirty thousand feet, which I think is the important thing
Speaker 1: for us to pay attention to. There's no question, and
Speaker 1: I think this is probably less true as time goes on,
Speaker 1: or at least it was. There's no question that Jewish
Speaker 1: homes have focused development around the Holocaust. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's incorrect to do that, because in some sense, the
Speaker 1: message when I got loud and clear, was something happens
Speaker 1: that causes the world around you to melt down into
Speaker 1: a very dangerous place and you don't anticipate it. If
Speaker 1: you grow up under circumstances where anti Semitism isn't an
Speaker 1: important factor in your life, knowing that there is a
Speaker 1: phase transition that happens that causes it to become the
Speaker 1: dominant factor in your life without you having trained for it,
Speaker 1: that's an important thing to know. And I believe it
Speaker 1: is true that said. Part of the reason I think
Speaker 1: there's one aspect of anti Semitism being an important recurrent
Speaker 1: feature of history that has to do simply with Jews
Speaker 1: being a diaspora, and that diaspora means that Jews are
Speaker 1: typically living amongst some other majority population. And it is frankly,
Speaker 1: I think written into the genes that when austerity hits,
Speaker 1: if you go from good times to bad times, there
Speaker 1: is a question about who has resources that they can't protect. Right, So,
Speaker 1: if you imagine that suddenly food stops showing up in
Speaker 1: your town and somebody had stored a bunch of food,
Speaker 1: you could imagine people going and storming their garage and
Speaker 1: taking their food. Right.
Speaker 3: That's why bullets are more important than seeds in the apocalypse.
Speaker 1: They both play a role. But so anyway, the point
Speaker 1: is a diaspora population is in trouble when the music
Speaker 1: stops and there aren't enough chairs. Sure, so that has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with who Jews are. It just has
Speaker 1: to do with how they've existed. Yeah, so you need
Speaker 1: to know if you're Jewish, that can happen wherever you are,
Speaker 1: and you to think about what that will look like,
Speaker 1: because frankly, the Jews in Europe who died were the
Speaker 1: ones who told themselves it was bad, but it would
Speaker 1: eventually pass and get better, and that was a deadly misapprehension.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, once you have this feature of
Speaker 1: your culture that says those people that you are living
Speaker 1: amongst will seem like your friends in good times, and
Speaker 1: then in bad times, something happens that causes a distance
Speaker 1: to be created in the mind that then sets up
Speaker 1: the very pattern in question exactly right. So anyway, what
Speaker 1: I see is a I can find no word other
Speaker 1: than tragic, self fulfilling prophecy.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly the premise of the question, is like,
Speaker 3: that's the that's what it feels like to me, is
Speaker 3: that this is self fulfilling.
Speaker 1: It is self fulfilling. And now I want to go
Speaker 1: back to the view from thirty thousand feet because I
Speaker 1: really think this is the important piece. There are two
Speaker 1: bases on which a civilization can function. One of them
Speaker 1: is shared genes. The civilization in which people are closely
Speaker 1: related to each other has a reason for people to collaborate,
Speaker 1: that is rock solid. The other reason for people to
Speaker 1: collaborate is reciprocity, right, the fact that I'm wealthier and
Speaker 1: you're wealthier if you and I pool our efforts than
Speaker 1: we are if we go it alone. That is also
Speaker 1: a perfectly reasonable basis for a society to function. What
Speaker 1: I call the West, which I really think, you know,
Speaker 1: it certainly has antecedents in ancient Greece and elsewhere, but
Speaker 1: the West really begins with the American founders. The modern
Speaker 1: West begins with the American founders solving enough of the
Speaker 1: conflicts in the colonies to get them to confederate, and
Speaker 1: in doing that, they created a blueprint for a reciprocity
Speaker 1: based civilization that was so much more productive, so much fairer,
Speaker 1: so much more rewarding to be a participant in that.
Speaker 1: It spread like wildfire, as long as economic times were
Speaker 1: sufficiently good. Right, once you saw what a reciprocity based
Speaker 1: civilization did, you wanted to be part of it. The
Speaker 1: problem is, the reciprocity based civilization is better in every
Speaker 1: important regard than the gene based civilization. The gene based
Speaker 1: civilization is bloody at every level. It sees only this
Speaker 1: one kind of payoff in the long term. But the
Speaker 1: gene based society, the lineage, the genetic lineage, is more
Speaker 1: stable than the reciprocity based civilization. And so the point is.
Speaker 3: And can the reciprocity based civilization survive if importing the
Speaker 3: gene based.
Speaker 1: And I think the horror that took place at our
Speaker 1: southern border and the horror that has taken place in
Speaker 1: Europe is the same one. You had some massive influx
Speaker 1: of people and you didn't even ask them whether they
Speaker 1: liked you and wanted to be part of your society. This,
Speaker 1: to me is insane. I don't care where you come from,
Speaker 1: if you earnestly want to be American or British or whatever.
Speaker 1: I think we should be open to the possibility that
Speaker 1: it's a good idea. I don't think it's automatic just
Speaker 1: because you want to be American, doesn't mean that it's
Speaker 1: good for us to let you in. But if you
Speaker 1: want to be an American, maybe it is good for us.
Speaker 1: And every time you do want to be an American
Speaker 1: and it is good for us for you to join,
Speaker 1: we should allow it. But if you let people in
Speaker 1: who hate you, of course you're going to get Mayhem.
Speaker 1: Of course it's obvious. How did we possibly miss it?
Speaker 1: So anyway, the punchline to the lineage story is reciprocity
Speaker 1: based civilizations. The West are better at doing all of
Speaker 1: the good things, but they're fragile. And when the music stops,
Speaker 1: when economic austerity kicks in, when the corruption gets bad
Speaker 1: enough that there isn't enough to go around because it's
Speaker 1: being hoarded by somebody, they break down into lineage against
Speaker 1: lineage violence. And so what I really think is going
Speaker 1: on in the Middle East, and what I have said
Speaker 1: from October eighth was we are in danger of being
Speaker 1: dragged back in. And when I say we, I mean
Speaker 1: the entire world is in danger of being dragged back
Speaker 1: into lineage against lineage violence by what is taking place
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. And if you love Israel, what
Speaker 1: you should want is to make sure that the faction
Speaker 1: in Israel that earnestly wants to be part of the
Speaker 1: West and to put lineage aside is dominant, and that
Speaker 1: the part of Israel that wants to drag us back
Speaker 1: into the Old Testament is not right. That's the question.
Speaker 1: Are we going to be dragged back into lineage against
Speaker 1: lineage violence of the sort that the Old Testament is
Speaker 1: written about, of this sort that is riddled throughout the Quran,
Speaker 1: or not. And my feeling is, once you've seen what
Speaker 1: the West can do, the answer is, Look, this is
Speaker 1: us in them. It's the West versus lineage against lineage violence.
Speaker 1: Everybody should want to be part of the West. I
Speaker 1: don't want the category of them to contain anybody, right.
Speaker 1: It's not that I have people I want to fight,
Speaker 1: but this is really the us in them that matters.
Speaker 1: Do you want to be part of the West. Do
Speaker 1: you want to put aside people's genetic background and collaborate
Speaker 1: with them because they're good people to collaborate with. That's
Speaker 1: what the West is about, and that's what we should
Speaker 1: be fighting for. And anything that threatens to take us
Speaker 1: back into the Old Testament, no, thank you.
Speaker 3: Great Ranton. I just got to add one point is
Speaker 3: that my deep concern is that, you know, when I
Speaker 3: see the Randy Fines of the world, RFK Junior talking about,
Speaker 3: you know, anti semitism on college campuses, Donald Trump doing
Speaker 3: the same, Bondie doing the same, Patel but like all
Speaker 3: of them doing the same. Is that if you, if
Speaker 3: you come into America, and if you're a politician in
Speaker 3: America and you and you start to create laws that
Speaker 3: differentiate between the people, and you make a category that's protected,
Speaker 3: it's ironic. I even need to make this point. I
Speaker 3: certainly don't need to make it to you, but that
Speaker 3: after the woke experience or the woke era, and James
Speaker 3: Lindsay being such a great advocate on this topic, that like,
Speaker 3: I think we all recognize that if you create special
Speaker 3: categories of people, it will breed resentment, it actually leads
Speaker 3: to racism. Like that is the path that we're taking
Speaker 3: when it comes to Jewish people now. And this is
Speaker 3: why I think that the woke right label being placed
Speaker 3: on people like me is totally misguided, and that it
Speaker 3: ought to be being placed on my friend James Lindsay
Speaker 3: because it seems as if he is more interested in
Speaker 3: protected classes, and that protected class is Jewish people well
Speaker 3: as everybody else's, you know, equal. I just think this
Speaker 3: is a really dangerous paradigm, and I think it's going
Speaker 3: to give rise to like if if James is fearful
Speaker 3: of Nick Flentes, Nick Flentes will be your president in
Speaker 3: twenty years if you don't listen to what I'm saying
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 6: And now he says, if you're not on board with
Speaker 6: the Epstein cover, oh I don't want your support.
Speaker 3: You're a weakling.
Speaker 6: Fuck you, fuck you, you suck, You are fat, you
Speaker 6: are a joke, you are stupid, you are not funny,
Speaker 6: you are not as smart as you think you are.
Speaker 6: You are and honestly, I'm and if you watched my show,
Speaker 6: you know I've been very critical. I've never been this far.
Speaker 6: This just goes to show this entire thing has been
Speaker 6: a scam. When we look back on the history of
Speaker 6: populism in America, we are going to look back on
Speaker 6: the MAGA movement as the biggest scam in American history.
Speaker 6: And the liberals were right, The MAGA supporters were had.
Speaker 3: They were like, that's how I feel about it. Sorry
Speaker 3: for the crazy ending to this, but I genuinely think
Speaker 3: that this is a very dangerous paradise, especially when it
Speaker 3: comes to censorship and all this other stuff. And then
Speaker 3: and then you think you're going to you think you're
Speaker 3: going to crush descent of people that think that Jewish
Speaker 3: people control America by creating special laws that make it
Speaker 3: seem as if you can't say anything about Jewish people
Speaker 3: in America. It's like this is doomed to fail. I
Speaker 3: feel like I'm taking crazy pills any less thoughts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me just say it this way. I you know,
Speaker 1: I'm Jewish, but I'm an American. I believe in America
Speaker 1: in my core. And there are no chosen people in America.
Speaker 1: That's the thing. If America is actually going to function.
Speaker 1: The point is what we get is a level playing field.
Speaker 1: Is it ever going to be perfectly level? No, But
Speaker 1: what we should want, what we should all collaborate on
Speaker 1: as Americans, is a level playing field in which nobody
Speaker 1: has special access, nobody has special protections, and we don't
Speaker 1: need them. That's that's the objective of the exercise. And
Speaker 1: you can say, well, Brett, you're being naive, but I
Speaker 1: don't think so. And you know, if that's the argument,
Speaker 1: If that's the argument, is that America is naive, then
Speaker 1: let's have it out. Let's have that conversation. I'm fully
Speaker 1: ready for it. But let us not pretend that America
Speaker 1: works and then quietly undermine it by saying, well, but
Speaker 1: there are certain groups that need special protections, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: That's not how it works. We should level the playing
Speaker 1: field as well as we can and then play the
Speaker 1: cards you're dealt. That's the game that is superior to
Speaker 1: all of the alternatives that came before it. And you
Speaker 1: know that it is simply the objective of the exercise
Speaker 1: once you understand it.
Speaker 3: Well, I've kept you longer than I planned. It was
Speaker 3: an absolute honor having you on, and I think that
Speaker 3: you know in the friend faux distinction conversation. I am
Speaker 3: confident that you are in the friend category. So thank
Speaker 3: you very much. If anybody wants to check out your work,
Speaker 3: obviously the Dark Horse Podcast, in any other links or
Speaker 3: tips that you should give.
Speaker 1: Them, Yeah, you can check out A Hunter Gatherer's Guide
Speaker 1: to the twenty first Century book that Heather and I
Speaker 1: wrote about hyper novelty and what it's doing to us.
Speaker 1: You can find me on Twitter at Brett Weinstein. You
Speaker 1: can find Heather and me on locals. All those are
Speaker 1: good places.
Speaker 3: Dr Wannstein, you are the best. Anytime you'd like to
Speaker 3: come back on and go deep down the rabbit hole,
Speaker 3: you were welcome. If you guys enjoyed this episode, please
Speaker 3: do it the like button, subscribe, share it around, and
Speaker 3: if there's any great rants that either of us went on,
Speaker 3: feel free to clip them and share them too. We're
Speaker 3: out here peace, all right, Thanks?
Speaker 1: Brother?
Speaker 3: Was I lying? I wasn't lying. This was a damn
Speaker 3: good episode. Sorry, I'm backlit. So you saw the water
Speaker 3: for a second and then you saw my ugly mug.
Speaker 3: If you enjoyed that one, please do it the like button, subscribe,
Speaker 3: and as I said, share it around. But most importantly,
Speaker 3: let people know, you know, like if you want people
Speaker 3: to know the truth about this stuff. We didn't come
Speaker 3: to hard conclusions on a lot of this because it's
Speaker 3: I mean, we're talking about like deep deep deep state
Speaker 3: multinational not even state organizations, and who the hell knows
Speaker 3: actually at the end of the day, who's who's pulling
Speaker 3: the strings, who's calling the shots on this some of
Speaker 3: this stuff. But I think that we're close, we're close.
Speaker 3: We're getting closer. And if you enjoy conversations like that,
Speaker 3: the easiest way is to spread it around that Yeah,
Speaker 3: more people know, more people know what's up, so you
Speaker 3: don't sound like a lunatic. Give this to your most
Speaker 3: blue billed friend and and blow their mind. Thanks again, guys.
Speaker 3: See so