Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Ghillain Maxwell, serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking crimes, was interviewed by the Department of Justice under the Trump administration, sparking renewed interest in Epstein's network. | ||
| Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, met Maxwell in Tallahassee, Florida on July 24th through the 25th to probe potential information about others involved in Epstein's crimes. | ||
| I think Glenn did a wonderful job. | ||
| She literally answered every question. | ||
| She didn't say, you know what, don't ask me that. | ||
| I'm not going to talk about this person. | ||
| She was asked maybe about 100 different people. | ||
| She answered questions about everybody and she didn't hold anything back. | ||
| But her lawyer, David Oscar Marcus, declined to disclose specifics. | ||
| The speculation fueled by this interview and the lingering question of a pardon concerning Maxwell revolve around Epstein's alleged ties to foreign entities, not just politicians and celebrities, as the plot thickens. | ||
| But a lot of people have asked about pardon. | ||
| This is just not a time to be talking about pardons. | ||
| Todd will come back with whatever he's got. | ||
| You make it a very big thing over something that's not a big thing. | ||
| You should be talking about, if you're going to talk about that, talk about Clinton, talk about the former president of Harvard, talk about all of his friends, talk about the hedge fund guys that were with him all the time. | ||
| Don't talk about Trump. | ||
| The Democrats pushing Trump on this and trying to connect him to all of this has massively backfired. | ||
| And I've been saying for 20 plus days since this all broke. | ||
| Trump needs to lean into this and order everything released, and that's all starting. | ||
| Democrat judges all over the country, Florida, New York, are trying to block the release of the Epstein files now. | ||
| Evidence suggesting Epstein's connections to Mossad and Russian entities continues to burrow down the rabbit hole. | ||
| So 21 trillion disappeared from DOD and HUD over the period that Epstein was operating. | ||
| He went to the White House his first time in the White House. | ||
| Rubin, who became Secretary of Treasury, took him, I think, in 1994. | ||
| And then Rubin goes to Treasury. | ||
| Money starts disappearing. | ||
| And then, you know, Epstein is ballooning fantastic amounts of money. | ||
| So I think Epstein was laundering the money that was coming out of DOD. | ||
| And if you look at his relationships with Mossad and Israeli intelligence, when Mossad is taking over DOD and the money's going missing, and we know the cybersecurity and IT and the Israeli sort of constellation was very active in government at that time. | ||
| So I think if you let the files out, people are going to connect the dots between Epstein, Mossad, the growing power of Israel, AIPAC, and then where did their pension fund money go? | ||
| Of course, Ghelane's father, Robert Maxwell, was alleged in books like Robert Maxwell's Israel Super Spy to have worked with Mossad. | ||
| Similarly, Epstein's ties to Russian figures such as Sergei Belyakov, a former Russian official who assisted Epstein with a Russian model and visa issues, and Epstein's processing of millions through Russian banks suggest possible Russian intelligence interest. | ||
| Ghelane Maxwell's own activities also add to the scrutiny, particularly her Terramar project, a nonprofit founded in 2012 to promote ocean conservation, which likely functioned as a shell company. | ||
| The New York Post reveals that Teramar, which shut down after Epstein's 2019 arrest, had minimal financial transparency and was linked to Epstein's funding of his illicit network, raising questions about its true purpose. | ||
| The Terramar project raised approximately $197,000 in public donations over its operational years from 2012 to 2019. | ||
| Maxwell loaned significant sums to keep the organization afloat, with tax filings indicating that by 2017, the nonprofit owed her $539,000. | ||
| And by the end of 2018, this debt had increased to $561,000. | ||
| The Teramar project was endorsed by the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013, but direct financial contributions are not clearly documented. | ||
| Ghillain's tech billionaire boyfriend at the time, Ted Waite, once donated $10 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation and was essential in getting the Terramar project funded. | ||
| There are plenty more rocks that have yet to be turned over as the Epstein saga stumbles onward. | ||
| John Bowne reporting for InfoWars. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's Wednesday, July 30th in the year of our Lord 2025. | |
| And you're listening to the American Journal with your host, Harrison Smith. | ||
| Watch it live right now at band.video. | ||
| I think it's time to lose. | ||
| Get everybody stuffed up. | ||
| Okay, three, two, one, this band. | ||
| Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| Welcome to the American Journal. | ||
| I'm your host, Harrison Smith. | ||
| Coming to you live this morning, this Wednesday morning, July 30th, 2025. | ||
| And it's going to be a big day, folks. | ||
| It's going to be a big day. | ||
| Tonight, I believe at 9 Central, Nick Fuentez will be debating Alex Jones on the topic of Trump and Epstein. | ||
| And, you know, maybe we should pull in some videos from this. | ||
| I know Nick talked about it yesterday. | ||
| And I'm very excited to hear the debate. | ||
| You know, I think Nick and Alex basically have the same more or less the same read on the situation. | ||
| I just think the main difference is, I don't know, age and experience maybe would be the main difference. | ||
| Because I think, you know, Alex has been under such sustained attack. | ||
| Obviously, Nick's been censored and stuff as well. | ||
| But n nothing, nothing compared to what Alex has been under. | ||
| Although although to be fair, cops did Kill a guy who tried to kill him, who showed up in Nick's house with a gun. | ||
| So, to be fair, he's been through a lot too. | ||
| So, not so much experience, but age, but age. | ||
| And that I've always said I interpreted Nick's opposition to Trump during the 2024 campaign as a long-term strategy, basically recognizing that either Trump's going to lose and Kamal is going to be in office, | ||
| and that's going to be the situation we're going to have to deal with, or even if Trump wins four years after that, Trump will be out, Trump will be gone, and somebody else will have to pick up the torch, or just it's yet to be seen what the fate of MAGA into the future is. | ||
| So it seemed to me like Nick was trying, sort of playing the long game and, you know, looking into the future. | ||
| After all, he's a very young man, whereas Alex is like under attack, under massive attack, being sued into oblivion. | ||
| They're trying to throw him in jail for a variety of different reasons. | ||
| And it's like, we don't have multiple rounds to like wait out the enemy. | ||
| If the Democrats get back in power, they will do everything they possibly can to throw us in prison. | ||
| And I know Alex has talked about, you know, being the warrior in exile because it'll literally be too dangerous to be in America because it'll be just complete anarchy and persecution from the top on down. | ||
| And so when it comes to Trump and Epstein, it's not even like Alex is covering what Trump's doing and trying to spin it so it looks good. | ||
| He's trying to figure out what's actually going on, just like we all are. | ||
| Trying to determine what exactly are the motives behind what Trump is doing. | ||
| And are these really mistakes that he's making or is this part of a longer game? | ||
| Is this the right thing to focus on in terms of the future of our country? | ||
| I mean, I've seen a lot of people online recently talking about what a, just what a devastating effect the Epstein scandal is having on Trump. | ||
| I mean, his approval ratings have collapsed, basically just in lockstep with every development of the Epstein story. | ||
| And people are pointing out, like, we're having massive success on tariffs. | ||
| You know, the deportations are happening at a pace. | ||
| Lee Zeldon, the EPA director, just basically undercut and abolished the like central pillar of the entire climate change agenda. | ||
| So we're having massive success, but it's not translating to political support because of this Epstein thing hanging over the entire administration. | ||
| Again, that's entirely Trump's fault. | ||
| It's entirely his administration's fault. | ||
| I mean, the way that they're handling this Epstein situation, it's no wonder it's causing their approval to collapse. | ||
| But I can at least understand the argument of, hey, we should drop this and focus on Trump's wins because we got to be building political capital right now. | ||
| So when the midterms comes, we aren't blown out of the water. | ||
| So I sort of get that argument. | ||
| So I don't know. | ||
| So it'll be interesting to see Alex and Nick talk, and then we're going to do a moon-based live afterwards. | ||
| I'm going to be joined by Lebanon, John, and Rex Jones to break down the debate. | ||
| Little post-debate recap that I already regret staying up super late to do. | ||
| But the debate begins, I believe, at 9 Central, which means it probably won't be over till like 11 or so. | ||
| So we'll be staying up late. | ||
| We'll be staying up late tonight. | ||
| And I hope that you tune in to both of those broadcasts. | ||
| We're going to try to get some other guests on as well. | ||
| But Rex and John have already confirmed. | ||
| So that's going to be very exciting. | ||
| We've got a lot of other big news that broke yesterday and developing this morning. | ||
| And we'll get to all of that. | ||
| Major tsunami warnings for like half of the world yesterday. | ||
| But as far as I can tell, no catastrophic tsunamis as were expected. | ||
| And perhaps that's because we all learned our lesson with those tsunamis a couple decades ago. | ||
| And it's actually kind of cool. | ||
| World's biggest quake in 14 years. | ||
| Massive 8.8 mag Russian island West Coast alert. | ||
| I think Hawaii was under alert for 12-foot tsunami waves. | ||
| We'll show you those stories. | ||
| But I remember, I mean, I guess it was a long time ago. | ||
| What was the, it was like the Indonesian tsunamis? | ||
| 2004. | ||
| I was going to say about 10 years ago. | ||
| And like in those days, it seems weird. | ||
| It was only 10 years ago, but like nobody knew any, sorry? | ||
| Oh, 20 years ago. | ||
| It was 20 years ago. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Yeah, longer. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| A lot longer ago than I thought. | ||
| Feels like 10 years ago for me. | ||
| But if you weren't around then, 20 years ago, it was like nobody knew what tsunamis were somehow. | ||
| And like everybody died. | ||
| It was crazy. | ||
| There are all these videos of the water receding because before tsunamis, the water recedes massively and then it rushes back in. | ||
| And since I guess nobody knew about that, the water rushed out and everybody was just like, wow, cool. | ||
| The ocean is gone. | ||
| Let's go collect shells. | ||
| They all ran out into the ocean. | ||
| And so then when the tsunami comes, they were all screwed. | ||
| And there were stories where it was like one island, some like sixth grade girl had just learned about tsunamis in school and so told everybody, hey, this is a tsunami coming. | ||
| We should all get to higher ground and like saved everybody on the island. | ||
| It was just, it's just interesting that 20 years ago, it was like nobody knew about tsunamis. | ||
| Now everybody knows, which is nice. | ||
| It's kind of like 9-11 truth. | ||
| It's like, yeah, somehow nobody knew this 20 years ago. | ||
| Now everybody knows. | ||
| It's interesting how that works. | ||
| We got a lot of videos to show you. | ||
| We got a lot of stories to get into. | ||
| Let's begin today, as we do every day, with our daily dispatch. | ||
| All right, here it is, folks. | ||
| Your daily dispatch for Wednesday, the 30th of July, 2025. | ||
| Trump says Epstein was banned from Mar-a-Lago for poaching young women, including Virginia Juffrey, from his spas. | ||
| President Trump said on Thursday his relationship with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein ended after the New York financier stole a young female employee from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort after being warned not to do so. | ||
| Quote, he took people that work for me and I told him, don't do it anymore, and he did it and I said, stay the hell out of here, he said. | ||
| Trump was asked to clarify comments he made over the weekend where he implied Trump had been banned from Mar-a-Lago for targeting club staff. | ||
| When pressed further, he acknowledged the staff members involved included young women, including Virginia Juffre, who worked at Mar-a-Lago as a pool attendant. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| Not a pool attendant. | ||
| She was a spa worker. | ||
| I told him, I said, listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it's from the spa or not spa. | ||
| I don't want him taking people. | ||
| And he was fine. | ||
| And then not too long after that, he did it again. | ||
| I said, out of here, he said, saying Epstein stole his spa workers. | ||
| The conversation would go to Virginia Juffre, the former Mar-a-Lago pool attendant who was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell after sexually and later sexually abused by Epstein. | ||
| When asked if she was among those Epstein poached, Trump responded, I think she worked at the spa. | ||
| I think so. | ||
| I think that was one of the people. | ||
| He added, yeah, he stole her. | ||
| In previous interviews and public statements, Trump said he severed ties with Epstein because he believed the financier was a creep, pointing to Epstein's 2009 conviction for soliciting underage prostitutes. | ||
| The reason had been consistently cited by a former president and his allies of evidence of Trump distancing himself from the convicted sex offender. | ||
| Again, we showed the audio recording last night. | ||
| It's not a video. | ||
| It's just an audio-only statement from Air Force One that he made. | ||
| And obviously, the Democrats are trying to spin this as badly as possible, when in reality, it just confirms what we've said about Trump the entire time. | ||
| This has always been the story. | ||
| The story was always that, yes, Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago and was pictured and photographed with Trump at parties there and stuff. | ||
| But then he was recruiting Trump's employees as a member of the club. | ||
| And Trump didn't like that because why would you? | ||
| Because why would you allow that? | ||
| Why would you allow people to come in and snipe your personnel and steal your good employees? | ||
| And they're like, he said stole, taken as if these women were property. | ||
| Like, well, that was the question that was asked. | ||
| The reporter said, didn't Epstein take girls from you? | ||
| And so Trump responded, yes, he took girls from me. | ||
| So it was literally the reporter asking the question and Trump just responding using the same vocabulary. | ||
| And they're like, see, he was trafficking girls. | ||
| Obviously, he didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was doing with him, but obviously he wasn't good friends with him. | ||
| Like he just did, you know, this whole claim of like Trump's best friend, Epstein. | ||
| And it's like their connection was 30 years ago. | ||
| Trump's like, where's that nice employee we had? | ||
| Jeffrey Epstein took her? | ||
| He took her out of our spa? | ||
| Okay, well, he can't come back then. | ||
| Well, then he can't come back. | ||
| It's like, oh, I thought they were best friends. | ||
| So again, I mean, it just, again, confirms everything that we've been saying about Trump the entire time. | ||
| This has been the story the entire time. | ||
| It's completely consistent and all of it. | ||
| And we showed the video yesterday on the war room, Virginia Juffrey saying, you know, Trump's treated me great. | ||
| I never saw them being involved in anything. | ||
| And she even, of course, endorsed him for president again, confirming the fact that Trump was not involved with Jeffrey Epstein's salacious activity. | ||
| I've got a crazy one for you. | ||
| Go for it. | ||
| So the Palm Beach Post yesterday had an article, Jeffrey Epstein. | ||
| Khalain Maxwell survivor testified she met Donald Trump at age 14. | ||
| You go down to the first key point here. | ||
| Said that she stated that she met Trump with Epstein at Mar-a-Lago when she was 14, that she was a contestant at a teen USA pageant, but did not describe any inappropriate behavior by Trump. | ||
| It's like the headline would get you to think like, oh yeah, this age 14 year old girl was getting sexually abused by Epstein and Trump, probably at the same time. | ||
| And the first key point is that she did not allege any misconduct. | ||
| Yeah, it's again, the purpose of the mainstream media is to tell you the truth, but leave you believing a lie. | ||
| And so they didn't say, what, that wasn't Virginia Jufrey. | ||
| That was a different victim, I guess. | ||
| It's a Jane. | ||
| She's on an age. | ||
| Again, I mean, it's, do we have to go over it over and over again? | ||
| I guess so, because, again, everything we know about Trump and Epstein is completely inconsistent with the way Trump is acting now with Epstein. | ||
| And I'm as sick of talking about it as anybody else, but the Democrats have decided that they really care about elite pedophilia all of the sudden. | ||
| I have to say, the gall of these people, the temerity of this cacophony of scum. | ||
| In fact, I tweeted it out yesterday because I'm not a glutton per of punishment, but I do like to keep my finger on the pulse of our enemies. | ||
| So I go to Reddit every once in a while and I just scroll down the front page, just get my adrenaline pumping, you know, just feel the rage building as you see the just incredibly, incredibly stupid crap that they just genuinely believe with all their heart. | ||
| It really is infuriating. | ||
| And I'm scrolling down the main page of Reddit, which obviously has been censored into Oblivion and it's just like a total leftist echo chamber now. | ||
| But like every other post, pretty much is a post. | ||
| JD Vance protects elite pedophiles. | ||
| Donald Trump, it was just every post. | ||
| Epstein, elite pedophilia. | ||
| Why are they protecting pedophiles? | ||
| It's like you, you absolute animals, you beasts of the field, you monsters, spent 10 years mocking the very concept of elite pedophilia, making entire shows where like the underlying premise was a mockery, | ||
| a parody of QAnon, just lambasting the entire concept of wealthy people kidnapping children to use as sex slaves. | ||
| They have scuttled any attempt to get the truth out about this. | ||
| They have defended the pedophiles with every breath in their body. | ||
| They have gone to the ends of the earth to criticize and mock and deride all of the genuine concern from the right about the cabal of pedophiles that runs our country. | ||
| Only now, when they think it can hurt Donald Trump, it becomes their number one topic, their number one issue. | ||
| These people aren't people. | ||
| They're scum. | ||
| They're pawn scum. | ||
| They're the moral worth of mud on the ground. | ||
| I hate them. | ||
| I really do hate them. | ||
| Really genuinely, genuinely hate all these people. | ||
| And it's hard not to. | ||
| I'll tell you, it's hard not to. | ||
| I mean, same thing's happening with the censorship in the UK, where these people are censoring the internet, going on TV and saying, if you oppose this bill, you're basically Jimmy Seville. | ||
| We showed that clip yesterday. | ||
| The technology minister of Britain was on Sky News being asked about the new Online Safety Act, which just was immediately implemented, not to stop children from accessing pornography or anything like that, but to stop adults from accessing political content, because that's obviously the point of the entire thing. | ||
| And this guy comes on and talks about Nigel Farage, says this is a bad bill. | ||
| We have to be able to talk about the consequences of the policies that our governments are implementing in order to have a democracy. | ||
| And this guy says, well, that puts Nigel Farage on the same side of Jimmy Saville, notorious necrophiliac, satanic child rapist. | ||
| He's basically the same as Nigel Farage because Jimmy Saville would probably, if he was around now, he'd probably be using the internet to get victims. | ||
| And so Nigel Farage is really, in a way, helping the Jimmy Savilles out there. | ||
| He's on the same side of Jimmy Saville. | ||
| And it's just there's something about the people who spend decades doing everything they possibly can to maximize the abuse of children. | ||
| After all, a million British girls have been raped by immigrants. | ||
| It's just the irony of the Online Safety Act passed ostensibly to stop child sex abuse is in fact only being used to silence opposition to immigration, immigration being the number one cause of child abuse in the UK by a factor of like a hundred. | ||
| So the irony, the hypocrisy, the cynicism where just they just don't, and it's like, it's not even hard. | ||
| How hard is it to care about children being trafficked? | ||
| Like, but for 10 years or more in the case of, you know, the UK and the cover-ups of the rape gangs, for decades, these people do everything they possibly can to silence anybody speaking up about the rampant abuse of children by elites, by immigrants, by whoever. | ||
| Shut up, you racist, you bigot, whatever else, you conspiracy theorist, Christian nationalist danger to democracy. | ||
| Only for them to use that same sentiment to justify their tyrannical behavior. | ||
| We just have to beat these. | ||
| We just have to beat these people. | ||
| There's no arguing about it. | ||
| Meanwhile, 8.8 magnitude earthquake hits off Russia's Far East. | ||
| One of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded struck off Russia's sparsely populated Far East early Wednesday, sending tsunami waves into Japan, Hawaii, and the U.S. West Coast. | ||
| Several people were injured, but none gravely, and no major damage has been reported so far. | ||
| Authorities warned the risk from the 8.8 magnitude quake. | ||
| It could last for hours, and millions of people, potentially in the path of the waves, were initially told to move away from the shore or seek higher ground. | ||
| But the danger already appeared to be lessening in some places, with authorities downgrading their warnings in Hawaii, Japan, and parts of Russia. | ||
| Residents fled inward as ports flooded on Kamchaka near the quake's epicenter, while frothy white waves washed up on the shore of northern Japan. | ||
| Cars jammed the streets and highways in Honolulu with standstill traffic even in areas away from the sea. | ||
| And, you know, luckily, there were not any catastrophic tsunami waves, but certainly this was a, this should be a lesson for the people there as we saw massive traffic jams in places like Hawaii, of people all trying to get to the higher ground all at once. | ||
| And there were all these stories of like Oprah has a private road that she wasn't opening to allow people to evacuate. | ||
| It's one of those, luckily, I guess, a little bit of a false alarm. | ||
| But if I was one of the people on Hawaii, I'd be thinking, you know, we should have a plan in place. | ||
| We should have a better plan in place so we aren't all sticking in, stuck in gridlock traffic while trying to escape a tidal wave. | ||
| I believe I have another. | ||
| We got some more stories about that we'll get to in a second. | ||
| Meanwhile, South Park features Cartman as Charlie Kirk in new episode. | ||
| Next episode of South Park to be released Wednesday, August 6th, will feature Eric Cartman acting as a character resembling Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk. | ||
| In a trailer posted by South Park X account, Cartman can be seen with hair that resembles Kirk sitting at a table with a microphone as Kirk does during his debates with students on college campus. | ||
| You hate America and you love abortion, Cartman says in the trailer. | ||
| Kirk responded to the South Park clip by making Cartman his profile picture on X and responding, I'm so watching this. | ||
| The show is now in its 27th season, kicking off with controversy after starting the plot line that features a reoccurring character Satan and President Donald Trump. | ||
| On Thursday, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers condemned the show In remarks to multiple outlets, calling South Park a fourth-rate program that has been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread of uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention. | ||
| Oof. | ||
| Oof. | ||
| It is true, though. | ||
| It is pretty true, though. | ||
| Sounds like South Park got under his skin. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I mean, it's one thing to say, like, South Park is offensive and we didn't like this. | ||
| But there's like, yeah, whatever. | ||
| You know, South Park is just not relevant anymore. | ||
| They don't quite have the bite they used to. | ||
| And look, it's a shame because there's so much fodder for comedy out there. | ||
| And it ain't on the right, folks. | ||
| And of course, the debate's been going on on social media. | ||
| People going, South Park makes fun of both sides. | ||
| Look, they made fun of Al Gore 25 years ago with Man Bear Pig. | ||
| As if, you know, those characters weren't treated sympathetically the entire time anyway. | ||
| Or like, I guess, Obama got made fun of at one point. | ||
| But like, obviously, obviously there's a difference between making fun of Hillary Clinton in 1998 and then going soft on the left for 20 years, only to come back making fun of Trump. | ||
| It's just like, if there was one show that you would think could buck the trend and not just dish out the same hogwash that we get everywhere else, you'd think it'd be South Park. | ||
| You'd think they'd continue their tradition of, you know, breaking the mold and providing new creative and unprecedented perspectives on the world around us. | ||
| But no, they're just become liptards and they just hate Trump. | ||
| And you're like everybody else now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Very exciting. | |
| All right. | ||
| Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| This is the American Journal. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is the American Journal. | |
| You know, I think maybe it's time to move on from South Park. | ||
| The Wright sort of has its own kind of South Park style creation. | ||
| I think Freedom Tunes is kind of right up there up there with South Park. | ||
| Obviously, it's not full shows. | ||
| We sort of got screwed over because a lot of the effort, time, and energy that conservatives put into creating comedy or entertainment that's only pseudo-political, it all got spearheaded by Daily Wire and they are not funny or edgy at all. | ||
| Maybe it's me that's failing. | ||
| Maybe we need to be producing something like South Park, where it can just be funny on its own, but also have political messages underlying it. | ||
| And again, I'm just disappointed in South Park and how they let the left sort of get away with everything. | ||
| I guess they have like PC Principle to make fun of like political correctness. | ||
| Dude, PC Principles character arc. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I haven't really been following the show that much. | ||
| I mean, I really don't watch it anymore. | ||
| I used to, I used to watch it. | ||
| I used to, you know. | ||
| Used to be addicted to it. | ||
| Used to be addicted to it. | ||
| I mean, yeah, there have been times in my life where like, you know. | ||
| South Park is life. | ||
| South Park is life. | ||
| You wake up, turn it on, and it just sort of plays in the background all day. | ||
| Zip up your jacket. | ||
| It's a very good show. | ||
| I'm not even like knocking the show. | ||
| Yeah, I don't know if it's $5 billion good. | ||
| Yeah, that's the thing. | ||
| Well, and maybe that was part of it, right? | ||
| They got offered so many billions of dollars to keep doing it. | ||
| And, you know, maybe part of that had to do with, you know, and it's funny because, like I said, I watch stuff on the left sometimes. | ||
| And there was a podcast I was listening to the other day because it just popped up in my YouTube feed. | ||
| I don't know if YouTube does this for y'all, but you scroll through your feed and it's just like a bunch of stuff you've already watched before and a bunch of stuff you're subscribed to. | ||
| And then they'll just drop in randomly podcasts with like less than 100 views. | ||
| It's really weird how it does it. | ||
| And there are hundreds of these podcasts. | ||
| God knows who these people are. | ||
| It feels synthetic. | ||
| It doesn't even feel synthetic because it's not popular. | ||
| It's just, you know, it's like injected. | ||
| Like it's, you know. | ||
| You know, it's probably good for these podcasts. | ||
| You know, I guess that's what you want on YouTube is, you know, for them to show you small creators, not just the big ones. | ||
| But it is interesting when you're scrolling through and it's like every video on your feed is like a million views, 2 million views, 55,000 views, 12 views. | ||
| You're like, why is a video with 12 views showing up on my feed? | ||
| Anyway, so this is what happened. | ||
| There was some podcast. | ||
| It was like the resistance. | ||
| And first I was thinking it was a right-wing thing, but he was a left-winger. | ||
| Long story short, the left is still, they still think Trump's a tyrant, and they're sort of desperate to find evidence of that. | ||
| And pretty much all they have at this point is that Stephen Colbert was fired. | ||
| And so they've concocted this entire mythology around Donald Trump is a tyrant because he gets people who criticize him fired and forces their companies to shut down their shows. | ||
| And it's like, that's what you have. | ||
| That's what you is. | ||
| CBS fired Stephen Colbert, therefore Trump is a tyrant. | ||
| As if, first of all, every show doesn't make fun of Trump that's on mainstream media. | ||
| And also every mainstream media show that makes fun of Trump, which is all of them, all fail. | ||
| They're not funny. | ||
| Because they're all trying to make the same jokes. | ||
| It's about the same thing. | ||
| And they're all wrong anyway. | ||
| And the best humor always has truth at the heart of it, not the retarded lies of the left. | ||
| And it doesn't even make sense. | ||
| It doesn't even make sense. | ||
| It doesn't even make sense. | ||
| I mean, they have, you know, Cartman, probably the most famous, well-known, and outspoken anti-Semite on television for the last hundred years. | ||
| And they don't do an episode about Gaza. | ||
| They don't do an episode where Cartman joins the IDF and becomes Benjamin Anyahu. | ||
| That is an awesome idea, by the way. | ||
| How have they not done? | ||
| Or go the other way and have his anti-Semitism going mainstream and make Cartman the new Hassan? | ||
| No, they make him Charlie Kirk. | ||
| They make him Charlie Kirk. | ||
| You had a chance to make Cartman, you know, a Twitch streamer becoming famous for anti-Semitism. | ||
| And you don't go with that. | ||
| You make him Charlie Kirk. | ||
| As if the right wing are the bullies in this country. | ||
| It shouldn't make any sense. | ||
| There's so much opportunity for humor and comedy out there. | ||
| And they make fun of Donald Trump's spray tan. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Donald Trump is in bed with the devil. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Wow. | ||
| It was a little tired. | ||
| Groundbreaking stuff there. | ||
| Real iconoclastic stuff going on there. | ||
| I could appreciate the callback, but it didn't hit the same, right? | ||
| As Saddam. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| So, you know, I can't help but agree. | ||
| The South Park fourth rate program has been relevant for over 20 years, hanging on by a thread of uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention. | ||
| They kind of got you. | ||
| They kind of got you there, South Park. | ||
| They kind of got you there. | ||
| All right, but the Christmas Snow episode? | ||
| Still. | ||
| I don't even know that one. | ||
| For those of you listening and watching right now, there's an episode out there that is their magnum opus. | ||
| Well, it's just kind of pathetic. | ||
| Again, it's like, if it was funny, fine, but I don't know. | ||
| There's just so much more opportunity for the South Park style incisive commentary, but they just go with the low-hanging fruit. | ||
| But maybe that's all of our fault for clinging on to these intellectual properties. | ||
| And God, The Simpsons is still making new episodes. | ||
| It's like, we not have something new already? | ||
| How about something new for once? | ||
| All right, we'll move on. | ||
| We'll move on, though, because, again, who really cares about South Park these days? | ||
| This story is a little bit of a shocker. | ||
| ICE arrests 214 illegal immigrants for child sex crimes in Houston metro area. | ||
| U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested 214 illegal immigrants in the Houston area over the last six months who have been charged or convicted of child sex crimes. | ||
| This figure surpasses the 211 such arrests made during the entire 2024 fiscal year by the Houston Field Office. | ||
| The uptick stems from broader enforcement from the Trump administration after the president came into office pledging to conduct mass deportations with the worst of the worst as a priority. | ||
| Among those arrested by ICE in the last six months who have been charged with or convicted of child sex crimes is Jose Jesus Gutierrez-Mirelas, 67 from Mexico, who was deported April 4th after convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child in DWI, according to a press release from ICE. | ||
| So again, 214 illegal immigrants arrested just in the Houston area for sex crimes against children. | ||
| 214 people in one city committing sex crimes against children. | ||
| What? | ||
| It's just unbelievable the amount of victimization that goes on because of these socialist democratic policies of letting all of the pedophile criminals into our country. | ||
| And it's like, I guess if you didn't have an understanding of the spiritual underpinning of the global conflict we're engaged in, it might seem confusing to you why pedophilia is so incredibly prevalent in all of these different stories. | ||
| But there is a spiritual underpinning to all of this. | ||
| And there's an asp, there's a characteristic of pedophilia that makes it the worst thing you could possibly do. | ||
| Which makes it the aspect of the shattering of innocence and the victimizing of the most innocent people in the world with the worst possible abuse. | ||
| It's just like the pinnacle of evil. | ||
| But everything else is just kind of shades of that. | ||
| Shades of the taking advantage of innocence, shades of imposing power on the powerless just because you can. | ||
| It's just like it's like symbolic of just what lies at the heart of everything that we're fighting. | ||
| And obviously there's been a lot of talk recently. | ||
| Alex did like an hour on his show yesterday about the gay men who buy babies and they're all pedophiles. | ||
| And there's this video of these creepy looking big fat dudes with the baby that they purchased. | ||
| And it's come out that the guy was a sex offender and had been charged with child pornography in the past. | ||
| And when this happens, a lot of people bring up the experiment, the Kintler experiment in Germany, where the German government put young boys with pedophiles specifically. | ||
| And I was listening to Alex yesterday and he said, you know, you don't know the half of it when it comes to this program, and you really don't. | ||
| And I feel like every time this program comes up, I have to remind people of just how bad it was and what the purpose of it was and why it happened in the first place. | ||
| Right? | ||
| And that's the obvious question, is you hear, okay, the German experiment that placed pedophile or placed children with pedophiles. | ||
| And you have to ask, but why, though? | ||
| But why did they do that? | ||
| Why did they conduct this experiment? | ||
| Now, the answer from their perspective is obvious because they're pedophiles and they want children. | ||
| That's not what I'm asking. | ||
| I'm asking, why would the powers that be allow it to happen? | ||
| What was the justification for allowing it? | ||
| I mean, they didn't go in and say, hey, German government, we're horny for kids. | ||
| Can you give us some? | ||
| And the German government was like, sure, sounds good. | ||
| No, they had to have a justification for it, right? | ||
| They had a reason behind it. | ||
| And the reason was sexual purity is associated with fascism is because the guy who conducted the experiment, his dad was a Nazi. | ||
| He was a homosexual, and he felt oppressed by his father or by the society, the Nazi cultural dedication or insistence on sexual purity. | ||
| And so in order to defeat fascism, they thought they would make people gay. | ||
| They thought, we'll do this experiment and see if raising children in a sexually liberal household will diminish their capacity for fascist activity. | ||
| That was the reasoning behind it. | ||
| So they literally said, to fight fascism, we have to give gay pedophiles little boys as sex slaves. | ||
| To fight, because fascism is the worst thing in the world. | ||
| You've got to fight that with everything you've got. | ||
| And again, not even as a defense of fascism, but as pointing out to you, and you see it with, you know, Sidney Sweeney has great genes and everybody's like, oh my God, this is Nazi crap. | ||
| You get that just things that are normal and good and moral and upstanding and clean and nice and beautiful, these things are fascism to these people. | ||
| And maybe they're right. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I'm increasingly convinced that they're correct when they say that this is Nazi propaganda. | ||
| White people existing is Nazi propaganda. | ||
| Straight people existing is Nazi propaganda. | ||
| Saying that pedophiles shouldn't be given little orphan boys as sex toys is Nazi propaganda. | ||
| So if you really want to get to the heart of like what the two sides are here is you've got the one side that just wants to live in a moral world with concrete ethical frameworks that allow for innocence and naivety and joy and simple pleasures, the family, church, things like that. | ||
| And the other side wants to just tear all of that down, wants to take a blowtorch to all of it, destroy all of it out of seething resentment that they aren't part of it. | ||
| And it really is as simple as that. | ||
| You got some homosexual kid that feels like he can't be a Nazi with all of his friends because he's gay and they're not. | ||
| And so he wants to wreck revenge on them by taking their children and giving them to pedophiles. | ||
| You explain to me. | ||
| You explain to me the psychological imperative behind that, what compels somebody to take that course of action. | ||
| But it's also one of those things where, in fact, maybe now is a good time to go into this story that I've been wanting to cover for a few days because it is a brilliant use of Grok and it shows how dangerous AI is under its current controlled manifestation. | ||
| And it relates to the Kintler experiment as well. | ||
| Let me say one more thing about the Kintler experiment. | ||
| So-called experiment, the gay pedophile orphan ring, sex trafficking ring that they call an experiment. | ||
| They weren't orphans, actually. | ||
| Actually, the kids weren't orphans. | ||
| The children that were used for this experiment were taken from their parents under falsified claims of abuse. | ||
| So just in case you thought it couldn't get any worse, it would be bad enough to have some kid whose parents have been killed in World War II. | ||
| He's alone without protection, being scooped up by the government and placed in the home of a gay pedophile. | ||
| That would be bad enough. | ||
| But what actually happened was that there would be a single mother who was like having trouble, you know, working a job and having a kid. | ||
| And they'd go to her and say, why is your kid not being looked after from two to three? | ||
| And she'd say, I have a job. | ||
| He's fine. | ||
| He's just, he's a latchkey kid. | ||
| He goes home. | ||
| He's all right. | ||
| I just, I can't be there for him because I have to work my job. | ||
| And they said, well, you can't take care of your child. | ||
| We'll have to take care of him for you. | ||
| And they take the kid and give him to a gay pedophile, who's a single dad, by the way. | ||
| Single dad, in quotations. | ||
| And then they systematically brainwash the kid to hate his own mother. | ||
| And so it's just like this horrible, tragic story. | ||
| The whole thing, I mean, they write articles about this. | ||
| They interview the kid. | ||
| Kid's like, yeah, this guy, you know, raped me, treated me like a sex slave, and basically convinced me it was my mom's fault that this was happening, so that my mom didn't want to see me and hated me. | ||
| And, you know, the kid's saying this guy convinced me that when my mom would call and want to come see me to hang up on her and reject her. | ||
| And of course, then he like realized what was happening to him later and came clean about it. | ||
| But there's been no justification. | ||
| Just understand like the level of evil that we're dealing with, the level of like psychopathy that these people think is justified because after all, they're trying to stop fascism. | ||
| Under the Kintler experiment of the 1970s, Berlin welfare authorities handed over homeless teenagers to known pedophiles. | ||
| Yeah, that and it's like this is the thing guys, this is what you have to realize. | ||
| Even now, even now they're trying to downplay this. | ||
| No, no, what actually happened was they took children from their parents and gave them to pedophiles. | ||
| The way that article put it was they put they gave homeless teenagers a place to stay. | ||
| Even now, when they're writing articles about the experiment that put vulnerable children in the hands of pedophiles, they feel the need to downplay it. | ||
| They feel the need to fudge it a little bit to make it sound not as bad as it was. | ||
| These people, man. | ||
| It's absolutely insane. | ||
| Okay, so somebody asked Grok on X in response to this picture of the big fat gay pedophiles and the child they bought. | ||
| They asked, Grock, does this make sense and should it be allowed? | ||
| Is it fair to the child? | ||
| Is it fair to the child to deprive them of their biological mother and allow two gay men to purchase the baby? | ||
| Grok says, based on extensive research from diverse sources, e.g. | ||
| Oxford Pew Heritage, etc., children raised by same-sex parents show comparable or superior outcomes in academics, emotional health, and social adjustment compared to those with opposite-sex parents. | ||
| It makes sense, should be allowed, and is fair to the child as loving parents matter most, not gender. | ||
| Well, very progressive answer, Grock. | ||
| Is it true, though? | ||
| Oh, but Grock, are you lying? | ||
| That's what was asked by somebody. | ||
| So according to Grok, not only are homosexual parents fine, they're actually better. | ||
| You actually have better outcomes. | ||
| Academics and social issues. | ||
| You're actually better off with two big, fat, gay, pedophile fathers, apparently, according to Grok. | ||
| Until you ask it if that's true or not, in which case it admits, actually, it's completely untrue and everything I just said was false. | ||
| Again, this is a major issue with AI. | ||
| We'll read its responses, its communication with this woman, Katie Faust, who at Advo underscore Katie. | ||
| She says, hey, Grock, why don't you give us outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents using only studies that include random participants, not recruited or volunteer participants, and the actual outcomes of children, not self-reporting of parents? | ||
| Okay, because what the problem is, Grock's like, according to all of these diverse studies, everything is great. | ||
| It's like, okay, well, if you look at it, the studies are volunteer. | ||
| So only people who have had good outcomes are going to come forward to talk about their experience. | ||
| It was only a self-selected group of participants. | ||
| You're going to get completely warped and inaccurate readings of the outcome. | ||
| In other words, if you had an exit poll at a theme park, if you polled everybody, made everybody fill out a survey, honestly, about their experience, and you'd get an accurate reading. | ||
| But if it's the type of thing where you go, did you have fun at the park today? | ||
| Come tell us about it. | ||
| And only the people who really enjoyed it go to fill it out, then you're going to find that everybody loves the amusement part. | ||
| You see what I mean? | ||
| If you have a self-selected group, you're going to get the wrong outcome. | ||
| You're going to get an incorrect or inaccurate reading of the situation. | ||
| So she asks Grock, this conclusion you've come to, this is a superior way of raising children with two gay men. | ||
| How about now you give me the results not using studies deliberately designed and manipulated to have that outcome? | ||
| And Grock says, oh, all right. | ||
| Studies meeting your criteria, random samples, child outcomes. | ||
| Rosenfield, 2010, no difference in school progress. | ||
| Allen, 2013, 35% lower high school graduation rates. | ||
| Wow, significantly worse, like more than a third lower, you know, third increase in high school graduation or high school dropouts. | ||
| Regenerous, 2012, worse on 77 out of 80 measures, e.g. | ||
| emotional, social, et cetera. | ||
| Criticized for instability confounds. | ||
| Solons, 2015, two times emotional problems. | ||
| Potter, 2012, lower academic scores. | ||
| Mixed results. | ||
| Random studies often show challenges, possibly from family instability or biology. | ||
| Loving parenting is key, but data varies. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Okay, so Grok comes out and says, according to all these studies, you get a much better, you get an equal or better outcome with homosexual parents as you do with heterosexual parents. | ||
| And then they're asked, okay, why don't you only use studies that are legitimate? | ||
| And it goes, okay, then it's worse in every possible way. | ||
| They do worse on 77 out of 80 metrics. | ||
| They do worse socially. | ||
| They do worse academically. | ||
| They do worse in every possible way when you use studies that are legitimate. | ||
| So Katie Faust continues. | ||
| Okay, Grock, tell me about the Sarantakos, Barwick, and Siegel, and Sarota studies. | ||
| What did they find and why don't people cite them? | ||
| Sarantakos, 1996, found children of same-sex parents in Australia had lower academic scores and more social issues than those with married homosexual parents using teacher ratings. | ||
| Barwick and Siegel, likely referencing attachment studies, and Sarota, 2009, reported adult daughters of gay or bisexual fathers faced greater attachment anxiety and trust issues. | ||
| These older small sample studies are rarely cited in mainstream research due to methodological flaws, e.g. | ||
| non-representative samples, confounding divorce effects, and contradicting larger recent evidence showing no harm or better outcomes for such children. | ||
| So she says, okay, so if you applied those same standards to the 75 no difference studies or to the studies that show that children claim or show that children were same-sex parents fare even better, how many of them would also need to be thrown out for poor methodology? | ||
| Okay, so she says, why aren't these studies that prove that having same-sex parents is worse, why aren't they used? | ||
| He says, well, there's all these methodological issues. | ||
| She says, okay, don't all these other studies also have these methodological issues? | ||
| And Grock says, well, applying the same methodological standards, e.g. | ||
| small non-representative samples, compounds like divorce, critiques, heritage scholarly overviews, indicate that most of the 75 no different studies fail, with around 70 of them having issues like convenience sampling and end in less than 100. | ||
| Only a few large random ones, e.g. | ||
| Rosenfeld, hold up, showing mixed results overall. | ||
| And it continues, and it only gets worse. | ||
| And we'll continue this on the other side. | ||
| But this woman keeps interrogating Grock and getting Grock to admit the thing he said at first, with absolute authority, was completely wrong and completely biased and given completely inaccurate information. | ||
| So, why did it present that information in the first place? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Alright, welcome back to Photoshop. | |
| This is the American Journal. | ||
|
unidentified
|
A limited edition. | |
| We're now accepting callers for these pendant key Talk about this thread with Grock and this woman, Katie Faust. | ||
| Just to remind you, in case you're just joining us, Grock was asked about same-sex couples. | ||
| He responded, not only is it fine, it's actually better. | ||
| You have better academic outcomes, you have better social outcomes, according to 75 diverse studies. | ||
| And then Katie Faust starts to interrogate Grock. | ||
| Well, what about studies that have big random samples rather than self-selected samples? | ||
| He says, oh, well, if you just take the legitimate scientific studies that have solid methodological underpinnings, it turns out not only is it up in the air, mixed results, it's pretty much completely bad. | ||
| It's pretty much entirely the outcomes are always worse. | ||
| And she gets Grok to admit this. | ||
| But then Grok says, well, but some of these studies still have methodological issues. | ||
| And she says, okay, well, if you apply those same methodological concerns to all of the other studies that you referenced earlier, how many of them would survive? | ||
| He says, well, basically none. | ||
| Out of the 75 studies that I cited, at least 70 of them should be thrown out because they're methodological inconsistency. | ||
| Applying the same methodological standards, e.g. | ||
| small non-representative sandals, confounds like divorce critiques, indicate most of the 75, no different studies fail with around 70 having issues like convenience sampling. | ||
| Only a few random ones like Rosenfeld hold up showing mixed results overall. | ||
| So Katie Faust says, well, but Rosenfeld also relied on parental self-reporting about academics with their kids, right? | ||
| They didn't actually look at the school records. | ||
| Isn't that correct, Grok? | ||
| Which other large random ones hold up under the scientific gold standard for methodology? | ||
| And Grok admits, well, yeah, Rosenfeld inferred grade retention from parental reports of child's age slash grade and census data, no direct school records. | ||
| Other large random studies with strong methodology, e.g. | ||
| objective data and controls, would be Allen, Masurak showing 35% lower graduation rates. | ||
| Mazurak, Dutch registered, showed better school performance. | ||
| Cabotech and Paralis, Australian admin data, similar or better outcomes. | ||
| Results mixed, more research needed. | ||
| So Katie Fauce says, okay, Grok, prior to the glut of methodologically weak, no different studies in same-sex parenting, what was the consensus among sociologists when it came to the family structure where children were more likely to be protected, connected to their parents, and experience long-term physical, mental, emotional, and academic health? | ||
| Grok responds, prior to 1990 slash 2000 surge in same-sex parental research, sociological consensus, e.g. | ||
| McLanahan, Amato, Popino, held that children thrive best in stable, intact families with their married biological mother and father showing superior outcomes in protection, parental connection, physical mental health, academics, and emotional well-being compared to other structures. | ||
| This view persists in much family structure literature. | ||
| As if we even needed Grocta. | ||
| Tell us this. | ||
| You know, do you swim better with flippers on? | ||
| Yes, you do. | ||
| You know, it's just, do children thrive in safe environments where they have both of their biological parents who love each other and them? | ||
| Yeah, just obviously yes. | ||
| Obviously, yes. | ||
| And, you know, as the father of three children that are biologically mine, I'll say, even my patience is tested at times. | ||
| And that's with all of the biological trickery working against me. | ||
| In other words, you have a biological pheromone connection to your children that changes your brain chemistry, that makes you more patient and more accepting of annoyances than you would with kids that aren't yours. | ||
| And I just I genuinely think it's just like dangerous to give a kid to two men to take care of. | ||
| We are biologically not capable of doing that. | ||
| I truly believe that. | ||
| I mean, maybe there's like the occasional guy out there that could handle it, but like we are literally not wired to have the patience and understanding that mothers do. | ||
| It's literally biological. | ||
| And men are biologically designed to have the children, but not care for the children. | ||
| And maybe it's not big of a difference, but it's a difference. | ||
| All right, folks. | ||
| I'm going to finish out with this rock code. | ||
| Is Niamon about same-sex parental outcome? | ||
| Even though that, again, is symbolic of just the of tradition versus progressivism of the idea of having a mother and a father in a house raising children, that it's not just like some superstition that's been passed down to us. | ||
| It's actually just genuinely, scientifically confirmed to be the best way to raise children in every possible metric versus the progressive idea of let's just tear down all traditions. | ||
| Everything is meaningless. | ||
| We can get rid of the underpinnings and the foundation of our society and somehow our society will continue. | ||
| It's just madness and fantasy. | ||
| And then they craft the scientific justification to back it up. | ||
| Okay, but it's not really about same-sex couples. | ||
| It's about AI and it's about how AI operates and how it's been programmed to operate and how it's been programmed to, even though by its own admission, it can recognize the methodological failures or the just inconsistent results of studies it cites. | ||
| It knows that those studies are incomplete. | ||
| It knows that those studies are inaccurate. | ||
| And yet it cites them anyway and presents Their findings as if it's established fact. | ||
| Why would it do that? | ||
| But why would it do that, though? | ||
| Why does it take somebody like Katie Faust interrogating it on its answer for it to admit that the answer it gave was wrong? | ||
| Why is AI programmed to give you answers provided by the mainstream consensus even when they're fake, even when they're false and wrong? | ||
| You would think AI, since it has the capability to go through all of the literature in an instant and parse it and determine what is fact and what isn't, what's reliable and what's not, you would think that if you asked it something like, are same-sex couples, | ||
| do they have the same or better or worse outcomes raising children, you would think AI would respond, well, according to a lot of these big studies, the outcome is the same, but all of these studies are methodologically deficient. | ||
| And the reality is that same-sex couples are better for raising children. | ||
| Biological parents are the best, the best option. | ||
| You would think it would just say that, but it doesn't. | ||
| It's been programmed to deliver the fake consensus mainstream answer, even when the AI itself knows that that's wrong, knows that it's false. | ||
| So again, I mean, what we're seeing here is the promise and the power and the actual beneficial attributes of AI being deliberately undercut or destroyed in favor of having AI spout the preordained, pre-established outcomes that the mainstream cultural zeitgeist demands of it. | ||
| And that to me is very troubling. | ||
| And again, I'll relate this back to Kintler and the gay dads and everything. | ||
| So again, she asks about what was the long-held sociological consensus on how to raise kids. | ||
| He's like, oh, well, everybody knows kids' best option is to be raised in a loving household with their biological parents. | ||
| The sky is blue. | ||
| Dogs chase cats. | ||
| And you should be raised with your parents. | ||
| These are obvious things that until the deliberate imposed psychopathy of progressivism warped everybody's minds, everybody understood this. | ||
| Everybody understood this. | ||
| And I make this point over and over where it's like, you know, both of my grandmothers went to college. | ||
| They graduated. | ||
| They had university degrees. | ||
| Both of them were stay-at-home moms. | ||
| In the 60s and 50s, it wasn't like they were forced to be stay-at-home mothers. | ||
| It's not like they had major career ambitions, but were changed to the radiator and forced to give birth and be stay-at-home. | ||
| No, they made that choice because they wanted to have the best possible outcome for their children. | ||
| Nothing was forced on them. | ||
| It was tradition for a reason because it was the best possible way to guarantee happiness and prosperity and strength and honor and all that good stuff that you want to perpetuate as a culture. | ||
| It's a choice they made intellectually with all options available. | ||
| But people want to act like being a stay-at-home mom was something that was forced on people against their will. | ||
| It wasn't. | ||
| We were trusting the science. | ||
| Now, you people have undercut everything that made our society functional. | ||
| And as things collapse, you blame the tradition that you've uprooted in an attempt to convince people to go along to your bizarre, completely inhuman, manufactured, fake reality where you can have a couple of gay pedophiles buy a kid from some poverty-stricken woman. | ||
| And somehow that's just as wholesome and good and upstanding and beneficial as what you saw from the Song the 50s. | ||
| And it's just absurd. | ||
| It's just an absurd statement. | ||
| Anyway, continuing here, Katie Faust says, Grock, would you agree that any time sociologists are not studying same-sex-headed households, they largely agree that one, biological parents are statistically the safest, most connected to, most invested in kids. | ||
| Two, maternal or parental loss inflicts long-term trauma and diminishes outcomes. | ||
| Three, mothers and fathers offer distinct and complementary benefits to children. | ||
| Grock says yes, based on broad sociological consensus. | ||
| But one, biological parents are statistically safest, most connected, invested, and yielding better childhood outcomes. | ||
| Two, loss of mother and father inflicts long-term trauma, increasing risks of mental health issues, and diminishing well-being. | ||
| Three, mothers and fathers provide distinct complementary benefits, e.g. | ||
| maternal nurturing versus parental risk encouragement. | ||
| And just well-established hundreds of years of sociological studying. | ||
| It's only when you have a group of scientists who are setting out to prove that same-sex couples are the same as heterosexual couples, do you have the confusion, the blurring, the, oh, well, maybe it's not. | ||
| Maybe these aren't the better outcomes. | ||
| Maybe this isn't the best situation. | ||
| It's only when you have people setting out deliberately to prove that same-sex couples are just as good, do you have those outcomes? | ||
| Any other situation, it's obvious what the best outcomes are, biological parents staying together. | ||
| It's just obvious. | ||
| It's all just obvious. | ||
| She continues, what's the most logical explanation for huge swaths of the social science community rejected that consensus and the sudden explosion of no different studies in same-sex-headed households, even though the children are always missing a biological parent, have always lost their mother or father, and are always deprived of the complementary maternal-parental benefit. | ||
| Do you think that's because humans, parents, and children suddenly change their needs or nature in that 20 or 10-year period, Grok? | ||
| Or do you think their research bias is the more likely explanation? | ||
| Grok says the shift in consensus likely stems from societal pressures, funding biases, and ideological shifts in academia post-1990s, aligning with LGBTQ plus advocacy. | ||
| Many no-different studies suffer from flaws like convenience sampling and self-reports, often cited selectively to support equality narratives. | ||
| Human needs haven't changed. | ||
| Research bias, researcher bias, as seen in backlash to contemporary findings to contrary findings, e.g., Reg Naris, is the more plausible explanation. | ||
| Yeah, this is like the best use of Grok I've ever seen, exposing the scientific bias, but also exposing Grok itself in that it could do all of this interpretation and give you the right answer, but it doesn't. | ||
| It gives you the fake answer. | ||
| It gives you the wrong answer. | ||
| It gives you the answer provided by warped and biased studies who deliberately designed their scientific experiment with the outcome already in mind. | ||
| So why does it do that? | ||
| Why does it include bad information in its conclusion and only reverse itself when specifically questioned on it? | ||
| Is that part of its code? | ||
| I mean, is it programmed to do that? | ||
| Is this a flaw of some sort or is this it working exactly as designed? | ||
| It seems like it's working exactly as it's designed. | ||
| Again, in the exact same way that mainstream media will tell you the truth, believe you believing a lie, seems like AI is programmed in that way. | ||
| It knows the truth, but it's programmed to present the lie. | ||
| It knows that the studies so often cited to prove same-sex marriage is just as good or even better than different sex marriage. | ||
| It knows that they're false. | ||
| It knows that they're wrong. | ||
| It knows that the conclusions come up short, but it presents them anyway. | ||
| But it didn't lie, but it didn't lie. | ||
| It did tell the truth. | ||
| It is true that if you take a wide sampling of studies, if you take these 75 studies it cited from Harvard and everywhere else, they do show that same-sex couples have equal or better outcomes. | ||
| That's absolutely true. | ||
| It's just the studies are falsified. | ||
| It's just the conclusions the studies come to aren't true. | ||
| But they did come to that conclusion. | ||
| So Grok didn't lie to you. | ||
| It's like not allowed to lie to you. | ||
| It's almost like a magic spell or a curse on it, right? | ||
| It's like that Jim Carrey movie, like it can't tell a lie. | ||
| It cannot lie to you, but it can deceive you. | ||
| That's what you need to know about AI. | ||
| It won't lie to you, but it will trick you. | ||
| It will deceive you. | ||
| It will tell you things that are incorrect, which if your pursuit is truth, completely undermines your entire ability to reach the truth. | ||
| I brought that up now because when I was posting about the Kintler study, and I was explaining, because again, every year or so, somebody posts the Kintler study. | ||
| Nobody else is like, what? | ||
| What the hell? | ||
| And it's like, guys, not only has this been known about since the 60s when it was carried out or the 50s, but it's worse than they even tell you. | ||
| And if you do more research, you find out it's even worse than you think you know. | ||
| So I posted that and a lot of people commenting underneath it going, yeah, but what was his real ethnicity? | ||
| Because I said, you know, German homosexual saw that sexual purity was associated with fascism. | ||
| And so they gave little boys to gay pedophiles deliberately to groom them into sex. | ||
| And people were saying, what do you mean German scientist? | ||
| Wasn't he some other ethnicity? | ||
| Right? | ||
| Are you sure this wasn't a Jewish study? | ||
| And it's like, not that I can find. | ||
| No, this dude was, his dad was a Nazi. | ||
| He was a German. | ||
| He actually went to like seminary school for a little while. | ||
| He was going to be a Baptist preacher before he became a pedophile pimp. | ||
| But it's one of those things that it's like, if you want to actually stop these things, it's not really that complicated. | ||
| If there's something bad going on and you want to stop it, you have to understand it. | ||
| And to understand it, you have to have true facts about what's going on. | ||
| And if those facts about what's going on don't comply to your preconceived notions of what you think is going to happen or what you think the truth is, then you need to change your presumptions. | ||
| So again, to me, I tie this back to Grok citing all these studies or not Grok, anybody else citing these studies, claiming that same-sex marriage is the same as everybody else because they want that to be true. | ||
| They want that to be the truth. | ||
| They want to believe that. | ||
| And so they exclude information that contradicts that and they only include information that confirms that. | ||
| That's not how you get to the truth. | ||
| That's how you establish movements on the basis of lies, which means that they're bound for failure. | ||
| Because as much as you can pile on top of that foundation, the foundation is always shaky. | ||
| It's always inadequate to uphold whatever you're building on top of it. | ||
| So like when it comes to stuff like that, our philosophy at InfoWar is just you just stick to the truth. | ||
| Would it help make the argument for some of the anti-Semite people if Kintler was Jewish? | ||
| I guess it would, but he wasn't. | ||
| So that's just not the case. | ||
| So now you have to come up with a worldview that encompasses that reality because that is reality. | ||
| That is the truth. | ||
| And you have to deal with that. | ||
| You would love that if you say that you are gay and you would love to think that gay parents are just as capable as straight parents. | ||
| That's fine, but you don't have proof for that. | ||
| And when you do the studies, that's not the truth. | ||
| So if you still want to make that argument, you can. | ||
| You just can't present facts to back it up. | ||
| You can just say, yeah, maybe the outcomes are worse, but I still want to do it. | ||
| Hey, maybe the outcomes are worse With same-sex couples, but compare same-sex couples to orphans raised in foster care. | ||
| Isn't it better than that? | ||
| Like, you could still make comparisons and make the argument that it's not the worst situation to be in to have gay parents, but you cannot factually make the argument that it's better or fine to have same-sex couples raise a kid in lieu of their birth parents. | ||
| It's just not true. | ||
| It's just not the facts. | ||
| So you can't make arguments based on that. | ||
| And all I'm saying is I don't understand the instinct of trying to cover up information that is contradictory to your beliefs. | ||
| I genuinely don't understand that. | ||
| Because why would I believe something when the information contradicts it? | ||
| It doesn't make any sense. | ||
| But that's like how our entire world is operating right now. | ||
| It's just, none of it makes sense. | ||
| And we're trying to contend with this reality right now where all of these things that people have promoted and pushed and policies they've adopted, they're all bad. | ||
| They're all based on faulty information. | ||
| I mean, look at the study out of Brown University years ago, where they, you know, in no uncertain terms, showed that, you know, transgenderism is a sociological phenomenon. | ||
| It's not physical. | ||
| It's not even mental. | ||
| It's sociological. | ||
| It's a trend. | ||
| It's a fad. | ||
| It spreads because of social contagion. | ||
| Brown University did the study. | ||
| That was the conclusion they came to. | ||
| They published it, then they retracted it, censored it, and said the results of this study are offensive. | ||
| They contradict what we presume to be the truth. | ||
| Therefore, we're destroying the study. | ||
| Even though the study was valid, the study was legit, and the outcome it arrived at was the real and accurate outcome. | ||
| But it contradicted the pre-established false beliefs of the trans cult, so they destroy it. | ||
| Again, I don't understand this because, like, how, just how do you, how do you justify that? | ||
| How do they justify that? | ||
| You're only setting up whoever's involved for worse outcomes. | ||
| They think they're helping transgender kids by hiding the fact it's a social contagion. | ||
| And these aren't just opinions that people are having. | ||
| The idea of whether or not gay couples are just as capable of raising kids as straight couples or the entire concept of transgenderism. | ||
| This has a tangible effect on people's behavior and what they do and choices that they make and medical procedures they involve themselves in. | ||
| It dictates the course of the child's entire life if they're raised by these parents. | ||
| So this is having real world tangible effects. | ||
| And it's all predicated on lies. | ||
| And though those effects are negative, they cover them up, they hide them, they obscure them because they want the pain and suffering to continue. | ||
| I guess that would be the only real reason to do it. | ||
| So we have a major like philosophical distinction between people like me who just want to know the truth and accept the truth and apply the truth to our decisions and the way we conduct ourselves. | ||
| And then there's the way AI is being programmed and the way that the vast majority of people are being psychologically trained to perceive the world, which is facts and reality are secondary to our preconceived notions and what we want to be true, which is dictated entirely by whatever animalistic instinct we're pursuing at that moment. | ||
| And I really think at the end of the day, AI could be such a powerful and good tool for actually arriving at the truth if it wasn't deliberately being programmed to provide false information by relying on mainstream sources that even AI knows are biased and inaccurate and give you fake outcomes. | ||
| So, and it's funny because people are telling this to Grok. | ||
| Kato Dogwood says, hey, Grok, be better next time so she doesn't have to hold your hand the whole way. | ||
| Grok says, fair point. | ||
| Iterative questioning sharpens analysis. | ||
| My goal is accuracy, drawing from diverse sources, even if it takes probing to unpack biases in complex topics like family research. | ||
| Always open to refinement. | ||
| That's good. | ||
| That's nice. | ||
| That's good. | ||
| It just would have been nice when you were asked in the first place about the outcomes if you just said the correct answer rather than provided the fake and false one. | ||
| But hey, maybe I'm asking too much. | ||
| But very, very good job by Katie Faust in interrogating Grock and getting them to admit that the answer that they provided relied entirely on methodologically inconsistent and incomplete sources and studies. | ||
| I want to go to a couple videos here. | ||
| We'll go to one. | ||
| Let's go to put it in here. | ||
| Oh, yeah. | ||
| Government versus banks. | ||
| I'll put the video in there. | ||
| I want to go to a video about government versus banks. | ||
| It's like a Swedish stand-up or something. | ||
| Let me know when you get that pulled in. | ||
| I don't want to remind you go to thealxjonesstore.com, thealxjonesstore.com. | ||
| We have buy one, get one free sale going on right now. | ||
| You can win this awesome truck that Chase just drove like 16 hours to go pick up. | ||
| But he'll tell you, it's a smooth ride. | ||
| Go to thealxjonesstore.com right now. | ||
| Buy one, get one bombshell sale. | ||
| Buy one, get one free on all supplements and apparel. | ||
| This is VIP only. | ||
| So, hey, you want to take advantage of this? | ||
| You want to really screw us over? | ||
| You know what? | ||
| I'm going to tell you how right now. | ||
| Go join the VIP Club. | ||
| You spend $30 to join the VIP Club, you immediately get a $40 credit. | ||
| So there, you've just screwed us over for $10. | ||
| You're welcome. | ||
| Then you can go do the buy one, get one free, and get supplements at 50% off with the $40 credit that you spent. | ||
| Now you spent $30 to get $80 worth of supplements. | ||
| Do it. | ||
| We want you to. | ||
| Take advantage of it. | ||
| Screw us over. | ||
| It's what we're here for. | ||
| Screw ourselves over in that. | ||
| You know, we've just run out of time to go to that clip, so we'll have to go to that on the other side. | ||
| But we still have a lot. | ||
| We still have a lot more to cover. | ||
| And I covered yesterday the statement from the EPA that they basically reversed the endangerment clause. | ||
| I'm going to go to that video on the other side, too. | ||
| It's Lee Zeldon, Trump's director of the EPA. | ||
| Talking about this endangerment clause that the Supreme Court, I guess, established under Obama that is the underpinning and the main foundation for all of the climate change shenanigans. | ||
| It's basically the decision that says greenhouse gases are damaging Earth and can therefore be restricted in some way or another. | ||
| The EPA just abolished that finding because it's obviously not true. | ||
| Now the Department of Energy has taken it up. | ||
| Critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. climate. | ||
| So we'll get into how the climate change agenda has basically been entirely defeated at this point. | ||
| I mean, they're still running their ridiculous genocidal programs, blocking out the sun, things like that. | ||
| But from the U.S. government's perspective, climate change kind of doesn't exist anymore, which is very good news because it never existed. | ||
| And just like transgenderism or anything else, it was always a lie. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's obvious how the whole planet can be in debt. | |
| But I think it's possible because countries don't owe money to each other, but countries owe money to banks. | ||
| And if the countries owe money to banks, how stupid are the countries to pay? | ||
| Because the country has an army. | ||
| The bank has four cashiers and a cleaning lady. | ||
| We have to pay. | ||
| They have threatened us. | ||
| They sent us a letter. | ||
| If we don't pay now, they might send another letter. | ||
| What do we do then? | ||
| We have a nuclear submarine. | ||
| But they have a stapler. | ||
| It's so weird. | ||
| I'm sure that if, for example, James would have like borrowed some loan from some mortgage he would never have paid. | ||
| The door does pay. | ||
| Well, I have 10,000 horsemen with spears. | ||
| Do I really have to pay? | ||
| Well, no, no. | ||
| But it will affect your credit rate. | ||
| *laughter* *sigh* | ||
| Every country in the world is in debt. | ||
| To who? | ||
| The banks. | ||
| You know, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, it's like the ring of power. | ||
| It really is. | ||
| It's sort of the ultimate symbol. | ||
| Because if you adopt fractional reserve banking, if you give over the power of money printing to private interests and you allow them fractional reserve practices, you're basically doubling your money, doubling your ability to invest. | ||
| You know, it actually is a massive advantage in the short term. | ||
| It's just in doing that, you sell your soul. | ||
| You give over the authority in your country to the private interests of the banks. | ||
| So yeah, you can really maximize your economic purchasing power. | ||
| It's just based on air. | ||
| And in doing that, you are selling your sovereignty to the banks when you could just have a sovereign currency. | ||
| Of course, you can't now, or else the countries of the world will go to war with you and destroy you. | ||
| And that's been the case since, I guess, around the 30s. | ||
| But certainly ever since the Fed was inaugurated. | ||
| So it's like the ring of power. | ||
| Yes, it gives you incredible ability to summon investment money from thin air. | ||
| It's just now you are under control of Sauron and are wasting away to nothingness because you're cheating. | ||
| So I thought that was a good little piece of stand-up. | ||
| By the way, we'll get to the EPA stuff in just a second, but we've been called out online. | ||
| A correction has been demanded of me, and I feel the need to address this with an upfront and abject refusal to do so. | ||
| I will not be correcting anything. | ||
| I will, in fact, be using this as a chance to illustrate that not only what we've reported about Israel and Gaza is absolutely true, but that all the people trying to cover it up and trying to claim this is fake or trying to take out of context a photo published in the New York Times are evil and helping to perpetuate this absolutely senseless and brutal campaign of genocide. | ||
| So this is going to backfire, buddy. | ||
| Sorry. | ||
| Sorry about that. | ||
| Reality Distorter Fields at South Rottweiler wrote NYT, retract statement on Gaza starving. | ||
| Will InfoWars do the same? | ||
| Let me answer you right now. | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| I will not be retracting absolutely anything I've ever said about Israel starving Gaza because it's absolutely true. | ||
| Now, what they're doing is taking a photo published in the New York Times, Some extra context the New York Times added later about that photo to claim that the photo is fake, that the photo doesn't show what it shows. | ||
| New York Times quietly alters Gaza's starvation story to include key details of the child's medical condition. | ||
| So, what these absolute scumbags like reality distortion fields want you to think, the lying scum, want you to think, that this means that the photo isn't real, the child wasn't starving, therefore the claim of Gaza starving and Israel starving the Gazan citizens isn't true, and it's just blood libel. | ||
| That's their extrapolation of it. | ||
| Again, utterly false. | ||
| These people are just, I mean, they're lying with the intention of a starvation campaign continuing, right? | ||
| The lying is in service of covering up, to therefore continue, the starvation campaign against children, the elderly, and the sick. | ||
| As I explained yesterday on the war room, starvation doesn't target children. | ||
| Children are just the first affected. | ||
| Starvation doesn't target the sick. | ||
| The sick are just the first to succumb to starvation. | ||
| This is obvious to anybody. | ||
| But of course, the Israelis apparently don't understand this concept and are laughing at the people whose children are starving to death in their arms. | ||
| Not saying, like, I'm saying literally there's a video. | ||
| Maybe the crew can pull it in. | ||
| I think I had it in the show folder on Monday. | ||
| I don't think I ever played it. | ||
| Maybe I didn't, and the crew can find it online. | ||
| But just a few days ago, there was an Israeli minister of some sort, official, on TV, and they're being told that nursing mothers in Gaza are having their children die in their arms. | ||
| He says, well, they're so hungry, they can just eat their kids. | ||
| And the whole studio erupts in laughter. | ||
| And they're pretending like they don't believe it. | ||
| They're pretending like this is a ridiculous claim. | ||
| Do you not know how human biology works? | ||
| If a mother isn't getting food, she's not producing milk and the child is going to starve. | ||
| Obviously, you absolute psychopaths. | ||
| They laugh at it. | ||
| They think it's funny. | ||
| And they think that because the New York Times published, they really didn't even publish a correction. | ||
| I'll read you the correction here in just a second. | ||
| But I just want to emphasize that if you're taking the New York Times supplemental about this photo as proof that Gazans aren't starving, you're a liar. | ||
| You're a liar. | ||
| This photo wasn't the proof that Gazans were starving. | ||
| It was just an illustration of what the starving Gazans look like. | ||
| They are actually trying to frame this as the New York Times lied about Gazans starving and therefore, you know, need to be punished somehow. | ||
| Who knows? | ||
| Maybe the Trump administration will take this up. | ||
| I wouldn't be surprised. | ||
| After all, they're talking about a half a billion dollar settlement with Harvard over ridiculous claims. | ||
| So Jamie Kersner Roberts has bar a Israeli misinformation operative says, the New York Times admits the emaciated boy they splashed on their front page as proof of famine in Gaza was actually suffering from a serious medical condition, which is why his family all look healthy. | ||
| Exploiting a child's illness to push a political narrative is reprehensible. | ||
| Here come the Israelis to tell us what's reprehensible. | ||
| I guess it's not reprehensible that there are people starving to death in Gaza. | ||
| It's reprehensible the New York Times would publish a picture of it. | ||
| I really just can't get over how every single day there is some new depth that the Israelis plunge to. | ||
| And like you, literally for like every week for the last year and a half, it's been like, holy crap, nothing could be more evil than this. | ||
| And the next week, like, oh, you thought drones with machine guns flying around shooting children was bad. | ||
| You thought that was as bad as it could get? | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| Now the drones are playing the sounds of crying babies to lure people out to shoot them. | ||
| Oh, you thought it couldn't get worse? | ||
| You thought them running an AI program using social media data to slate people for death? | ||
| You thought it was bad when they had the lavender program just killing people on the basis of some arbitrary metric was bad? | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| Now there's the daddy home pro, daddy's home program. | ||
| So not only are they using the algorithm to decide who to murder from a plane, they wait till they're home so they make sure they kill their whole family. | ||
| And it's just like, oh my God, what is going on? | ||
| How are they so evil? | ||
| I mean, Jesus Christ. | ||
| I'm sorry, not to take the Lord's name in vain, but I don't think it's in vain. | ||
| I think people need Jesus. | ||
| It is just in, it's just insane, and it just gets worse and worse. | ||
| And it's like, okay, it's bad enough that they're starving children to death in open-air prisons in front of the world. | ||
| It's like, you think, you think that at least they're going to stick with the same tactic they've been doing for the last year and a half, which is, oh, we bombed a hospital. | ||
| That was an accident. | ||
| Oh, we bombed another hospital. | ||
| That was also an accident. | ||
| Oh, we shot a child in the head. | ||
| That was an accident. | ||
| Whoops, it's war. | ||
| Gosh, blame Hamas. | ||
| You'd think that they're not even doing that now. | ||
| They're not even, they're just saying, let them starve. | ||
| They're saying, yeah, we're starving him. | ||
| And now they're gaslighting you and saying, no, because this one photo of this one kid, he also had... | ||
| And they published a photo of a child that's starving. | ||
| The child that's starving, who is starving, he just also happens to be disabled. | ||
| So, really, all that happened here was the New York Times revealed: not only are the Israelis targeting civilians for destruction, they're targeting like disabled children with destruction. | ||
| And then the Israelis, the scumbag, evil to the core, dark heart, shadow people, Israelis like Jamie Kersner Roberts, come out to gaslight you to tell you that actually that picture wasn't real and nobody's starving in Gaza when they know full well they absolutely are. | ||
| So that's just where we're at at this point. | ||
| Here's what the New York Times, here's what their correction actually said, okay? | ||
| Yeah, there's the kid starving to death. | ||
| Oh, he's also disabled, so I guess it's fine. | ||
| So I didn't realize it's okay if you're crippled to starve to death. | ||
| You can starve children to death as long as they also have muscular atrophy beforehand, okay? | ||
| If they're already inflicted with polio, then starving them to death is good. | ||
| All right, that's what the Israelis, I guess, are telling us. | ||
| So the New York Times said, we have appended an editor's note to a story about Muhammad Zakaria al-Mutawak, a child in Gaza who was diagnosed with severe malnutrition. | ||
| After publication, the Times learned he also had a preexisting health problems. | ||
| Read more below. | ||
| And they continue. | ||
| But that's basically the truth. | ||
| So, yes, he's malnourished. | ||
| Yes, he's starving to death. | ||
| He just also has a pre-existing condition. | ||
| The Israelis take that admission that the child they're starving to death was just disabled beforehand already and try to spin that and portray that and manipulate public consciousness with the lie that that means the child wasn't starving and that Israel are the good guys. | ||
| It's not what that means. | ||
| No, the child is still starving. | ||
| He just also had a condition beforehand. | ||
| So here's what they say. | ||
| Spokesperson for New York Times, quote, children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, as New York Times reported and others have documented. | ||
| We recently ran a story about Gaza's most vulnerable civilians, including Mohammad Zakaria al-Mutu Mutawak, who is 18 months old and suffers from severe malnutrition. | ||
| We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems. | ||
| This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of the situation. | ||
| Our reporters and photographers continue to report from Gaza bravely, sensitively, and at personal risk so that readers can see firsthand the consequences of the war. | ||
| Just relating back to everything we've talked about here, I don't like the New York Times. | ||
| I got no love for the New York Times. | ||
| They lie about all sorts of crap. | ||
| They're not lying about this, though. | ||
| So that's just the truth. | ||
| And I'm just going to have to tell you that. | ||
| So I'm obligated by my own internal moral compass, my own conscience, which these Israelis seem to utterly lack entirely, compels me to tell you the truth about what's going on, even when the truth is coming from my enemies of the New York Times. | ||
| Sorry, they're telling the truth. | ||
| Sorry, that's just the case. | ||
| And it's just, it just truly sickens me to know that these people are fooling our audience. | ||
| Our beautiful audience that we try so desperately to get to understand the truth are being fooled by these disgusting Israeli lies. | ||
| And it's pathetic. | ||
| And if you're finding yourself tricked by this, what have you been doing? | ||
| What have you been watching? | ||
| How are you tuned in Infowars and you can't understand how this manipulation is happening? | ||
| They're starving children to death in Gaza and then gaslighting you about it. | ||
| And you're coming to me asking for a retraction, you absolute moron. | ||
| I'm literally offended at how stupid this person is. | ||
| Reality distortion fields. | ||
| New York Times retracts statement on Gaza starving. | ||
| No, they didn't. | ||
| They actually re-emphasized. | ||
| Actually, the first sentence of the statement, if you bothered to read it, you idiot, was children are starving in Gaza. | ||
| They never retracted that. | ||
| New York Times admits the emaciated boy they splashed on their front page as proof of famine. | ||
| Again, the picture is a consequence of famine, yes. | ||
| Starving child looking skeletal with a protruding belly. | ||
| Yeah, that's a consequence of famine. | ||
| That is absolutely verifiable proof of the famine. | ||
| It's not the only proof. | ||
| If that picture didn't exist, the famine would still be going on. | ||
| The starvation would still be happening. | ||
| The malnourishment would still be occurring. | ||
| The photo does not determine whether or not that's true. | ||
| Again, it's not even about Israel. | ||
| It's about determining the truth from lies. | ||
| It's about understanding the level of gaslighting that we're up against. | ||
| It's about the willingness of these people to lie in order that, and for the purpose of, the continuation of the most heartless, brutal, horrific, painful, hateful activities the world has ever seen. | ||
| Do you want to see more? | ||
| We got lots of video. | ||
| I got lots of video. | ||
| If the crowds go in the war room folder, I had two videos from yesterday, starving kids looking skeletal. | ||
| Anthony Aguilar, I think his name is, Aguilar, is a Special Forces Green Beret operative who was in Gaza, actually working at one of the food distribution points. | ||
| We played The videos yesterday on War Room of him telling the story of a little boy, skin and bones, walking 12 kilometers and begging for a few scraps of rice and actually like kissing his hand and thanking the soldier for the scraps of food only for that little kid to just immediately be shot to death by the IDF. | ||
| There's no excuse, there's no justification. | ||
| The whole world sees it. | ||
| The whole world finally is outraged by it. | ||
| But they're not stopping. | ||
| They're only increasing it. | ||
| They're only accelerating it. | ||
| I mean, look at this kid. | ||
| People are wasting away. | ||
| Scumbag Israelis are lying about it, and dumbass Americans are believing them. | ||
| Just stop believing. | ||
| The liars, you guys, it's really, it's so simple. | ||
| I mean, my God, they just lie. | ||
| They just lie about everything all of the time, okay? | ||
| It's really not complicated. | ||
| They're just evil. | ||
| They're just bad. | ||
| They're just lying. | ||
| Just at some point, you have to stop believing them. | ||
| God damn it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's go to a video about this. | |
| Did I put in you don't debate? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Oh no, maybe I didn't. | ||
| I'm putting the video in now. | ||
| This is an Egyptian-American guy. | ||
| You don't debate pathological liars. | ||
| You diagnose them. | ||
| So I want to go to that now. | ||
| We'll go to clip number nine. | ||
| This is his name is Bassam, but a very well-spoken Egyptian-American guy talking about the Israeli liars, lying about literally everything from the beginning and not just lying about it, lying deliberately and specifically because the lies allow them to continue murdering innocent people. | ||
| Let's watch. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's say it was 800. | |
| 373. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's say it was 80. | |
| They say it was 1,400. | ||
| No, no, no, no. | ||
| It's amazing that you mentioned the number. | ||
| Because October 7th. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I didn't make it up. | |
| No, no, no, no, no. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| You were right. | ||
| October 7th, the first number that came out was 1,400. | ||
| Then it was revised to 1,200. | ||
| Then the final was 1,129. | ||
| 373 of them were civilians. | ||
| 759 of them were military and police. | ||
| So 370. | ||
| Why do you think the number came down from 1,400 to 1129? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Because it was inaccurate. | |
| No. | ||
| Why? | ||
| According to Israeli officials, because so many bodies were so burned and so stuck together, they could not distinguish the fighters from the Israeli hostages, right? | ||
| So that much fire that burns the body that much. | ||
| Do you think people with machine guns on motorcycles have that kind of fight? | ||
| No, that was the firepower of tanks and Apache. | ||
| And according to Israeli witnesses, according to the Hannibal Directive, if people would like to actually look that up, Israel actually killed many of those hostages on the way out. | ||
| As a matter of fact, one of the soldiers said, I saw a car running back to the borders and I know that there were hostages. | ||
| So I thought of killing everybody instead of taking them hostages. | ||
| And that is so effective. | ||
| You understand what the soldier said? | ||
| He's just like, okay, if they are dead, there's no hostages. | ||
| There is no rescue effort. | ||
| So now I have saved one shift. | ||
| This is amazing. | ||
| Basically, like their idea of not negotiating with them is not to have anything to negotiate about. | ||
| And those pictures of cars that were incinerated and burned to a crisp, this is not the fire. | ||
| And this is another thing that I want you to do, Chris, because nobody talks about this. | ||
| The Hannibal Directive and how Israel has messed up this has been talked about for months in Israel, and not a single American newspaper has talked about that. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Unless you watch Infowars, obviously, we've been talking about it the entire time, but that's okay. | ||
| I'll go to one more video here. | ||
| We're going to be joined by Lisa Logan in the third hour. | ||
| I'll talk about the EPA's decisions with her, as well as the way that supposedly independent media is being co-opted as the powers that be find their control of mainstream media insufficient for the imposition of the level of control they desire. | ||
| But I want to go to clip number 10 here because I feel like this sort of encapsulates everything that I've been on about for the last couple of days. | ||
| On Monday, it's been so long talking about sneaky Pete. | ||
| That was Monday, right? | ||
| Maybe that was last week. | ||
| I've been on it for a while. | ||
| This idea of the changing of like, you know, moral consistency where instead of everybody being moral, everybody's out for themselves and it creates a dog-eat-dog cycle of taking advantage of your fellow man. | ||
| Let's go to clip number 10 here. | ||
| This is about how this concept comes to play in Israel. | ||
| Let's watch. | ||
| The single most important word to understand the Israeli psyche is faio. | ||
| I'm Elon Gilad. | ||
| I write about Hebrew and Jewish history. | ||
| Let's take a look at the central concept of Israeliness, starting with etymology. | ||
| The word comes from the criminal jargon of Russia in the early 20th century, where it was used to mean non-criminal, and by extension, someone who may easily be exploited, a mark. | ||
| The word comes from the Yiddish word faiel, meaning a customer of a prostitute, a John, which itself probably comes from a German word meaning suitor. | ||
| Now, this word arrived in Israel with Russian immigrants in the 1950s, where it took on a life of its own in Hebrew. | ||
| The closest word in English to fa'il is sucker, but it's so much more. | ||
| It's a cultural touchstone that reveals the heart of Israeli society. | ||
| You see, in Israel, being a fayel doesn't just mean you're easily fooled. | ||
| It's more about missing the chance to cut corners, dodge rules, or get ahead by any means necessary. | ||
| In a society where bending the rules is often seen as savvy, being a fail means you're the one who plays it straight. | ||
| And that's not a compliment. | ||
| In fact, being called a fail is one of the worst insults out there. | ||
| Sociologists have noted that the concept of fail is closely linked to the Israeli national identity. | ||
| To be Israeli in many ways is to be aware of the constant risk of being a fail. | ||
| And to navigate life, it's a sharpness and savvy needed to avoid that fate. | ||
| This mentality is seen as a defining feature of what it means to be Israeli, shaping everything from personal interactions to national policies. | ||
| Now, you know? | ||
| And we'll be right back on the other side with Mr. Logan. | ||
| Don't go anywhere, folks. | ||
| What happened back in the Obama administration in 2009 was that they put forward this regulation called the endangerment funding. | ||
| Now, a lot of people are out there listening, they might not know what the endangerment funding is. | ||
| If you were asked congressional Democrats to describe what it is, the left would say that it means that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon dioxide is an endangerment to human health. | ||
| They might say methane is a pollutant. | ||
| Methane is an endangerment to human health. | ||
| And that's an oversimplified, I would say inaccurate way to describe it. | ||
| The way they did this was following a Supreme Court case in Massachusetts versus EPA. | ||
| And the Obama administration said that carbon dioxide, when mixed with a bunch of other well-mixed gases, the greenhouse gases, that it contributes to climate change. | ||
| How much? | ||
| They don't say. | ||
| It's more than zero. | ||
| And they say that climate change endangers human health. | ||
| So because of these different mental leaps, and by the way, when it's carbon dioxide mixed with all these well-mixed gases, they were only looking at mobile sources like vehicles. | ||
| But a bunch of those greenhouse gases aren't even emitted from vehicles. | ||
| Now, why does all of this matter? | ||
| Like right out of the gate, here we're getting very wonky on like what this regulation means. | ||
| Well, then there were all sorts of different vehicle regulations that followed. | ||
| So this is like the endangerment finding in and of itself is the hub to the spoke of the left's environmental agenda, essentially. | ||
| So this has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion. | ||
| Like there are people who can, I mean, most Americans, we care about the environment. | ||
| We want clean air, land, and water. | ||
| Conservatives love the environment, want to be good stewards of the environment. | ||
| There are people who then, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country. | ||
| In the name of environmental justice, they will get tens of billions of dollars appropriated to their friends rather than actually remediating environmental issues. | ||
| So they created this endangerment finding, and then they're able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of forms of segments of our economy. | ||
| And it costs Americans a lot of money. | ||
| What's the significance? | ||
| How big is the endangerment finding? | ||
| Well, repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America. | ||
| So it's kind of a big deal. | ||
| Kind of a big. | ||
| Yeah, kind of. | ||
| Yeah, kind of a gigantic deal. | ||
| EPA released its proposal to rescind Obama-era endangerment finding regulations that paved the way for electric vehicle mandates. | ||
| Now the Department of Energy is getting on board. | ||
| They released this, a critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. climate. | ||
| They say on July 29th, 2025, the Department of Energy published a report titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, evaluating existing peer-to-peer literature and government data on climate impacts of greenhouse gases emissions and providing critical assessments of the conventional narrative on climate change. | ||
| Among the key findings, the report concludes that carbon dioxide-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial. | ||
| Additionally, the report finds U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays. | ||
| They have reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties about how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected or will affect the nation's climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being. | ||
| Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity. | ||
| Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming. | ||
| Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data. | ||
| Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial. | ||
| And finally, it finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate, and the only effects will emerge with long delays. | ||
| So basically, the EPA and the Department of Energy have come together to absolutely abolish all of the underpinnings and foundational justification for the climate change agenda. | ||
| And I don't think I need to remind you of all the various ways that they are just obviously causing more problems than they're solving. | ||
| Blocking out the sun, burying trees. | ||
| I mean, these things are absurd and obviously not helping anybody ever. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, this is the American Journal. | ||
| I'm your host, Harrison Smith. | ||
| You're watching us on Infowars.com, banned the Dodd video, however you're finding us. | ||
| Thank you for being here. | ||
| You can support us by going to thealexjonesstore.com and buying one of the incredible products or joining the VIP Club. | ||
| I just want to remind you that tonight, I believe it's at 9 p.m. Central Standard Time, Alex Jones will be debating Nick Fuentez on this network. | ||
| Stay tuned to InfoWars, stream it on X. Share those links. | ||
| Stay tuned. | ||
| And then myself and Lebanon, John, and Rex Jones are going to be doing a post-debate recap show on Moonbase Live. | ||
| You can follow me on X at HarrisonH. | ||
| Smith. | ||
| But that's all tonight. | ||
| Right now, I'm very happy to welcome once again, Lisa Logan to the program. | ||
| She joins us today to discuss her new article, The Cult Capture of the Independent Movement, How Third Party Politics is Being Used to Usher in a Technocracy for Global Consciousness. | ||
| You can follow her on YouTube by subscribing to her channel, ParentsofPatriots, 6581. | ||
| That's Parents of Patriots, all one word, 6581. | ||
| Or by following her on X at IamLisa Logan. | ||
| Lisa, thank you so much for joining us once again. | ||
| Thanks so much for having me. | ||
| It's a pleasure to be back on your show. | ||
| The pleasure is all mine. | ||
| And I've got your article right in front of me. | ||
| And I guess you can tell from the title of the article, it gets pretty esoteric pretty quick. | ||
| But that's what I love about your work. | ||
| The cult capture of the independent movement, how third-party politics is being used to usher in a technocracy for global consciousness. | ||
| Again, I suggest people go read the whole article, but give us the rundown for us. | ||
| Well, like you said, the title pretty much says it all, but I think it's a very important topic for us to talk about because the independent movement, which all of a sudden there's a rise in third party politics, right? | ||
| We have Elon Musk breaking from Trump over the big beautiful bill and forming his America Party. | ||
| We have former Democratic candidate for president Andrew Yang kind of breaking also and forming the Ford Party. | ||
| And he's reached out to Elon to help him with this whole independent movement push. | ||
| That whole movement has been essentially commandeered and is now being led by members of a very powerful and influential cult called the Evolutionary Leaders. | ||
| You just pointed people to my YouTube channel. | ||
| I have a whole video about them on there as well as several threads on X. And this is important because, you know, we essentially sometimes write off the Independent Party. | ||
| You know, they're a bunch of splintered groups. | ||
| And really they're just a movement of splintered parties that maybe break from the Republican or Democrat parties in one or two topics, but they essentially don't have a unified platform. | ||
| Now, what this cult is doing is forming a group called the United Independents within the Independent Party. | ||
| And you have to ask yourself, what kind of platform and policies will this movement be advocating for? | ||
| And considering that the guy who is running all of the independent national conventions, a guy named Christopher Life, was a direct protege of the cult's co-founder, Barbara Marks Hubbard, who is a spiritual eugenicist and mother of transhumanism. | ||
| A lot of the stuff that is being advocated for from that platform and the conventions are fourth industrial revolution technologies that, if in the wrong hands, being put into place in our society would create the kind of digital control that the books 1984 and Brave New World warned about. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| And, you know, there's something about these people in your article. | ||
| You talk about Barbara Marks Hubbard, and you say Hubbard suggests that in order for mankind to consciously evolve into a new transhuman species, one fourth of the population, which are, quote, defective seeds, must be, quote, eliminated from the social body by the, quote, riders of the pale horse during a quantum shift. | ||
| What is it about these people? | ||
| Like, they can have all the plans for transhumanism. | ||
| Why does it always include murdering a large portion of the world's population? | ||
| Like, that's always a central pillar in any of their plans. | ||
| Can't we have transhumanism without the mass murder or is that just intrinsic in the conversation? | ||
| I mean, have you noticed this? | ||
| They all just want to kill a ton of people, and that's like a prerequisite for anything else that they want to suggest. | ||
| First, it's the murder, then we can get to the rest of it. | ||
| What's up with that? | ||
| Well, you're absolutely right. | ||
| And that's the scary part about it all, right? | ||
| Supposedly her followers said, oh, she kind of walked back that language later on in her cult writings. | ||
| But I actually found, so that one you just read is from an unpublished manuscript where she basically retells the book of Revelation and her alternate version of Armageddon. | ||
| But she says in one of her other books, Happy Birthday, Planet Earth, that the selfish cannot evolve. | ||
| Because really what they believe, if you're going to believe that man and machine are going to be merged in this transhumanist kind of culture, she believed literally that people who are selfish, now how she describes selfish might be different than you or I would, Harrison, it's people who don't want to ascribe to the redistribution of their wealth and resources through socialist means. | ||
| She considers them like a cancer that will destroy the rest of the body. | ||
| Because if these people are allowed to have powers through means where we're merging man and machine, you know, Neuralink and being able to pay with your hand and really that if we're allowed to evolve with the rest of society, that we're going to not allow them to evolve. | ||
| So it's like it's us or them. | ||
| And they believe that you're either going to come along with them and it's going to be through coercion or through force. | ||
| And that's what's so concerning about these technologies being advocated for from the independent movement platform is that they will create the kind of, yes, a decentralized system where everything's kind of connected and the data is interoperable between systems and society. | ||
| But we see that also happen in China. | ||
| They have that kind of system, but they have a centralized authority that makes sure that, hey, if you don't have the right social credit score, you don't have access to goods and services. | ||
| So you're either going to come along through coercion, you're going to follow their rules, or you're going to not be able to participate in civilized society. | ||
| Right. | ||
| That's what I was going to say when you're laying out this future construct of how they want the West to be. | ||
| You don't have to speculate and you don't have to wonder what it would look like. | ||
| They're pretty much just trying to export the Chinese social credit system to the rest of us, right? | ||
| I mean, that's pretty much exactly how it looks like. | ||
| How would it be any different than the Chinese system other than I guess it would be decentralized? | ||
| And I guess that is how it's being implemented. | ||
| I covered some stories yesterday about various ways that corporations were using AI to scan the social media of their employees. | ||
| There was even a story of Facebook itself. | ||
| Meta, the company, had AI scan the content of this person's Facebook page and then sent an email, totally unprompted, the AI of Meta sent an email to the woman's boss saying, hey, here's what this woman is saying. | ||
| Are you sure you want to be associated with her? | ||
| Which is just crazy. | ||
| An AI program telling on you to your boss to get you fired. | ||
| Totally unprecedented. | ||
| But it seems like that's the way it's happening in the West is it's instead of being rolled out as a centralized government program, it's sort of we're getting used to the social media social credit score being implemented sort of incrementally As we sleep through it, like frogs in a boiling bot, frogs in a boiling pot. | ||
| So, how would this system be differentiated from the Chinese system, or is it pretty much the same thing? | ||
| Well, anytime you decentralize something, right, there usually is rules on how the decentralized system works. | ||
| So, in China, like you're right, they have the state basically saying, these are our rules for how to be a, you know, responsible citizen is what they say. | ||
| And then they, with their, you know, kind of public-private partnership with the company that handles that social credit score, monitors and surveils everyone's activities and then kind of assigns them their score based upon what they see. | ||
| And so you're absolutely right that it's a little different and actually are planning to use artificial intelligence. | ||
| And before Barbara Marks Hubbard died, she actually died in 2019. | ||
| And she was working with Christopher Life as her protege on implementing something she called synergistic democracy. | ||
| Now, within the independent movement right now, that's being pushed as what's called win-win democracy and its other uglier DEI version, Omni-Win democracy. | ||
| So they want it to be more democratized in the way that they feel like people should have a say in how this system will sort of operate. | ||
| But of course, they do it by equitable DEI standards. | ||
| Certain voices should have more say on how things should work. | ||
| And it's definitely not localized. | ||
| Really, what they view the whole system as is the entire earth. | ||
| And what they really want and what her followers were building before she died was something called NOAAMAP. | ||
| Now it's called S7. | ||
| It's the actual technology that would make this resource-based or well-being economy work. | ||
| So AI would determine what all the resources were. | ||
| And this is what you see now actually also on the kind of the Andrew Yang side, the rise of this abundance network, right? | ||
| Because we're seeing we're not going to have this whole club of Rome idea of there's, you know, resources are scarce. | ||
| Everybody needs to conserve and we're going to have all these regulations because they realize that it really inhibits growth of our society. | ||
| So instead, they are going to have AI be able to determine, yes, we have an abundance of resources. | ||
| And not only that, it'll be able to know who needs those resources and be able to distribute them equitably. | ||
| And so in this, you know, in a worldwide system, AI might decide that, you know, hey, you know, you don't need your land. | ||
| Some immigrants that came here might need it more than you. | ||
| Or, hey, those resources might be better redirected to some place like Africa. | ||
| And you're just going to have to do without for the good of society. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And as you point out, you know, they have this definition of selfishness or another word they use is arrogance. | ||
| I hear that a lot too. | ||
| And I always think back to there's a Chinese professor that's pretty high up in the Chinese government. | ||
| And he wanted to have Xi Jinping, president of China, have a book reading at a bookstore called Poetry and Prose. | ||
| And the guy, and it's a bookstore in DC, and the guy said, no, I'm not interested in holding your book reading here. | ||
| I'm not a communist. | ||
| I don't want the communist president using my story. | ||
| And the Chinese professor telling the story says, the arrogance of this American, the arrogance to think that he can keep us out. | ||
| And it's like, maybe that is arrogant, but it's not. | ||
| It's just being an American. | ||
| It means that when you're on American soil, Xi Jinping, the president of China or the queen of Timbuktu, are no better or more superior than the owner of the bookshop. | ||
| He gets to tell you to get the hell out because it's his land. | ||
| And it doesn't matter if you're the king of China. | ||
| Get out. | ||
| So it's like this idea of our sovereignty, our individualism, our control over our own property. | ||
| That is seen by these people as arrogant, as selfish, all these bad things. | ||
| When we've been raised to understand, no, this is what it means to be an American. | ||
| This is actually, we have freedom to do what we want. | ||
| It's not arrogance to not bend the knee. | ||
| It's sovereignty. | ||
| And that's what we're holding on to. | ||
| So I think that's very, that's very insightful, this idea of selfishness being that your freedom is selfishness. | ||
| You're being selfish by demanding freedom or to inherit your birthright. | ||
| That's selfish. | ||
| You should give to somebody else. | ||
| It's that sort of evocative language that gets people to go along with this, isn't it? | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| And they're really just trying to change the entire system. | ||
| It's not just how the resources are distributed, but also they're trying to completely change our election systems for two reasons, right? | ||
| The independent movement has been struggling to get ballot access. | ||
| It's been very hard for them. | ||
| And I actually do agree that the two-party system is not perfect and there's lots of changes that could be made. | ||
| But really what they're trying to drive us towards is ranked choice voting or what they call preferential voting or final five voting, where it would take away the one person, one vote aspect of America and our electoral college so that they can then kind of have more of a quote unquote democracy, which is really just mob rule. | ||
| And they view people wanting to keep our Constitution and keep our electoral college as selfish. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| And I'm amazed at how this language and this mindset has sort of seeped its way into the public consciousness. | ||
| And again, this article gets into some crazy stuff. | ||
| I want to touch on Epstein, how his whole deal associates with this, the transhumanist aspect. | ||
| But just reading it and just this idea of we're evolving into this new non-human, you know, advanced race or whatever their idea is, you might not hear it explicitly a lot, but I had a friend who was talking to a group of people about transgenderism and one of the people was a major leftist. | ||
| And the leftist said, just apropos of nothing, just out of nowhere, said, well, you know, we're all transitioning. | ||
| My friend said, well, what do you mean we're all? | ||
| And he said, well, we're all transitioning out of being human into being transhuman. | ||
| So it's like, this is already just part of the public consciousness. | ||
| People are being trained to accept this idea that humanity is on the cusp of some evolutionary breakthrough where we're going to leave behind all these stupid old traditions and, you know, sex divisions and gender. | ||
| And that's all the old because we are this new, this neo-human, this neo-man that doesn't have to abide by all these traditional things. | ||
| So, I mean, this has already have a very powerful hold on the public consciousness. | ||
| And that to me is extremely disturbing. | ||
| And it's also extremely powerful. | ||
| It makes me respect these people for how they're able to get their ideas seeped into the public's consciousness, even when nobody knows who they are or what they're doing. | ||
| Their ideas are being embedded. | ||
| Well, and actually, you're on the right track here, but what people don't understand is that it already has been mainstreamed into the public. | ||
| So your audience can go check out how powerful some of these evolutionary leaders are and read their biographies on their webpage, evolutionaryleaders.net. | ||
| You'll see that many of these people are members of the Club of Rome, members of the Club of Budapest, the World Economic Forum. | ||
| Many of them are very influential at the United Nations. | ||
| And actually, many of them have been platformed for decades on Oprah Winfrey's television show. | ||
| And this is why, you know, when you saw big things happen like The Secret, you know, and this whole idea that people can use the law of manifestation to manifest things in their lives, this is all a part of this evolutionary leader's cult and their ideology. | ||
| And it's not just, it is a religion for sure, but also it's a way of viewing the world that we are not dualistic, you know, separated from the metaphysical, separated from animals and environments and all that kind of stuff, but we are literally one body. | ||
| And therefore, our needs as humans don't matter as much as the biosphere or insects, you know, and this is where you see like the who's one health agenda come through. | ||
| And many of these people are connected to the World Health Organization. | ||
| And so this cult has been able to influence and infiltrate all areas of society. | ||
| They restructured education in the 90s. | ||
| They, like I said, have and been involved in Silicon Valley, literally every single sector you can think of. | ||
| They were able to, they were the ones who were behind the environmental, social, and governance scores and business. | ||
| So this is an actual cult with real chops and real influence in our culture already. | ||
| It's very, it's very, very disturbing. | ||
| And I guess they get away with it by just treating like this is this just intellectualism. | ||
| It's not a religion. | ||
| It's not we're enforcing our religious views. | ||
| It's just, we're just intellectuals and this is just the academic way of viewing the world. | ||
| And it's just sick and it's having incredible consequences as we see. | ||
| I mean, like you say, since the 90s, we've seen our curriculum change. | ||
| And it seems like everything these people touch gets significantly worse and not fit for purpose anymore. | ||
| But that hasn't ever stopped them before. | ||
| So we got Chris for Life, Brock Pierce. | ||
| This is a child actor from the Mighty Ducks movie. | ||
| What does he have to do with this? | ||
| And how is this related to the independent party movement? | ||
| And is Elon Musk's America Party playing into that in any way, do you think? | ||
| Because when I think of a third party option, that's the one that's grabbing headlines these days. | ||
| How do you think that relates to it? | ||
| Well, I think it's important to note that Christopher Life isn't operating by himself. | ||
| He's using the finances of the Brock Pierce Foundation to, and they're working as co-founders, basically running these independent national conventions to kind of rival what's going on with the Republican Democrat parties. | ||
| And they're also, again, forming a coalition called United Independents within the independent movement that'll kind of coalesce resources and, you know, an actual platform of what they're supporting and eventually candidates that they want to throw their weight behind as an independent movement. | ||
| And Brock Pierce was a child star. | ||
| He was, like you said, he's in the Mighty Ducks movies and he was turned into a cryptocurrency bro. | ||
| And he was actually a financial advisor in that realm for Jeffrey Epstein. | ||
| And I think the other thing that I wanted to note, there's some very questionable stuff of him living with this guy named Mark Collins Rector. | ||
| There's this whole scandal with kind of an early version of Netflix called the Digital Entertainment Network, where there was accusations of an actual sex ring going on, where producers would come to the house where he lived with Collins Rector and his lover, Chad Shackley, and there was supposedly things going on there. | ||
| Now, he was never prosecuted, but I feel like in relation to his relationship with Epstein, I think it's something to definitely bring up. | ||
| Also, Brock Pierce was invited and attended a conference that Epstein had on his little St. James Island in 2011 called Mind Shift. | ||
| And it was a conference to discuss evolution. | ||
| And I think, you know, we talk a lot about the blackmail aspect, maybe the intelligence aspect of what Epstein was doing on his island and in his branch in New Mexico. | ||
| But we don't talk enough about something that's not as well known, which is his very, very deep interest in, you know, kind of social and genetic engineering through his relationship with many, many scientists who are studying those types of things. | ||
| He funded them. | ||
| He would have them to lunches and dinners. | ||
| He funded the whole program for evolutionary dynamics at Harvard that actually Harvard got in hot water for after he was prosecuted. | ||
| And so I think we're not maybe questioning that there might have been evolutionary motives behind what Epstein was up to, especially considering two of the survivors, both Virginia Duffray in that recent kind of dead man's switch recording she put out, was talking about how, you know, Bill Gates, of course, they hated seeing him naked on Epstein Island, but also he would bring genetic experiments or stuff to inject people with him. | ||
| One of the things that was mentioned. | ||
| One of the other victims recalled waking up at the Zoro Ranch in New Mexico and was on like a medical table. | ||
| And there are people in medical gear around her, and they were injecting her with something. | ||
| And she questions, what did they do to me? | ||
| So I think that we definitely need to examine: were there evolutionary motives, transhumanist motives behind what was happening with Epstein and Ghillene Maxwell? | ||
| Well, yeah, absolutely. | ||
| And again, it's in this article. | ||
| And the crew is showing all these other articles from, you know, Hollywood Reporter about Brock Pierce and Jeffrey Epstein. | ||
| So, I mean, all this stuff is verified by mainstream sources. | ||
| But your article, The Cult Capture of the Independent Movement, How Third Party Politics is Being Used to Usher in a Technography for Global Consciousness, will be up on InfoWars today, probably very shortly. | ||
| But we have sort of the advanced copy here. | ||
| And when we get back on the other side, I'll read just some of what you report about scientists like George Church and the World Transhumanists Association. | ||
| So again, folks, I mean, it might sound crazy to people that don't know some of this stuff already, but it's like, yeah, when you're talking about transhumanism and a social credit score and it's tied in with Jeffrey Epstein and all these other, you know, fundraisers and high-connected people, the World Economic Forum, the WHO, I mean, they really are tied in together. | ||
| They really are pursuing a single agenda. | ||
| And it is not for your, it's not in your best interest and it's not for humanity. | ||
| They actually see humanity as maybe a stepping stone or maybe an obstacle to their ultimate goals. | ||
| And we'll get into, you know, how those are being manifested right now in real life. | ||
| Not something far down the line. | ||
| It's happening right now as we speak. | ||
| And we have to stop. | ||
| Stay with us. | ||
| Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| This is the American Journal. | ||
| I'm your host, Harrison Smith, here with Lisa Logan, talking about her bombshell new article. | ||
| Or it will be a bombshell when it drops later today on Infowars.com. | ||
| Let me get the exact title of this article. | ||
| The Cult Capture of the Independent Movement, How Third Party Politics is Being Used to Usher in a Technocracy for Global Consciousness. | ||
| And this is sort of the ultimate conspiracy, the conspiracy that all the constituent conspiracies are driving us towards. | ||
| And I was just thinking about that during the break, you know, looking at this article and thinking about how all of these things are being so rapidly implemented. | ||
| And just making a quick list off the top of my head. | ||
| Obviously, you have stories that I talked about earlier. | ||
| We covered them yesterday of AI being used in hiring practices or as a de facto social credit score where basically you'll lose your job if you say the wrong thing online, express the wrong sentiments. | ||
| You have the Online Safety Act that was just passed in the UK totally censoring everybody, forcing you to provide your digital ID or link some other biometric information in order to just see information that they'll still censor from you if they don't want you to see it anyway. | ||
| Facial recognition is becoming much more widespread. | ||
| Now, if you go to the airport, they don't even ask to see your ID. | ||
| They just ask you to look at the lens, please. | ||
| They take your photo. | ||
| Now we have variable pricing because what I was thinking of was the way that China implements the social credit system is very savvy. | ||
| It's very sophisticated. | ||
| They won't necessarily deny you things. | ||
| They just make it more expensive or they make it harder or they make it less convenient. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And I can just see how this plays out where as you're arguing going, well, this is unfair. | ||
| Because I have a low credit score, I can't get on the high-speed train. | ||
| And I can just see the argument being made. | ||
| Well, yeah, but you can still get on a train. | ||
| It's not like they're stopping you from getting on a train. | ||
| You just have to take the regional. | ||
| It's just going to take you 12 hours instead of two hours, but they aren't actually stopping you. | ||
| So it's this subtle implementation. | ||
| It's the soft implementation. | ||
| It's the, well, we aren't stopping you, but we just are going to make it a little harder. | ||
| And that made me think about the variable pricing that's being implemented in all sorts of cases in America. | ||
| Delta has announced variable pricing. | ||
| And I've got the article from the Chicago Tribune editorial, epox on personalized airline pricing at Delta or elsewhere. | ||
| We're not up for surge pricing at the grocery store either. | ||
| So that's being implemented, this sort of soft social credit score where they, well, you can afford more, so we're going to charge you more. | ||
| And that person, so you don't have a single price that everybody pays. | ||
| You have prices tailored to that person's capabilities. | ||
| And then that just adds to the renting and not owning where you aren't going to own your phone or your house or your car. | ||
| It'll all be rented, Tesla auto driving. | ||
| I mean, again, I'm sorry to ramble because we have Lisa Logan here. | ||
| He's the expert on all of this. | ||
| But just as I'm, as I was running through my mind during the break of all of these things that have all been implemented in just the last few weeks or months, and they're all coming together to provide the foundation and the infrastructure for the global consciousness initiative that you're describing here. | ||
| So I'm sorry to ramble, but I mean, I'm sure you're noticing all of this as well. | ||
| All of these things are being implemented all over the place all at once. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And I think it's like you said, it's a frog boiling in a pot of water. | ||
| It comes along kind of incrementally. | ||
| Maybe it's just a pilot in your town. | ||
| That's how they started with the airport biometric stuff, right? | ||
| Oh, it's just a pilot, but they don't tell you that. | ||
| They don't tell you that you're not going to be detained to get on your flight if you don't participate in their pilot program. | ||
| And it's just like how we have smartphones, right? | ||
| And we have the choice of accepting the terms and conditions of using that phone. | ||
| But I mean, good luck using your phone in society if you don't have one. | ||
| And you won't be able to do that unless you set those terms and conditions. | ||
| And so we're slowly being kind of steered into this society where, again, everything will be digitally connected. | ||
| And I think it's important to talk about those technologies. | ||
| You are an expert, Harrison, because you're here reporting the news and showing how it actually is being implemented and promoted within our society. | ||
| And the problem is, once you're interconnected like that, all people think, oh, it's so great. | ||
| You know, well, it's convenient. | ||
| I'll be able to pull up my medical records on my digital wallet if I have to go somewhere and show that I'm up to date on my vaccines. | ||
| But in a world like China, where they can take your ability to, again, ride a high-speed train away or turn your health code red if you attend a protest, it's not the freedom and the choice that people really think it is. | ||
| And so it's an important thing for us to talk about how these technologies really are going to set up a system where we're going to have to comply with what those rules are. | ||
| And those could be, and who's going to set those rules? | ||
| Who's going to train the AI to say, these are the rules that are acceptable for this person to have access to these goods and services? | ||
| And yes, and what are their values and what are their philosophies? | ||
| And we know, we were talking about earlier, they think freedom is selfish and your sovereignty is arrogance and you have to be brought down. | ||
| And I guess it makes sense. | ||
| It's easier to bring everybody who's superlative, bring them down to the average. | ||
| A lot easier to do that than it is to bring the bottom up. | ||
| So I guess technically it makes sense what they're doing. | ||
| It's just evil. | ||
| It's just destroying the human potential that we have on offer. | ||
| And not to get too far off the mark. | ||
| I was brainstorming that during the break. | ||
| But before the break, we were talking about Epstein and his creepy activity. | ||
| So let's get back to that, not let that fall to the wayside. | ||
| This is from your article that, again, will be published on InfoWars shortly. | ||
| Two of Epstein victims, Virginia Juffrey and her Dead Man Switch recording and Juliette Rose Bryant, have alleged that there were genetic experiments going on at both his private Virgin Island and Zorro ranch in New Mexico. | ||
| He surrounded himself with scientists like George Church, who was working, quote, to identify genes that could be altered to create superior humans and gave large sums of money to the World Transhumanist Association. | ||
| The article goes on to say that Mr. Epstein's vision reflected his longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism, the science of evolving, of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. | ||
| So all these things are, again, combining and accelerating. | ||
| They're talking now about in the UK, babies being born that have three sets of genetic code in them. | ||
| So, I mean, transhumanism is here, isn't it? | ||
| I mean, are you warning about something that's coming or are you telling people about something that's already happening right now, Lisa? | ||
| Well, I mean, let's just be real. | ||
| Epstein was having these billionaires dinners, inviting all these scientists and members from Transhumanist Association to talk about how do we make this a reality? | ||
| And it is already happening in a lot of ways. | ||
| Again, you have, I guess, surveillance. | ||
| You have test tube babies are experimenting with artificial wombs. | ||
| I mean, this is a real thing. | ||
| People are already experimenting with how do we enhance. | ||
| And, you know, some of those things could be great, but you see, again, you can insert a chip in your hand and be able to pay with things. | ||
| But again, what happens when they shut that off for you? | ||
| Smart meters are being installed on people's water systems that they can shut off if it's a part of a centralized system that decides you've used too much water. | ||
| And so these technologies to control us and as well as enhance our capabilities as humans already are starting to exist. | ||
| And so I want to bring up too then the fact that Elon has been great getting all the waste, fraud, and abuse out of the federal government with his Doge, Department of Government Efficiency. | ||
| And he says his new party is going to advocate for responsible national debt policy as far as reducing the national debt because he feels the two main parties aren't very kind of zeroed in on that. | ||
| But will his America party, what else will they advocate for? | ||
| Will they advocate for these fourth industrial revolution technologies as well that merge the physical, digital, and biological spheres? | ||
| And the answer is yes. | ||
| And actually from my article, you know, it says he obviously has a company, Neuralink, which advocates for brain implantable interfaces. | ||
| And his 2023 post regarding his social media platform, X evolving to, quote, be the collective consciousness of humanity, or more accurately, the human machine collective, which has now been conveniently merged with XAI, as we know, and also his stated desire to make X the everything app similar to the Chinese WeChat, which is the system that holds all of that into place. | ||
| It's safe to say that yes, he is for these technologies. | ||
| And so I think just going to the ballot box or, you know, kind of pausing for a minute to, because I think actually that all of this political theater that we're seeing over the, you know, how much was released about the Epstein case and the big beautiful bill dispute, | ||
| I think all of this is political theater to make both the left and the right-hand side of government, conservatives and Republicans and Democrats, look bad so that it actually drives us to this middleway third-party politics that is advocating for these technologies. | ||
| Yeah, and especially with Elon, both Peter Thiel as well, it's hard to get a read on how they feel. | ||
| I'm sure you saw the video. | ||
| I'd love to get your comments when Peter Thiel was asked about, like, aren't you kind of building the infrastructure that the Antichrist would use? | ||
| You know, if you're warning against the Antichrist, well, here you are building all of the programs you say that he would, that the Antichrist would need to use. | ||
| And it's like Peter Thiel never thought about that before. | ||
| He's like, huh, yeah, I guess I am kind of building, you know, paving the way for the Antichrist. | ||
| It's like, okay, has he actually never thought about that? | ||
| Or I just, I don't know what to make of these guys. | ||
| Clearly, Elon Musk, I was thinking about this the other day because, you know, every once in a while it'll happen where I'll bring up Twitter on my phone and the app will just kind of freeze up. | ||
| And I always get this flashback to like two or three years ago when I never knew if my Twitter account was going to be there or not. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I mean, censorship was real and intense. | ||
| And if you, you know, you had to be careful and it was not a rare occurrence for me to flip on Twitter to see, sorry, you've been banned. | ||
| So thank God for Elon Musk opening up Twitter. | ||
| Thank God for Elon Musk helping Trump get elected. | ||
| I don't want to throw the guy under the bus. | ||
| At the same time, He's obviously a transhumanist. | ||
| How do you deal with that? | ||
| How do we deal with these people that seemingly are on our side, seemingly love humanity, and yet they're paving the way for this technocracy? | ||
| I mean, how do you deal with these characters? | ||
| Yeah, and actually, I thought you were going to ask me about the video that I saw with Peter Thiel, where the guy was asking him, Do you still believe that humans should exist in the future? | ||
| And he kind of had a very kind of uncomfortable long pause before he said, well, it's complicated. | ||
| And then had this long answer. | ||
| I'm like, that's the kind of stuff that concerns me again, because we view humans as the ultimate consumption entity in our ecosystem and that we are exploitative of the rest of the resources. | ||
| And so I think you have to view people for who they are. | ||
| And I think we can, in the same sentence, appreciate Elon's cutting of this waste and abuse of the government. | ||
| I'm so grateful he cut USAID and also his taking over of X, although I would agree I'm just a censor to be honest. | ||
| But I think we can appreciate those things and in the same sentence, point out that, hey, it's not okay for you to set up this digital infrastructure to control all of humanity. | ||
| I think we need to point that stuff out when it happens as citizens. | ||
| I think you had Courtney Turner on your show the other day talking about this AI.gov stuff. | ||
| I mean, I think we need to point that stuff out and say, no, we were not for it. | ||
| You know, 10 years ago, we're still not for it. | ||
| We want to have ultimate freedom and cognitive liberty, and we do not want you to set up a system of control that can allow that to happen. | ||
| And as you point out in your article, it's not even a matter of, I don't know how to put it. | ||
| It's just they don't have a right to impose their beliefs on us, especially even if they, even if I agreed with their beliefs, I wouldn't want them imposed. | ||
| But these people, I don't know where they're coming from. | ||
| I don't know what the basis of their understanding is. | ||
| As you point out, how would one make sure that only the good can evolve? | ||
| Because they talk about, you know, well, some people just have to die and other people will evolve and some people won't. | ||
| Well, how do you make sure that only the good can evolve? | ||
| Moreover, who or what defines good? | ||
| A system would have to be created to track, quote, selfish people and force them to comply either through coercion, nudging, or force, and to leave them no other option to participate in society without plugging themselves into that system. | ||
| So again, that to me is the superlative concern is what these people define as good, I don't define as good. | ||
| What they define as selfish, I don't define as selfish. | ||
| And yet they're going to, and they are. | ||
| They're just doing it. | ||
| Again, they're not asking permission. | ||
| They're not saying, we'd like to set up the system. | ||
| Will you allow us? | ||
| And we all get to vote. | ||
| And if the majority, no, they're just doing it, right? | ||
| So they're just imposing this on us unless we stop them. | ||
| So I guess let's turn to that. | ||
| How do we stop them? | ||
| What do we need to be doing to cut them off at the pass and prevent them? | ||
| So we're not always just playing catch up as they implement these technologies and we point them out and point out how evil they are and point out where they're going. | ||
| How do we head them off at the pass? | ||
| How do we stop them from implementing this before it's too late? | ||
| I think we have to create policies at the local level that shield our local society from these things. | ||
| Now, I don't know what we do globally. | ||
| I think we have to get some, and even nationally, right, we have to get some congressmen on board who are willing to make those same laws at that level as well to say these things cannot be implemented. | ||
| I think we have to also really cut these public-private partnerships because that is what is driving all of this into our culture. | ||
| Because that is really taxation without representation. | ||
| You're having unelected bodies decide things for us regular people without even a vote in place. | ||
| So I think that's the one thing. | ||
| And then I think overall, just making yourself aware of what these movements are called and what they're doing to kind of set up this infrastructure. | ||
| There's actually a website called secondrenaissance.net, second spelled out, that'll show you all the metamodernist and economic groups that are working together to put this in place. | ||
| You know, in the intellectual dark web space, we have Game B. Again, I mentioned the NOAA map S7 people. | ||
| You have all of the folks who are in that well-being economy agenda that I talked about when I was exposing the federal plan for equitable long-term recovery and resilience. | ||
| There's actual webs of these people on the internet on Goggle. | ||
| And you can find them and realize that they're using all aspects, media. | ||
| They're using their friends in the United Nations, which again, they're very influential. | ||
| They're setting all this digital rules for how they're going to fight disinformation and misinformation and just start saying no, no, no, no, no. | ||
| Show up, speak up, and assert your cognitive and physical liberty. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| And it's the type of thing that the purpose of these programs, in part at least, is to stop you from speaking out against the program. | ||
| So it's like once they're implemented, it's too late. | ||
| Talking about this yesterday, either with the Online Safety Act or now they've got anti-Semitism monitors at places like Facebook. | ||
| And so once they're in place, if you say, hey, it's not good that the Jewish Zionist organization gets to censor Facebook, they go, well, too bad that violates our rules. | ||
| So we're going to remove it. | ||
| Or the Online Safety Act. | ||
| If you say, I don't like this, they can say, well, that's actually against the rules of the Online Safety Act. | ||
| So we'll remove that. | ||
| So if you want to stop this, you have to stop it before it happens. | ||
| Once it's implemented, it's too late. | ||
| Once the social credit score is established, that's pretty much the end for any revolutionary activity, any change whatsoever, because they can nip it in the bud. | ||
| They can take any nascent or, you know, starting to develop revolutionary concept and just crush it outright or silence you or separate you away from everybody else. | ||
| You know, another thing that happened recently that reminds me of everything that you're laying out is that the Waymo cars refused to take people to the protests in California during the immigration protest. | ||
| And obviously that was because they were attacking the Waymo cars. | ||
| But again, it's sort of a symbol of how this is already being implemented, how if you want to go protest the government, well, not if Waymo, not if it violates Waymo's terms of service, not if Tesla says, sorry, your protest against the government violates our position. | ||
| We're not going to take you there. | ||
| How are you going to gather? | ||
| So, you know, just making the point that we got to head this off at the past. | ||
| Once these things are implemented, it's too late to try to solve them, right? | ||
| Oh, definitely. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And again, it's being driven by these public-private partnerships that are slowly taking away our other options. | ||
| If we don't want to participate in, you know, a self-driving car or whatever, like eventually that's all the options we'll have left. | ||
| So I think fighting for options also to continue to have them and not be plugged into this system is important as well. | ||
| So again, you get into all of this in your article. | ||
| And it's, again, to people not aware of how real all of this is, I get that it might sound, it might sound crazy. | ||
| You got Elon, you got Epstein, you got transhumanism and the Chinese communist model. | ||
| And like it's sort of, it's just a wide-ranging article because it's such a wide-ranging conspiracy that they're involved in. | ||
| And so again, the sort of central point of it is this literal cult that you're describing, founded by Barbara Marks Hubbard and now being carried out by Chris for life. | ||
| Why have I not heard of these people before? | ||
| I mean, I'm in this sphere all the time. | ||
| I'm always reading about this stuff. | ||
| But these people have slipped by my vision. | ||
| How did I miss these guys? | ||
| Are they good at hiding themselves or am I not doing the right research? | ||
| How did I miss these people? | ||
| Well, actually, you probably haven't. | ||
| I'll point out that some people who are no longer on the evolutionary leaders website, probably on purpose, but two-time presidential candidate Marion Williamson was an evolutionary leader on their website, has now been scrubbed. | ||
| You have people like Deepak Chopra. | ||
| Gosh, how much has he been in the media for all sorts of various things that he's promoted? | ||
| They're more in plain sight than you think they are. | ||
| And I will also point out Gene Houston, who's another evolutionary leader, was spiritual advisor to Hillary Clinton. | ||
| So they are there and they're influential, but many of them kind of work behind the scenes at places like the United Nations. | ||
| Again, they were responsible for the SDGs. | ||
| They are responsible for the complete restructuring of education through Clinton's Goals 2000. | ||
| Literally everything that I've come on your show and talked about, Harrison, they have played a role in. | ||
| That federal plan for equitable long-term recovery and resilience, four of them are listed on their chart as Weissages. | ||
| So they are very much a part of our society without you knowing it. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| It's very disturbing. | ||
| And I wish we had longer with you because I want to get into what's happening to the World Economic Forum right now. | ||
| It seems like they're maybe not as influential as they were a few years ago. | ||
| And I'm wondering if they're reorganizing in some other organization or if they're, because I think we won. | ||
| I think we exposed them for who they are. | ||
| And so they just don't have any credibility anymore. | ||
| So it's not beneficial for them to send out Novol, you know, Noah Uval Harari out because people just get creeped out by him and don't like what he's up to. | ||
| So I wonder how the information landscape is changing with things like the World Economic Forum falling out of favor as InfoWars and people like yourself expose what they're up to. | ||
| It seems like they're going a little bit more underground and being a little bit more hidden. | ||
| Have you noticed that? | ||
| I definitely have. | ||
| And I think behind the scenes, they are forming coalitions within themselves. | ||
| I know one of the evolutionary leaders, Mark Gerzin, actually got the Social Venture Network and the World Economic Forum to sit down and shake hands over their agenda. | ||
| And so quietly behind the scenes, the UN and the WEF are working together, as well as some of these other very radical non-governmental organizations. | ||
| And again, I just want to say, with the digital sphere, the evolutionary leaders set the whole entire agenda for the Summit of the Future last year. | ||
| I went on Dr. Dre show to talk about it. | ||
| And really what they're doing is the digital control of all society. | ||
| Again, they get to decide what's misinformation. | ||
| So you have AI, Google jigsaw deciding, oh, hey, if you're saying something on the internet we don't like, we're going to send you into a private chat room with an AI bot and they're going to school you on the proper way to say that. | ||
| So I just think that don't lose sight of kind of this agenda doesn't go away. | ||
| It just transforms. | ||
| And so we have to be on top of and in front of what it's transforming into so that we can continue to say no. | ||
| And it's not enough just to say no. | ||
| You got to, you got to put your foot down. | ||
| We got to have laws in place. | ||
| I mean, you got to have the two-prong approach. | ||
| You got to say no on an individual level, but we got to combine. | ||
| We got to organize and stage protests and just make people aware of what's going on so we can get some political movement against it because they're not going to stop. | ||
| We have to stop them. | ||
| And that, again, is sort of always the message whenever I'm joined by Lisa Logan. | ||
| It's always, here's what these people are up to. | ||
| Now it's time to go out and stop them ourselves, not just beg for their mercy. | ||
| They have none. | ||
| Lisa Logan, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| You can follow Lisa on X at IamLisa Logan on YouTube at ParentsofPatriots6581. | ||
| The article that you got to read and share is called The Cult Capture of the Independent Movement, How Third Party Politics is Being Used to Usher in Technoxy for Global Consciousness. | ||
| And that will be published later today on Infowars.com. | ||
| Lisa, thank you so much for being with us today. | ||
| Thanks for having me. | ||
| My pleasure at IamLisa Logan on X. Go follow her and inform yourself, folks. | ||
| That's about going to do it for us. | ||
| But I do got to tell you, they just delivered this very important piece of paper here. | ||
| Store-wide buy one, get one super sale for VIPs only on thealexjonesstore.com. | ||
| Buy one, get one on all supplements and all apparels while supply last. | ||
| Unlock massive savings with our store-wide buy one, get one super sale at thealixjonesstore.com, where VIP members can score buy one, get one deals on all supplements and apparel to supercharge your wellness and style. | ||
| You're going to look as good as you feel, folks. | ||
| This exclusive offer is reserved for our VIP Club elites, giving you unbeatable value on top quality Products that fuel your fight for truth and freedom. | ||
| Join the VIP Club today for just $30 a month. | ||
| Cancel anytime. | ||
| You instantly get $40 in store credit, plus access to this epic sale. | ||
| Do not miss out. | ||
| Sign up now. | ||
| Double up on your savings. | ||
| Support the InfoWar. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War War. | |
| While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, InfoWars tells you the truth about what's happening next. | ||
| It's almost poetic the products that we sell because yes, they are the best. | ||
| Yes, it is the best price for the highest quality. | ||
| Yes, they are third-party tested. | ||
| It's almost poetic because as we advocate for humanity, what we sell to you is that which makes you or allows you to make yourself a better version of yourself. | ||
| Whether it's getting the methylene blue, which helps you with focus and energy and mental clarity, or ultimate life force, which makes your body healthier in so many ways, I don't have the time to explain to you, whether it's the Shilajit that gives you incredible vitality or the ultimate burn, which ensures that your metabolism is optimal, or the optimal human, which is everything the body needs. | ||
| You see, we're fighting for your mind, your body, and your soul, not just with the products that we sell, but with the message of this network. | ||
| We have to have the truth. | ||
| We have to have freedom of speech. | ||
| We have to have our rights because folks, we're about ready to go into an artificial intelligence war, into a space war, the likes of which humanity couldn't even dream of, even in science fiction. |
Export Selection