Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 9, 2023 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas

01:00:18

The Twitter Hearings…Again | Reality Rants With Jason Bermas

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
	Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
	We think too much and feel too little.
	More than machinery, we need humanity.
	We know the air is unfit to breathe and 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. Silence!
	The great and powerful Oz knows why you have come.
	You gotta say, I'm a human being!
	God damn it! My life has value!
	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, diet 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.
	Yeah, thank you. You're beautiful. I love you. Yes. You're beautiful. Thank you.
	It's showtime!
	And now, Reality Rant with Jason Vermis.
	And who loves you?
	And who do you love?
	Good morning, everybody!
	It is Reality Rants.
	I am Jason Bermas.
	We got a jam-packed show for you today.
	We got an hour with the one, the only, Ryan Christian, the last American Vagabond.
	The man does great work.
	Huge fan of that website and of a lot of the people that write there.
	You know, it's not just Ryan Christian.
	Ryan Christian does an amazing job, but Whitney Webb does an amazing job.
	Derek Brose does an amazing job.
	It's good stuff.
	Really great conversation with Ryan.
	I constantly will always take that opportunity to have a conversation with him.
	And, of course, we have the Twitter hearings.
	Now, I have not been able to watch all of the Twitter hearings.
	I've seen bits and pieces, and there are certain things that we can play here on YouTube.
	There are certain things that are still being massively censored on YouTube, and if I dare play a clip of a government hearing as we've seen over the last several years, in fact, I want to make this very clear.
	The first thing, the first thing that YouTube ever Completely just ghosted.
	Still up. They made it globally private.
	Globally private.
	Pre-COVID 1984.
	And it was Louis Gomer.
	During the...
	I believe... Was it the first impeachment?
	I think it was the first impeachment scandal.
	Yeah, it was the first impeachment scandal.
	Where the name of Erica Caramello Barr...
	AKA, we'll just call this person Mr.
	Chiaramella, was named by Gomer a couple times, not as a specific person, but somebody who he wanted to testify in the hearings.
	YouTube said, no, no, no, no, no!
	El Private!
	Globally! That means I'm the only one.
	We're not going to take it down, but we're not going to let anybody else but you see it.
	And that's kind of why I chose the Barack star here for the thumbnail with the FBI. Because look, some of this hearing stuff has been gold.
	Some of it has been grandstanding.
	You'll see showboating or showstopping when we get down and play some of these clips.
	I'm torn. I want these people to be arrested.
	I want this to be known that this is not a right or left issue at all.
	At all. No matter how much even the conservative end wants to make it that way, it's not.
	I want to know who's been shadow banned since the beginning.
	I want to see the algorithms.
	I want to know which ones are the bot accounts.
	I want to know which ones were controlled by actual intelligence assets and subgroups.
	And I will tell you right now, if you get into the meat and potatoes of that, it ain't Ruskies.
	It ain't the Russians.
	Okay? It's Department of Homeland Security, into Fusion Centers, into the Signature Reduction Program.
	Twitter is a Trojan horse civilian system.
	And anybody else up there trying to grandstand on the other side saying, a private company doing what it should have done.
	These hearings are absurd.
	These hearings are obscene.
	And look, Jamie Raskin is a joke of a clown of a clown of a joke.
	This guy. He's one of the worst.
	He's one of the hands-down worst that is just completely worshipped.
	Completely worshipped by the MSNBCers and the CNNers and the TDS crowd.
	If you've got a mental illness...
	Based in Donnie T and his fake tan, you're a Raskin fan.
	Raskin's had some tough things going on in his life.
	I think that he has the do-rag on there because he's been diagnosed with cancer.
	I believe his son committed suicide.
	I only wanted to briefly mention those things because I'm not here to attack that.
	I'm here because of the content of that man's character.
	And the content of that man's character is extremely low.
	I mean, think about the representation of the Durag, first of all.
	Okay, first of all, right after he gets done speaking, we're actually going to play this clip.
	I believe we can play this one on this side.
	He's wearing a blue one.
	So he's team blue, right?
	He's team blue. He's letting you know I'm a Democrat, I'm a liberal, I'm playing team baseball.
	Ride or die, baby!
	Ride or die Democrat.
	But if you think about it, it's almost ironic because I'm constantly talking about how this is the gangster class.
	This guy very much is like a capo, just like Andrew Cuomo is Andrew Capo Cuomo, running the Great Reset and the Build Back Better agenda over in New York from the outset.
	Right? So, you got a guy who chooses to wear a blue do-rag.
	I don't think it's a mistake that the blue do-rag is Crippen.
	Right? And then you got the Bloods with the red do-rag.
	He's not... This isn't a Hulk Hogan look, guys.
	So, he's literally just all gangstered up.
	And then he'll put his ridiculous black mask over Bernie Sanders style right away after that.
	So... Little bit of an opening rant.
	We're going to play some of these clips.
	And then about 30 after, we're going to start the interview with Ryan Christian.
	As always, at the top of the next hour, we go over to redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored or redvoicemedia.com slash Jason.
	That's where you can watch the rest of the broadcast.
	It's $10 a month or it's $100 for the year.
	Lock it in. It helps support this broadcast.
	I mean, who's doing it like this?
	I look around the alternative media and I see a lot of repeaters.
	I see a lot of repeaters.
	And you know what? It's a good thing I'm bringing that up really quickly before I get into the Twitter files.
	Because I know that right now, James O'Keefe is trending and Project Veritas is trending.
	And this is what I'm going to say about that.
	First of all, there's already a narrative being set of why James O'Keefe is on a paid leave over at Project Veritas from the quote-unquote board.
	And the narrative is they're pushing him out because of such and such, because of the latest videos with the directed evolution and the yada, yada, yada.
	Okay? I happen to know from behind the scenes stuff, that is not the case of what's actually going on right now in this case with the board of directors.
	Now, has O'Keefe and Project Veritas done a lot of good work?
	Absolutely. Not here to crap on James O'Keefe.
	In fact, I remember covering James O'Keefe long before Project Veritas was a thing while I worked at InfoWars when he was arrested and In that one infamous op where they were basically posing as telephone line workers.
	He and several other people got arrested.
	Now, I think that's either right before or right after the very famous Planned Parenthood videos.
	Once you bring in big money...
	Once you're making so much in donations and all of a sudden you have a giant staff and you're putting on events, things change.
	Things change in a hurry.
	That is why, although I've always wanted to grow, I would be comfortable growing to a point where...
	I had interns that came and worked, and I could teach them, and they could learn production at a higher level, and we could still produce a show, but at the end of the day, in three to six months, they're on their way, I've got somebody new, and there's kind of like that rotation in, in and out, in and out, in and out.
	Why? Working with other people long-term, number one, can be difficult.
	You're different. You have different viewpoints that can cause conflict.
	Two, I would never want somebody to be financially dependent on Jason Bermas because you never know right now.
	I mean, we're at a time where they can just cut you off.
	Oh, you like PayPal and Venmo?
	Sorry! You want to be on the GoFundMe?
	Get out of here! Oh, your bank?
	We'll lock that too.
	We're here! It's 2023, baby!
	So, to put myself in a position where others rely on me, that's a little tough.
	That's a little tough. I'm good at taking care of me.
	I can do a little bit for those around me.
	Again, family.
	I think that's important.
	But otherwise, when you get to, I have...
	10, 15, 25, 100 employees, everything changes.
	A board of directors, everything changes.
	So I just want everybody out there to be really careful.
	When you see the narratives coming out about Veritas and what's going on with O'Keefe, because I'm telling you right now, there's a lot of repeaters and a lot of talkers, and they don't know what's going on.
	Okay, and we'll wait.
	We'll be reserved. We'll wait for some kind of an outcome.
	And then we'll lay it down like Charlie Brown right here.
	Okay. Byron Donalds.
	That's who we're going to start with. Now, there was a clip yesterday that I saw that I wasn't able to find of Yoel Roth talking about how they needed to restrict free speech on the platform.
	Because free speech was turning too many people away and they were leaving the platform And free speech actually caused less free speech.
	Sound Orwellian?
	Sound over the top?
	Sound cartoon level? It is.
	It is, but it is what he said.
	So, look, there's a lot of great clips here.
	And we're going to go through, again, a bunch of them.
	And then...
	About 15 minutes into this, like I said, we're going to go to the Ryan Christian interview, and then when we go over to Premium, we'll finish up the Ryan Christian interview, and we'll play more of these clips.
	Jam-packed show.
	Thumbs it up, subscribe, share.
	This is Reality Rants.
	Alright, let's get to Byron Donald.
	...from 2016.
	You also said that you actually were opposed to...
	Deleting the New York Post story.
	Who advocated for the removal of the New York Post story?
	The company's decision to treat it as a violation.
	Mr. Roth, who at the company actually went over your recommendation?
	Because you're pretty high up. Who overrode you?
	The decision was communicated to me by my direct supervisor.
	Who was that person? Her name was Del Harvey.
	She was the vice president of trust and safety at the time.
	Alright, thank you so much. By the way, it don't look good up there for these guys.
	I really hope, you know, there's one representative over here that says, get ready to be arrested.
	And asks for like the five and six hour depositions.
	It's so, listen, think about this right now.
	You got that Vijay Gad, you know, sitting there.
	You know, you went from being a PR, that's public relations, Bernaysian talking point, propagandist, and censor on Rogan that really helped elevate Tim Kass' career, by the way, Tim Pool's career, by having that debate with Jack Dorsey as a highly watched episode.
	So at that point anyway, after all your censorship, Vijay, you helped launch that.
	You know, not that Tim wouldn't have been successful, I'm just telling you.
	That helped big time.
	Okay? And then...
	You're up here and it looks like you're about to be sentenced.
	You haven't even gone to trial yet.
	I don't know that you're ever going to go to trial.
	But there is a little satisfaction here that you might have to pay the price for clearly breaking the law.
	And clearly being anti-free speech.
	And clearly, clearly being anti-Constitution and Bill of Rights.
	Period. Ms.
	Gaddy, real quick, you said to the chairman earlier, and I want to paraphrase what I heard earlier, is that Twitter had no contact with anybody from the Biden team.
	Is that correct to your knowledge?
	Not to my knowledge.
	Okay. Over my right shoulder, we have an email.
	This is Saturday, October 24th, 5.39 p.m., referencing five different tweets from Is that with a Twitter email chain?
	Under the line, it's more to review from the Biden team.
	Does anybody have a comment on how much interaction was happening with the Biden team at Twitter with respect to tweets that they wanted Twitter to review?
	Ms. Gaddy, Mr. Roth?
	I'm not familiar with this email.
	So you're not familiar with this email, Mr.
	Roth? Are you familiar with this email? Only from what's been reported in the Twitter files.
	Did you ever have contact with anybody from the Biden team?
	No, sir, I did not.
	Look at these weak people sitting up there.
	So weak.
	So pathetic. And those are the people they put into positions of power to work with what?
	Former intelligence officers and collude with the government to censor you.
	These are weak, weak people.
	Explicitly separated the teams that would interact with campaigns from teams like mine that were responsible for content monitoring.
	How big was the organization in Twitter that was actually working with campaigns?
	I couldn't say for sure.
	Did you have any contact with the DNC? Directly?
	No, I did not. Did anybody at Twitter have any contact with anybody at the DNC? I think it's likely that somebody at Twitter did, yes.
	In these emails, these are tweets that need to be flagged from the Biden team.
	That's what's in the files.
	You have no idea how many people actually engage with the Twitter team or how frequently that engagement happened.
	And by the way, I know that the resolution isn't the best, but let's take a look.
	That's one, two, three, four, five, and I think six, seven posts just in those two emails.
	We're taking them down!
	We need to take it down!
	Censor, censor, censor!
	No, and again, that was by design.
	We kept those functions separate from content moderation so that we could impartially assess reports like that.
	Do you know how many tweets were actually flagged and taken down at the behest of the Biden team?
	I wouldn't agree with the characterization of it as being at the behest of them.
	These tweets were reported and Twitter independently evaluated them under its rules.
	But the email is very clear.
	More to review from Biden team.
	The response three hours later at the bottom, hold this up real quick so you can see.
	The request at the bottom, it says, handled these.
	What does handled these mean?
	My understanding is that these tweets contained non-consensual nude photos of Hunter Biden.
	Oh, non-consensual nude photos of Hunter Biden.
	Supposed to be hacked materials or Russian disinfo.
	They were removed by the company under...
	Hold on, real quick, Mr. Roth, how could you know so much about the content of these tweets?
	I mean, as far as I'm concerned, these are just web addresses.
	I don't know what's in these tweets.
	You have these things committed to memory that you know the content, but you don't know who you talked to at the Biden team?
	Sir, I didn't meet with the Biden team, but there was extensive public reporting about these tweets specifically that uncovered what they were.
	You know the contents of the tweets.
	I was obviously at Twitter, but you have no idea how often people who worked in your organization had with the Biden team during the end of the 2020 presidential election.
	So, again, I like this guy.
	He's hammering it down, at least in this.
	I don't know much about him other than this.
	But this is the guy, this guy, Yoel Roth, is the guy telling you they need to restrict free speech so they can have more free speech on Twitter.
	That guy. That guy.
	So the more that he can be exposed, the more that he can be berated, I'm all for it.
	All for it. Let me ask you a separate question, and I'll ask you too, Mr.
	Baker. Have you guys been able to quantify the amount of in-kind contributions associated with taking down the New York Post story?
	Because the New York Post story was down for two weeks, give or take.
	Do you have any understanding of how much that story was limited by Twitter and also by other social media companies?
	What the impact of an in-kind contribution that would be to the Joe Biden presidential election in 2020?
	I don't know the answer. I mean, take a look at it.
	That says it all. Look at the look on Gad's face and Roth's face.
	And I don't know Navaroli over there.
	I know Baker. Believe me, I know you, James Baker.
	I'm going to have to watch this whole thing.
	We might have to do a watch-along.
	It is Thursday, so this is the last of the morning shows.
	I'm thinking I'm going to be doing a pre-record with Ian Crossland.
	I can't wait to do that so we can talk about all sorts of...
	High-tech stuff out there.
	Really looking forward to that one.
	But this might have to... I mean, look at it.
	Look how not only upset they are, but then I would assume that the front row is full of law teams and advocates for the censorship behind them.
	And the thing is that information warfare and people are cheap.
	People are cheap when we're talking about a military-industrial complex outcome.
	That's why on the page of that NASA document, when they talk about Trojan horse civilian systems, they also talk about inexpensive information and internet and psychological warfare.
	That's what this is.
	That question, sir.
	Do you think it's big? I don't know the answer.
	Do you think it's more than a maximum contribution to a campaign?
	I don't. I wouldn't want to speculate.
	Would you call it 25,000?
	I don't know the answer to that question.
	100,000? Sir, I don't know the answer to the question.
	A million? I don't know the answer to the question.
	Do you think Twitter will be in violation of federal election laws with the size of an in-kind contribution to take down a story, which is true, by the way?
	Because you guys thought...
	Look at that. He didn't like that.
	You see those hands, those thumbs just kind of grinded?
	Let me tell you something. A lot of you guys follow this.
	You know I had some more dental work done yesterday.
	I'm calling back next week, guys.
	Not just brutal on the wallet, but my God.
	My God. When I get through with this, please.
	I'm going to try to keep my teeth right.
	But my hands are in a death grip.
	When I'm getting drilled up and that, and when I feel something, man, I grind it.
	He's feeling it. He's feeling it, trust me.
	You knew something with limited information?
	I'm not going to speculate on that sitting here today, sir.
	I try to propound a legal analysis of election laws.
	Propound? Yeah, I'm not going to propound that.
	I'll yield back. Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman. Mr.
	Roth, have you communicated with government officials ever on a platform called JIRA? Now, I didn't know about JIRA. But I'm going to tell you right now, this is fire.
	So I think I'm just going to let you watch this for the next four minutes.
	Because basically what you're going to hear is how Roth and others were on a private server with Intel officers deciding on what to censor.
	This is an extension of Basically, you look at Norris Insight Systems and you look at how the NSA gets everything and you look at how it's run through different types of software and then you find out through Snowden that this is actually an international program with five eyes.
	This is yet another tool and extension of that.
	This is the techno-fascism and censorship in your face.
	Yes or no? Real quick answer.
	We're on the clock. Not to the best of my recollection.
	Not to your recollection? Great.
	If you did, in the event, communicate, who would have had access to this platform?
	That's the nature of my confusion.
	Okay. Did you ever speak to government officials on JIRA regarding taking down social media posts?
	Again, not to the best of my recollection.
	Can you explain to me why the federal government would ever have interest in communicating through JIRA, mind you, a private cloud server, with social media companies without oversight to censor American voices?
	I want to let you know that this is a violation of the First Amendment and the federal government is colluding with social media companies to censor Americans.
	Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit these graphics into record.
	And Mr. Roth, I'm going to refresh your memory for you.
	This flowchart behind me...
	Thank you, Chair. This flowchart shows the following federal agencies, social media companies, Twitter, leftist nonprofits, And organizations communicating regarding their version of misinformation using JIRA, a private cloud server.
	On this chart, I want to annotate that the Department of Homeland Security, which has the following branches, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, also known as CISA, Countering Foreign Intelligence Task Force, now known as the Misinfo, Disinfo and Malinformation MDM, This was, again, used against the American people.
	The Election Integrity Partnership, EIP, which includes the following Stanford Internet Observatory, University of Washington Center for Informed Public, Graphica, and Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, and potentially, according to what we found on the final report by EIP, the DNC. The Center for Internet Security, CIS, a non-profit funded by DHS. The National Association of Secretaries of State, also known as NASS. And the National Association of State Election Directors,
	NASED. And in this case, because there are other social media companies involved, Twitter.
	What do all of these groups, though, have in common?
	And I'm going to, again, refresh your memory.
	They were all communicating on a private cloud server known as JIRA. Now, the screenshot behind me, which is an example of one of thousands, shows on November 3rd, 2020, that you, Mr.
	Roth, A Twitter employee, we're exchanging communications on JIRA, a private cloud server, with SISA, NASS, NASED, and Alex Stamos, who now works at Stanford and is a former security officer at Facebook, to remove a posting. So, again, they could just lie with the people.
	I don't recall. I don't recall.
	You can see the guy's name behind that Alex Stamos is addressing Yul Roth on this server.
	And you gotta love how these NGOs are funded by the Department of Homeland Security.
	I mean, you know, again, this woman's on the clock and she nails it and she goes hard.
	And you notice you had mal-information there as well.
	Yeah, mal-information.
	Mal-information. Not just misinfo or disinfo.
	When they get to malinformation, they're basically laughing in your face.
	And they're saying this.
	They're saying, That's totally true.
	We don't care. We don't care.
	It hurts us. It hurts our agenda.
	We're going to censor it anyway.
	Do you now remember communicating on a private cloud server to remove a posting?
	Yes or no? I wouldn't agree with the characterization.
	I don't care if you agree. This is your stuff.
	Yes or no, did you communicate with a private entity, the government agency, on a private cloud server, yes or no?
	Yes or no. I'm on time.
	Yes or no. Ma'am, I don't believe I can give you a yes or no.
	Well, I'm going to tell you right now that you did, and we have proof of it.
	This, ladies and gentlemen, is joint action between the federal government and a private company to censor and violate the First Amendment.
	This is also known, and I'm so glad that there's many attorneys on this panel, joint state actors.
	It's highly illegal. You are all engaged in this action, and I want you to know that you will be all held accountable.
	Ms. Gaddy, are you still on CYSES Cyber Security Advisory Council?
	Yes or no? Yes, I am.
	Okay. For those who have said that this is a pointless hearing, and I just want to let you guys all know, we found that Twitter was indeed communicating with the federal government to censor Americans.
	I'd like to remind you that this was all in place before January 6th.
	So to say that these mechanisms weren't in place, and to make it about January 6th, I want to let you know that you guys were actually in control of all the content, and clearly we have proof of that.
	Now, if you don't think that this is important to your constituents and the American people from those saying that this was a pointless hearing, I suggest you find other jobs.
	Chairman, I yield my time. Fire!
	Yeah, it ain't pointless.
	It ain't pointless. It'll be pointless if nobody gets arrested.
	All right? We've got a ton more clips.
	I'm going to leave with this clip right here where Clay Higgins says, prepare to be arrested to these people.
	Whether or not that happens, who knows?
	He said it. And then we're going to go over to the interview.
	That I conducted with Ryan Christian of The Last American Vagabond who does outstanding work.
	One of the best alternative news websites out there.
	Really doesn't get much better than that.
	So I'm really excited to show that to you guys.
	Here's Higgins. You ladies and gentlemen interfered with the United States of America 2020 presidential election knowingly and willingly.
	That's the bad news.
	It's going to get worse because this is the investigation part.
	Later comes the arrest part.
	Your attorneys are familiar with that.
	Mr. Chairman, I'd like to spend five hours with these ladies and gentlemen doing depositions, surely yet to come.
	But for right now, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, Mr.
	Jordan. Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here, and for the next hour or so, we've got a treat for you.
	One of my favorites in the alternative media, Ryan Christian of The Last American Vagabond, is going to be joining us.
	And I got to actually meet Ryan a couple weeks ago now, out in Nashville, Tennessee.
	A really fun event because it wasn't just Ryan, but I got to meet Jay Dyer and then others
	rebunked Courtney Taylor
	You know just getting an opportunity to even ask Mike Flynn a question on the record
	Peter McCullough star-studded event very diverse perspectives some of the most diverse coming from the last
	American Vagabond himself by the way, so to discuss the balloons
	The perpetual wars maybe a little state of the union anything else he'd like is Ryan Christian
	Ryan, thank you so much for joining us.
	And other than that, what do you got on the table?
	What have you been discussing? Oh, a lot.
	That's a hard question to start with.
	Well, just a shout out in general, Scott Armstrong from Rebunk and it's Courtney Turner from the Courtney Turner podcast, both of which are co-founders of Pirate Stream, which is why we were there, which we got lucky enough to interview Jason as well on that and a lot of great people there.
	It was a great event. It really was.
	I think I spoke about with you in particular about the biases, even from my own perspective, like coming into it, expecting it to be One thing and seeing it being much more broad and at least welcoming in the sense of certain topics than anywhere else you'll find.
	And I thought that was worth pointing out.
	My audience, as well as yours, knows my strong opinions about the two-party illusion and how even that is part of the game.
	But it's still worth pointing out that you've got people out there in the scientific field that are only speaking to Republicans because nobody else wants to give them time to talk or outside of people in my group that are in the middle or whatever you call that.
	But it was great. And it was really nice to meet you, too, because you and I have been connecting for a long time and never got a chance to actually say hi and shake hands, which is weird that it doesn't happen these days in this field, but it was nice.
	No, it was awesome. And, you know, let's talk about that for a second, just how there's a different perspective out there, right?
	Mm-hmm. You know, obviously we're not going to see eye to eye with everybody.
	And even with the State of the Union last night, obviously the Republicans seem more sane, but it's a cartoon show.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene is sitting there in a Cruella de Vil outfit.
	They've got cinema in the big yellow banana suit, right?
	It's like, it's out of central casting.
	These are characters. Yeah. Yeah. I'd say these are characters.
	Same thing. I'm just agreeing with you. Yeah.
	I mean, dude, you get the Grammys one night with a big Satan hat performance brought to you by Pfizer.
	And then the subsequent thing you get is a bunch of wannabe celebra tards in the political field, all posturing with some Johnny nonsense on the side.
	I mean, that's how I feel about it.
	And, you know, I did a watch along with the whole thing.
	I just got done with my making sense of the madness segment where we focused on some of the things that Biden said.
	But really in a post-truth world, if you watched it last night, you can say whatever you want.
	Totally. It doesn't even matter.
	So speaking of saying whatever you want and living in a post-truth world, my audience knows my perspective on the balloons.
	I've been talking about them for a while, but I want to give you just a couple minutes.
	Give me your rundown on what you think happened with the balloons, and then we'll have kind of a back and forth on what my theory is.
	Okay. And if you want to come back to what else I have on the side, I'm down to get into that.
	I was probably going to take up half the show if you let me go off on that.
	But the balloon is an interesting kind of shoehorned insertion into this crazy madness that we're in right now.
	You know, it's like... First, first thoughts.
	And I think everybody had the same thought, like really a balloon, like obvious first take.
	It's like, well, obviously that's not meant to be secret, right?
	Like, so everyone's kind of like, well, how could it be a spy balloon if it's this huge balloon that everyone's like, look at that balloon right there.
	You know, and knowing that we have all sorts of much higher level technological techniques, that's just first, like, that doesn't seem to add up.
	But then you realize, okay, well, even the US government's been talking about spy balloons and how there are
	reasons they can be used that are better than X, Y, and Z.
	And you know, so it's not like it should be immediately dismissed as exactly what it looked like.
	But I just don't, I personally, as I think your audience would agree with, am just such a
	contrarian today or such a, you know, I, my immediate instinct is to be like, what they're showing you
	is most likely not the case.
	And I'm even willing to admit that that's probably not the smartest way to, it's instinctual though, like I can't get
	past it.
	I try to balance it because you could lean yourself astray like that.
	But usually, these days, you're correct in going, that's probably wrong.
	But nonetheless, it seems like that probably makes sense.
	But overall, I get to the point to where I wonder, one, why, if it was some kind of problematic thing, it wouldn't have been shot down or so on long before that first happened.
	So that's obviously...
	I mean, I'm sure... Your audience is probably well aware of all these points.
	I haven't dove deep into this as much as...
	I'm giving you my perspective as the...
	Day-to-day mainstream coverage, but it seems like it was...
	Nothing added up about it.
	Why it didn't get shot down in the first period of time, why it then did later, despite their argument being made about why it shouldn't be shot down, and then to your point in the beginning, the parties arguing about, you're so dumb, here's why it should never be shot down, and then 30 seconds later going, yep, see, it's shot down, good for America. It's just people go along with whatever their party is saying at the moment.
	But I tend to think there's more collaboration going on in...
	Between the Chinese government, at least parts of it, and the United States.
	And so my thought then goes to immediately like, okay, what is this really trying to achieve if it's not what it looks like?
	And I'm thinking, okay, that's probably something about how the American people will react to any kind of Chinese overstep, how that's perceived, especially the right.
	Then, you know, arguing like the ultimate concept about like the whole Red Dawn thing came up about how, you know, what would we do if China did invade?
	So maybe it's just as simple as setting the table for that next move.
	I really don't know. I thought maybe what if, you know, there's a balloon from the United States over in China and they're using it to do the same thing and we're pointing at each other.
	I just, I think there's more collaboration overall.
	Now, I don't think I really gave anybody any insight with that discussion right there, but I think that it's just we should question these things because it seemed...
	Like, it seemed comical.
	Oh, the other point was, China then responded after they shot it down by saying, like, some kind of argument about an overreaction or aggression.
	And I'm like, this just seems like a cartoon.
	A balloon that they knew was in territory that they said was a weather balloon.
	They shot it down, and then they argue it was overreaction and aggressive.
	Like, it just doesn't make sense. It seems like this is setting up a divide context more than anything.
	I agree on the divide context.
	So if I had to make a skeptic's wager on what actually happened, let's go back to your point that there's probably a lot more collaboration behind the scenes with the United States government, especially when you're dealing with technology in space, just like there is with Russia openly.
	We had, for instance, that joint space mission out of Kazakhstan with the United States and Russia in the heart of this conflict.
	Those things are still going on.
	Let's look at the size of this thing.
	If you take the balloon off, it looks a lot like a satellite to me.
	It's supposed to be three buses.
	Three school buses.
	Now, on the ground, that's a pretty large thing.
	So, what's happening?
	What do I think happened?
	I think that there is a much larger network of quote-unquote balloon satellites that is a global communications network and possible spy network a la Five Eyes and beyond that is agreed upon already in the air between the United States, Russia, and China, bare minimum.
	You're probably looking at other nation states in Europe and Israel where that same network exists.
	Now, you ask yourself, well, why would they use balloons?
	Well, first of all, It is a hundred times harder, actually played this clip, even Elon Musk admitting this, to get something into orbit in the first place than it is to get it into space, you know?
	So if these things are at 100,000 feet, they're not really visible.
	Secondly, we already have adaptive and other type of cloaking technology.
	So there is also the possibility that you wouldn't really see the balloon.
	And it would be hard to identify whether the satellite was outside of low Earth orbit if
	you could get a glimpse of it with our technologies, right?
	With a telescope and all that other thing.
	So I think, number one, that network exists.
	In fact, there's already 5,000 balloon satellites that are admitted in the United States.
	As you alluded to before, the Pentagon a few years ago was talking about surveillance via
	balloon satellites.
	Now, that's not to say that we don't have some in orbit, but maybe we have less in orbit
	that are communication systems than we think.
	And this is the real communications network.
	Now, I would say that these things could easily be refueled by autonomous UAVs or even a manned
	aircraft, a la the same way that they refuel other aircraft that are perpetually in the
	air, spy satellite, spy aircraft included.
	And what happens is we're putting more of these up than ever.
	And this one just got out of control and it dropped 30 to maybe 60,000 feet where all of a sudden you can see it.
	All right. Now they already admitted it had a propulsion system on it.
	It had at least wing.
	In other words, this thing can move and I would assume all of them can move.
	And they can be directed.
	So, number one, that thing comes down to earth, it might have Chinese parts, because this is a collaboration.
	We've already seen techno-fascism on the back end many times, and when you're talking about communication systems, you're talking about global.
	So, China comes out, says it's an eco-surveillance balloon, they'll go along with the ruse.
	Now, the reason they don't shoot it over Montana, they want as few eyes on this thing as possible for many reasons, right?
	Because if this is part of a network, and again, if you go back, you see what's now being admitted, the several during the Biden administration, the ones the Trump administration didn't know about, but they're like, oops, nobody told us.
	I think if there is a paper trail, that's very possible.
	So I just think that you probably, you know, right now Starlink's big, but Starlink's not the only thing.
	And if it's a hundred times harder to get something in orbit like a Starlink, why wouldn't you utilize, especially for something this large?
	Yes. I have such a hard time with this kind of, and this is just, you know my content, like the focus on what's happening right now and what we can prove and the crimes that we can see today, that people should literally be in prison for right now.
	And yet we get, so basically, I'm interested in this, like I am in anything else that seems to Just to give you insight into something you maybe didn't know.
	But what do we know here?
	This is basically consume the news cycle.
	It's become this overwhelmingly assumptive story where everybody's like, could be this, could be that.
	We don't know. They could have shut it down because they had this.
	But the point is, it's like, okay, this fuels, as much as I hate to always be this, as something that's distracting people from what is literally provable in this real moment.
	Not that it's not important to think about.
	To what you just outlined seems really interesting.
	Are we completely misinformed throughout the entire telecommunications infrastructure?
	That's a very interesting conversation that should be had.
	But from my perspective, I'm like, okay, well, when we have more information that we can prove, that's when I want to get involved.
	You know what I mean? Because right now it feels like it's being aggressively used by all sides, at least from what we can see in the U.S. media.
	Left, right. And so it just makes you kind of push back from it.
	I don't know. Again, I think it's important But until we know more, which we probably never will, then it just seems like a meaningless kind of insertion to...
	Like, again, let's just point it like the...
	Damage. Let's point to what we see happening in Ukraine.
	Like, these are real-time actual crimes.
	Or how about just look at, let's see what Israel's doing in Palestine today.
	All the war crimes being committed there.
	You know, it's... But yet, these kind of stories get floated.
	And then the partisan jackals jump on it.
	And it's just like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And it just... And none of it is proven.
	You know what I mean? So where you went with it, I'm interested.
	Like, you got me right. Like, that's really fascinating.
	But most of what's happening today, I just...
	That's why I feel like I didn't dive into it very much.
	Because I think it is... See, alright, so I'm watching this in real time and I'm actually thinking, do I go live with this?
	And then I take a step back and I'm thinking to myself, alright man, Chinese spy balloons, let's stop for a second.
	We know that China is the model where this whole global reset thing, where they want it to go.
	We know that we've shared technology on the back end with them.
	We've made certain treaties, again, behind the scenes in space anyway.
	That's all real.
	I go, and we know we've been launching balloons for quite some time.
	And let's say it was China's.
	Financially, it would make sense, once again, because it's a lot harder.
	Again, we have this kind of Hollywood false notion of how everything is so easy in space.
	I don't believe that for one second.
	And then you look at when you get into orbit, how much more advantageous it would be to have a military presence there.
	And we are in that level of warfare, for instance, in the beginning of this Ukraine conflict where Musk is playing his little games on Twitter and all of a sudden the head of the space agency said, Watch your tone.
	We'll nuke all NATO nations within 30 minutes from space.
	And then you go, whoa, wait a minute.
	What is this? But then you see a joint collaboration.
	So, you know, to me, I think you get to keep that China versus the USA narrative.
	You still get to have the narrative in China that, look at the evil Americans.
	We just had an eco-surveillance balloon.
	It's no big deal.
	We're not spies. And then in America, they are spies.
	They're bad. And you get to keep that because, look, man, a lot of people are going, and a lot of people that are supposedly intelligent or in academia...
	We're the new Rome.
	We're burning. All empires fall.
	We've been too decadent. No, this is a planned implosion.
	We've slowly and gradually abdicated to other powers in this globalist system via our military and technology on purpose so that they could beta test it on their populations and hopefully it can be brought to the West.
	We're watching powerful people who are aware of how historically power diminishes regardless of what you try to do.
	Like, for the example of any fiat currency has always failed.
	Always, no matter what. Now people argue ours can't, but it's like, well, historically, that's almost a given.
	So we're watching powerful people who are well aware that Empire's ebb and flow.
	And so they're going, okay, well, we finally have the power, the technology, to maybe change that model.
	What can we do to circumvent that ebb and flow of power?
	Well, we're going to completely redesign this, right?
	And so I'm with you. I think what they did is they said, let's execute that fault.
	Pretend that that's what happened.
	And then, actually, Matt Arrett, who wrote a couple of really great articles about kind of like the roots of the two-party illusion for my website, for The Last American Vagabond, We've had some great conversations about this entirely.
	He argues this already happened more than once.
	Historically, I think you and I have talked about this.
	I often brought up this point in the past, just kind of theorizing for an entertaining conversation.
	What do you think the chances are that hundreds of years ago, castles, the feudal lords kind of timeframe, they realized, okay...
	We want to, you know, our power is diminishing.
	We're watching that people are beginning to go, you know what, I'm done with this whole divine right thing, you know?
	Something started to change.
	And they said, how do we effectively create the illusion that they took over but we're still in control?
	Well, I think that's arguably what could have happened.
	They had a transition from that to where the people were voting for it.
	But it's all shadows on caves, you know, and ultimately we thought that's the case and we're still there now.
	He argues, Matt Arrett, that what we're seeing now is that those very same people just want to come back out of the shadows.
	They want to come back out as the present front person of who is in control, and this is the technocrats, the globalists, and they've always been there, working behind the scenes, the eugenicists, you know?
	So that's just something to think about. And to your point, I think that's what we're watching today is these powerful people are executing this.
	And I think you and I have talked about this long before COVID. As James Corbett calls it, the engineered fall of the West.
	This has been planned in a lot of different ways, at least on paper.
	So I agree with you. Yeah, you know, and you were talking about kind of like this neo-feudalistic aspect of...
	The failure of royalty to continue to oppress the serf class by this idea of divine right.
	So they also would go into the realm of science.
	You go even all the way back.
	You talked about eugenics specifically.
	But what I think that Truthstream Media did that was great in their documentary The King of the World is they pointed to Thomas Malthus and the idea of Malthusianism.
	And then... Basically, even then, there's too many people.
	You know, nature, you almost have this Gaia-like perspective, and then this divinity rule to oversee how we're going to rule the world.
	And then a return to that at the World Economic Forum on their 50th anniversary, where they roll out their sustainability goals as the form of a crown they put on print's Charles.
	And you look at it and you're like, are they goofing on us on purpose?
	And then the symbolism is there, the 666.
	And there's actually not 18, but there's 17 sustainability goals.
	So they split the one up the middle to have two little things to fit it in there.
	You look at that, you know, I guess we get a little goofy here, right?
	No, no. I was thinking the same thing.
	I often just wonder whether or not they do that just to get us to freak out about it.
	But I do argue that, as we've talked about, there's historical precedent for those things to overlap with the occultist mentality about some of the past, you know?
	So I agree with you. Exactly.
	And it's like, you know, I started with Malthusianism and kind of like this pseudoscience that, in my opinion, eventually leads into Darwinism and social Darwinism and why they have the divine right to rule.
	Oh, sorry. No, no, you're fine putting anything on it.
	I didn't know it would just pop up. I thought you had to bring it in.
	No, no, no, no, no. We'll go right to you with that.
	And you look at it, and then you see these rituals on TV on top of it all, right?
	Like the Grammys.
	It seems so over the top, and then it's corporately brought to you by Pfizer on top of it.
	I mean, we're getting goofy.
	Like, what is the purpose of that?
	Is it the kind of out-in-the-open, black, dark, occultic magic?
	Is it just a big, F you, we're gonna do what you want through social conditioning?
	Is it to enrage?
	Is it all of these things?
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
	You know, I think if I had to guess, what I'm looking at is, you know, first thing I said, actually, is we always should consider whether or not this is just some kind of grandiose, kind of flamboyant presentation with the interest or the aim goal of getting us to overreact, you know, getting us to jump down this and make all these arguments and connect dots, like, you know, maybe the Chinese balloon was something like that, you know?
	But... All that aside, it's really crazy to see this kind of out in the open...
	You know, these things are occult practices.
	Whether they believe that, whether they care about that or not.
	Like, what you're doing is a...
	You know, the song and the presentation.
	It's very strange.
	And there are groups, as you and I have talked about, that believe very deeply what that can do.
	That kind of massive, kind of public demonstration.
	Getting people to sing and chant in unison.
	And, you know, the whole thing. And it's very, very strange.
	And why that will be done.
	One, you know, I mean, think about this.
	Right now, there's at least some people in political spheres that think that what Pfizer's doing or what the government's doing, maybe the left or whatever else, or satanic, let's say.
	They know that. They may call it all QAnon and whatever else, but that's present.
	It's almost up in the front of the conversation to the point to where even the media has to attack QAnon, right?
	So why then would Pfizer support something like that?
	They know what's going on there.
	Why would the people putting it on do that?
	Why would the singer choose to lean into that?
	Because somebody behind him is telling him, or first of all, it could be that he is doing his own,
	he decides to do some practice because he thinks that he's an occultist or whatever.
	I tend to think it's because the people behind him, the publicists,
	that are tapped into what the zeitgeist is wanting right now, whatever, is going,
	hey, you come out and you dress like a trans person, call yourself non-binary,
	you're going to go to the top of the charts.
	If you come out and look like this kind of person, and that's what I think is largely driving that.
	But there is a very strange overlap to this stuff.
	And I mean, you jump in whenever you want.
	I mean, it's all, I'm guessing, it's all hypothetical, but it is very, very alarming to see that, both of them
	connected, in fact.
	So, you know...
	When I watched that, first of all, I don't know if you're aware that he just put out a single where he's got pasties on and it's all trans dudes and the whole we're getting peed on and I'm not here to make friends.
	And for me, this guy, if you go back to his career, I don't know much about him, but I know he's the stay with me guy.
	He's a 20-something, good-looking kid, almost looks like he'd be in a boy band, got a good voice, etc.
	I hadn't heard about Sam Smith in forever.
	I don't really know who he is.
	Sometimes when I go through the Daily Mail, I see with the British tabloids.
	All of a sudden, you got a dude who's got a plumber's body in nipple pasties and a corset.
	With one of the, like, something like, I can't even watch.
	That's getting a lot of press.
	Okay, now you've got a performance at the Grammys.
	How do we top it? Oh, he's so brave.
	He's so brave. It's just creepy.
	But then, alright, what was the big thing?
	And the big thing this year was Lil Nas X and his Satan shoes and the fact that he lap danced the devil.
	How do we put it over the top?
	Full satanic performance!
	Ha ha! Let's do that one!
	And they decide that.
	I'd say the creepy thing is, the brought to you by Pfizer, and the fact that that was a real tweet by CBS, which is Paramount, which is Viacom, And they're showing you the rehearsal, just so everybody knows.
	They don't just come out on, you know, they know what they're going to do.
	They rehearse it.
	And they said, we are ready to worship.
	And the picture, you know, had like the silhouette of him with the devil hat on.
	You know, and the circular thing.
	They're not in outfits. But they knew damn well what they were putting on.
	And it's just so crazy to me that, you know, again, we're about the same generation.
	That even if you're not a Christian, right, Ryan?
	Mm-hmm. We used to have a pretty baseline of good or evil.
	The bad guy looked like the devil.
	The bad guy was the demon.
	It was pretty black and white.
	And we've had the rock star.
	I pointed to the fact that Marilyn Manson 20 plus years ago when he did the dope show for mechanical animals.
	But it was at the VMAs.
	But hey, again. Viacom Kids, same company.
	20 years ago he does this performance where a bunch of cops come out all in pink.
	Right? And then they all start making out with one another.
	So this stuff isn't new.
	The Satanism, the homosexuality, but I think...
	Really, it just goes back to the article we can talk about afterward.
	They argue you can achieve some kind of enlightenment or bettering of society through decadence and lack of morals.
	That's kind of the underpinning point.
	Go ahead. We'll come back to it, though.
	So that's interesting. Well, to me, it's that sliding scale of what's acceptable, what can be promoted.
	Because when you're with the MTV crowd 20 years ago, and it's Marilyn Manson, whatever, now you're down to pop singers, where they've already done this kind of stuff with Miley Cyrus.
	Again, none of this is new, but you also have this trans inclusion, which is the new thing.
	And as I've discussed before, I truly believe it's a transhuman movement.
	And then it's brought to you by the pharmaceutical companies that, in my opinion, shouldn't even be allowed to advertise on television.
	And that's why I took the opportunity not to talk so much about the occultic aspects, etc., but more the corporate aspects of the commercials that Pfizer has been putting out.
	Have you seen the Martha Stewart commercial with the sword?
	Yeah. Of course, no mention of any side effects or any other problems.
	You know, just promotion. And then there's just these baseline commercials where they're not even advertising a product.
	They're just basically, without Pfizer, you're not going to have a normal.
	And thank us that you're having dinner with your family.
	And it's mind-blowing to me.
	So, you know, these people are not only allowed to wage biological warfare on us and psychological warfare through their drugs...
	But really, physical warfare, because that biological warfare, in turn, is literally changing what humanity is.
	And that is kind of, again, that social Darwinism, we're going to take control of our own evolution, even slides into the Hidden Pfizer video where they're calling it what?
	Directed evolution.
	A term that they use in that NASA document when they're talking about cross-molecular breeding and And different type of bio species that are created, Ryan.
	Tell us about the article. Well, before that, you ratted off a whole bunch of stuff there.
	I will come back to it, but the point was, first of all, the satanic part of it.
	So what was interesting about that is that the historical context, like you're pointing out, like the classical good and evil representation, it's just think about what it means in even today's world.
	Like, yes, we're pretending like, you know, what's weird is they're all super about morals and integrity, but then when it comes to anything like What used to be perceived as some kind of perversion or sexual proclivity, it's like nothing matters anymore.
	So it's just weird contradictory things as always today, which shows you that they're pretending they want moral sustainability, equity.
	They don't want any of those things, right? But the point though is that on the surface you're coming out and you're projecting the devil.
	So from like a, you know, kind of like a trendy kind of a thing, like going back to Marilyn Manson, you know, you could do it as a gimmick, right?
	Coming out and dressing up in a cult and whatever else.
	Because that's actually, if you really look into Marilyn Manson, you realize that he was a very intelligent person that was basically running a gimmick on people for, you know, at least that's what it seems when you read into some of this stuff.
	But today, you could argue that may have been what that was.
	Some kind of a gimmick in order to, you know, to shock and awe and whatever else.
	But... Think about what that means.
	You're presenting something that's outwardly promoting the devil.
	Like, in every possible way.
	Like, even if it's a gimmick or not, like, why would that be something you would want to do?
	Like, it's just a strange choice.
	And let me say this.
	I don't know what you know about Evan Rachel Wood and him.
	Do you know anything about that? I don't follow any of these people.
	So, Evan Rachel Wood is the star of Westworld.
	Oh, I know she is. Yes. And they dated.
	And she basically, she's come out and named him as, he literally used to tie her up and beat her and tell her horrible things and tell her he was going to kill her while she was restrained.
	And she felt like he was actually going to do these things.
	So that just tells you in his personal life whether he was going to do them.
	If she's telling even a quarter of the truth, this guy is into sadomasochism and the abuse of the women that he is supposed to be in love with.
	So how much of an act is it, Ryan?
	Right? Right.
	So you want to see the rest of that interview.
	Come on over. Redvoicemedia.com.
	You actually just try it for a buck for the first week.
	You're getting some double burmits right here.
	A buck for the first week, $10 a month, $100 for the year.
	You do that at the links below.
	That helps support the broadcast.
	You don't want to pay. You want to hear the rest of the conversation.
	You can do that too.
	You can go to Podbean and just look up the Info Warrior show right now.
	I'm even going to put my link to all the other broadcasts.
	You can just listen to it for free.
	Got a great RSS feed over there.
	I wish people would share the podcast as well.
	And then I do want to say thank you to Rumble and Rockfin for providing me a censorship-free platform.
	So I'm going to cue it.
	Over to the producer.
	We're going to start to leave the platforms.
	Again, we're going to go right to premium.
	And we've got another 30 minutes or so from Ryan Christian of TheLastAmericanVagabond.com Really, again, one of the best out there.
	I can't say it enough.
	I really enjoy these conversations.
	Very intelligent individual.
	So... We will see you later, Rockfin.
	I love you guys.
	And perhaps we'll have some bonuses over the weekend for the Rockfin crew.
	YouTube, you know the drill.
	I did have to censor one word.
	Hopefully nothing else is going to get this video flagged.
	As, you know, we adhered to the majority, if not all, of the thought police's terms.
	That is my producer telling me we're good to go.
	So we're going to say goodbye to Rumble as well.

▲