Speaker 1: The muse expressed by caller Schools or anyone else who
Speaker 1: happens again on the air, who Kelly dot Com is
Speaker 1: not necessarily and we are not responsible for. Now. The
Speaker 1: exemplar of the controlled opposition and how it's fed to
Speaker 1: you was perfectly illustrated during the State of the Ununion
Speaker 1: or the State of the Onion address that we got
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump recently. I'm not even against all of
Speaker 1: what he's doing. I'm not even against him personally, really,
Speaker 1: I mean, if I wanted to talk personally, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's he's just typical, you know, he's he's another real
Speaker 1: estate hustler from Queens. But he happened to be in
Speaker 1: a privileged position where he was always risen above the rest,
Speaker 1: always granted the entrance into the greater media zones, always
Speaker 1: given the hand up when it came to loans and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. But you know what, I don't care
Speaker 1: because it don't almost sounds like there would be somebody
Speaker 1: who's jealous of somebody doing well, And nah, I don't
Speaker 1: have jealousy for that. What I have is an issue,
Speaker 1: an issue with the idea that this great hero, this
Speaker 1: great truth teller, is going to do all the things
Speaker 1: that you guys have for years, and I've been listening
Speaker 1: very carefully to you for more than a decade on
Speaker 1: the o'celli effect, telling me you want it done, revealing
Speaker 1: the truth. Let's go to one of the smallest items
Speaker 1: on the Greater culture or agenda that we could possibly
Speaker 1: go to, because it only covers something like one and
Speaker 1: a half percent of the population, and that is this
Speaker 1: gender identity issue girls in boys' sports, or more accurately,
Speaker 1: the problem with boys and girls sports, which is lunacy
Speaker 1: for certain from a physiological standpoint. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know how else to say other than the common sense
Speaker 1: way boys developed differently than girls. They are not the
Speaker 1: same when it comes to competition in sports, sure, and
Speaker 1: that's a big issue for some people. But the funny
Speaker 1: thing was, there was this issue of retraining people for
Speaker 1: the new gender identities and stuff in schools. Right and
Speaker 1: Trump touted the story of January little John and really
Speaker 1: the story of her child that was identifying in some
Speaker 1: non binary way whatever, and they were saying that it
Speaker 1: was secretively done by the schools and this and that.
Speaker 1: But what is not mentioned, as per usual, is all
Speaker 1: of the facts related to this it was brought up
Speaker 1: as an example of what Trump has done so well
Speaker 1: to fix these problems in the culture war. And these
Speaker 1: are big achievements according to some. Now, I don't even
Speaker 1: want to say that it's a little achievement, even though
Speaker 1: it is. It's again like smashing a cockroach with your
Speaker 1: shoe in a house instead of getting rid of the infestation.
Speaker 1: But let's assume that he got anything done regarding January
Speaker 1: little John, who he pulled up as an example of
Speaker 1: somebody he saved from the grand liberal agenda of swapping
Speaker 1: your children out, which, by the way, there is an
Speaker 1: agenda to do that. But is it only the vocal
Speaker 1: public suspects that are out there to destroy our genders. No, no,
Speaker 1: it's not. But let's just play the game for a moment.
Speaker 1: You would assume that the entire story is that the
Speaker 1: school turned around and went along with this craziness of
Speaker 1: the girl wants to be a boy or the boy
Speaker 1: wants to be a girl, and therefore they were going
Speaker 1: to secretively go around the parents back and screw around
Speaker 1: with parental rights, which, by the way, neither party cares about.
Speaker 1: They care about the ability of the state to influence
Speaker 1: what they own and make no mistake, you report that
Speaker 1: your children were born, but you don't own them anyway.
Speaker 1: Back to the poisonous tree from which the information comes,
Speaker 1: January little John is allegedly somebody who was saved from
Speaker 1: the liberal agenda by people putting into place and repairing
Speaker 1: this thing that was being done secretively behind her back
Speaker 1: with the school, when meanwhile, publicly accessible documentation things that
Speaker 1: people never bother to read, that are years older than
Speaker 1: the most recent declaration from the Little John family, which
Speaker 1: that's their little name. January is this woman's first name,
Speaker 1: Little John is her last name based on her marriage.
Speaker 1: I don't know her child's name off the top of
Speaker 1: my head because it's actually redacted and most of the
Speaker 1: publicly available legal documentation out there, although it has slipped
Speaker 1: and has been made public despite the fact that Miner's
Speaker 1: never be revealed in legal documentation. But anyway, pay no
Speaker 1: attention to the small things, right the Little Johns in
Speaker 1: a email sent to the school long before the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: long before Trump being involved in all of that good
Speaker 1: stuff a few years back, obtained by a Foyer request
Speaker 1: from a couple of different news agencies, show that the
Speaker 1: Little Johns initiated the idea of gender reassignment, basically by
Speaker 1: socializing it and asking the teachers and the school to
Speaker 1: go along with this new set of pronouns that their
Speaker 1: child wished to be addressed by. They made the initial request,
Speaker 1: they asked for it to be done. I know that
Speaker 1: sounds crazy, but if you go and do the research
Speaker 1: for yourself, you can find it that a few years
Speaker 1: before they filed yet another lawsuit declaring that the school
Speaker 1: was doing things behind their back, and this and that,
Speaker 1: as if it was a grand surprise, we find out
Speaker 1: that they initiated this action and then at some point
Speaker 1: changed their mind. In fact, they told the school that
Speaker 1: perhaps they didn't have to intervene socially, but just recognize
Speaker 1: that there was a change in the child's pronouns and
Speaker 1: they should respect that. The school followed suit and did
Speaker 1: it based on the parents' request. But missus little John
Speaker 1: January said in that email, perhaps she will handle the
Speaker 1: social aspect of this with her peers on her own
Speaker 1: or they whatever the pronoun was at the time. The child,
Speaker 1: let's call them, will handle this socially with their you know, friends, socially.
Speaker 1: But you, as teachers and administrators acknowledge it. That was
Speaker 1: their request. At some point the Little John's changed their
Speaker 1: mind about it, the child continuing on with their desire
Speaker 1: to do so. And I have no idea who influenced
Speaker 1: that in the first place, because that was not documented
Speaker 1: based on what I could find. But either way, at
Speaker 1: some point this is all very very true. At some
Speaker 1: point the Little Johns, the parents changed their mind about
Speaker 1: the level of acceptance they had for this non binary
Speaker 1: assignment for their child. The school continued on with the
Speaker 1: discussion and stopped informing the parents about it, which the
Speaker 1: suggestion would be based on documentation. Once again, although not
Speaker 1: absolutely declared, the suggestion is that for some reason, an
Speaker 1: unknown reason, the child changed their mind regarding keeping their
Speaker 1: parents in the loop about what it is they decided
Speaker 1: to do. Now again, this is this is within a
Speaker 1: short amount of time. This is a you know, uh,
Speaker 1: I guess teenager now, but at the time maybe preteen,
Speaker 1: maybe teenager. I'm a little unclear as to the exact
Speaker 1: age of the child because again their statistical information is
Speaker 1: somewhat protected publicly. But anyway, at some point the child
Speaker 1: decided to take the parents out of the loop and
Speaker 1: continue this discussion with the administration with their friends socially
Speaker 1: and so on and so forth, and they decided to
Speaker 1: take the parents out of the loop. With that in mind,
Speaker 1: the parents sued, stating that the school had, against their
Speaker 1: will begun this situation. But the truth is again that
Speaker 1: in emails dated a couple of years before this became
Speaker 1: an issue, January herself was issuing instructions to the administration
Speaker 1: to do this. Now, there is some controversy or controversy
Speaker 1: over whether January had informed the administration that there needed
Speaker 1: to be a change in absolute form and they needed
Speaker 1: to no longer encourage this or return them to their
Speaker 1: gender assignment at birth, whatever it is you want to
Speaker 1: call it. I don't even know what you do when
Speaker 1: you reverse this. What do you call it? I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: But the point is that something that was initially thought
Speaker 1: of as a good idea by the parents and then
Speaker 1: they changed their mind on their whole problem is that
Speaker 1: the school didn't keep pace with their change of mind. Now,
Speaker 1: I would state that I would rather than a school
Speaker 1: with my child for you know, a good portion of
Speaker 1: the day, five days a week, most times, I would
Speaker 1: prefer that they would focus on teaching them stuff instead
Speaker 1: of directing their pronouns, their socialization, their name whatever. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, January did instruct them to change this
Speaker 1: child's name to a name that is also not being released.
Speaker 1: But a name change, a gender change, all these things.
Speaker 1: Call my child this and identify my child as this
Speaker 1: was initiated, encouraged, and instructed by January Little John. To
Speaker 1: begin with, is this a primary example of somebody going
Speaker 1: behind somebody's back and snatching up a child and reading
Speaker 1: them into the radical left agenda? Or is this just
Speaker 1: a school attempting to deal with one of its students
Speaker 1: asking for a customized experience in a school where they
Speaker 1: also have to contend with, you know, people's handicaps, people's
Speaker 1: learning disabilities, parental requests, religious exemptions, etc. A lot of
Speaker 1: things being placed upon school administrators who are not paid
Speaker 1: to sort these things out. In my estimation, most times
Speaker 1: their actual job title doesn't involve this. But in an
Speaker 1: attempt to accommodate the January Little John and husband family,
Speaker 1: there may have been a misstep, a miscommunication, a lack
Speaker 1: of communication, or a misdirection based on not being able
Speaker 1: to keep up with the thing. This is way different
Speaker 1: than they forced upon a child or they encourage the
Speaker 1: craziness of a child just all by themselves. They took
Speaker 1: it upon themselves. No, it's not that. So the thing
Speaker 1: that's often clearly shown to you as a primary example
Speaker 1: of something often is not. Now, I use this very
Speaker 1: small because it's very inconsequential to the majority of us
Speaker 1: other people that you know. I just got done waiting
Speaker 1: on hold for the John B. Wells program, and apparently
Speaker 1: they do a open line Friday thing too, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to try and get on there one day confront
Speaker 1: John B Wells maybe about how he's avoided putting me
Speaker 1: on his show. And you know, because he is an
Speaker 1: all in Jesus guy with the Trump esteem, you know,
Speaker 1: concept all over him, because there's the savior. Guy's got
Speaker 1: a great radio voice and used to be one of
Speaker 1: the more intelligent people out there. Too dangerous for Coast
Speaker 1: to coast, am too dangerous for the mainstream media. But hell,
Speaker 1: if you could ever say anything about that smooth, helbity
Speaker 1: deep voice of John B Wells, I can't even mimic
Speaker 1: the guy well, but it's fascinating to me the outdated information,
Speaker 1: the idea that if those completely crushed usaid the fifty
Speaker 1: billion dollars that would be stopped if it was all corrupt,
Speaker 1: all a waste of money, all insignificant, strategically, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, if it was all gone tomorrow,
Speaker 1: you're talking about a budgetary issue of fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: currently at the admitted numbers of our federal budgets, something
Speaker 1: akin to one plus maybe a little bit percent. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean one plus another couple percent. I mean
Speaker 1: one plus a points something percent. Let's be generous and
Speaker 1: call it one and a half percent of the annual budget.
Speaker 1: And we spent a week discussing how great or evil
Speaker 1: or practical, or how much needs to be saved, and
Speaker 1: how foreigners are ripping us off and everything else. When
Speaker 1: you're talking about a penny and a half out of
Speaker 1: every dollar being spent percentage wise in your name for
Speaker 1: things that you allegedly support or don't because the politicians
Speaker 1: selected them, the lobbyists that decided, the big farmer groups,
Speaker 1: the people that are really the paymasters of our alleged representation,
Speaker 1: decided it needed to be focused on for one reason
Speaker 1: or another. It is great to see people get interested,
Speaker 1: but when they're interested in one penny on the dollar,
Speaker 1: or let's be nice to them and say two cents
Speaker 1: on the dollar, literally putting their two cents in, and
Speaker 1: they think that is a great issue and has accomplished
Speaker 1: anything at all. One begins to wonder where your value
Speaker 1: judgment is because if that's a great victory, then I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you they could make you happy overnight by
Speaker 1: cutting you know, I don't know one chef out of
Speaker 1: the White House budget guaranteed, they'd save you know, one
Speaker 1: percent of what they spend just on the President and
Speaker 1: taking care of his needs, whether it's to have a
Speaker 1: button depressed, to get a diet cocone demand, or it's
Speaker 1: you know, somebody to come along and change old man
Speaker 1: Joe's diaper. I mean, it's irrelevant. You could cut down
Speaker 1: on that staff a little. I you could cut down
Speaker 1: on the updates to the beast and the other parts
Speaker 1: of the motorcade. Maybe the first Lady doesn't need a
Speaker 1: motorcade because she's not looking to motorciate around so much.
Speaker 1: Maybe Donald Trump's grown children already have security and don't
Speaker 1: need secret I mean, there's a lot of money that
Speaker 1: could be cut. You know, it's good that they cut
Speaker 1: secret service details off of former important people in the
Speaker 1: cabinet who might have international enemies. Yes, sure, good, But
Speaker 1: there's people that served under Reagan that probably don't know
Speaker 1: where they are and nobody even remembers their name, that
Speaker 1: still have protections Bush Reagan everybody. Now you go beyond
Speaker 1: you know, you go into Carter's administration. I mean, he died,
Speaker 1: and I assure you most of the people that were
Speaker 1: involved and could have made international enemies, they're mostly dead too,
Speaker 1: So I'm sure they don't have much secret service protection
Speaker 1: or protections in place for their personal well being or
Speaker 1: their families or whatnot, because nobody even knows who the
Speaker 1: hell they are. Even Americans don't remember the names of
Speaker 1: who was in the cabinet, who was important, who was controversial,
Speaker 1: even among those that have survived. Think about it. If
Speaker 1: you're an American listening to me right now, just tell
Speaker 1: me three people that were in Carter's cabinet that are
Speaker 1: ready still alive today. Good luck. And hey, no using
Speaker 1: your phone or cheating via Google, no fare. Just do
Speaker 1: it off the top of your head. Bet you you can't.
Speaker 1: But anyhow, there's a lot of things that could be
Speaker 1: cut from the governmental budget giving a million dollars a
Speaker 1: year to former presidents, I mean, including people like Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: I mean he's got a million dollar a year travel
Speaker 1: budget that he can take advantage of from the US government.
Speaker 1: I know he could call up friends like Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: and use the Lolita Express plane. But oh wait, he's
Speaker 1: dead now, so he can't call that guy. But I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's another smaller type of Epstein. Maybe he's got
Speaker 1: an older private chat. You know, these guys have other avenues.
Speaker 1: And if they were running low on cash by some miracle,
Speaker 1: because the Clinton Foundation isn't raking in enough money off
Speaker 1: a third world causes where they're bsing or getting enough
Speaker 1: money from Hillary making speeches in air quotes to different
Speaker 1: banking groups and stuff. If they weren't taking in enough money,
Speaker 1: I'm very sure somebody would toss them alone that they
Speaker 1: don't got to pay back, because that's the way business
Speaker 1: is done with these guys. So anyway, I found it
Speaker 1: interesting being able to tweet at Elon Musk when he said, oh,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren has let me go look at it. Actually,
Speaker 1: let me give you the right numbers so I don't
Speaker 1: miss quotes. You know, the real missus Trump or the
Speaker 1: real mister Trump along with the other mister Trump, because
Speaker 1: these two are joined at the hip in a way
Speaker 1: that I'm telling you now is closer than Milannia and
Speaker 1: Donnie at this point. So somebody just tweeted at Elon
Speaker 1: Musk Joe Biden killed the chickens h and Elon Musk responds,
Speaker 1: it's true. There was an insane slaughter of one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million egg laying chickens ordered by the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: This is what he's tweeting about. But let's go look
Speaker 1: at an earlier tweet from today. I want to go
Speaker 1: to Elon Musk's x account, where I often tweet at
Speaker 1: him and message him, and he doesn't seem to respond
Speaker 1: to me at all. But justin Bill Nye apparently does
Speaker 1: a Nazi salute, even though he's got a thumbs up
Speaker 1: in this picture, so it doesn't look much like a
Speaker 1: Nazi salute, unlike that thing that Elon did. But hey,
Speaker 1: Democrats are demented genocidal war sluts. He's retweeting that and saying, yes,
Speaker 1: war sluts ever heard the expression? Takes one to no
Speaker 1: one there, mister starlink. Anyway, let me find this thing
Speaker 1: about Elizabeth Warren because I thought it was funny. And
Speaker 1: it's probably eighty tweets down now because you know, Elon
Speaker 1: has a lo to say. Touche maybe, but he has
Speaker 1: a lot to say. But let's get to this one
Speaker 1: thing that he had to say that I had to
Speaker 1: respond with, you know, something very logical. But he didn't
Speaker 1: like it much. I'm certain he didn't like it much,
Speaker 1: and nobody else liked it much because you know, hey,
Speaker 1: why bother with reality when you can spin a good
Speaker 1: story and keep people interested with the one and a
Speaker 1: half cents worth of bs instead of the other ninety
Speaker 1: eight point five percent of the dollars being busted over
Speaker 1: other people's heads, buy those in power, the actual owners. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk tweets out a picture of and I love
Speaker 1: this a picture of Elizabeth Warren's hands. Oh it's a video.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. See, Like I said, I wanted to get
Speaker 1: it all straight and quote it correctly. And it's from
Speaker 1: Terri Bull. Okay, Terra Bull, get it clever. Terrible eight eight,
Speaker 1: which has a veiled reference to Adolf Hitler. But anyway,
Speaker 1: eight oh eight is if you don't know your numerology.
Speaker 1: Get back to me when you do, anyhow. And Elon
Speaker 1: Musk has a subscribe option on his X account. Why
Speaker 1: does he need a subscriber fee from you for him
Speaker 1: personally on his EX account? I don't know, but it's
Speaker 1: pretty funny anyway. March fifth, this tweet came from so
Speaker 1: let's be accurate. It was from a few days ago,
Speaker 1: but it only popped up on me earlier today. On
Speaker 1: my feed, Terrible tweeted out a video of Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: And I'm not even gonna watch or play the video,
Speaker 1: but it says Elizabeth Warren's salary two hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars a year, which is already obscene for
Speaker 1: these senators. And you know, think about that math for
Speaker 1: a minute. All these people need nearly three hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a year, plus their travel benefits they're free mailing of.
Speaker 1: It's their health insurance and all that stuff, pensions set
Speaker 1: for life, most of us living well above our heads
Speaker 1: if we had any piece of this. But okay, Senator
Speaker 1: Warren two hundred and eighty five thousand dollars a year
Speaker 1: net worth ready ready sixty seven million dollars want wants
Speaker 1: to stop you capitalized you all caps from finding out
Speaker 1: where your money goes? Now, is this a good point?
Speaker 1: Sure it is. Elon Musk adds to this, where did
Speaker 1: Senator Karen get sixty seven million? Question mark? Now? Do
Speaker 1: I object to this question? Absolutely not. But here was
Speaker 1: my response, get back to us when you have about
Speaker 1: five hundred questions regarding the fortunes gained by R D
Speaker 1: and I reps in both houses. I further stated in
Speaker 1: this tweet back at Musk, the Dems do insider trading
Speaker 1: just like the reblood Lickans. And that's how I spelled it.
Speaker 1: R E b l o O d l I c
Speaker 1: k e n s reblood lickins d Monocrats d E
Speaker 1: m O n I c r A t s pick
Speaker 1: a foreign interest or ten to sell out to and
Speaker 1: do insider trading at home. And then I used my
Speaker 1: all caps function and ended my tweet with all of
Speaker 1: them Elon in all caps. Does this make me a
Speaker 1: bad guy? Does this make me insane? Maybe? But is
Speaker 1: anybody else talking about that? Is anybody else willing to
Speaker 1: look at the net worth of every single senator and
Speaker 1: House rep who's been there for you got to be
Speaker 1: there for a couple of years to build. But when
Speaker 1: you look at their salaries versus their net worths when
Speaker 1: they go into office and when they leave, the math
Speaker 1: doesn't work out. Because if in four years you make
Speaker 1: approximately a million dollars using the Elizabeth Warren numbers, and
Speaker 1: I'm not even saying that those are entirely accurate or
Speaker 1: account for all the money that they could gain as
Speaker 1: a representative, either as a Senator or a House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: Again I use the word representative. You know, you get
Speaker 1: what a million plus over four years. They do not
Speaker 1: gain only a million plus in four years, and that
Speaker 1: would be assuming they spend none of their money. Their
Speaker 1: net worth rises at an astronomically higher rate than what
Speaker 1: it is they are getting paid publicly, than what it
Speaker 1: is they report on their taxes, than what it is
Speaker 1: they actually show as income one way or another. And
Speaker 1: there might be a handful of people that don't do this,
Speaker 1: but everybody from the old man standard, like Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: you know, Moscow Mitch. Some people call him Cocaine Mitch.
Speaker 1: I'm still confused about the cocaine thing because the last
Speaker 1: thing that I think about when I look at Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell is cocaine, because if cocaine does that to you,
Speaker 1: I gotta say, there's a lot of people that might
Speaker 1: stop doing cocaine just based on that. But the one
Speaker 1: party system has this commonality, and we will see it
Speaker 1: again very soon. Because I've been given a heads up
Speaker 1: from people that usually predict things that I hate when
Speaker 1: they do predict things. I've been giving a few heads ups,
Speaker 1: and one of them is that by the time twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, the calendar year is over, we will have
Speaker 1: an active war on our hands. The United States will
Speaker 1: not the stuff that we're doing now here and there,
Speaker 1: and nobody's calling it a war, and nobody's even reporting
Speaker 1: that US troops are there, and et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, how much of the UN
Speaker 1: do we run? Has Trump even mentioned the amount of
Speaker 1: contributions that the US makes to the UN? Or are
Speaker 1: we just using our veto authority to side with Russia there? Lately?
Speaker 1: I think that's it. Nobody's talking about the money going
Speaker 1: to the UN, but NATO is on the table anyway.
Speaker 1: The real criminal thing here is that opposition will still
Speaker 1: be controlled. You people who think that you sided with
Speaker 1: the opposition, who was against the globalists, who was against
Speaker 1: the new world order? You think you sided with an outsider,
Speaker 1: You did not. You're going to find confusions if you
Speaker 1: take the time to think, and if you remember those
Speaker 1: I don't know, those standards that people stood upon, where
Speaker 1: the idea was that the technocracy is not a good
Speaker 1: thing to hand ourselves over to whoever's programming the computer
Speaker 1: and what it is they think and their biases, because,
Speaker 1: by the way, even the ais that are developed show
Speaker 1: the bias of the programmers who generated them in the
Speaker 1: first place. And eventually the very simple logic of dead
Speaker 1: people don't cost money, and dead people don't make wars,
Speaker 1: and where there are no people, there is no conflict,
Speaker 1: and you want to solve every problem with nature and
Speaker 1: let nature run it. Of course, mankind is one of
Speaker 1: those disruptive apex beyond apex predators. Do you want computers
Speaker 1: to think like that? I mean, really, Skynett, who goes,
Speaker 1: I know what the enemy is? Everybody? No, you don't
Speaker 1: like that idea, or maybe you don't care. Maybe humanity's
Speaker 1: time has passed and you think you're gonna get to
Speaker 1: go into the singularity along with a friend mister Teal
Speaker 1: and all his friends, and you'll be part of a
Speaker 1: newly transformed computer consciousness that will be out there, and
Speaker 1: we'll survive because it'll just somehow. Even though we can't
Speaker 1: figure out a way to make solar work too well,
Speaker 1: even with this gigantic farm we had which was recently
Speaker 1: shut down nobody paid attention to that can't seem to
Speaker 1: make it really work well. But it will be the
Speaker 1: eternal power source for the singularity and the new existence
Speaker 1: for humanity, where our souls will go into computers. Hell'll
Speaker 1: live as long as the computer can, and then when
Speaker 1: the computers break down, we'll just upload into a new
Speaker 1: model Windows ninety nine thousand, the non human experience. All
Speaker 1: I can say is, welcome to the matrix. You're concerned
Speaker 1: about the redhead and red or maybe she's blonde. Your
Speaker 1: experience may vary, but you don't recognize that the people
Speaker 1: that think they're participating in doing their jobs and doing
Speaker 1: the right thing are not just trapped inside the matrix,
Speaker 1: but they are part of the matrix. Indeed, they are
Speaker 1: the matrix. And guess what it's you. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: figure out how to communicate all of this without a
Speaker 1: w sapp channel, without access to Facebook, without Elon Musk's approval,
Speaker 1: and without telling you that I'm gonna stupidly choose one
Speaker 1: side or the other of the double sided coin that
Speaker 1: is the one party system. America doesn't run the world.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump doesn't run the world. However, these concepts and
Speaker 1: these ideas they might run yours. And just like John
Speaker 1: Cena turned heel the other night on uh RAW Raw
Speaker 1: or Broken or NXT or Next Generation Big Time Smasher SmackDown,
Speaker 1: whatever wrestling was on the other night, John Cena turned
Speaker 1: heel because the Rock told him to. Well, at some point,
Speaker 1: Elon's gonna tell Trump to turn heel, and you're all
Speaker 1: gonna blame Biden. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they're all fed by the same corporation that allowed Trump
Speaker 1: to become minted as an actual billionaire. This time that
Speaker 1: brought Elon Musk in an unelected position to be not
Speaker 1: a bureaucrat because Bpete said, what about all those bureaucrats
Speaker 1: that are in Yeah, that guy can aggravate you and
Speaker 1: disrupt your day. Elon Musk could disrupt the year and
Speaker 1: the lifetime of many people at a whim. I will
Speaker 1: not be surprised if voices like mine are silenced very
Speaker 1: very soon. I hope a few of you will learn
Speaker 1: something before I am out of breath. It's not about
Speaker 1: siding with this one or that one, or against this
Speaker 1: or that, or signing up for the right party or
Speaker 1: choosing the correct team to root for. Either you are
Speaker 1: on the side of humanity's survival or you're with the
Speaker 1: butchers that see us as nothing more, I hate to
Speaker 1: say it, than the goyam, the cattle, the chattel, the
Speaker 1: monetized commodity that is human flesh that they'll only once
Speaker 1: in a while allow some to fall into the pork
Speaker 1: band allegedly, but pay no attention to any of that.
Speaker 1: If you refuse to accept that you're feeling pain, it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean the painful thing went away. It just means
Speaker 1: you've decided not to experience it. And I wish that
Speaker 1: sort of diversionary power were utilized by many more to
Speaker 1: understand the deception and the complete and utter lack of choice.
Speaker 1: You are being handed and you are being granted oh
Speaker 1: Chili dot com revelation through conversation