Watch the UNCENSORED second hour live on RVM Premium Mon-Thur at 9AM EST:
https://redvoicemedia.com/uncensoredShow more Not RVM Premium yet? Try it for $1:
https://redvoicemedia.com/jason
Listen Live and Call In at:
https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/
Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermas
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/category/bermas-docs
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on Twitter
https://twitter.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
#BermasBrigade Show less
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much, feel too little.
More than machinery.
We need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe.
Our food is unfit to eat.
As if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy.
The great unco- No one wants- You gotta say, I'm a human being!
God damn it.
My life has been.
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature.
Don't give yourselves to brutes.
Men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, tired you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts!
You're beautiful.
I love you.
Yes.
You're beautiful.
Thank you.
Ha ha.
Show time.
And now, Reality Rance with Jason Burmese.
And who loves you and who do you love?
Good morning, everybody.
It is Reality Rance, RedVoicemedia.com.
And I think we got kind of a banger today.
Seeing as on Thursday and Friday on the national news, on the most watched news program in the country, it was claimed that an inside source who had seen the JFK documentation that has been withheld from the public.
Let me reiterate that for a moment.
Withheld from the public for more than half a century.
We're coming up on the 60 years, okay?
Withheld from the public, saying, hey, by the way, the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy.
And I think it's kind of a big deal.
And let me tell you why it's a big deal.
Because the silence is deafening.
Is deafening.
Not only did we get a segment on Thursday, but then a follow-up piece on Friday.
And in a turning point USA speech, I believe happened over the weekend, he also reiterated the CIA was involved.
There's not a question anymore, in the murder of a president.
And no one in the media is touching it.
Nobody.
Pompeo's been invited on twice.
Now, I'm going to do a bit of speculation here.
And this is by no means do I have a source on this, but I think there is a possibility that the source that told Tucker Carlson this could be Trump.
Why would I say that?
And I'm not saying it is.
It could certainly be someone on the inside on a review board that has seen these documents now many times over for years and years and years and maybe actually believed in 2017 they should be released to the public instead of now almost 2023 and we still can't see the meat and potatoes.
By the way, get the thumbs up, subscribe and share.
A lot to go over today.
So why do I think it's a possibility of Trump leaking this to Tucker Carlson?
Well, first of all, the way it's phrased, the quote that's given, and obviously it is a direct quote.
And it's basically the belief that, yes, the CIA was involved, you know, not damning them to the point of them carrying out the entire operation or giving specifics.
Now, I recently interviewed Roger Stone on this channel.
It was on the premium side, but of course, everything gets released a couple weeks after.
It's everywhere.
Roger Stone, Jason Burmes, go look into it.
And Roger Stone claims that he asked the president what was in the documents.
And although the president did not tell Roger Stone what was in the documents, he indeed said that he had seen the documents and it was too terrible to release.
Okay, just throwing it out there.
Throwing it out there.
But again, the real news story, and we're going to play some clips, is the fact that this is, if I do a Tucker Carlson CIA JFK news search on Google, what do I get?
First of all, it starts with a DeSantis article.
And this guy is, just so everybody sees, is the relevance tab.
The relevance tab.
So let's keep going down here.
Fox news story you just saw, mediaite to their credit.
All right.
And then The Guardian maybe has something.
It's not even in the headline.
And that's it.
Look at this.
I mean, there's nothing on it.
Now, let's see if we go not by relevance, but by date.
Is there anything more?
I guess Town Hall, seven hours ago, they're doing something.
Robert Kennedy Jr., who has long now been very critical of the Central Intelligence Agency, actually tweeted out that Tucker Carlson's piece on Thursday was the bravest newscast in the past 60 years.
Okay, but that's it.
Take a look.
Newsbreak got it.
Here's Heavy talking about RFK.
None of them even talking really about Tucker, the new American now.
But it's extremely hidden.
This should be the top story in the country that our main intelligence agency, that's the authoritative source on everything, was involved in killing a president.
And everything we've been told is a lie.
They've treated us like children.
No, no, no.
You're not allowed to know how it really works.
And Tucker kind of made this point, at least I believe in the first segment, although he may have in the second segment.
What I did like about it is that he called out Mike Pompeo.
You know, we lied, we cheated, we steal, we had entire courses on it.
You know, Mike Pompeo invited him on twice now, and he's refused both times.
And from what I understand, because there really is not a response here, it's not that this is fake news and Tucker Carlson is incorrect.
It's not that.
We've covered at length the FBI, Warren C. Debru handling Oswald, the CIA connections, the Bush connections, the George Bush connections.
DeMorn Shield is out there.
The very real possibility that Oswald himself was trained by the Office of Naval Intelligence, okay, via the CIA in a merge program.
That happened often.
They would infiltrate each other's agencies, unfortunately.
That's how this works.
Okay?
So it should be everywhere.
It should really be everywhere.
I want everybody to take a step back and think about that.
You know, when I made Invisible Empire a new world order to find, and I wanted to show some of the mechanisms that, you know, the predator class has utilized to not only gain but maintain power, the Kennedy assassination is a big deal.
And that's why it's in the opening credits.
You watch Kennedy get his head blown off.
In the opening credits.
You know, in conjunction with a montage of other scenes and other leaders such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt talking about the new world order and the regimentation of all human beings under this Nazi ideal, okay, and fighting that.
There's a statue.
We show it in the movie in DC with the quote that we play in the film.
And JFK talking about secret societies.
And then later on, we talk about JFK, RFK, MLK, and how the House Assassination Committee said, yeah, these guys were probably murdered from a conspiracy.
No, nothing to see here.
No more discussion.
Let's clamp down on narratives even harder.
No one's talking about this.
It should be the number one story everywhere in this country.
Seriously.
Despite everything that's going on right now, whether we knew it all along or it's been around forever, we should be outraged.
We should be demanding not only the declassification of all this material, but a restructuring of our intelligence, accountability, and the declassification of much, much more.
CIA Secrets and Malevolence00:09:40
That would be an actual constitutional republic with a thing called checks and balances.
Instead, it is an executive within an executive that is basically a dictatorship, a dictatorship under the direction of a sociopathic, social engineering, social Darwin praising predator class.
So with that being said, and that's a mouthful, thumbs it up, subscribe, share.
Remember, redvoicemedia.com slash Jason for the second hour.
I'm going to play some of this up until about 30 minutes, and then I have an hour-long interview with Derek Brose about his latest article over at thelastamericanvagabond.com.
By the way, T-Lab, Ryan Christian, back on Twitter.
Very happy to see that.
Got his original account back.
So we're going to play about half of that on the regular broadcast, and then the other half, and much more, we're going to wrap it up.
I'm wearing the Marvel shirt.
I kind of praised the Marvel movies the other day.
I watched the latest Thor movie.
I'm going to tear that apart.
I don't even know if I'm going to have the time to tear it apart, but that'll be all the way at the end of the broadcast.
So without further ado, let's start it with the Tuckens here talking about inviting Pompeo on the first night and then the discussion of the ramifications of this.
We asked Pompeo to join us tonight, and though he really turns down a televised interview, he refused to come.
We hope he will reconsider.
In the meantime, we are happy to be joined tonight by New York Post columnist Branda Devine.
Randa, thank you so much for coming on.
I don't think we've paused long enough to consider what this means after 60 years when every person involved is dead.
We can't see classified information about maybe the pivotal event in modern American history.
Let me just stop that for a moment.
I don't believe that everybody is necessarily dead.
I want people to think about that too.
If we're talking about 60 years ago and you're talking about a military operation or a military contract operation, especially when you're talking about wet works, if somebody had proven themselves by the age of 20, 21, 22, which is often the case in the military, okay, especially when you excel at certain things, that person could very well be alive 60 years later.
I just want to put that out there.
All right.
But despite that, I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
This was a coup d'état against the country.
This was a murder of a president in front of everybody.
Okay.
So that argument that everybody's dead, I almost think that's a misnomer and then they can utilize that against us.
And now we know why.
Well, Tucker, look, you've laid it out really well.
And, you know, it used to be that conservatives like me dismissed theories from the left about JFK's assassination as just left-wing conspiracy theories.
But over time, I think that the left looks as if they were quite justified in not trusting the intelligence services.
And I think the WMD pretext for the Iraq war was a red pill, a slowly dawning red pill for me.
And I want to stop it right there because this also shows you how people have blind spots.
I think that's a real thing.
Also, when you come up in the media scape, when you're around these people all the time, there is going to be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.
Later on, you know, Tucker talks about, you know, just kind of like waking up to the fact that, wait a minute, why do we have NATO?
But at the same time, his father was in the government, was fighting the Cold War and the Russians, and it had never been questioned.
Now, don't get me wrong.
There's mockingbird everywhere.
There's disinfo everywhere.
But at the same time, we also have to realize a lot of these people are just human beings.
Can we get 100 thumbs up?
Can we get 100 thumbs up over on YouTube?
And so now you just have to look just on a really basic level.
You just look at the fact that 30 years ago, Congress, in a unanimous, bipartisan, unequivocal, unambiguous decision said that these, all the JFK files have to be made public.
Absolutely no reason to keep them back.
As you say, it's almost 60 years ago.
Everybody involved is dead.
You're not worried about sullying reputations or unmasking a spy overseas.
No, there can only be two reasons for it.
One is that you're trying to protect the CIA against allegations or revelations that it knew more than it made out about Lee Harvey Oswald.
It had a huge file on him.
They were investigating him or in contact with him before the assassination, and they didn't do enough to save JFK or protect the president.
But, you know, is that enough to really keep this secret going for 60 years?
No, exactly.
It's not just the CIA.
It's elements within the Secret Service and, of course, the FBI.
The terrible, dawning recognition is that really this is about, as you said, protecting the institution.
If the CIA was involved in that assassination, that is the reason that you would want to keep that from the American people because the fury that would erupt, and this is a bipartisan fury, It'd be the one thing that would unite Americans is absolute rage at this unaccountable spy agency that is has decided that it is going to get involved in murdering,
assassinating the duly elected American president.
That's right.
Not just leaders overseas.
Remember, it was all supposed to be foreign affairs.
But now that deep state apparatus has grown right in front of our faces with the Patriot Act, with Homeland Security, with even the National Programs Office back in the day and the empowering of the continuity of government program, all the way into the fusion centers and signature reduction that we are all under, as well as alliances like Five Eyes.
What reason?
You know, there would be such a clean out of the CIA.
I don't know if it would even survive.
And so the trust in our institutions is already at rock bottom.
I think it's a mistake for Mike Pompeo not to come on your show because all this does is fuel more conspiracy theories.
The truth is the best disinfectant.
And if the CIA did do this, was involved 60 years ago, then it needs to come clean.
We need to have a reckoning.
And just to be clear, that was the assessment of someone we spoke to who was directly and personally familiar with the contents of these documents, not someone who read it on the internet.
This is someone who had access to the documents.
And I have to say, I don't understand, and I agree with you, secrecy abets evil.
And the more secrecy you have, the more evil you're likely to have.
So we should minimize the amount of secrecy as a general matter.
But I don't understand how John Brennan can go on NBC News every day.
He was on Today.
And no one pauses and asks, like, what is this exactly?
60 years, really?
And don't give me the sources and methods, BS, by the way, son.
Like, we're adults here.
I like that.
Don't give me that BS, son.
We're adults here.
And finally, Tucker, as a 50-plus-year-old man, you don't want to be treated like a child either.
I don't want to be treated like a child.
Is that too much to ask?
I don't think that's over the top, guys.
We should all be expecting that.
They ain't your daddy.
You're not a toddler.
You're not a wayward teenager.
We're adults.
Can we act like adults?
The real reason.
Why does no one ask him that?
Well, the more we see characters from the CIA like John Brennan, like those 51 former intelligence officials who signed that scurrilous letter about Hunter Biden being Russian disinformation, the more, the less impressive they look.
These people are in the shadows for a reason, because if you actually saw who they were, look at John Brennan.
Would you, knowing what we know now about him, would you really entrust him to run the country's premier spy agency to have such power to run around the world intervening in other countries' elections?
No.
So I just don't know what good it does us to have those kind of malevolent people having so much power and using it in our name and causing us all great harm because we don't know what they're doing.
No, we don't because there's zero accountability.
And, you know, as I've discussed with others and here at length, we've had no meaningful prosecutions on a high level within our government apparatus since Iran-Contra.
Jack Ruby's Legacy00:05:39
And many of those sentences were light in the first place.
That was managed, right?
For instance, even Lee Hamilton, you know, scumbag supreme, somebody that was on the Warren Commission, 9-11 Commission, okay?
And in between, does the Iran Contra dance and says, oh, yeah, by the way, George H.W. Bush wasn't really upfront with us.
It was probably involved more.
But you look at that, pardon, commuted, and then like Scooter Libby, Enron scandal.
That's all we've really seen.
That's all we've really seen.
Is that reality?
Knowing what we know?
Of course not.
So here is the follow-up Tuckster piece.
And I think that this is very impressive.
It hammers it home as well.
I'm glad he did this.
I hope that tonight he brings it up again.
It's something that should be brought up again and again and again and again and again until what?
There's accountability for it.
Imagine that.
Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight.
So not long after Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald on camera in the basement of Dallas police headquarters, a lot of Americans started to have some questions about the Kennedy assassination.
It was, you'd have to admit, a pretty extraordinary sequence of events.
A lone gunman murders the president of the United States and then less than 48 hours later, that lone gunman is himself murdered by another lone gunman.
What are the odds of that?
It's one thing if you get struck by lightning, rare but possible, but if every member of your family also gets struck by lightning all on different days, you might begin to suspect these are not entirely natural events.
But oh, replied the U.S. government, they are.
This bizarre chain of killings was all entirely natural.
So less than a year after the JFK assassination, the Johnson White House released something called the Warren Commission Report.
And the report concluded that while their motives remained unclear, both Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby had acted alone.
No one helped them.
There was no conspiracy of any kind.
Case closed.
Time to move on.
And many Americans did move on.
At the time, they had no idea how shoddy and corrupt the Warren Commission was.
It would be nearly 50 years before the CIA admitted under duress that, in fact, it had withheld information from investigators about its relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Imagine that.
But even then at the time, before that was known, the government's explanation didn't seem entirely plausible.
And some people started asking obvious questions about it.
It was at that point, as Americans started to doubt the official story, that the term conspiracy theory entered our lexicon.
As Professor Lance DeHaven Smith points out in his book on the subject, the term conspiracy theory did not exist as a phrase in everyday American conversation before 1964.
Just like brainwashing didn't exist until you had a revelation from somebody during the Korean War that the United States was allegedly using bioweapons, and they had to come up with a terminology that the communists were doing to soldiers to make them say kooky things.
So then they utilized professors in academia and journalists to what?
Put that term brainwashing into the lexicon.
It's in Annie Jacobson's book, DARPA the Pentagon's Brain.
In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, the New York Times published five stories in which conspiracy theory appeared.
Now today, of course, the term conspiracy theory appears in pretty much every New York Times story about American politics.
It's wielded, now as then, as a weapon against anyone who asks questions the government doesn't feel like answering.
But despite 60 years of name-calling, those questions have not disappeared.
In fact, they have multiplied with time.
And here's one of them.
In April of 1964, a psychiatrist called Lewis Joylin West visited Jack Ruby in his isolation cell in a Dallas jail.
According to West's written assessment, he found that Jack Ruby was, quote, technically insane and in need of immediate psychiatric hospitalization.
Those are conclusions that, puzzlingly, no one who had spoken to Jack Ruby previously had reached.
Ruby had seemed perfectly sane to the people who knew him.
Lewis Joylin West pronounced him crazy.
But what West did not say was that he was working for the CIA at the time.
So weird.
So many CIA connections.
So odd.
And Tucker does the right thing here.
He slips in a little MKUltra.
If there had only been a little Operation Mockingbird in this follow-up.
Lewis Joylin West was a contract psychiatrist for the spy agency.
He was also an expert on mind control and a prominent player in the now infamous MKUltra program in which the CIA gave powerful psychiatric drugs to Americans without their knowledge.
So of all the psychiatrists in the world, what in the world was this guy doing in Jack Ruby's prison cell?
The media did not seem interested in finding out.
In fact, the New York Times, in an extensive 1999 obituary of West, never mentioned the fact that he had worked for the CIA plus his time in Jack Ruby's cell, which seems relevant.
So you can see why non-crazy people would wonder about what really happened.
And of course, many have wondered.
In 1976, long forgotten, the House of Representatives impaneled a special committee to reinvestigate the JFK assassination.
Conspiracy Theories Unveiled00:15:15
Their bipartisan conclusion?
Jack Kennedy was almost certainly murdered as the result of a conspiracy.
How about that?
But the question is, a conspiracy by whom?
Well, the obvious suspect would be the CIA.
Why else would the agency withhold critical evidence from investigators?
Is there a benign explanation for that, for maintaining this level of secrecy for this many years?
Not that we're aware of.
And it is illegal.
In 1992, Congress passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act.
That act mandated full disclosure of all documents by 2017.
Which never happened.
And again, go back to my Roger Stone interview.
I said, hey, he failed us twice on that.
You can't take on the deep state from 50 plus, almost 60 years ago.
How are you going to have a chance against the deep state now?
Which is only one very massive and giant arm of a larger globalist, transhumanist, predator-class agenda.
I mean, you're biting off a big old hoagie, a big old hoagie.
54 years after JFK was killed, the last administration promised to comply fully with that law, but under intense pressure from CIA Director Mike Pompeo, withheld in the end thousands of pages of CIA documents.
Today, this afternoon, the Biden administration did exactly the same thing.
That would be thousands of pages of documents after nearly 60 years.
Boom.
After nearly 60 years, still not going to get it.
And look, Pompeo, not a good guy.
Not a good guy.
Again, another guy that's Mr. Bilderberg, right?
Just before everything shut down, he's like the guest keynote speaker on a boat on the way to a castle to talk foreign policy in Iran.
Meanwhile, Jared Kushner is there as well.
Hey, everybody see old Elon with the Kush Kush yesterday over at the World Cup?
Couldn't miss that in my feed.
And we're going to be talking extensively with Derek Brose after this segment about Elon Musk, transhumanism, Neuralink, and much more.
Can we get 200 thumbs up over there at YouTube land?
Let's continue.
After the death of every single person involved, but we still can't see them.
Clearly, it's not to protect any person.
They're all dead.
It's to protect an institution.
But why?
Well, today we decided to find out.
We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contain.
We asked this person directly: did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American president?
And here's the reply we received verbatim: quote: The answer is yes.
I believe they were involved.
It's a whole different country from what we thought it was.
It's all fake.
It's hard to imagine a more jarring response than that.
Again, this is not a quote conspiracy theorist that we spoke to, not even close.
This is someone with direct knowledge of the information that once again is being withheld from the American public.
And the answer we received was unequivocal: yes, the CIA was involved in the assassination of the president.
Yes, I believe the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Crickets, guys, crickets in the mainstream media, everywhere else.
Okay, that should be a big deal.
And this shouldn't be a story that gets to just go away.
Listen, Zombie Jay, no-show Joe, car show Joe, whatever you want to call him at this point, ain't running anything.
So the next time the records come up, if we allow it, they'll be punted again and again with the next administration, no matter what happens, unless we demand otherwise.
Now, with that being said, I want to get into this interview here with Derek Brose of the Conscious Resistance and the Last American Vagabond, because he continues to do amazing work.
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here, and for the next hour or so, we're going to be spending some time with Derek Bros of the Conscious Resistance and of course, The Last American Vagabond.
Shout out to Ryan.
He's back on Twitter.
He actually openly invited Musk onto the show recently.
I'm not holding my breath, especially when we're doing pieces like this one.
But Derek has written this rather insightful piece you're not going to see discussed around most of the mainstream media.
In fact, he's one of the few people I've seen cover this other than myself, traveling the world, writing what the people need to know.
It's the last American vagabond.
And beyond the hype, how Neuralink advances the transhumanist agenda and harms innocent animals.
It is Derek Brose.
Derek, I read this piece.
It's very insightful in that you're quoting Musk directly.
I myself spent the full two hours plus with the entire thing where they broke out the robot.
They threaded the fibers into the plastic fake brain in front of everybody.
In fact, I would say that this one out of all of their presentations was really the one where they were getting you used to the idea you were going to need brain surgery.
A lot of emphasis on that, how the device was going to be there, how it would need to be charged.
A lot to talk about here.
And if there was one thing I thought that you could have added here because you also discussed the UBI and obviously the World Economic Forum, it's that Musk also, about a month and a half earlier, had an unveiling of the Optimus robot, where he promised that automation that you discuss in this article would eventually lead to human beings being able to have whatever they want.
This promise of some type of a utopia through this technology.
And certainly, that's how Musk seems to be selling it.
So I've ranted long enough.
Derek, let us know why you did this article and what your thoughts on on what I just said.
Yeah, well, thanks for having me on again, brother.
The reason I chose to write it is because, like yourself, I'm skeptical of Elon Musk and his intentions.
And, you know, especially with recent Twitter activities and seems like more and more people kind of leaning towards seeing him as a hero of some kind, that it felt important for me to kind of poke hole in that narrative, but also just in general, the Neuralink itself and what that represents as far as a step towards transhumanism.
And then again, just quoting from him directly, just listening to the presentation and really listening to what he's saying or what he's not saying and what the implications are of that, it seemed important to me because there's just this huge fanboy thing going on with many people in and out of our circles, you know, from the kind of mainstream world, tech world, people who, especially I've seen this with past presentation where he's based in Austin in Texas, where I'm originally from.
There's people who just, you know, they pay a lot of money to come see him when he does his big unveiling of like when he did the Tesla Giga Factory and then he did the Neuraleague show and tell it's like a it's like a concert to some people.
They seem to really like fanboy over him and I think it's a it's a dangerous way of thinking and to not to be that blind, I guess, and not willing to be skeptical of him.
So the article was both trying to poke holes into the narrative behind Neuralink that it's just there to help blind people and help paraplegics, which if you listen to what he says and what I quoted there, there's a lot more going on, but also just to try to poke hole in the narrative that everything Musk does is somehow good for us.
Well, that's the thing because, and I'm glad you did this, especially towards the end of the article, is that you make the comparison to Klaus Nutschwab and his fourth industrial revolution.
And essentially, you have two sides to the same exact coin on almost every agenda via Klaus and the brain chip, which he talks about these nanosensors making their way into our clothes first, but eventually into our very biology.
This will eventually go beyond just a human brain interface like a Neuralink if you listen to people like Kurzweil.
He discusses sustainability.
They're on the carbon credit train, right?
And they're also on the universal basic income train.
And that's something that people don't discuss about Musk.
They also don't discuss his Defense Department connections in that he is the largest defense contractor and actually making the war in Ukraine possible right now.
Again, no words, no questions in the mainstream media ever about these taboo subjects.
And my fear is right now, hey, it's great.
I'm glad that Ryan's back on.
I'm glad that more people are coming back on.
I'm glad that Matt Taibbi and Barry Weiss have access to documents nobody else has access to.
I'm being sarcastic there, by the way, folks.
I am happy that we are seeing some free speech, but it's almost like you have a system that takes so much away.
It's right in front of your face.
Guys like you and I have been talking about this kind of censorship and shadow banning and manipulation via social media for over a decade now.
And then finally it becomes a hotbed issue.
And the focus is on people that already have a large platform that have a show on Fox News, aka Dan Bongino, or are funded by Turnpoint USA Charlie Kirk.
And hey, props to Charlie for recently talking a lot about transhumanism.
I'm glad.
But they're not telling you how long this has been going on.
They're not telling you the agencies that are still embedded in that organization.
Absolutely.
And if I could just say one thing real quick, Jason, about what just before I forget that you made a point about Musk and his ties to the military and to the war on Ukraine.
I just want to say to anybody out there who sees themselves as a libertarian or conservative of any kind, that those kind of things getting what sometimes is referred to as corporate welfare or statism, just benefiting from government contracts, that's not the free market of any kind.
That's not what people at least pretend to be about.
And to me, right away, anybody who's a conservative libertarian should on those grounds alone be like, this guy has contracts with the military.
He's helping drone bombs through Starlink, right?
Like you mentioned in Ukraine.
I don't see how that aligns with conservative values or libertarian values or any of those kinds of things.
So even if you're like, oh, cool, he's bringing back some people on Twitter or, you know, he's saying, oh, my pronouns are prosecute, vauci, different things that honestly, from my perspective, kind of remind me of the way that Trump would pay lip service to certain things.
Whether or not he may have believed about those things is a whole nother thing.
But I think that it, for some people, like for example, when Trump was running, he said just enough about mentioning the Federal Reserve and something about, well, we need to get the truth about 9-11.
It was never really mentioned again after that, but it was enough where certain people, like the 9-11 truth community, the people against the Federal Reserve, were like, oh, maybe this is our guy.
And by the way, he recently brought that one back at the Live Golf tournament when he was asked about Saudi Arabian involvement in 9-11 and, you know, if that was a conflict for him being there.
And he goes, nobody knows exactly what happened on 9-11.
And it's a shame because we should have known that by now.
I recently had Roger Stone on the program.
And I mentioned to him, because I know that Roger has done work on the JFK assassination, I said, well, Roger, how in the world is Trump going to take on the deep state now when he failed twice to give us the JFK documents from over 50 plus years ago and promising us he would, I go, which exposes the deep state then.
And he actually said he asked the president.
And he said that it would come out one day and that what was in there was just too horrible and he couldn't release it, whatever that means.
So that means that apparently Trump knows what's in the documents.
You've had the Tuckster now the last two nights on his Fox News program say the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination and saying that someone who's read the documents has told him this and they've invited Pompeo on twice now and he's mentioned him by name to come on and dispute this and no one seems to be coming on.
It's a weird time.
It's a weird time.
But it's like I can't trust everything that Tucker Carlson puts out there because it's also from this lens of like, that's common sense.
Guys like you and I have done the work where of course the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination.
That's like common knowledge to me for like two decades at this point.
Yeah, it makes you wonder why those things would be coming out right now or why it would be given such a big platform.
I try not to be skeptical and you know like blackpilled and like, oh, nothing good can happen.
No good news can come out when it comes to whether it's the Twitter files or Tucker Carlson with such a huge audience speaking truth about the CIA and JFK.
But yeah, I do wonder what it means in the bigger picture.
And also, I think there's a lot of areas that we could start looking at with Tucker and obviously Musk where they're not very good on certain issues, but they might say the right things in certain areas.
And I think ultimately, though, it could be a misdirection.
I'm not one that goes around calling people controlled opposition or limited hangouts, but I do judge people by their fruit and by their relationships.
And again, specifically with Musk, with his relationships to the military, with his speaking at the World Government Summit, his promotion of UBI, transhumanism, technocracy, this idea that the best hope we have is to merge with the AI.
You know, it doesn't, to me, seem to be a vision that feeds into human liberty, individual liberty, privacy, or any of these things.
I would agree.
And a big part of that is this narrative control that he seems to have a hold of.
He has an entire PR team behind him.
They were floating that story that he didn't even have a home and he was couch surfing like Kato Kalen a few months back.
And to Tucker's credit, he's the only guy I've seen do this in the mainstream media, did it like two days after I did it.
Signs of Trouble00:06:32
But there was a thread on Twitter that basically had a list of people that were either NSA, CIA, or heavily FBI for a very long time.
15 different people in high executive positions that were still working at Twitter.
Tucker named every one of them.
He asked for Musk to come on.
He said, you know, this doesn't fit right.
If you had a social media company, why do you have all these intelligence assets?
You wouldn't have opera singers working there either, right?
So, again, powerful piece by this guy.
You know, I lean towards, you know, a genuine guy that's been caught up in the system of bureaucracy since he was a trust fund baby.
You know what I mean?
And I want to believe that too, because, you know, like you said, you don't want to be so cynical.
And you and I have been accused by God knows who for God knows what, which is ultimately ludicrous.
You know, we know how we live our own lives.
And, you know, I consider you to be one of the most genuine people in this thing that's been consistent since I've been following your work for around a decade at this point.
You know, and that's important.
I think consistency is important.
And you're not seeing consistency with Musk either.
Let's talk about that narrative.
Yeah, could I mention one more thing on Twitter?
Sure.
So the thing that I would also point out, and I'm sure you're seeing this, first off, I glad you mentioned the CI, NSA, FBI list.
I was sharing that around yesterday too.
Musk actually tweeted back a response to somebody.
Let's see if I can go up real quick.
Basically saying that he didn't think there was anything wrong with the FBI.
What was his exact words?
To be clear, I am generally pro-FBI, recognizing, of course, that no organization is perfect, including the FBI, which to me is like, okay, he said they're not perfect.
I think we could go much farther than that.
But he's basically, somebody asked him, like, hey, what about the presence of these FBI, CI agents in there?
And he just said, well, no organization's perfect, but I think they do good work.
So I also think it's important to note that, and this for me isn't a good sign.
Right now, there are people, maybe more right-leaning or conservatives or people who just generally got deleted and banned off Twitter who are now coming back, right?
But we're also seeing the deletions of accounts. that are associated with mainstream journalists, some left-wing outlets like left anarchist organizations, some of which may have been actively promoting violence and things like that.
But what we're seeing is, let's say beyond those people who may be actually committing violations or crimes or threats, we're seeing kind of the opposite happen now, where certain pages are being deleted.
I've been following different accounts, again, more left-leaning accounts that are keeping track of various pages that are being deleted on Twitter.
And one of them is called, was, I think, at Elon Jet, and it was just literally tracking Elon Musk's Jets movements, and he's been deleting that.
They're now, if you try to share a link to the Mastodon platform, which is an alternative platform that's been around for a while, long before this, but now it's becoming popular with some of the left-wing kind of people who are abandoning Twitter.
Well, now if you share a link to Mastodon, it tells you that this link may be malware.
I checked it out this morning.
I saw people warning about this and showing how it won't even let them put this in the description.
And this is the same thing we saw before with Twitter from BitShoot and from Odyssey, right?
So just because it's happening to the other side now, and I guess some people are celebrating, it doesn't seem good to me.
It's like it's showing that it's still at the decision of this one person, right?
Maybe before it was somebody who was like, we're all COVID deniers, so ban those people.
And now it's Musk, and maybe he's going after people that our side might, you know, feel better about, ha ha ha, look, they're getting taken down.
He serves them right kind of thing.
But I don't think it's a good sign if it's just like up to some billionaire, one single person or whatever to be like, oh, they're talking bad about me.
I'm going to take them down.
Or, you know, there was also another thread I saw that this account had been taken down because they were doing research on Musk's education history and his claimed education history, which honestly, the more I look into it, doesn't necessarily seem like it holds up.
There seems to be some indication that much like Bill Gates and others, this background story he has could be a whole sort of story made out of cloth just to prop him up with this kind of success story that they all like to have.
Oh, Microsoft started in the garage and Bill Gates rose and all this great stuff.
And it's like, oh, Musk was this kind of intelligent, little eccentric guy, and he worked here and he did these things, found some companies, made a bunch of money.
But that's not really the case either.
I have people around me, good friends who are, they see some of the things we're talking about.
Yeah, I don't like that he talks about transhumanism.
I don't like his ties to the military, but I sure love his entrepreneurial spirit.
And there's evidence that that might not even be true as well, that like he's not this genius that people are promoting him to be.
So I just think that, yeah, the fact that he's going after certain accounts that might not be our side is still not a good sign to me.
Like, where could that go next, right?
I mean, if they're still going after people and just taking them down arbitrarily, whether right, left, middle, whatever, I don't think that's the answer.
Well, I would agree.
And I'll say this.
The account you're talking about that tracks him, for instance, in his private chat, apparently that's why he suspended the vast majority of those journalists recently.
And then he held a Twitter poll for the people.
Should I let them back on now or in a week?
And they said now.
And he let the accounts back on.
Lord Elon.
You know, that narrative's out there.
I don't know about the censorship of those other accounts, but as far as I know, I'm glad that you brought up Odyssey, BitChute, et cetera, those platforms.
Isn't the harmful content warning still on them when you try to click on them?
Yeah, I think so for some of these sites.
Yeah, yeah, they're not gone.
I have seen the fact checks not be in my feet.
Okay, great.
Finally.
I mean, that should have been the first day.
He should have said, all right, all fact checks and all that other thing on the corner, that's over with.
We're not doing that.
And then everybody would have known they were going to get fired anyway.
All right.
But he's also openly discussed freedom of speech versus freedom of reach.
So he's never, ever, ever said he wasn't going to get rid of a bunch of the tools that they have utilized to control narratives.
And obviously, this guy's been promoted by the mainstream, by the establishment.
He's Times Man of the Year.
He's got the sustainability home.
And even though his pronouns are prosecute Fauci, without Hervak and Tesla, who was printing up the mRNA, they wouldn't have been able to scale up all of this stuff, which no one seems to call him out on at all.
Okay.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Yeah, I literally have that tab saved on here.
Promoting Neuralink's Vision00:11:34
I was like, I need to share this somewhere.
So thank you for mentioning that because you're right.
Nobody mentions that.
Well, I do because it's a big deal.
And he also increased his wealth over the COVID-19 44 nightmare, larger than anybody else, 600%.
He beat Bezos, Brin, Buffett, Lord Bill Gates.
He beat them all.
Johnny Bedmore has recently dug up some evidence that he may have actually worked for Microsoft back in the 90s, which would make sense.
There does seem to be an overt relationship and a backdoor relationship with Gates.
We're seeing that more and more.
They're kind of poking at each other.
But clearly, they're about the same sustainability agenda under a different guise.
And that brings me back to this idea where Musk will change his viewpoint.
You talked about him warning about AI, you know, back in the day in that article that you wrote.
And now saying man's best chance is to merge with these machines.
Discuss that aspect of it and really how human-brain interfaces have been around for some time.
And this is really just the first commercialization of the process.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, it's interesting because he has been talking about AI for a while, right?
So people can say, look, he's got street cred.
He's been out there warning, like myself, other people warning about the world we're going into.
Of course, as I mentioned in the article and as he hinted at during his show and tell Neuralink presentation, was that his best case scenario is we merge with it and we go along for the ride, as he kept saying it.
He's like, well, you know, we're going to end up.
He also likes to use this language talking about we're already cyborgs, right?
You're already so connected to.
Which is a lie.
I want to, listen.
I'm sorry I had to interrupt you because it infuriates me every time I hear that this makes me a cyborg.
It absolutely does not make me a cyborg in any way, shape, or form.
The same way that this box over here or the laptop you're on does not make you a cyborg.
It is a tool.
It is not even a wearable.
Even wearables that can be detached don't make you a cyborg.
You can talk about human beings that have had even pacemakers put in.
And you could say there's a type of cybernetics to that.
But we have to also remember that the vast majority of these tools that do actually make you a cyborg were, what, life-saving or life-enhancing, and in no way, shape, or form, hooked up to an internet system that could monitor your biology in real time and put it basically into the internet of things and then the internet of bodies.
I'm sorry for that rant.
Go ahead.
I think that is a good point.
I was going to say, maybe for some people, they feel that way.
People who are obsessively, like constantly glued to their phone and, you know, they literally have panic attacks if they don't have their phone in their hand.
These people do exist, right?
So maybe those are the people he's trying to speak to because they might already be so addicted to the technology that the idea for them is like, yeah, why not?
I already carry this thing around everywhere.
I might as well just have it inside of me.
But you're right.
We're not cyborgs at the moment.
But that's part of the messaging he's using, and he used it at this event, you know, saying he likes to talk about the limits of the brain that, you know, we can, we're limited to how fast our fingers can type or how fast our words can come out of our mouth.
But, you know, a computer and AI can do it so much faster and better.
And then soon we'll be able to put a chip in somebody's brain.
And that's, and of course, he likes to phrase it.
He likes to kind of couch it in terms of the paraplegic, et cetera.
But again, when you look through his words and even when he said, Well, that's what we're aiming for, but there's this bigger picture of like, if we can stop the rise of AI, he's like, and if we help some people along the way, you know, good.
But it's true.
It seems clear to me that like the bigger picture that he's seeing is marketing this company as a way to help the blind help paraplegics.
But his bigger goal is just normalizing brain chips, transhumanism, things like that, because he allegedly believes it's the way to stop AI.
Now, you could say that that's not even genuine, that he's just pushing that to try to go towards transhumanism.
I can't claim to know his true motivations, but he for sure is saying that Neuralink is about the bigger picture of trying to prepare humanity to merge with machines so that at best we can go along with the ride and be part of the AI.
And at the worst, you know, the AI is not benevolent and it tries to kill us or control us.
So in order to avoid that, we just need to accept computers are faster, AI is faster, our fingers can't type fast enough, we can't speak fast enough.
We might as well merge with them because humans are just not good enough.
I mean, that's the overall message.
It infuriates me.
And I agree.
What I need people to understand, again, is that Musk is just a frontman for this technology.
He talked about corporate welfare in regards to his Defense Department contracts.
But I need people to get that they're not only just selling it for paraplegics and the blind, which they will utilize.
And even Annie Jacobson in her book, The Pentagon's Brain, heavily emphasizes this.
And she even makes the point that, yeah, we've got the Luke arm.
Yeah, we have all this advanced cybernetic technology.
And it looks great for the cameras.
When I was there, you know, you made sure that the person who didn't have the arm had that on.
But then as soon as the cameras left, they would take that device off and they would go to the much more practical hook.
You know, the little hooks that have been around for decades because that works.
It's easier.
It's lightweight.
But they're promoting the technology.
And another way they're promoting this technology is that it's somehow going to make you happier.
Now, I still think this is the most absurd thing in the world.
There are other articles.
This woman is under an alias.
It's over a year old now.
But here you have a very, very depressed woman who's no longer depressed, obviously, because of her custom brain chip.
And she's very happy, overweight, in a mask by herself in a garden.
And the new sales is, as you move, it's totally absurd, but I can't believe it.
That's how they're selling to you.
That's science news, guys.
Everybody needs to look into this.
So again, people already have the brain chips.
I'm not going to bore people here for the umpteen millionth time, but I know I've played it for you, Derek.
The head of NASA in 2011 said 10,000 people had these brain chips.
2018 said that 200,000 people had the brain chips.
Seven years, that's a 20 times exponential.
Where are we at on the verge of 2023?
Well, I'll tell you what, we're at a place where they're promoting a woman in a garden by herself in a mask, having a brain chip and being happy about it.
So as the science rolls, the science rolls out that in fact many of these SSRI products have not only been ineffective, but detrimental, the next step will be to sell you on this type of brain tech in your head.
So in other words, It's all going in implantable, injectable.
I mean, this is something that I was writing about.
I know Whitney did some work and Ryan did during the Operation Warp Speed.
We were looking at all the different pieces of what was being promoted, and they were talking about therapeutics, and some of those were Galvani is one of them, some others tied to the Gates Foundation that were basically promoting injectables, wearables, implantables for health purposes.
And so we can see the push coming from different ways.
Elon's mainly talking about, yes, this is going to help the blind and help the paraplegic, but there's also going to be a push for it from for like entertainment purposes, for convenience, and all kinds of things.
I might have mentioned to you on one of our previous interviews as well that in addition to the implantable devices, this case, like literally a chip in the brain, maybe we can talk about how the device actually looks too.
They're also pushing for the gene editing side of it.
So it's not even just like put something inside your body that's a digital tool technology that's going to be threaded into your brain with 64 threads by a robot.
But then it's also like, let's get to the point where we can change our genes, right?
The Reese, the newly appointed head of Biden's BARDA, the Health DARPA, basically, you know, talks about how people are going to meet each other and say, well, what genes are you on today?
Because we're going to go from being able to just either take a pill or, you know, they try to sell it again.
Like it's going to be so easy and convenient.
You'll be able to upgrade your DNA.
You'll be able to upgrade to the latest devices.
You know, the same thing, the same way they're kind of using that terminology about digital tools and upgrades when it comes to our genes.
Elon's using that same kind of idea with upgrading to human 2.0, right?
And the craziest thing too is they say it's going to be like here.
It's under, it'll be under the skull and it won't even be, you won't even know it's there anymore.
Which to me, like how you're saying, there's already 200,000 people wearing this.
During the presentation, Musk kind of joked about it.
And it makes me wonder like if he might already have one in him, because just the way he joked, he was kind of like, oh, today we're going to show you how it threads in the brain.
He's like, anybody ready to volunteer?
And he kind of jokes.
He's like, well, maybe next time we'll show you guys how it works.
And he said several times, and the way he said it, I don't know, something about it just caught my ear about you wouldn't even know if anybody's wearing this.
You know, somebody might even have it right here in this room, something like that, right?
It seems to me that if he's so diehard about this, that he really believes it, unless he's just trying to be the salesman for it, who knows?
Maybe he might have already put something like this in his brain, but they definitely are doing it in monkeys already.
And like the article there, I pointed out, like that, you have this decisions organizations and other animal rights groups coming out and just describing the horrible treatment of these animals.
And now you don't have to be a vegetarian or a pita lover to look at the situations here and to see that these monkeys are going through some pretty atrocious things and that a number of them have died.
And the physicians who were studying the testing going on in UC Davis, California, where Teslas are, where Neuralink's testing these, are saying that it's just some of the worst treatment, that these animals are getting like infections in their brain, infections their head, and they keep trying to like rip out the devices and just all kinds of really worrisome things.
And days after the Neuralink announcement came out, Reuters put out this, they kind of said there is a federal investigation going on against Neuralink related to these animal abuse claims, animal welfare claims.
And Musk and Neuralink, they didn't acknowledge any of that.
Of course, they didn't say anything about that.
You know, they love to show us the monkeys when they're doing the test.
And oh, look, the monkeys are playing ping pong with their, or they're playing pong with their mind.
It's so cute and cool.
And look, they can type letters with their mind.
He called it telepathic typing or something along those lines.
But no mention at all of the monkeys that have had some really horrible, atrocious experiments or just the fact that they have died and the implications of what that could mean for human beings.
You know, he made sure to say, oh, yeah, they have the latest devices in their head for a year now.
And so far, no visible signs of problems.
And talked about how easy it will be in the future that if for some reason it stops working, you can easily get the new upgrade, right?
And he talked about how you can also charge this thing in the back of your skull wirelessly.
They have like this little thing, and they show how the monkeys, as soon as the monkey gets close to the charger, you see it's charging, right?
So all you have to do is just implant these little chargers around your house.
And I guess you just go sit by them and let them charge your head.
Now, who knows what the heck kind of radiation EMFs are being emitted by these chargers and the impact of that directly on a human brain.
Based on my research on 5G and other EMFs, I can't imagine that being a positive thing.
Wireless Charging Conspiracy00:02:04
So there's just a lot of layers here that are totally being ignored.
You know, the mainstream, when they want to be critical of Elon, it's like, he's a billionaire.
Let's hate him because he has money.
Those kinds of things.
He's not censoring people, Derek.
He needs to censor more.
He's talking about the war.
They don't talk about the support.
And I think that was important.
You mentioned that earlier, that it's like both sides want to stay away from that.
Nobody wants to be critical of Ukraine.
So they're like, okay, well, we don't like Musk, but let's just talk about that he has money or that he's furthering disinformation and right-wingers or whatever.
So let's just stop it there.
We got 30 plus more minutes with Derek.
Then we're going to come back.
We're going to talk about hot garbage, Thor, Love and Thunder.
I wanted to like the movie, guys, and possibly play this other clip of Tucker where he again discusses the JFK assassination, his relationship with Trump over a 20-plus year sphere in media before the presidential run, and much more.
So it's over at redvoicemedia.com slash Jason.
Try it out for a buck right now, $10 a month, or lock it in over there.
Help support the program for a year for $100.
Okay, that's big time.
You get two months off.
We're not going anywhere.
Original content everywhere.
If you want to listen to the program live right now, more of this.
Just the continuation.
Theinfowarrior.podbean.com, free of charge.
Free of charge.
And we release a premium today later on, also at redvoicemedia.com slash Jason.
So I'm going to cue to the producers as we leave each platform.