Rex Jones and Tim Tompkins examine the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) event, where Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Mark Levin defended Israel with divisive rhetoric—Graham joking about "running out of bombs," Levin demonizing critics as "psychotic Nazi clans." Guest Lebanon John links Christian Zionism to a distorted narrative of U.S. history, claiming ties to the Rothschilds and Western-funded radicalization (e.g., ISIS via Blackwater in Iraq). He argues conflicts like Gaza stem from imperialist manipulation, not inherent hostility, and critiques the Civil War’s misrepresentation, exposing slavery as its core issue through Southern leaders’ declarations and "Bleeding Kansas" violence. The episode reveals how religion and geopolitics blur, fueling endless cycles of war under false justifications. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, something so the past week of streams, it's kind of just been us talking about global problems, financial problems, the stuff that's been building up in the news for a while.
There hadn't been a lot of like really phenomenal clips to come out, but we knew and we saw when the Tucker interview came out with Fuentes, didn't we, Tim?
We knew and we saw and we thought that there is going to be some sort of reaction to this.
Of course, and we didn't know what that was going to look like.
Um, but as these people always seem to do, they like to hold big events and crash out.
And I have a bunch of phenomenal clips from this Republican Jewish coalition event where people like Ted Cruz, people like Officer Talmud, people like Mark Levin, and like basically any crazy like Christian Zionist person or super pro-Israel person crawl out from under a rock.
They were at this event.
And you know, we talk a lot about the problems globally.
We talk about the situation domestically with AIPAC and stuff.
We talk about the Israeli-Gaza war and the humanitarian issues, to say the least, of the stuff that's happened there.
But at its core, Tim, when you hear people talk about Israel, isn't it in context of not wanting them in our government?
I mean, they talk about Mossad, they talk about people infiltrating our government.
But in general, I think most people have the consensus that, you know, Israel shouldn't be, you know, as in bed as they are right now.
But, you know, right.
I think most of the complaining, not even saying complaining, but most of the conflicts that people have with Israel is just because they've gone too far at this point.
I think if they had relaxed on everything, they probably wouldn't have as much backlash from the general population.
Well, these people who say, look, to say that it's a conspiracy, that we have all this power, we don't have all this power.
We're just this one group of people.
And I get that argument.
I hear that argument.
But when you have the most powerful people in the government come to this giant gala to get just like get on Tucker Carlson's neck after he interviews Nick Fuentes just like one time, like they're acting like, they're acting like he literally like was a Nazi.
So, he figured out when he was six years old, apparently, he was smart enough to be like, if I want to make money in politics, I have to love Israel.
So, this all dates back to the Schofield Bible, which was something that Oxford published in like, I believe, like the early 1910s or something.
And this Bible has a lot of the language changed in the New Testament and some of the Old Testament relating to the biblical covenant of Abraham to Israel and then leading into Revelations, right?
So, the context for the verse that everyone refers to all the time, and Lindsay's referring to it here: bless Israel, and you'll be blessed, curse Israel, and you'll be cursed.
It is referring to Abraham's seed when it's talking about Israel.
So, Abraham, of course, the father, Isaac, Jacob, going down to David, and then going into Jesus Christ, right?
It is my greatest hope that the people who are appearing at this wonderful organization, RJC, who've come up here and spoken to you, will do what they say they're going to do.
These were the conservatives that were skeptical about overseas dealings and were skeptical about the big government and the spending.
And these are the people that truly like people like my dad or Fuentes are kind of like descended from ideologically wise.
They bent the other way and were willing to start asking the same sorts of questions that people have been doing for the past 20 years since like the Iraq war, right?
But they were, they were, they were preamble.
They were before they kind of called the whole thing.
So you're going to hear him say another name, John Birch Society.
Those people, they have a long history, but they're not like Nazis.
How dare you say that Jewish people and it's insane because he's Republican and just you know two years ago, Republicans were complaining about all the censorship that was happening when the Democrats were in power.
Well, it's, it's the thing if you hold up the giant atrocity and you're like, just because this happened means that no one can criticize me again 100 years into the future.
But at the end of the day, it didn't happen to you.
Right.
And the way that there's a Randy Fine clip.
I'm not sure if it's included in my slideshow that I have here, but I watched the full Randy Fine interview.
And in the full Randy Fine interview, he tells this story about like being 12 and he's not able to like eat at the lunch table and like his principal saves his life by hiding him because they like they hated him because he was Jewish, I guess, in Florida or wherever he's from.
that's your god and the last i checked jesus was a jew and i will tell you at least for me i am very proud to be a christian zionist oh and replacement theology is a twisted view that the jews are no longer god's chosen zion the promises in the old testament no longer apply It just, it's just that's very bold.
I want to talk about the dark force rising on our side.
Multiple speakers have talked about the rise of anti-Semitism on the right.
But it is not enough to speak in platitudes or generalities about the fight.
We must call evil by its name.
Five years ago, if I was talking to my father, who's watching, hi, Dad, if I was talking to my father at 8.59 p.m. at night, he would say, Randy, I got to go.
Tucker Carlson's going to be on it.
But make no mistake, today, Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous anti-Semite in America.
He has chosen, he has chosen to take on the mantle of leader of a modern-day Hitler youth to broadcast and feature.
I think my issue with these things is like they feel like they have to like defend every inch of criticism against, you know, the right-wing Zionist Israeli coalition that's going on.
And it's like, you know, it's weird to see this type of behavior because, you know, I don't condone, you know, people being literally anti-Semitic where they're like out there and we're like, we've got to kill the Jews and then like preaching violence against Jews.
Like that's dumb.
That's retarded.
Like I don't, I don't think that is something that you should be able to push forward.
And there are some Palestinians and some Muslims that are on that bandwagon where they're like, okay, we just have to eliminate the Jews essentially.
You know how, you know, how like anything Republican, anything Trump, anything that he supports is bad.
It's bad.
Yeah.
That's, that's, that's how the African American community is like these days, where it's just, you go on Instagram, you go on the shade room, you go on some of these other platforms, and it's like, you know, Trump is the evil man.
Anybody who's aligned with him is evil as well.
But at the end of the day, my perspective on this, you can't be anti-Semitic strictly from just making statements about wrong accusations.
And then leading into Trump, you have the Russia scandal, and that's all anyone cares about.
That's all they fight about.
Then you have Biden and it's the border and it's COVID.
And it's just all wrapped into one.
And through each one of those crises, they're able to extract some small right or some civil liberty.
They're able to just take it away.
And then people forget that it even happened when the people have legitimate grievance to sue the government for what happened during COVID and for being forced to take an experimental shot that we really knew nothing about and still don't know anything about.
And the long-term testing was never there for it.
But they lied and said that it stopped transmission, which it never did.
So we have to think about things like this.
And now we're at the Israel debate.
This is the big thing.
And I'm sure what will come out of this next couple of years will be some sort of fucked up compromise, right?
Where everyone really loses and Israel's still growing and still gaining power and influence.
But, you know, maybe Trump's able to save face a little bit.
Maybe he's not.
Hey, don't annex the West Bank for like another term.
No, what's going to come out is five years from now.
I am speaking this into existence.
All of the evil shit that's being done behind closed doors where people are afraid to whistleblow or talk about because you're in the middle of a conflict and you're under a specific regime, you know, lack of a better term.
It's like anyone that's not part of the agenda and does not stick to the guns of whatever the agenda of the party is is going to get outside because Tucker on Fox was like the star child of the right.
He has represented being anti-war in a way that is really not okay to do because that's what it's all about is preserving the military industrial complex.
He's strongly spoken out about the vaccines, of course, and other people have done that, but he's remained on that.
There's some issues that like it was a pet issue to be like, you can say this is okay for six months.
Like you can fight against this for six months and then we have to leave it alone.
It's been an opposite thing happening with him, whereas he stuck to his convictions on these issues.
And then the single most important national security decision the president has made was the decision to launch the bombing raid on the Iran nuclear facilities.
Former police officer Brandon Tatum, I call him Officer Talmud, demanded that Gaza be turned into a parking lot, quote unquote, for attacking people he called chosen by God.
I mean, that's right.
He insisted Gaza should serve as a global warning and declare that any country that attacks Israel would cease to exist.
I got to preface it because somebody going to clip this and put on the internet.
Not because of the Palestinian people, per se, individual people, but because if you dare to do such an atrocity to people that I love, people that I respect, people that are chosen by God, you decide to do something like that.
Impressive little verbal trick from Officer Talmud, but it doesn't work this way.
Notice how he qualified it by saying people that are, I respect people that I love, people that are chosen by God.
So imagine you just cut off that first part where he's qualifying it and you just go, if you do something like this to people that are chosen by God, like, do we live in a cult?
Like, at the end of the day, the only reason why he's feeling this way and justified to say something like this is because it is not his house that's getting turned into a parking lot.
It is not his family that's being affected at the end of the day.
right i don't think black people support no they don't certainly end of the day but look he's got the chain out he's he's up there spitting on the mic he's ruled and it should be an example to everybody in the world that if you ever think about something like this your country will cease to exist
And I don't like to be sounding like I want my $7,000 for this statement, but I don't actually hate Israel.
You know, even after all this shit, I think I'm condemning them for what they're doing, but I'm not necessarily so anti-Israel, the fact that I hate everybody that lives there.
For those who did not, you know, catch the last episode Sunday of the Gray Area when we talked about, or it was before that, World War II.
Churchill was not the best guy in the world.
No, he was preached as the savior, but he actually killed millions of people, especially in Bengal and India, where they starved 3 million people in order to aid their war efforts.
I struggle to watch these videos because it's like, you know, I'm center, right?
I'm independent, but then like I lean more conservative, right?
But like these things show me why you just can't drink the Kool-Aid.
This is exactly why you can't go to one side or the other because I go to the liberal Democrat side and I just have to basically say, hey, teach my kid about transgenderism.
And then I go to the right and they're like, you must beg to the wall.
We love Israel.
We got to do everything for them.
And then you can't even speak out against genocide.
I mean, at the end of the day, with these types of things, the narrative gets out of control.
And I think this is going to come back to bite the Republicans in the ass.
I don't see a scenario where maybe a Republican does win the next election.
But then, you know, maybe we'll get amnesia in three years and there's something going on where, like we forget about this moment and like all of the you know Mossad, money that's being pumped into the Republican Party, who knows?
But like this certainly isn't helping.
You know, when we all voted for you know I can't say we, but there was a large silent majority of people voted for him.
We, we.
There was a large silent majority of people that were like oh, but it's out of control, let's go for Trump.
And, like you know, we were like oh, this is the party that's going to come in, change things around.
I think they've, they've really focused it on, like tying the Jewish identity to the Israeli identity, which I think is a very sick thing that historians in the future will really criticize.
The Christian belief system is like, thou shall not kill is really the premise of the Old Testament and the laws of Moses, like you're talking about, Ten Commandments.
The thing is, and this, this is why we don't practice the same religion ultimately.
And this is the Protestant heresy that's cropped up in America.
It's been grown here since the early 20th century.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament and all of its laws.
Right.
To be a Christian is to be a little Christ.
It's become more like Jesus himself.
Right.
And we're saved through baptism, through accepting the Holy Spirit, and then you become a part of the church, right?
So Abraham's seed, as referred to in Genesis, that bless Israel and you'll be blessed, cursed and you'll be cursed.
That's referring to the seed, which is Jesus Christ, which is tied to the church.
But they want to make it seem like, no, the Old Testament prophecy still applies because ultimately what Judaism is, is they say, look, y'all believe the Messiah came.
We don't believe that.
So we're still waiting for the Messiah.
So everything you believe about the Messiah is what we would technically believe about the Messiah as well.
But you believe he already came, right?
So this is the whole thing.
So we do not practice the same religion to be a Christian and not love the modern state of Israel set up 78 years ago.
Just because you name something, something doesn't mean it's the biblical thing.
That's the problem I have is like people use, you know, certain scriptures or just like the name of God in general and it's very convenient to push in there.
If you praise Hitler, if you play footy with Hitler, if you think Hitler's misunderstood, if you think Churchill's the reason we had World War II, if you think Churchill was the provocateur, if you think about things, he's not a good guy.
And he even brought up Winston Churchill saying, if you blame Winston Churchill for World War II, and that was kind of funny because it's almost like, well, well, now I'm starting to think, you know what I mean?
And that is the narrative that was pushed in order to like, you know, save face.
It's just they didn't have the camera and the little iPhone to record all the atrocities that the British Empire was committing outside of the European draft chapter.
Yes, they were doing good things on the European chapter, but there was an entire world in an entire war in Asia that no one talks about.
And that Churchill basically saw these people as second-class citizens and was like, as long as it's good for Britain, that's all we care about.
I'm glad you brought that up because they keep bringing up that it is, they keep bringing up the founding of America and tying it to their project, right?
And so this is where you have an issue.
And I spoke at the, I just spoke on that, that X space about these people who are anti-Zionist pack.
I told them, you're going to run into a big problem because there's a deep state in this country that has an agenda and their agenda, they're not willing to reform this agenda.
They're not willing to compromise reform.
And it is for one world government and one world religion.
And when these guys like Mark Levin and others keep bringing up the founding of America being tied to modern day Israel, which was founded by the Rothschilds for the purpose of bringing about one world government and one world religion, ultimately, that's really creepy.
And I don't appreciate them doing that.
And Harrison didn't like that either.
Harrison was like, no, that's not true.
The founding of America is not for this evil, sinister purpose.
They're trying to hijack what was actually something good and trying to make it something evil.
Now, I like what Harrison's saying.
I really hope Harrison's right.
But there's a lot of evidence of some sinister stuff from the beginning.
One thing I'm really sick of is just like the whole concept of religion and how it has to play in war and narratives.
Like they're supposed to be the way it's always been.
But like, yeah, that's what I'm saying.
We can't get away from that as just human nature to just tie everything to religion, whether it's a holy war or whether it's a crusade or it's a fight against something.
Like, here's the thing.
Go practice whatever you go practice, but don't bring you know your God into it and basically use it as a justification for specific things that have nothing to do.
There's human, there's natural correlation of things that are right and wrong.
I mean, in general, we all know killing bad for the most part.
There could be nuances to it, depending on who you're talking about.
Like, but there could be justification, but overall, you know that that is just a normal thing.
Like, that's why society functions.
You don't want to just go around and murdering everybody and committing massacres.
So, at the end of the day, it's like we're the same peanut cavemen that we were back in these, you know, back in the medieval times where like the Christian crusade to just go around and just bless everybody with God's word.
I'm just saying, like, I don't want religion to be a part of the narrative when it comes to justifications for specific things that have to do with agendas independent of whatever God, whatever God you practice.
The difference between Christians, real Christians, and non-Christians is that in the Christian worldview, you can wage war on someone without dehumanizing them.
Now, the Catholic Crusades, they killed a lot of Orthodox Christians.
So, I, I mean, right, the history of the Crusades is not that great.
Now, there was definitely some good aspects to the Crusade because ultimately, we believe everything is according to God's will and that life is very complicated.
So, it's not like I'm going to flat out condemn or blanket condemn anything.
Like, if it exists, it serves a purpose.
But we all agree on basic right and wrong.
At this point, we've moved past, uh, there's no debate on, like you said, the basic foundations of society.
If we all agree on that, then we should enforce that.
Now, here, here's something: what I told that guy, Pastor Sam, and he called me an enemy of God.
Uh, in the end when I was talking about this, go ahead.
So, basically, what you're saying, I'm going to take what you were saying, uh, truism Tim, and let's take it a step further.
So, so, how can they basically have a state religion in this country without us ever voting on it?
See, that's the thing.
If they want us all to be part of this cult or have one particular interpretation of a scripture, because, like you said, there's a lot of different interpretations of the scripture.
If they want us to have like a state endorsed version of interpretation of scripture, the only way you could do that in this country is we have to vote on it, I guess, or really it shouldn't happen at all.
But if it's going to happen, it's got to be voted on.
And if it literally is everyone votes that we have to be Zionist dispensationalists, whatever, we have to be Zionist Christians.
Okay, that's one thing, but they never voted on it.
So, that's the thing where it's like the elephant in the room where there's one interpretation of scripture that the state has endorsed.
And we were never told this growing up, we were all taught that there's no state religion, but then apparently, it turns out there is one.
And they're doing it underneath the surface because in reality, they're not supposed to be doing that.
Because obviously, there's different interpretations of the Christian scripture.
And then there's tons of people who aren't even Christians who are citizens with equal rights.
So, how can we impose?
Yeah, I mean, how can we impose one particular denomination upon all the others?
And when I tell them this, they lose their mind.
And, but I like this angle of attack a lot because they can't call us anti-American by saying that we're just adhering to the Constitution and what it says.
Because me being a first generation American, people are quick to say, oh, go back to Lebanon.
We don't want your input.
So I'm very careful about how I talk.
So you can't tell me, oh, I'm just a Lebanese guy talking my crazy Middle East nonsense when I'm telling you, let's just follow the Constitution.
It's a very dark thing, I think, to think about the situation from this perspective.
So you talk about early Christianity, Lebanon, John, and like we can look at the Byzantine Empire where, you know, the church and the state were separated to some extent and the church gave the state some of its powers like execution and whatnot.
And now we look kind of in a modern day, looking at modern day America where the Christian Zionism and the moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all this represents that really their scripture is correct and it's the historical text like Mark Huccubi wanting to change areas in like Jordan and the West Bank to Judea and Samaria in the textbooks.
It's the state using the church instead of the church using the state.
And it's very weird and it's definitely a modern thing.
And I know that it's happened before and whatnot, like Henry VIII formed the new church and got rid of the Catholics and whatnot.
That's not what I'm talking about here.
It's almost, it's a distilled version of religion that they use specifically for territory claims and legal claims over land.
Bro, I can make some really dirty jokes with that.
But, you know, growing up, I had a friend who told me you have to understand the history of the Christianity in the South that they used to lynch Jews.
And then that basically something like the Mossad or something like that actually infiltrated their theology and actually took it over.
Now, yeah, through the Schofield Bible and a lot of other plots.
And there's another event, which I, how I figured out a lot about this stuff.
There's two Presbyterian churches.
One Presbyterian church is like pro-Israel, one Presbyterian church is anti-Israel.
And they're like the two major branches of Presbyterianism in the United States.
And so the anti-Israel Presbyterian church got in the news where the Jewish-controlled media was smearing them in the news, saying that when they held their annual meeting to discuss theology and develop theology, that they wouldn't let the rabbis come in and tell them what's up.
But all the other denominations, yeah, but all the other denominations, they do do that.
So you have people that come in that aren't even a part of your religion that don't believe your religion on its face because they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah.
So how could they comment on him being the fulfillment of the prophecy or any of the stuff that's really the foundation?
It's what the New Testament is.
So that's so crazy.
It's like you're a Muslim and the Buddhists have to come in and check your homework.
And there's a long history of this with way back in whatever it was, the 1600s, I think, with Martin Luther.
And so, when Martin Luther wanted to revise or reform away from the Catholic Church, and then the people after Martin Luther, they started to create the Protestant understanding of what books should be in the Bible, what books shouldn't be in the Bible.
And he didn't know what to do because he's disconnected from hundreds of years and hundreds of miles from the Holy Land, from the Orthodox Church.
He's just in a bubble of Catholicism where they had a monopoly on thought, a monopoly on religion, and it was totally corrupt.
And they were making stuff up and they were abusing the people.
And he knew that.
And so he was trying to reform it and come up with a more true version.
And I guess he was lost.
And in the end, what he ended up doing was he actually asked rabbis, what should I put in the Old Testament?
And so the rabbis told him not to use the Septuagint, but to use the Masoretic text where that prophecy about the virgin giving birth was actually modified.
So actually, the Protestant Reformation at its foundation was asking Jews and rabbis what should be the accurate version of the Old Testament.
So this tradition of thinking that people who reject Christ are the experts on the Old Testament, it goes back all the way to the foundation of the Protestant religion.
And it's a huge mistake because when the Romans destroyed the temple, they burned down the Hebrew scrolls, these big scrolls that they were having.
And so the Hebrew people or the Jewish people or whatever it was, they had to translate from the Septuagint ancient Greek into Hebrew.
So the oldest version of the Old Testament is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek one, but they don't want to tell you that.
So they have this new version, this more recent version, where they've modified certain words.
And that's the one that obviously Jews use.
That's also what Protestants use.
And it's even missing some books or it's a long story, but basically, yeah, there's some kind of weird pattern of, and the reason why that's bad, because some people say, well, aren't Jews supposed to be the experts on the Old Testament?
Well, here's the thing.
The Old Testament has in it multiple persons of God.
It's not a one.
Yeah, there's a trinity of God in the Old Testament, but they don't understand that.
And they don't have any explanation of that in their religion.
So the Old Testament religion is not the complete revelation of the truth.
And there's the whole Old Testament scripture is a massive arrow pointing to Jesus.
So without Jesus, you actually can't understand the Old Testament correctly.
So basically, no, the experts of the Old Testament are the Christians, not the Jews.
The Jews cannot interpret the Old Testament correctly.
And then there's also very specific events and worldly details in the Old Testament that specifically say that the Messiah has to come during the era of the second temple, which ended in 75 AD.
So their claim that the Messiah is yet to come is completely inaccurate with the old, with their own scripture, right?
And it's very easy to prove this.
A lot of Jewish people actually know this.
Or when they find this out, they do start to become Christian.
But there's a religious angle to all of this.
And they use religion to control for this one world religion.
They're going to use Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism.
They're going to mold it all into one religion.
And that's why we see the Pope praying in synods, praying in mosques.
Is like, you know, I look at this from like a macro level perspective.
And even outside of just the conflicts with Judaism and Christianity and all of these different things, you know, we're talking about, you know, text and we're talking about books and scriptures and people who existed thousands of thousands of years ago.
If one person goes in and humans are naturally flawed, right?
So we have to assume when, you know, all the things that everybody considers as the truth, we have to consider that even the things that we base some of our assumptions off, like, oh, there's this really old text that reads exactly this way.
We don't know what happened before then or what guy came in with his specific agenda, which is why I always tell people to take just everything with a grain of salt, including when you're just looking at specific things like in a word, scripture, or religious basis is because humans, just like today, you know, this guy goes on national TV and says, well, you know, if you're, if you don't like Churchill and you're, you're a Nazi, you know,
it's like there's people like that that have their own personal agendas and we don't know how the game of telephone happened.
We're just on the other end of the line way down the road.
And it all can become one big mess of the original message could be, we could all be wrong.
I mean, there's a case scenario that every single person that talks about every specific topic when it comes to this could have only part of the truth.
And that the original source of wherever this came from, we ultimately don't know if that is the true original because there's multiple different versions that get lost in translation.
So I've debated it a lot and people say, well, how do you know it's the original?
Well, for me, it's kind of straightforward.
I come from a place where we have the physical monuments that go back since the beginning.
So it's kind of straightforward.
Now, here in the West, it's very confusing.
And there's so many different things that have happened to lead to today.
But where I come from, it's very straightforward.
So there's a reason why they really don't want you to know that there's such thing as an Arab Christian, right?
They want you to think Arab equals Muslim.
They want you to think Middle East equals Muslim.
It's because me just existing, it makes you wonder, well, how did that happen?
When did you guys become Christian?
And well, my family has been Christian for 2,000 years.
It's like, oh, wait, wait a second.
So the actual connection to the original history is like a thread in history that you can follow back.
We have the writings from Justin Martyr from year 150.
It's teaching exactly the same religion as Orthodox Christianity today.
And then you got to just go back and like actually read the Old Testament.
Like, for example, it actually says in the Old Testament, like that there's multiple personhoods of God.
And you can like go ask a Jew and they just, they're just stumped.
They just got no answer.
So these are the kind of things that you go down this rabbit hole and you're going to find out for yourself what you're not going to be able to get bullshitted if you dig down this rabbit hole yourself.
People like me, people like Rex, people like Jay Dyer, we're not in a cult.
I think a lot of the times, and I really think it's because of like vampire movies and stuff, people believe that the Romans, the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest and they're authoritative and therefore everything they've done is what represents early Christianity and they completely leave out the first thousand years.
I mean, the schism was in what, 1054 or 1057 AD, something like that.
So not to detour, but I wanted to ask you a little bit more about yourself, John, and just kind of like, you know, you mentioned your first generation American.
You know, that's got to definitely make you see different perspectives of America as well as the Middle East existing in both worlds, because obviously like your parents, and I'm sure you've got a lot of family that might still be in those, not your parents, but I'm saying you might have a lot of family that might still have roots to those areas.
Like, what is it like from your perspective, kind of having like one foot in, one foot out on different things that happen here and internationally?
Like I was a little kid in Lebanon walking around on summer break from school in America, and I would wave at some kids in the playground and they would yell at me, you are from America?
And that gets you ready for the full life of like watching Mark Levin or Hannity on Fox News and being like, yes, yes, yes.
Evil, evil, evil.
Like that makes total sense.
And then from your perspective, being able to see through it day one, because you'd lived it, you'd been there, you'd seen the types of people that they were representing.
You're like, hey, this is not the same guy because I know what these types of people look like and they're different.
And I guess, how did this color your experience with American politic?
How did it, like, your view of elections?
Were you kind of in the camp very young?
I wasn't in this camp.
I like, I thought it was all bought and paid for, but I believed in like people like Trump and whatnot to a certain extent.
How did it color your experience of watching these elections, watching like Obama Romney, watching Trump Hillary, Trump Biden, any of these elections?
So I was, you know, in 2006, a major world event happened that was censored and blocked for all Americans.
And just like the famous conspiracy speech by John F. Kennedy, where he says their failures are hidden, not publicized.
Because 2006 involved a massive failure of the deep state and the Zionists, it's essentially erased or memory hold for Americans.
So that was really crazy being part of that.
But basically in 2006, Israel did a huge invasion of Lebanon to try to erase the resistance, the armed resistance against imperialism in Lebanon in 2006.
And funny enough, Anthony Bourdain was filming a Open Borders or Without Borders episode of the culinary culinary culture in Lebanon, which is very sophisticated and world class.
And the war suddenly broke out while he was there, while some of my childhood friends were there.
No one saw it coming.
And Israel bombed the airport and all the ports and all the infrastructure of Lebanon just out of nowhere.
Just blew up everything in the whole country suddenly.
And so Anthony Bourdain was like traumatized and shocked, just trying to film this cooking show, and everything's getting blown up.
And he can't escape.
They blew up the airport.
They blew up everything.
And it was a huge invasion, a huge war.
And nobody thought that the resistance in Lebanon stood a chance.
We were all kind of blaming them.
Like, hey, what did you guys do?
Like, you guys provoked Israel and you don't really have the equipment capable of resisting them.
Like, what, what did you guys do?
We were all kind of mad at them.
And then within, like, they were radio silent for the first couple of days.
Everyone was pissed.
Like, man, what the hell did y'all do?
And then the first speech, Sayyid Hassan Nasrullah, the leader of the resistance in Lebanon, the first speech he gave, he came out and he said, look out into the waters at the Israeli battleship that's destroying our infrastructure and blowing up our houses and watch it burn.
And live in his speech, when he said that, it blew up in that exact moment out in the water.
And everyone was like, dude, we didn't even know you guys had missiles that could hit that boat.
Like it was like a revelation of their power.
They had all the secret capabilities that we didn't even know they had.
And then they ambushed the Israeli invasion like everywhere.
They took so many casualties.
Eventually, Israel had to withdraw and gave up.
And it was all under George Bush and Condoleezza Rice.
And Condoleezza Rice at that time said, these are the birth pangs of a new Middle East that we're creating.
Don't worry about how bad it is.
We're going to make it good one day.
And it was very creepy, weird stuff.
And we realized in that moment that the relationship between America and Israel is actually America actually does run Israel.
I know a lot of people think that Israel runs America, but that's what I'm saying.
It's a tail wagging the dog is the argument people make about them having a bunch of outsized influence on us, but we literally without our funding, our financing, our backing, our military support, they wouldn't exist.
Doesn't it become a thing as to where like the political faction, which is in power now, is super pro-Zionist, super pro-Israel, all of them, even Trump, like he loves it.
And it's so intermeshed together now, or these people are inseparable and they think at least they're going to be in power forever.
Do you think it could become kind of a singular organism, which is kind of how, like, you know, you see the American eagle behind Mark Levin, but it's also got the star of David imprinted on its neck.
Do you think that there's going to be an attempt for like a true fusion between Israel and America being kind of like the same place?
You know, unfortunately, it kind of is already like that because, you know, the anti-Zionist pact guys, when you go to all these towns and you go around and you see that, and again, I'm not trying to hate on Freemasons.
I have friends who are Freemasons.
I love everybody, but I'm just being real with you guys.
I was going to be blunt again, because I have my very creepy here in Texas.
They're everywhere.
Look, because I got my foot in both worlds because I have this outside perspective.
I'm able to say the truth.
And so the truth is the Freemason religion, the Freemason cult or organization.
So the people who made Israel are the same people who run and made and lead the Freemason organization.
And so ultimately, that is the deep state of the United States.
When people say the deep state in America is Israel, it's not Israel.
It's the people who made Israel.
It's the same people.
And so Israel is made by the Rothschilds, and Rothschilds are openly satanic, essentially, but it's the international banking system.
Like, for example, I met a guy at my job the other day.
His daughter works for the World Bank.
They told me that his daughter, who works for the World Bank, has diplomatic immunity license plates.
You only get that if you represent a country as the emissary or ambassador or consul, whatever.
You're representing some country.
Why would the World Bank have diplomatic immunity license plates, right?
So what country does that represent?
So I asked them, where's the headquarters of the World Bank?
Is it in Brussels or something?
So no, it's in Washington, D.C.
So all these countries in the world that get a loan, their whole country puts the population and their potential as the collateral for the loan, the country's natural resources, the population itself, the population's potential.
The country itself is the collateral for the loan.
They sell it out to the World Bank, which is headquarters in Washington, D.C.
So the deep state is not, is behind Israel.
It's the foundation of Israel.
It's underneath everything in America.
So it's what we're doing right now in this country, that we're exposing them and we're trying to uproot them and we're trying to undo their power here in the United States.
They knew and they know that that was happening and that that's coming.
That's exactly why they're transferring over to Asia.
So America, unfortunately, guys, when we achieve our goal of kicking out this evil deep state, they're just going to cut America off and America will be on the shit list, just like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba.
Obviously, America is a giant country and could self-sustain, but that ultimately they're going to make America isolated internationally.
If you look at the foundation, Mao Zedong, if you look at who was around and behind Mao Zedong, it's the craziest thing.
You're literally not going to believe it so you see it with your own eyes.
It's literally like, and here's Mr. Blumenstein hanging out with Shi Shang-Chi, and here's Mr. Goldstein hanging out with Xi Jinping and these kind of Asian names.
And then these super Zionist Ashkenazi names, they are behind Mao Zedong.
And I'm not making this up.
I know it sounds ridiculous.
You got to see for your own eyes.
They built up Mao Zedong.
And then the transfer of technology to China literally happened through Israel.
The villagers of Lebanon have to fight against this stuff head to head.
It's nightmarish, actually.
In the last war that just ended, so the state of Lebanon is totally bankrupt and neutered because they don't want it to be able to resist Israel.
So they intentionally make it really bad.
And so they told the citizens of Lebanon, you just have to be bullied and just accept it.
And you just have to be dispossessed, displaced.
Occupied South Lebanon was occupied by Israel for 18 years.
They were making it into Palestine 2.0.
They were just kicking them out and they were Judaizing South Lebanon.
That's their word.
I know it sounds really silly.
They said we're Judaizing South Lebanon and they're just going to occupy it and spread it for the Greater Israel Project.
And then the citizens of South Lebanon created the resistance and after 18 years of guerrilla warfare, kicked Israel out.
And then in the year 2006, they re-invaded and failed.
And immediately after the head-to-head invasion failed, they initiated plan B where they, in 2007, the next year, they took out Gaddafi.
They took Gaddafi's state weapons from Libya, transferred them to Turkey, and armed ISIS through Turkey with ISIS's main goal being to jihad with a fatwa from the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia and Mecca to jihad against the resistance against Israel.
And so the war in 2006 is the turning point in the Middle East where Western imperialism, it's the inflection point.
Pre-2006, they could do whatever they wanted.
They could bully anyone.
No one could stand up to them.
They were just bullying people to no end and no one could ever beat them.
Then in 2006, when the civilians of South Lebanon survived a head-to-head invasion and actually won, everything post-2006, Western influence in the Middle East has been on a steep decline.
And I do not advocate for, I'm not happy that the United States is losing influence.
I want the United States to enforce international law, win the hearts and minds of the people, and maintain dominant position.
But they're not.
The United States is not.
The United States is being a bad guy in the Middle East.
And so that's why its influence has been declining like crazy.
And it's all because of this war in 2006.
And then that's why ISIS started.
That's why they made ISIS.
And The guy, the NATO general, whatever, what's his name?
The uh, the guy who said seven countries in Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark goes on CNN and word for word says, We made ISIS with our allies in the region.
Because if you're trying, if you need someone who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you have to go after these religious zealots who are like Frankenstein.
And then we freak out because the regime change didn't work, you know.
And this gets me thinking now that you're talking about these things.
It's like imagine a scenario.
Let's say the United States doesn't police the world.
Let's say, you know, there wasn't a certain amount of greed.
And, you know, let's say the Middle East was left to, you know, have their own internal conflicts, you know, like Sunnis, Shiite type of things going on where they're battling each other.
And, you know, the thing is, do you think that scenario works where you have like totally hands-off, or do you think there's been so much animosity and things that we've gone and messed up that we have to still exert power just in case somebody goes and decides to do another 9-11 without us watching?
And really quickly, I mean, just to tag on to Tim's point here about what you think about that, like, I believe it would have been a much more secular Middle East.
Like, we've religiousized everything there through our funding of the Wahhabis, essentially.
It's a video that probably you can't find on YouTube or anywhere else.
It's a senator, a United States senator, saying that Hillary Clinton, her policy, was to destroy every single non-religious government in the Middle East.
Exactly what you just said.
So, yeah, so now, I don't think 9-11 was actually done by Muslims because I think that if Muslims, if there were psychotic Muslims who wanted to do terrorist attacks, I think that there's ample opportunity to hit soft targets all over the place.
Now, in Europe, but here's the thing: I've been to Europe, I want to explain something.
I okay, so there was the so after 2006, there's this new era, this era of ISIS versus the resistance.
That lasted a long time.
We call that the Syrian Civil War or whatever you want to call it, ISIS, ISIL, all this stuff.
That time period, it was a long time, let's say eight years.
I went to Europe and I was in Europe during that time period, and I saw everything firsthand, a lot of crazy stuff.
And I can tell you that the Muslims that they're letting into Europe are intentionally the ISIS kind, and the anti-ISIS kind they don't want to let them in because the anti-ISIS kind is the resistance against Israel kind, and that's the Muslims they don't like.
So, the Hezbollah kind, they don't want those guys.
So, I specifically went to Amsterdam where weed, weed is legal, hash is legal, totally legal.
And it was like a goal of mine for years to go to Amsterdam and get the and get the best hash in the world, which is Lebanese blonde hash.
Everyone talks about it, it was like this really hyped up thing.
I made a whole like plan to go there and try this Lebanese blonde hash.
Well, when I got there, there was no Lebanese hash anywhere, and I was like, guys, weed is legal.
How what is going on here?
Why is there no Lebanese hash?
And they told me that they specifically attacked the Lebanese community because they said all the Lebanese hash that was sold was funding the resistance against ISIS and the resistance against Israel.
And they know that.
And the European deep state intentionally uprooted the entire supply chain and market and deported all these Lebanese people who were anti-ISIS.
But then, walking down the street, I locked eyes with a guy who was clearly a terrorist, the cartoon version of a terrorist, walking free in Europe, free on the streets.
Looked at me and immediately knew that I knew what he was about because I'm a you know Middle Eastern guy with a full beard.
I look like a Hezbollah guy because Hezbollah guys have a full beard.
These ISIS guys shave their mustache and have long skinny beards.
So he looked at me and I looked at him like, whoa, that's a terrorist.
I know that guy's an ISIS supporter.
You can tell.
And then he looked at me like, oh man.
And then he quickly shuffled away.
And he went into a shady little doorway with Islamic writing over the doorway.
And it was a hallway that goes behind the falafel store, which is the storefront, into these hidden rooms behind the falafel store.
And all this funding, all these mosques where they radical, there was thousands of guys from Europe that were radicalized in Saudi-funded mosques and sent to jihad against the Syrian government, against the resistance against Lebanon and Syria.
And so Europe was completely complicit and completely cooperative in this massive agenda to create ISIS, to fund ISIS.
Europe and Saudi Arabia, they're completely part of this.
So you can't think in terms of like Islamic versus not Islamic.
The worst Islamics are literally servants of the West since the 2000s.
I was just saying, I think it also comes down to you always need to have an enemy in order to control too.
My thing with where I was going with the question was, you know, you have like Hamas, for example.
They've got a doctrine that's out there that people can go and read and they essentially say we have to eradicate this entire region because, you know, there shouldn't be any Jews and this land belongs to us and we won't stop until all these people are dead.
Like there's extremist groups that exist like that, right?
And I'm just trying to see if there's a scenario where we can ever get hands off in the Middle East without there being like a conflict that breaks out.
Yeah, I know, but I'm saying tolerant in the sense that, like, okay, uh, Gaza could exist just like the West Bank.
You can have the semantics of saying, well, it doesn't really kind of, but I'm just saying, like, you, you can have this scenario where, like, Israel will allow there to be a two-state solution.
But if, like, Hamas, but if Hamas was in the power of Israel, their doctrine literally says we would just eradicate them.
I know what Israel is doing now, but I'm saying take the 10,000-foot view and step back from before all your thoughts.
And the key part of history that you got to understand is that there were thousands and thousands of Middle Eastern or like Arabic Jews in even Lebanon, in Syria, in Palestine, before 1948.
And they were totally living in peace and no one bothered them.
And if you're an Arab Jew, you're still not treated with equal rights as a Ashkenazi European Jew, even in Israel.
But here's the thing: Hamas came into power specifically through support of Israel.
So Israel is fulfilling the hatred and giving them ammunition for that hatred.
If you rewind the clock, there was no hatred.
And there was plenty of Jews.
Like right now, with the new government in Syria, there's Jews now in Syria.
They went right back.
Not only that, but there's millions of Jews who live in peace in Iran.
So the Iranian government wouldn't support Hamas killing all the Jews.
This current Syrian government wouldn't support Hamas killing all the Jews.
And Hamas is not going to be the Palestinian government.
They might be a component of the Palestinian government, but they're not going to be the Palestinian government.
The Palestinian government.
Yeah.
And so, you know, they might advocate for some crazy stuff, but I doubt they're really going to be able to pull that off.
Now, the truth is, is that Middle Easterners are generally just interested in family stuff and they're just interested in kind of lazy stuff.
Like, Iran has never attacked, initiated an offensive attack on another country in a super long time.
When I told you, uh, South Lebanon was occupied for 18 years and they did a guerrilla war to liberate their land, all those weapons were gifts from Iran.
It's international law that when a foreign invader comes into your land, you are legally permitted to use any means necessary to liberate your land.
That is Ukraine argument.
Well, it is, it is the black and white letter of the law.
So, so that is not terrorism.
Now, now, whether um, sometimes they went too far or not, of course.
I mean, you know, when someone steals your home, you're not going to expect them to like you know, uh, just have a hundred percent perfection on their track record.
But, um, you know, then again, if you compare all these armed groups, uh, Hezbollah's track record is, uh, you know, let's say 80% good.
It's, it's, it's not that bad.
Like, for example, Hezbollah protected a lot of churches in Syria when ISIS was killing all the churches, killing all the Christians and closing all the churches.
Hezbollah was saving the Christians.
So, all in all, you do need radicals to fight to the death.
That's literally what Wesley Clark was saying.
And they use these radicals to wind them up, just like with the Azov battalion who think they're serving Hitler, working for Zelensky, who's Jewish.
It's very silly.
It doesn't make any sense, but they need them to be riled up to fight to the death.
You have to feed guys some kind of line of bullshit.
So, it's usually the radicals that are prominent during time of war.
But during time of peace, if there's total peace, Hamas would lose popularity.
If there was total peace, there's no atrocities, there'd be no need for Hamas.
Anyway, Israel funded Hamas originally to erase a more moderate governance in Gaza.
So, what you're saying is right that that's a strange Hamas charter saying to kill all the Jews, that's strange.
Why is that strange?
Because Palestine, the original society and civilization, had Jews in it.
So, how can you say I'm fighting for the nation of Palestine when there was a bunch of Palestinian Jews?
Well, it was a minority, right, back then before the Europeans moved over into the Palestine area.
I mean, it was predominantly, I mean, you go back, yes, you can go back 3,000 years ago and say, Well, okay, well, it was really controlled by the Jewish people in old Jerusalem and X, Y, and Z.
And then the Romans come in, take it.
You've got like different groups that come in the Ottoman Empire.
I mean, it's that area has changed interchangeably over and over again.
But, like, my whole thing with this entire thing is, I think some Americans don't realize that, you know, a lot of the Muslims don't like these radical jihadist and terrorist groups themselves.
I think it might just be one of those situations where you've got the megaphone of, you know, somebody created this negative feedback loop to where these groups exist, they commit some kind of atrocity, and then it gives these Western societies the ability to go in there and do whatever they want for resource extraction or whatever it is.
Can you can you clarify if you know ultimately, and this is what I think I've seen is the people in the region of the Middle East, majority of them just want peace and to be just left alone.
This is a correct statement, or am I like, I don't see why this wouldn't be the scenario?
Yes, because I've heard my friend argue this, and I'm like, Yeah, I mean, the Quran is pretty crazy and what Muhammad did, and the 16-year-olds, and the sleeping with the underage women, and stuff like that.
Like, there's been some crazy stuff, but just like you're saying, Christians don't follow all the religion like it was back then.
Not all Muslims practice that version of the Quran, is what you're saying.
Like, the Quran commands Muslims to wage war jihad, you know, to the death against polytheists.
Now, when was the last time you saw a Muslim, you know, give a shit about Hinduism?
They don't give a shit, dude.
They're busy living their lives, 99.99%.
They don't have the motivation or the religious zeal to even follow their own religion that closely.
Now, here in America, we've got some pretty, pretty radical Muslims, but you do have to stand up to these people.
Like, okay, let me explain something very important.
When Islam takes over past a certain percentage of the population, they then want to completely take over the governance because they believe that that's good.
They believe that they're serving God with that strategy.
But here's the thing: everybody forgets and everyone neglects the story of Lebanon.
Lebanon does not have an Islamic government, Lebanon does not have Sharia law.
Lebanon has a secular republic government, even though it's majority Muslim.
Now, it's in the rules for a Sunni Muslim, it's in the rules that they are not supposed to be governed by a non-Sunni Muslim, that it's not a legit government, that they essentially have to endlessly take action to overthrow the government until it is a Sunni Muslim government.
And so, that's the standard teaching of all Sunni Muslims everywhere in the world.
But when they interviewed on video, this video always makes me laugh.
They interviewed a Sunni Muslim in Lebanon and said, Are you advocating for a Sunni Muslim Sharia law government in Lebanon?
They started literally looking over their shoulders.
It was like, No, we don't advocate for that in Lebanon because we'll kill them.
So, you do have to stand up for yourself and you do have to have weapons.
And if nature abhors a vacuum, if Christians and non-Muslims are literally going to just sit back and not do anything, then Muslims are going to take over because you can't just do nothing.
You can't just you look at Syria, a place with a largely secular government, whatever you have to say about Assad or whatnot.
We go in there, we say, Hey, Assad, really evil guy, really bad.
We put in the ISIS leader, right?
We put in Al-Julani and we, yeah, and he goes on fatwas himself, and he's got a loose coalition of people.
It's over like 300 cells that he controls, and most of them don't even speak Arabic.
I believe I was hearing Glenn Greenwald or someone else talk about this and break it down.
I trust the source wherever I heard it from.
Basically, our State Department, RCA, were in there helping him run his coalition of people.
And as long as they give Israel to go on heights or they do any number of things that are beneficial to the state, he's got free reign to do anything he wants because they can trust him.
They can trust his motivations.
They know what he wants to do.
They know it's aligned with their goals, and that's what they support.
They look at a secular state, look at a place like Lebanon or Syria, and they go, Hey, like, we can't use this.
If they have a problem in Syria, they got to make one phone call.
They call one guy, problem solved.
It's a lot less headache for them.
If you got a problem in Lebanon, good luck.
I mean, there's all kinds of politics and stuff.
It's a real thriving democratic country with actual votes, actual political campaigns, fighting for people's votes.
There's not any way to get anything pushed through an actual thriving, civic, engaged country.
Now, with LGBT, bless you, well, Jolani, you make one phone call, you can get whatever you want done.
So, yeah, that and what's happening right now in Lebanon is they're trying to pressure the U.S.-funded government to forcibly disarm the resistance, which Israel couldn't do in multiple wars.
So, what Israel could not achieve through war, they're trying to politically achieve by creating this looming threat of a civil war because they already had a civil war in Lebanon where hundreds of thousands of people died and the government collapsed.
And then Israel invaded to occupy Lebanon after essentially triggering the civil war.
They are doing the same playbook again, and they're trying to make this happen.
Yeah, and so the government of Lebanon is stuck between a rock and a hard place where their salary literally comes from the United States.
The sanctions will be lifted if they cooperate with the United States.
A bailout will be given if they cooperate with the United States, or they're going to starve to death in total isolation and siege.
So, they're trying to.
And so, basically, they're saying if you guys don't submit to us, we could bring Jolani from Syria and just swallow up Lebanon whole.
And then Lebanon will be governed by this Islamic, hardcore Islamic government that will oppress the Christians.
And so, it's another moment in time where Hezbollah's existence is actually giving the Christians protection again because the only thing stopping Jolani is Hezbollah.
So, the guys in Hezbollah now have to face the drones, the jets, the satellites of the collective Western technology, finding them, finding their weapons, tracking everything they do-the cell phones, the pagers, everything you can think of-israeli invasion with all these tanks and infantry, and then combined with a huge terrorist army invading on the other side from Syria.
And Lebanon now is completely surrounded, and they could invade with terrorists, like you said, who don't even speak Arabic all the way from Dagestan and Chechnya and Turkmenistan, all Central Asian Sunni Muslims who are all brainwashed in Saudi-funded mosques.
That they should kill all the Christians, they should kill all the Shiites.
And they don't want to jihad against Israel, though.
They just want to jihad against the enemies of Israel.
So, it's a really tough spot right now for Lebanon.
And it could be a very crazy battle in the near future.
Right now, Israel is settled down the war in Gaza and now they're drawing their attention to Lebanon.
They're saying that they're yeah, I think that starts back up, even though they have that little uh peace agreement that lasted where they you know created that little buffer zone.
But I think they go back, but I just'm so confused at the end of the day with this whole thing.
Like, I'm just sick of all of the new enemies.
We had Al-Qaeda, then we had ISIS.
Now, we're talking about Hezbollah, we're talking about Hamas.
Like, at some point, I'm like, dude, the average American doesn't really give a shit what's going on in the Middle East and just says, Hey, just let them do whatever they're going to do.
And we don't have any reason.
The only reason why there were people that were supporting these invasions or supporting intervention or having like military assets is because they're creating this fear around the fact that, like, oh, we need to get that under control because we can't let these terrorist groups essentially like form an entity and grow bigger and bigger without us intervening.
And so, it's just it comes down to safety, is what the average American is thinking.
It's like, I don't want to, you know, have my kids be subjected to some terrorist attack.
So, I'm like, what is the solution here?
Well, how do we, how do we get out of this freaking negative feedback loop?
Because at the end of the day, yes, you said something about the fact that the Muslims are going in who practice that version of the Quran.
Those ones are not so good, but the silent majority that probably aren't as radical, they just want to be just like the Americans and just left alone and they don't have any major issues.
Like Iran, I've seen videos of people on the boots in the ground.
They're like, hey, we actually kind of like America.
It's just the politics that are fought, the politics are fighting each other.
If it was another political environment, if it was another time, there are all these places across the globe.
And I point out Russia as an example of this.
They're willing to work with us, but we just, we declare you the enemy.
We say that you're bad.
And then we go to war with you.
So then you have to fight back against us.
And then by fighting back against us, you become bad.
And it's just this giant mess and it never seems to stop.
And you get people like Lindsay in that clip that we played just crowing and crooning about the amount of munitions that have been able to been dropped on all these countries.
The solution is to uproot this cult that runs this country here because they are not going to leave the Middle East alone because it's part of their cult ideology.
That's why they won't leave the Middle East alone.
As soon as they leave the Middle East alone, the Middle East will resolve its own problems very rapidly.
Yeah, but they just, they're just for them, other than the psychos, which there's psychos in every group, but I mean, the psychos of the Middle East are being created intentionally to be used as tools.
But if they stop that, if they stop Saudi Arabia from funding radical Islam and brainwashing these people, the average Middle Easterner, the actual culture of the Middle East is a family-oriented culture, and they don't want to hurt random Americans.
They don't have that ideology.
They don't think that hurting a random American is going to push their country to be better.
That makes no sense, right?
So you can't convince some random person in the Middle East, like if you just hurt citizens in America, it's going to achieve some goal.
But it reminds me of like the same thing that happens.
Like, you know, how like there's the running joke on the internet, like Indians smell, right?
But like, if you were to actually go and see like the demographic of, you know, the brown people who are like the ones that quote unquote smell because they don't use deodorant because it has certain products in it that they don't use, it's actually like the, you know, some of the Pakistanis and some of the other ethnics that are all in the same region, but because they all look the same, they get lumped together.
So like all the Hindus that actually shower, that smell good and like do their proper hygiene get lumped under the same, you know, guise of those small, that small population that is doing the, you know, quote unquote, they smell thing.
So the part that we haven't mentioned is that other imperial powers are just going to swoop right in, specifically like China and other stuff like that.
So it's not like, it's not like it's not like the Middle East is ever going to be completely left alone because all these major powers actually budget like billions and billions of dollars on the Middle East.
So the solution is for the United States to be on the right side and to be like, for example, there was that wrestling WWE or whatever guy, his theme song was, I am a real American, I fight for Hulk Hogan.
He's like, I'm a real American.
I fight for the right of every man.
So the real essence of American culture that we can be proud of is for America to stand up for the rights of every man.
And we can get behind that.
And the Middle East would like that.
The Middle East would welcome the United States to actually stand up for the rights of every man.
But there's this, that's not actually what happened.
When they took over Iraq and they made this Iraq state military, then they had Blackwater go in and put bombs in the different mosques to make the people start fighting each other.
And they then created ISIS and the Iraqi state military was that the United States funded and armed was ordered to stand down, gave ISIS all their weapons, and the United States wouldn't bomb ISIS.
So if we took over the government and we took over the deep state, like right now, we would essentially sanction Israel until they gave Palestinians equal rights.
Same thing with Syria.
We would make the Syrians stop oppressing minorities.
We would force every country in the world, for every country in the Middle East to honor the human rights of minorities.
And that would actually be a good thing.
So I do support American influence and American being this like big daddy of the world.
I actually do want that to happen, but they didn't actually do it.
And the way it's all set up is really for a universe of boomers who are still watching the TV, not for the information age where everything's available.
So thank you, man.
I really appreciate you being on here tonight, and we hope we can do it again soon.
We're going to do actually a pretty good breakdown of this.
This one's going to be an interesting segment because I actually did do some deep diving.
We were looking into all of the aspects.
So we're going to do a little pre-war, you know, during the war, and then post-war.
And then that'll sum everything up.
But these are the things that, you know, we sometimes forget about in history, but the Civil War is one of those things that is something that defined the United States ultimately.
And it's, you know, one of the reasons why I'm sitting in a room with this fellow over here in the first place.
So I have to say, it was something that was welcomed potentially, you know, even though a lot of people died.
So let's look at this first map here.
It's going to be talking about what it looked like during this time period.
So you've got the split, right?
You've got the North and then you've got the South.
So the North, of course, was the Union.
And you talk about the industrial, they had railroads, they had factories, they had labor that would place manpower.
And then you had the South, which was just agriculture-based.
You got cotton, you've got tobacco, you've got sugar.
And it was all, you know, enslaved power that was running that.
And so the issue is, is at this point before we do this whole expansion, the balance was pretty even in terms of number of free states versus number of slave states.
And that was the thing.
The North naturally became more, you know, anti-slavery just by the fact of like they had, you know, machinery and capability.
And then you also had a lot of immigrants that were coming from, you know, their perspective countries that were moving to these regions.
So it widely remained considered free.
But the problem is, is we have this thing called manifest destiny.
And manifest destiny is, you know, the aspect of we need to expand, guys.
We don't just like, yeah, we need to go west.
We don't just like this little area that we've colonized up to this point.
We want it all, you know?
So if you can see in the map right there, that's how much we owned.
And now that part of Texas is somewhere where there was a lot of, there were Americans that were living in that region, but there's basically, there was a claim they were like, hey, we want you to annex us, essentially.
And so the president at the time, James K. Polk, he, you know, saw as a reason, like, hey, you know what?
Let's go buy Mexico.
So he goes and talks that yellow region all the way through California, including that little green part, that's owned by Mexico, guys.
They had so much land compared to what they have today.
But we offered them $30 million, which is about $1.2 billion in today's amount of money.
And the Mexicans basically refused.
And, Rex, do you know what happens when we refuse, when people refuse what daddy wants?
So, yeah, I mean, Daddy says, hey, we're going to go and put up these troops that are going to be stationed along the border there that you can see in the green.
And essentially, they bait the Mexicans into a war.
And they essentially get them to basically start shooting at them first in order to claim, oh, you guys attacked us.
Now we can go and destroy you guys.
So let's look at the second map now.
This map is going to show you what it looks like after.
Oh, this is the thing that we should talk about as well.
One thing that I forgot to mention is that one of the big reasons before we even start talking about this whole expansion of having new states, each time a state is added, it became very difficult to determine whether that new state was going to be a free state or slave state.
Yes, but it wasn't that simple because all the occupied territories are happening at different points and there's always an imbalance.
But basically what they did was they did this thing called the Missouri Compromise Line, where they said, all right, from this line below, you can have everything be slave.
And then anything north of that becomes, it becomes free, essentially.
And so we basically took over, when we took over Mexico, we created these regions.
This is basically when we went to war with Mexico, we said we want it all.
So we took over all of these regions, New Mexico territory, Texas.
And you just see how much land we took.
It was like basically we cut Mexico in half.
So that being said, California became a free state by consequence, as well as some of these other regions, even though it's not split evenly.
This is what ended up happening.
But these compromises were only doing butt so much, guys.
I mean, they weren't the thing that was going to keep America intact because, you know, at the end of the day, there were other things that were happening.
So, what's not on this map that you can't see, they've got Kansas, Kansas is a region that ends up having the unorganized territory, but eventually it does become organized by the 50s.
So Kansas becomes a slave state, but you had what they call bleeding Kansas, where you had a bunch of these free people and northerners basically moving into those regions, trying to like disrupt the balance of power and trying to make this whole mixing pot.
So you had a lot of like free people, we don't want slavery, and then anti-slavery and slavery people that were all in the same melting pot.
And there was like, you know, basically a mini civil war where people were fighting against each other over the politics that were happening down there.
So, I mean, people are going to lead you to believe, you know, there is this lost cause.
You know, there is a narrative that goes out that says, you know, the Civil War, it really wasn't about slavery.
It was about our rights.
It was about trade.
It was about, you know, freedom of what we can do and not letting the government tell us what we can do.
But here's the thing with that, guys.
I really did a deep dive just to make sure that this wasn't, you know, some hidden war that we got wrong.
Don't be fooled.
Whatever you're reading out there is false.
This was totally about slavery, right?
The thing is, is after the war, there was a man that came out with a book.
And essentially, he said in that book, as well as a lot of these other southern states, they wanted to redefine the narrative of what happened during that time period.
That way they could say, you know, this is actually what happened.
And they had a whole propaganda campaign to basically push this narrative as well.
So here's the thing.
These were statements that the southern states said themselves.
Mississippi said, our position is thoroughly identified within the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest in the world.
That was what Mississippi said during that time period.
And this is before the war, right?
Alexander Stevens, who's the Confederate VP, our new government is founded upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man.
We think about the Fort Sumter is where the Civil War officially kicks off, guys.
Okay.
Essentially, after South Carolina succeeds and all the rest of them follow, there's a lot of tension and there's a lot of conflict and disagreements.
And Lincoln fail essentially says, we don't recognize you guys, but we still have the, at the time, the union obviously still has before it's really the union still has assets and they have bases and they have different regions that are in the South.
think about the opening of the Civil War, the first shots fired.
This is a fortification in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
And on April 12th, 1861, a bombardment began that did initiate the conflict between the Union and the new Confederate states.
But really, this story does begin with the secession crisis.
Secession starts in December of 1860 in South Carolina.
It's a response to Lincoln's election.
The Republicans taking power scares a lot of the slaveholding interests in the South.
Ultimately, seven states will form the Confederacy in early 1861, and they will threaten federal fortifications in different harbors across the Atlantic coast and into the Gulf Coast.
Harbors like Charleston, South Carolina, where there are federal fortifications and federal troops.
Some say they can't hold the forts in the harbor, so they should withdraw altogether.
Others say that they should resupply and reprovision the forts and try to launch an offensive.
Then there's a middle way, an idea that perhaps if they offer a humanitarian relief, offer provisions, but not arms, they might be able to prevent the Confederates from firing on the fort, but still have symbolic hold of the fortification in the harbor.
That's what Lincoln decides to do.
He notifies the Confederate government, which he still doesn't recognize as legitimate, through back channels that he plans to reprovision the fort with humanitarian supplies.
The Confederates decide they're not going to allow this to happen.
They considered an aggressive act against their sovereign claims.
And so General Pierre Beauregard orders the surrender of the fort.
Major English declines to do so.
On April 12th, Beauregard's forces begin a bombardment.
It's going to last for about 34 hours.
During that bombardment, both sides are firing away at each other.
No one is killed.
But clearly, Anderson and his men don't have enough provisions, supplies, or armaments to hold out against it.
And so Anderson is forced to negotiate a surrender.
The Confederates took control of Sumter, and this is what launches the American Civil War.
And so when that number falls short, that's when they start the conscription.
And this is actually the first draft of its kind.
So this, this is like where we see the initial inflection point at which governments can start calling on people and mandating that they join the military in order to fight for their cause.
Right.
And you know what's crazy?
It wasn't just the American citizens.
It was also immigrants that were coming in.
They actually, 25% of the military for the Union was immigrants, right?
People coming from France, people coming from Germany, Ireland, like all these places where they're just trying to get away from their, you know, their bad circumstances and come to America.
Like imagine you get fresh off the boat and you're like, oh, I love America.
It wasn't like you came off the ship and they immediately were like, here you go, go to war.
We need you.
What really happened is like you could still come to the United States.
You got in, but it's when you became the citizen is when you became eligible for that.
So they still had a chance to initially come in for asylum, but then it's as you have your paperwork and you're basically, oh, I'm an American now.
That's when you were eligible.
So with that being said, at that point, you know, the Union, even with all that manpower, they struggled very early.
And so we've got two sides, right?
The Union and the Confederate.
And I'm just going to list out the advantages that each side had.
So the Union had a population of like 22 million versus the 9 million in the South.
And of that 9 million, 3.5 are enslaved people.
And, you know, they were calling on us blacks to go out there and fight for the white man.
But, you know, not everybody was cool with that.
But if your master says, hey, you better get that gun and stop shooting, you know, you've got to do that.
But overall, the industrial dominance, you know, the Union produced 90% of all U.S. goods, including 17 times more in textiles so that they had uniforms.
They had 30 times more shoes and boots.
They had 13 times more iron.
They had 32 times more firearms.
And they had 20,000 miles worth of railroad versus the Southern's 10,000.
And then also they had the mechanized farming and the stronger supply chains because they were obviously still trading with England and a lot of these other countries internationally.
And they had the means to do so because they were industrialized.
So let's talk about the Confederate a little bit.
Confederate, what they had is they had experienced leadership.
You had Lee Jackson, you had J.E.B. Stewart, you had, you know, strong tacticians, people who were involved in that Spanish, that Mexican war, you know, American-Mexican war.
They had a lot of those generals and they had home field advantage because it was really a defensive war.
The Union had to go into the Confederate lands in order to establish the order.
It wasn't the other way around.
They were playing the defensive game, which meant they had to have shorter supply lines.
They had higher morale.
And, you know, their motivation was like, we're fighting for our homeland.
So, I mean, they were, they were prepared mentally for a long war to defend themselves.
And so in reality, you know, the South really couldn't sustain itself.
It had limited industry.
It had limited resources.
And it was just time was on the north side at that point.
It's kind of almost an attrition thing.
But it's interesting is the South was actually, you know, it was very nervous, nerve-wracking for the Union because the South was actually winning for a good part of the war at the very beginning.
And the Union just didn't have any idea what they were doing.
They had a lot of inexperienced people and they had no.
And he's replacing generals left and right because it's just inefficiency within how they're doing things.
And then the Southerners, you know, even though they're outmanned, they actually know what they're doing.
They're a little bit more coordinated.
But that changes during a situation called the Battle of Gettysburg.
And we can pull up this little image of this.
We'll talk about it.
So, the Battle of Gettysburg is like what we see as like the turning point for the war where the Union really starts to see their first wins.
And then they start capitalizing off of those wins.
So, by like mid-1863, the Union was bleeding men and they had no morale.
And so, Gettysburg was a three-day clash that changed that whole situation.
And you had Lee of the South who invaded Pennsylvania.
They wanted to push north and show a force in order to like make the Union create peace, essentially.
And so, during this war and during this battle, you had over 50,000 casualties.
This was the bloodiest battle in American history.
And essentially, you had a bunch of places where the Unions had the high ground and they were using that to their advantage.
There was also situations where the Union positions were about to be overrun by the Confederates.
And then you had some of the generals that went in, made some really big decisions to just bum rush them essentially and change the tide.
And we'll do a deeper dive later, but they honestly attribute potentially the victory of the rest of the world war to this event and the bravery of some of those Union soldiers.
And so at the end of the day, Lee was forced to retreat.
And the Confederacy never regained the offensive ability that they had before.
So, like I said, this became the turning point.
And now it became from fighting for survival to fighting for victory for the Union.
Right.
So let's actually look at what the combat looks like.
We're not going to dive into like all the mini battles because there was over 200 battles during this time period of the Civil War.
So during this time period, you got to understand that it wasn't too long ago that we had the American Revolution, right?
And we still had a lot of the same tactics during that time period where it was a European style tactic where you had soldiers lined up shoulder to shoulder and they're basically trading volleys.
Now, here's the thing.
Back during the Revolution, and the Civil War actually changed warfare altogether because the type of bullet that was being used.
Back then, you had circular bullets.
Musket ball.
Yeah, musket balls, essentially.
And they didn't really have any control over flight.
It was just kind of you just shoot and you hope that it hits your target.
And also, you can't shoot them as far because the velocity changes depending on the shape.
And it meant that you had to rely on having a group of people shoot a massive volley in order to hit your enemy and hope that enough bullets hit that area to kill them.
Right.
And so this is where you had kind of the rotating musket line because it takes time for these guns to be reloaded.
I think it's approximately like a minute to three minutes to reload.
So what you would see here is you've got gentlemen in the front shoots.
Then you've got the second round of shooters on the other side of them ready to fire their weapons at the same time.
So that way you're getting a volley while he's reloading, you're shooting, while he's reloading, you're shooting.
And that's kind of how that works.
But the type of bullet did change to kind of a similar style of what we see.
And they also had a little concave hole in the back, which basically allowed the musket, the weapons to shoot further.
So now you could hit up to 300 yards instead of like the 40 or 50 that you were doing before.
And it created a lot of different type of warfare.
But I want to show this video because it gives you context of what it felt like to be in the military during this time period.
A lot of it was an open line up and kill each other.
Right.
And so that was why flanking was a really big thing during this time period.
Let's say you've got a line of people that's like this.
Okay.
You come around and you flank them from the side.
You don't have enough time for these people to all turn and start shooting this way because you're going to hit the guy next to you.
So, but this group of people, they can easily just shoot a volley.
And if they don't hit this guy, they'll hit the next guy.
And they might hit the next guy.
And so that's why flanking became a really big thing during this time period.
And if you could flank the enemy, then you could typically, you know, move their position.
And typically when somebody got flanked, you know, they would try to fight back, but often they actually ran away because it was like almost certain that you were going to die because you didn't have enough time to react, especially if you're trying to reload or something like that.
And bayonets were a big thing where you're just like, once you're getting close enough and you don't have the gun, you're just going to go and stab people.
Right.
And that's how it really goes.
And so this whole situation with the turning point of Gettysburg, the Union starts winning a bunch of battles.
But what really puts the nail in the coffin for the Confederate people is this new plan that the Union had, which was called Sherman's March.
And let's pull up the graphic of that.
Because Sherman's March was basically the Union knew they had the manpower.
They knew they had the weapons.
They knew they had every advantage.
And they were like, you know what?
Rather than play this long game out, let's just overwhelm them and crush them.
Essentially, what this was is like Sherman's march to the sea.
And their strategy was basically go in, you do a new campaign.
It's basically you're trying to just take the war to the southern people and just destroy their infrastructure, incapacitate their rail rail rail networks, their troops, everything, local supplies, get rid of it all, essentially.
And this is really what they did.
And they played this out during the rest of the last year of the Civil War during 1864.
And you essentially eventually had where Lee surrenders.
He realizes there's no ability for me to be able to come back from this.
We don't have any way to resupply our troops.
And Georgia is kind of that last stepping stone for the Union to essentially win the war and basically say, okay, we give up.
So, I mean, at the end of the day, this whole war ended up being the costliest war that we had for America.
And you had 620,000, over 620,000 deaths that happened.
And that's a lot of deaths, guys.
And that's all Americans, essentially.
And then you got immigrants that are in there, but they're also American citizens now at that point.
But, you know, the union is preserved.
And, you know, they say slavery was abolished at the point at which the war was over, but it really wasn't that straightforward because you got to understand during this time period, the reconstruction after the war is a little bit more tricky than what you would think.
You know, just because you lose the war doesn't mean you give up all the things that made you money in the first place when it came to slavery.
So we're going to watch this little clip.
It's going to be the last clip of the Reconstruction post-Civil War.
And it's going to break down what this looks like.
unidentified
After the Civil War ended, the United States had to reintegrate both a formerly slave population and a formerly rebellious population back into the country, which is a challenge that we might have met, except Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and we were left with Andrew, I am the third worst president ever.
Johnson.
I'm sorry, Abe, but you don't get to be in the show anymore.
So Lincoln's whole post-war idea was to facilitate reunion and reconciliation.
And Andrew Johnson's guiding Reconstruction principle was that the South never had a right to secede in the first place.
Also, because he was himself a Southerner, he resented all the elites in the South who had snubbed him.
And he was also a racist who didn't think that blacks should have any role in Reconstruction.
Trifecta.
So between 1865 and 1867, the so-called period of presidential reconstruction, Johnson appointed provisional governors and ordered them to call state conventions to establish new all-white governments.
And in their 100% whiteness and oppression of former slaves, those new governments looked suspiciously like the old Confederate governments they had replaced.
And what was changing for the former slaves?
Well, in some ways, a lot, like Fisk and Howard Universities were established, as well as many primary and secondary schools, thanks in part to the Freedmen's Bureau, which only lasted until 1870, but had the power to divide up confiscated and abandoned Confederate land for former slaves.
And this was very important because to most slaves, land ownership was the key to freedom, and many felt like they'd been promised land by the Union Army, like General Sherman's Field Order 15 promised to distribute land in 40-acre plots to former slaves.
But that didn't happen either through the Freedmen's Bureau or anywhere else.
Instead, President Johnson ordered all land returned to its former owners.
So the South remained largely agricultural with the same people owning the same land.
And in the end, we ended up with sharecropping.
Let's go to the thought bubble.
The system of sharecropping replaced slavery in many places throughout the South.
Landowners would provide housing to the sharecroppers.
No, thought bubble, not quite that nice.
There you go.
Also, tools and seed.
And then the sharecroppers received, get this, a share of their crop, usually between a third and a half, with the price for that harvest often set by the landowner.
Republicans in Congress weren't happy that this reconstructed South looked so much like the pre-Civil War South.
So they took the lead in Reconstruction after 1867.
Radical Republicans felt the war had been fought for equal rights and wanted to see the powers of the national government expanded.
Few were as radical as Thaddeus Tommy Lee Jones Stevens, who wanted to take away land from the southern planters and give it to the former slaves.
But rank-and-file Republicans were radical enough to pass the Civil Rights Bill, which defined persons born in the United States as citizens and established nationwide equality before the law, regardless of race.
Andrew Johnson immediately vetoed the law, claiming that trying to protect the rights of African Americans amounted to discrimination against white people, which so infuriated Republicans that Congress did something it had never done before in all of American history.
They overrode the presidential veto with a two-thirds majority and the Civil Rights Act became a law.
So then Congress really had its dander up and decided to amend the Constitution with the 14th Amendment, which defines citizenship, guarantees equal protection, and extends the rights in the Bill of Rights to all the states, sort of.
So this being said, Johnson, Andrew Johnson actually got impeached.
And it's because a lot of his things, a lot of the things that he did during this time period didn't actually help with the Reconstruction and his policies were just terrible by all means.
And so essentially he got impeached.
We have some of the, you know, new amendments.
They actually tried to go in when they tried to create these amendments.
Andrew, Andrew actually vetoed them.
And it was the first time where you had Congress override with the two-thirds vote, basically to ensure that, you know, black people had the same citizen, natural born citizen rights as, you know, the white people.
You had the three-fifths rule, where like there was a big issue where you had, yeah, but after the war.
This was after the war.
But the three-fifths compromise is something where blacks vote was essentially three-fifths worth of vote because a lot of these other places were very concerned about if you just had like millions of slaves gets plugged in, they can vote.
Yeah, they got a lot more ability to have votes.
So it became black people are three-fifths worth of vote.
It wasn't exactly representative of the population.
But at the end of the day, newly freed black Americans during this time period, they still faced tons of racism.
It wasn't like a Sinners, you know, the Emancipation Proclamation comes out and you've defeated the Confederates too and declared all these laws in place.
And maybe it would have changed a little bit if Lincoln didn't die, like just 10 days after the war.
But ultimately, you still had black codes, you had violence, you still had the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.
You had all these things that happened after.
And, you know, by the time 1877 rolls around, federal troops end up withdrawing from those regions altogether.
And that's when Jim Crow ends up replacing slavery with segregation.
And that pretty much wraps up.
Civil War did end slavery, but it just began another fight for the progression of the slaves and the freedom of the rights of people.
But yeah, I mean, that's that's our Civil War segment, guys.
And it's like, look, I like to think I know about things.
Like, I went over a few things here that I didn't know about and I just learned a lot.
So when we do these prepared segments and when Tim does the deep dive, when we do the research on these things, it is important for us to always look at information that we may have learned before, may have heard before.
It's important for us to remember it and to put it in the context of modern life and to realize, hey, we're not just, we didn't just teleport and end up here, you know, right, sitting here.
There's hundreds and hundreds and thousands, like Lebanon John was talking about earlier.
There's thousands of years of this history.
And if you don't know your history, you're kind of doing to repeat it.
There's this whole thing.
So I just like, look, if you like stuff like this, and we're going to do a lot more of it on all sorts of all sorts of different topics.
And we love it when y'all give us recommendations.
Follow Tim on X, follow Truism Tim on X and follow Gray Area Talks on X and subscribe on YouTube and Rumble.
But seriously, follow Tim on X. If you follow Tim on X, you're able to interact with him.
They're able to interact with our video clips.
And we can give you more high-quality stuff like this.
But at the end of the day, it's a period of our history where the federal government was expanded in response to a state problem where the state seceded and then Lincoln goes, oh, no, you don't.
And we have this war draft.
What I really take from it is, you know, this is the last time we had to deal with the reality of war here in America.
But ultimately, the thing with this, and what I kind of just looked at the macro.
It's like people don't realize the whole changing hands of what each party believes in, it happens very subtly each decade, each millennia, each century.
It's like everything changes, right?
So, like, during this time period, you wouldn't think the Democrats were the ones that wanted slavery and that the Republicans are like the free the people.
And you would think like the Republicans back then act like Democrats today, right?
Just slightly.
So, this is why we cover history because it shows you just because we have a system that's in place today does not mean that that's exactly the same message that gets preached by the same party down the line.
It could be that at a certain point, the Democrats become like even more radical and become the antichrist at that point, or maybe the Republicans because they're doing crazy stuff like the Jewish Zionist conventions.
But, you know, ultimately, this is why we do the deep dives because we like to see what happens.