Nuclear No Bueno! Russia Ukraine And Shifting Narratives
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 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.
You've got to 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, 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!
Thank you.
Ha ha.
Showtime.
And now, Reality Rants with Jason Burmes.
And who loves you?
And who do you love?
Good morning.
It is Reality Rance.
I am Jason Burmese and we are being brought to you by the good people over at redvoicemedia.com, redvoicemedia.com slash Jason or slash uncensored.
Raskin's Problem Understanding00:04:31
That's where you find the second hour of the broadcast.
And the second hour of the broadcast today is going to be at least half, probably a little bit more than half of my interview with Stuart J. Hooper, where we are going to be talking everything Ukraine, Russia,
possible nuclear conflict, changing narratives, and now switching over to the Nord Stream pipeline not being destroyed by Russia, shocker, but pro-Ukrainian forces, and much more.
It's always a pleasure to have Stuart on the program.
He nails it every single time.
But I really want to start the broadcast today with some clips because I have a ton of stuff I actually want to show, including Thomas Massey, who just nails it, just kills it, knocks it out of the park when talking to Jamie Raskin, who continues to look ridiculous.
And look, I don't want to pick on Raskin's appearance too much.
I realize he's going through cancer treatment and he's wearing some kind of a weird headdress thing like that's over the top.
If it was just something that was coy or whatever, or if Raskin wasn't just a terrible, terrible person, then I wouldn't make a comment on it.
But he's a disingenuous hack that shows how unremarkable he actually is in this exchange with Thomas Massey.
Because Massey is just putting down, I don't know, common sense economics that anybody with a fifth or sixth grade education could easily, easily understand.
I mean, Raskin's having a problem understanding it.
I mean, not really.
Raskin gets it, but he's, well, he's got to interject all the talking points of the Predator class members that he is a minion of.
All right.
He's a bad joke.
So that exchange, I think, is a little bit over eight minutes.
And Thomas Massey does a great job.
I also finally want to play the clip of Thomas Massey on that first day of the tuck-ins showing the January 6th footage requesting that we get all of the footage.
We need all of the footage.
Now there's been three nights of this.
We need all the footage because there were really no new revelations whatsoever.
Last night, it was a rehash of how dishonest the January 6th committee and the media surrounding them had been.
And yes, they are dishonest.
You know, unfortunately, I still see like memes going around.
And one meme I saw today, you know, again, talking points, that, you know, why would you believe a network filled with liars, which they are, owned by a liar, Murdoch, which he is, right?
If you believe them, then you're in a cult.
No, I don't believe them.
I believe my own eyes.
Okay.
I believe my own ears.
I was there.
I believe my senses.
I saw what happened on January 6th because I was there.
I've been in a plethora of other situations amongst tons of people where I felt way, way, way less safe.
There's not, there wasn't a moment during that that I even had adrenaline going.
Okay.
Not even a little bit.
It was a joke.
I'll say it again.
It was about as dangerous to me as going to a Dave Matthews band concert and looking out for the beach ball that might be coming around.
Let's stop acting otherwise.
I don't want to play pretend, but they want you to play pretend.
So, Thomas Massey, economy, Raskin, we're going to do all that.
Hopefully, we're going to do him on the tuck-ins, but I want to start with this exchange here because it's just classic.
It's gangster on gangster.
And what do I mean by that?
Well, you have one gangster who is a politician talking to a Teamster boss who is another type of gangster, right?
Gangster On Gangster00:05:51
He represents people.
And this guy's got that good old school New York gangster attitude.
And he's also got the accent.
Kills it.
Now, I don't think necessarily either of these guys are the greatest, but I've got to sit there and laugh a little bit when you've got gangster on gangster exchanges and then Bernie Sanders jumps in, who's a total other, you know.
I mean, look at Bernie Sanders.
What a sellout.
Really, what a sellout.
I mean, first of all, Bernie, just so you know, you're very old.
Nobody lives forever.
Okay.
You had an opportunity in 2016 to raise the alarm that your own party had stolen the nomination from you.
And then they did it again in 2020, Bern.
And you're totally silent on it.
You're totally silent on it.
And then I see Bernie up there with Bill Maher recently getting asked what the difference is between equity and equality.
And he starts to go, well, the difference is.
And he goes, well, you know what?
I don't really know the difference.
I know the difference.
Equality means you treat everybody equally.
Doesn't matter what the color of their skin is.
Doesn't matter what their gender is.
Doesn't matter what their age is, et cetera.
All that.
Okay.
Instead, especially when we're talking about work, et cetera, there's a meritocracy on who does the job the best.
That's equality.
All right, that's equality.
So in other words, let me give you another example.
All those things, but you live in a building with apartments that are the same.
The rent is the same for all those people.
That's equality.
Equity.
is actually looking at someone's gender or ethnicity or religion, et cetera, that has nothing to do with the meritocracy and saying, yes, you can do that because there's not enough of you doing that.
It's pretty easy.
Equity is evil.
Equality, not of outcome, okay, but of opportunity.
Equality of opportunity is what we should strive for as a society.
It's inbuilt.
So now kind of like rewinding it back.
I'm going to play this exchange.
It should make you smile in the morning.
Made me smile.
So thumbs it up, subscribe, and share no matter what platform you're watching it on.
Here we go.
You talk about CEOs that are making all this money?
And what do you make, Mr. O'Brien?
Well, I'm glad you asked that question.
Yeah, I know what you make because in 2019, your salary was, what is this?
$193,000.
I'm sure you got some pay raises since then.
Yeah, when I was a rapper.
And an average UPS driver, the feeder driver, makes $35,000 a year.
And what do you bring?
That's inaccurate.
Hold on a second.
That's inaccurate.
Stay facts.
State facts.
That's inaccurate.
Average UPS.
That's inaccurate.
State facts.
That's inaccurate.
Yes.
Feeder driver makes $35,000.
If you don't know your facts, then maybe you should.
I know them because I negotiate the cost.
So I say one thing to you.
What do you bring for that salary?
What do I bring?
Yeah, what job have you committed or have you started?
What job have you created?
One job other than sucking the paycheck out of somebody else that you want to say that you're trying to provide because you're forcing them to pay dues.
No, we don't force you.
You're out of line.
You're out of line, man.
Don't tell me I'm out of line.
You are in line.
Don't tell me I'm out of line.
Don't tell me I'm out of line.
You frame the statement.
You don't shut your mouth because you don't know what's coming out.
Yes, I do.
Hold it.
Tough guy.
I'm not afraid of physical.
But don't sit there and tell me I'm out of line.
Senator.
And that's probably the best part right here is that, you know, Bernie's got to take off the mask during this, too.
It's around his chin.
This one just made me smile.
You made a statement?
You asked the question.
I didn't ask a question.
You did.
I didn't answer the question.
You asked the question.
Let him answer the question.
It was a rhetorical question.
Well, you may think it's rhetorical.
It sounded to me like a question.
Let him answer the question.
I'm not yielding my time to him.
So if you're going to let me keep my time, that's fine.
You'll have your time.
Let him, you ask a question.
He has a lot of time.
I like to answer that.
As far as my salary goes, my salary, if you follow me around, I walk, I actually look at this building.
I bet you I work more hours than you do.
Twice as many hours.
That's impossible.
No, that's true.
Sir, you don't know what hard work.
You want to follow up with schedule B. Secondly, I'll do it in a minute.
We hold greedy CEOs like yourself accountable.
You call me a greedy CEO.
Oh, yeah, you are.
You want to attack my salary?
I'll attack you.
What did you make?
What did you make when you owned your company?
I made my company.
I kept my salary down at about $50,000 a year because I invested every penny into it.
Okay.
All right.
You mean you hid money?
You mean you hid money?
Oh, those are the type of exchanges that get me going in the morning.
Okay, so I want to move on, and I want to move on to basic economics.
All right.
Thomas Massey may be my favorite person in Congress.
I mean, I don't know if there's somebody better.
If there's somebody better, point them out to me.
Why They Raised Interest Rates?00:15:02
I don't think there is.
I think this guy is the man because he really just comes at it with common sense.
He's educated.
He speaks in a manner that, look, I'm not saying trust politicians, but that is relatable, and I don't feel like I'm being talked down to or by somebody that wants to take me into a back alley, bend me over, and take advantage of me.
That's, I mean, I don't feel that way about Massey.
Call me kookie.
So what I want to do is I want to play this exchange between him and Jamie Raskin.
We, you know, something interesting has happened with our debt here recently that hasn't happened in history, really.
We got to about $26 trillion by borrowing money.
And then most recently when COVID hit and the first $2 trillion package came to the floor, there weren't $2 trillion to borrow.
It didn't exist in circulation.
So what happened?
How did we finance that debt?
How did we finance that $2 trillion and the next $2 trillion and the next trillion?
In fact, we financed $5 trillion of this debt by printing money.
And once again, I was kind of discussing this with Mike Pompeo's comment of the increase in the national debt, but what happened?
Well, the vast majority of it was printed out of thin air during what?
The COVID-19 44 nightmare.
The Federal Reserve printed the money, and then the Treasury borrowed it from the Federal Reserve.
So we kind of borrowed it from ourselves.
But what came into existence was $5 trillion that did not exist before.
Now, had we borrowed it, we would have taken it out of the economy.
And then when the money was put back into the economy through various programs that were supposed to help businesses and may or may not have had their intended effect, if we had borrowed the money and put the money back in, we wouldn't have increased the money in circulation.
But what we did over the last three years is increased by $5 trillion the amount of money that's in circulation before the banks loaned it out fractionally.
Mr. Raskin, do you think that creating new money and putting it into the economy had any effect on inflation?
So let's just stop it there.
You notice how he also put it out there that they loaned it out fractionally.
Well, that means that it was loaned to other banking facilities that then, instead of loaning out what they had gotten, loaned out even more than they had gotten.
So although the money may not physically be in circulation, $5 trillion of it is, well, in zeros and ones and ledgers, you bet your ass it exists, and it's much more than $5 trillion.
And Raskin, again, he just doesn't get it.
I assume it does, but I've not looked at the studies about that.
I mean, you're talking about the QE2 lending program that the Fed set up with Treasury?
This is since QE2.
This was specifically for COVID.
The Federal Reserve created $5 trillion.
If you look at their graph, it's kind of flat since 1917, their balance sheet.
Then it went up $5 trillion right there.
And so what that means is $5 trillion came from somewhere.
What happened is they printed the money and then loaned it to Treasury.
Then Treasury, well, we spent the money.
I don't want to blame Treasury.
Congress appropriated this money and it went out the door and then that went into people's hands and they started buying stuff.
Right.
Like he's literally trying to explain it to Raskin like he's his sixth grade economics teacher.
Right, right, right.
I mean, again, Raskin is sitting there.
Talk about unremarkable.
These are supposed to be the representatives that help run this constitutional republic, this democracy?
Give me a break.
No, I mean, that's a serious question.
And certainly there are fiscal stimulus sources of inflation and there are, you know, and there are Fed sources of inflation as well.
But they're not executive order sources of inflation.
I mean, no economists have ever identified that.
I mean, again, think about this.
Like he's, oh, it couldn't be from the executive orders.
What?
So, but that's a serious question.
And of course, that goes.
I mean, that goes way beyond the purview of this legislation.
So this is Chip Roy's tea.
He does it.
So now you take it, what he's about to do.
All right.
He takes it from like sixth grade economics and brings it down to a third grade level for Raskin.
Doesn't need it anymore.
I've decided.
This is what happens when you have a quantity of something and then you add more to it.
This is dilution.
The principle is so simple that a child can understand.
And you can create this little science project at home.
Sorry, you can have your tea back.
It's so funny.
Except for this is what they just did to our economy.
And again, Massey has to sit up there and play this game with Raskin.
Raskin knows damn well what happened.
The principle is called dilution.
And when you print $5 trillion and you put it into the economy, you have diluted the value of the money.
So for instance, if you had a minimum wage at some amount and somebody was making minimum wage and they were still making minimum wage after this money was printed, they actually are making considerably less in terms of real dollars.
It's dilution.
So the $5 trillion that we printed, I would argue, is the primary source of inflation.
I would argue that too, Thomas.
Any thinking person would say that's the primary source of inflation.
Adele.
We can say, well, eggs went up because feed went up.
Fuel went up because there's a war in Ukraine.
You can find a lot of excuses for various different industries.
But what is the probability that every price went up all at the same time?
You can't blame them on specific supply chain problems.
How do you explain the global inflation?
Yes, I'm glad you asked me that.
Oh, yeah, no, how do you explain the global?
Again, Raskin's very interested.
Oh, how do you, and again, it just kills me.
This is two weeks ago.
And look at the woman behind Raskin.
We're in a cosplay society, guys.
The LARPing is forever, apparently.
Professor Raskin.
Because they did the same thing in Europe.
They did this everywhere.
They printed their own equivalents of the Federal Reserve and Treasuries, created their own money out of thin air.
And maybe the only thing that saved our dollar is that everybody else did the same thing to their currency.
And so the question is, right now we're coming up on the debt limit.
Why isn't anybody proposing to print more money?
Why aren't the economists proposing to print more money?
Because it is poison.
When you print money, it is poison to our economy.
And it is very regressive.
Inflation is extremely regressive, especially when it affects the goods that everybody needs to buy.
Energy.
I love it when they print the consumer price index, neglecting food and energy and housing, right?
Like the three things that no matter how poor you are, you still need.
Again, it shows you how cartoon level this is.
I mean, it's cartoon-level that he's got to sit there and describe this to somebody who's supposed to be what?
On the same level as he is, a colleague.
And again, any, I mean, at least in my era, any fifth, sixth grader could understand this.
You understand what dilution means.
We'll just leave those out when we look at the effect of inflation, but you can't leave those things out.
So the reason we're not, you know, we could just, we could just print more money again like we did over the last three years, but the reality is everybody in this room knows.
And if we don't, we have staff who know that if you print money, you're going to wreck this economy.
So I found it interesting that the Fed raised interest rates very aggressively over the last several quarters, the last year.
Do you have any idea, Mr. Raskin, why they would raise interest rates?
And I mean, you know, Massey's doing a great job.
Do you have any clue what's going on here, Mr. Raskin?
Any idea why they would have done that?
I really don't.
I've not followed it that closely.
I mean, your line of questioning to me is interesting because I think it goes to what the real sources of inflation are.
Again, I'm just so interested.
This is just a great conversation, Thomas.
Thank you to explaining it to me like I'm a child because obviously I am childlike.
And this is the crusader for the Democrats against the evil orange man.
This is the crusader of election integrity.
This is the crusader that's taking on the white supremacists and bigots.
But he just doesn't have any clue how the economy works.
And he is enthralled.
He is enthralled with this information.
It is just so interesting to him.
Economy and what the money supply is and so on.
Remember that the various actions taken that you identified were in response to a crisis, which was COVID-19 and an economic collapse in the country.
And everybody on a bipartisan basis, with perhaps the potential exception of you, was demanding that the federal government act in order to bolster the economy because the restaurants were going down and the hotels were going down and our businesses were collapsing.
And so most of them still did collapse.
At least the ones that what?
We weren't part of corporate America.
So many went into bankruptcy.
So many small businesses were devastated.
And again, this is the guy that's supposed to be looking out for the little guy.
You know, with the exception of you, Thomas, nobody else figured out this was going to be economically devastating.
Nonsense.
You know, we make no apologies for any of the rescue legislation that we did, and we think we did the right thing, even if that was some small contributor to the overall global inflation.
Small contributor.
You have global collusion to shut the economy down first world style all over.
Okay.
Print trillions in currency that did not exist, loan it out on a fractional level.
Game the system at the top.
Let's be honest.
All right.
Screw the little guy at the bottom.
And then on some small level, Thomas Massey might be right.
I mean, Raskin is ridiculous.
He is ridiculous.
We saw.
And I will say that, of course, this has been a bipartisan policy commitment.
And under President Trump, we know that your side of the aisle voted three times to lift the debt limit as requested by President Trump.
And President Trump's own spending contributed 25% of the total debt of the United States from George Washington to Joe Biden.
25% of it.
So this is a bipartisan problem that we got to deal with.
I like those numbers where we look at which administration was in power when the debt went up and what percent, you know, maybe 25% under Trump.
Reality is we are the ones who raised the debt limit, not the president.
So I went back and looked to see which, under which speaker did the debt limit go or did the debt go up the most?
And it turns out somewhere between 43 and 45% of all the debt, you mentioned that 25% of all the debt was under Trump.
Using those same metrics, 43 to 45% of all the debt ever incurred in this country happened while Ms. Pelosi was speaker.
Now, she had a good run at it.
She had two chances to do it.
She was speaker twice.
But, you know, so I think it's unfair to blame any one administration.
I think it's more fair to blame us.
And in reality, because we're the ones who raise it.
Yeah, I would only agree with Raskin.
It is a bipartisan issue in that what?
The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats are in the pocket of the predator class.
That's what.
Now, the problem with the stimulus that we did during COVID, yes, there was an economic calamity and people stayed home.
But when you gave farmers money, when you gave people money, the farmers didn't make more goods.
The factories didn't make more goods.
The refineries didn't refine more oil.
Demand for fuel went down.
So we saw a temporary, if you look at inflation, it actually went down there for a while while nobody was doing much of anything.
But after we put that money in their hands, now they're chasing goods that don't exist.
They're literally buying the inventory because so many things were shut down.
Boom.
So Thomas Massey, absolutely killing it.
Pressure On Elites00:15:41
I want to play that Tucker clip where he asks for all the footage, and that's what we need.
We need all the footage on January 6th to be made public so that what citizen investigators and journalists can go through that evidence.
Period.
I want to shift gears.
I want to play as much of this interview with Stuart J. Hooper regarding Ukraine, Russia, etc., as I can before we go over to Premium.
Remember, it's redvoicemedia.com slash Jason or redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
$1.
$1 for the first week, $10 a month, $100 for the year.
Save $20.
Really helps the broadcast when you do that.
I want to thank all those who have come over and supported the broadcast.
But remember, you can also listen to the rest of the interview and the rest of the broadcast for free over at Podbean over at the InfoWarrior as well.
Sharing the links, checking it out on social media, checking out the other shows at the Red Voice Media Network.
That all helps the broadcast and it helps us to grow.
So I want to thank everybody who's been doing that.
Without further ado, I am going to play this interview with Stuart J. Hooper.
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here, and I am very pleased to bring you guys yet another segment with our friend of the show that brings an academic perspective to a lot of the things that we discuss here.
And today, I wanted to get Stuart J. Hooper's opinion on the narrative shift regarding Ukraine, the Department of Energy, Seymour Hirsch, his revelations, and now the New York Times retort of pro-Ukrainian forces as we see the narrative changing on a global scale in real time.
So, Stuart, before we get going, and we talk about this shift in the narrative in Ukraine, where now almost all of major media is admitting that Ukraine is not winning the war, but that seems to be being used to encourage people getting behind more weapon systems, more funding, and possibly even troops on the ground.
So, once again, before we get going, tell people how you got involved in this arena and where they can find your work.
Yeah, well, great to be back, Jason.
Really appreciate the time.
Really appreciate, again, to talk to your audience as well.
The reception last time was great.
I really appreciate that.
But, yeah, I got involved in this alternative media sphere on and off over the past really 10 years, following work from people like yourself over the years in the documentary films and the alternative media outlets that you've been a part of, and always found that to be rather enlightening.
I grew up during the war on terror.
I remember living through everything that went wrong with the war on terror, which of course was a hell of a lot.
And I really came to the conclusion that the mainstream political parties back in the United Kingdom were really not giving me the answers that I wanted.
And I've reached the conclusion ultimately now that I don't think the mainstream parties can really offer a solution to any of this.
So, I went down an academic path, pursued a couple of master's degrees at this point, trying to finish up a PhD right now.
And if you find the right advisors, the right people to talk to within academia, you can have a successful path in this direction.
It's not easy all the time, and of course, you're going to face quite a bit of resistance here and there as well.
But that's what I decided to do.
I teach at a small university in Oklahoma while I'm trying to finish up my PhD under a professor called Indojeet Palma.
I would highly recommend that your viewers check out Indojeet's work.
He's a great professor to work under, and he's done lots of research into things like the Fold Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and how these have been central to what the American foreign policy establishment actually is and how it actually operates, and importantly, who it works for, which, believe it or not, that's not really you and I.
And I think that's going to stop you there.
That's an integral part of all of this.
The fact that you have these wealthy individuals, billionaires and beyond, painting themselves as the benevolent saviors of society, but really setting up these non-government organizations,
not just as tax havens, but weapons of influence to then socially engineer outcomes that are really predetermined by what their think tanks and other predator-class members have put forward, Stuart.
Yeah, precisely.
And these think tanks, they really are the incubators for the ideas that end up dominating global politics.
And we discussed this last time: the Council on Foreign Relations, also known as the Imperial Brain Trust, by these two insightful authors.
These are the sorts of institutions that generate the ideas and then build a consensus around those ideas to bring back into the nation states and apply them at the individual nation state level.
But of course, if you have all of the nation states doing that across the board, or a lot of them across the board doing that, well, then they all end up going in this same direction.
And that, of course, is generally not really what you'd expect individual countries to do.
You'd expect them to have their own individual interests, their own individual objectives that they're trying to achieve.
But as a result of globalization and the rise of globalism generally, you've seen the gradual erosion of the ability of the average voter to have a say in how their country operates.
And then you want to get angry or upset when the UK votes to leave the European Union or when the United States elects Donald Trump.
Well, what did you expect was going to happen?
You offshored more and more political power, more and more economic decision-making, more and more military decision-making as well, into institutions like NATO.
And then what do you get in response?
Well, you're going to get populism.
You're going to get nationalism.
So I think if you want to look at people to blame for the current state of the world, these are a good place to start.
The people that are in these think tanks, this one, the Council on Foreign Relations, the people that have set up this structure of ideas, which currently pushes the world forward.
You know, since you brought it up, I do think it's an important point to make that when you look at Brexit in particular, there was no more of a glaring example that the general populace had rejected what the establishment was trying to sell them on via globalization and the European Union and wanted out, out, out.
And those people scratched, they kicked, they pawed, and they forced a situation where once again, establishment politicians had to act like they were going to do the will of the people and actually exit that system.
But somehow through delay and the bureaucracy, days turned into weeks, weeks turned into months, months turned into years, and nothing of the sort happened.
It never happened.
And we're just supposed to act like that is normal.
And, you know, kind of give us the 100-yard view of how Brexit fell apart and the will of the people was completely denied.
And that will of the people was then, it almost mirrors here, was then turned around.
And if you supported that, well, you were a bigot, a racist, and probably a white supremacist Stuart.
Yeah, that's the unfortunate direction that this stuff has taken.
A similar direction to where you see American politics going.
And also something I noticed earlier.
I was just browsing through some British news stations on YouTube.
British politics is starting to insert more issues that look more and more American every day.
Abortion now is apparently becoming a big political issue in the United Kingdom.
That was never a thing that I ever saw in the headlines growing up.
So yeah, going down this road is not great.
But generally with Brexit, it probably on the grand scheme of things to just immediately jump out of the European Union, that was always going to create problems.
And it's created a hell of a lot of problems within Britain right now on an economic level, on a political level, on an international level between different countries and how the UK can or cannot operate.
But I think what you said is most important about all of this.
I had a comment on one of my YouTube videos that I put out last week.
And I was talking about the war in Ukraine and the very real potential for World War III, which I have said since day one of this conflict is a very real possibility.
And one of my solutions to that was to call your congressman, to write to your member of parliament, to do anything to try to contact the government.
Because even if you approach government from the position that we do, in that these are not really democracies, these are really dominated by elites.
Well, with enough pressure, you can actually force them to live up to the facade of democracy that they espouse and present to the world.
So are you really a democracy or are you not?
Are you actually going to do the will of the people or are you not?
So I think, yes, despite the fact that I think it's pretty clear we have Western governments that have been completely dominated by elites that are completely far removed from the interests of the people for a very long time, leading to situations like Brexit.
Well, they still claim publicly that this is a democracy and they represent the will of the people.
Let's force them to really do that.
Let's put the pressure on them that is needed.
Let's pay attention to the real issues that matter and let's try to restore democracy one way or another.
Because ultimately, this does boil down to a fact that these are people as well, which is really important.
And these people in Congress, they want to get re-elected.
They want to keep getting their cushy salary.
They want to keep doing their insider trading.
They want to stay in the political system and have this image of being the savior on the left or on the right, depending on which side you come from, of course.
Well, they can only maintain that image for as long as we allow them to maintain it.
And the more pressure we put on them to actually live up to these so-called democratic values, we may actually get our democracy back.
So I wouldn't be as pessimistic as one of my commenters was on my channel, that that's just a complete waste of time.
Can push them into a corner and make them act in a democratic fashion.
Well, the bottom line is we can never act like it's hopeless, and we have to take the avenues that surround us.
And there are so many in the mainstream that want to push us into a situation that will lead to learned helplessness, in my opinion, through violence and separation, through this idea of a quote-unquote national divorce of red and blue states.
It's a comical farce, but it's one that's being pushed because they love to push division.
However, when we look at the Ukrainian narrative, at least amongst the vast majority of the establishment, Democrats and Republicans, they're pushing the same thing.
And that's that we need to continually support this war.
There's only a handful of people that are speaking out against it.
That we now need to provide not only missile systems and weapon systems that we were never supposed to give them, but F-16 fighters as well.
And now you're starting to see a normalization of the process of possibly having U.S. troops on the ground there under the guise of actually being U.S. troops.
You and I both know that we already have U.S. troops on the ground, whether they are acting in an official capacity or not, or heading up the mercenary groups that are really deciding what to strike, where to go, and the day-to-day battles that are happening there.
I'd love to get your take on Zelensky just last week talking about U.S. soldiers dying on the battlefield in this conflict as if it's necessary.
And then celebrities like Sean Penn going on mainstream media with killer taco hats talking about and trivializing, in my opinion, the idea of nuclear war as a deterrent to try to continue this war of aggression, in my opinion, instead of try to come to a solution.
And then at the same time, saying there's no chance that they're asking for U.S. troops on the ground when those were the very words coming out of Zelensky's mouth.
Yeah, Ukraine, this has to be the central issue that really has our focus.
And as you mentioned at the start of that question, we need to get ourselves away from really the wedge issues that are forced upon us, the abortion debate, the immigration debate, these sorts of things.
I mean, if we weren't threatened with the imminent end of our world as we know it, then maybe we'd have time to run around the houses and debate those issues.
But quite frankly, if you're still on those issues and they're your primary focus, well, I mean, if that's your thing, it's your thing.
But I think it's time for everyone to reevaluate where we are and what we really need to be focused on.
And if we put our collective efforts into something like trying to end this conflict, I think that would be particularly useful.
One quote that I think is really worth referring back to here, which was written back in the 1950s by C. Wright Mills in the power elite.
If anyone in your audience has not read this book, go and grab it and read it.
Rethinking The Conflict00:14:37
You can get it for about $20 on Amazon.
It was published in 1956 and it's written by Mills, who's a political sociologist, and he's trying to define who the American government works for.
And his bottom-line answer is not for you or I. In fact, it works only for these three elite groups, economic, political, and military elites.
And in chapter nine, The Military Ascendancy, he talks specifically about how these military elites come to power.
And he talks about the state of military affairs during the Cold War in the 1950s.
And he says, quote, when virtually all negotiation aimed at peaceful agreement is likely to be seen as appeasement, if not treason, the active role of the diplomat becomes meaningless.
For diplomacy becomes merely a prelude to war or an interlude between wars.
And in such a context, the diplomat is replaced by the warlord.
Well, that looks a lot like the situation we're currently in right now.
If you think World War III is a threat, if you want to enter into negotiations with Russia and Putin, well, you're an appeaser.
You're an apologist.
You're a Russian sympathizer.
Well, this is completely incorrect.
Not only does it create that disastrous political situation that Mills just described, diplomacy becomes a complete waste of time.
There's no point.
You can't be a diplomat if you don't believe you can enter into a peaceful agreement with the other side.
So you are slowly but surely driving off of the edge of the cliff.
So that's the real conceptual problem.
But the empirical problem here is that what have we all just lived through for the past 22 years?
The war on terror.
The war on terror, which was sold to the Western world under the guise of all of these different lies and propositions that were sold to us again and again.
And there's tons of them.
One specifically that I remember growing up was in black and white, in bold font, the headline of all the British newspapers, Saddam Hussein can hit London in 45 minutes.
So he apparently had these 45-minute missiles in Iraq, despite the country being under two decades of sanctions.
But this is what we've lived through.
So if you have populations that have lived through this stuff for literally over two decades, been lied to, been economically raped for want of a better term, to the tune of trillions of dollars for over two decades, you should expect some skepticism when something like this happens.
And none of this is to excuse what Russia did.
Russia should never have invaded Ukraine.
This was the complete wrong decision.
And if you're against militarism, you need to always be against militarism.
Not against defending yourself, but you shouldn't use offensive militarism to try and achieve an objective.
That's just always wrong, or it should always be wrong.
But yeah, this is the state of the world.
So when you have these issues and this current state of affairs, you have to look at these situations and expect that there will be people who are opposed to it.
And I think, as you mentioned, with the growing number of mainstream outlets that are now questioning what is going on here, and there was a New York Times, was it a New York Times piece?
Yeah, it was the New York Times piece that is now changing the narrative.
And that's definitely the next thing that I wanted to get into you with.
That after the Seymour Hirsch article that comes out about three weeks to a month ago, that is largely ignored by the mainstream press.
And then sort of later on, not so much by the mainstream press discrediting it on television, but coming out on social media and whispering how Hirsch is a conspiracy theorist and none of this is reliable.
Well, what happened?
And having the State Department deny it outright.
Well, then you get this new narrative that, no, it wasn't Russia that bombed its own pipeline.
And again, across the board, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, all went along for that ride.
All of them.
Every single one of those networks.
You know, you could argue that there was a handful at Fox that questioned it from the beginning.
So now you have that narrative being shattered.
And now the new narrative being put out is it's pro-Ukrainian forces.
Hirsch is still a kook.
And at the very same time of them now admitting that Ukraine isn't winning the war and they're facing heavy casualties, but they're not discussing how heavy those casualties are.
You know, from what I'm reading, they're anywhere from the tens of thousands, which is on the very low end, Stuart, to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians.
Yeah, there's no real way around that fact at this point.
We are talking tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dead on both sides.
So the human devastation here, we cannot leave that out of the equation.
But yeah, let's look at what's gone on here.
So we've had these different shifting narratives on what happened with the pipeline.
The New York Times opinion piece on Ukraine, quote, America is in over its head.
Yes, to say the least.
And the reality on the ground there has been what's been going on in the city of Bakhmut.
This has been the center of the fighting for the past six months.
Now, according to military strategists, Bakhmut is not even a strategically important city, meaning that it's not really a central hub for anything.
It's not really connected to any major infrastructure, but they've been fighting over it for six months.
And now it looks like it's on the brink of collapse to a Russian victory.
So we've gone through these months and months and months.
The use of artillery and munitions to a degree that hasn't really been seen in world history in a very, very, very long time.
And yeah, these other situations that are going on.
I think the most important thing about the pipeline is this new shift to this new narrative.
What does it do?
Well, it returns us into the rhetoric of the war on terror.
And it's very easy for people in the Western world to understand.
Terrorism exists, terrorists exist.
And this is basically what they're really saying is Ukrainian terrorists did this with perhaps some Russian military sympathizers or whatever the full story is.
But there's a real big problem with this.
Look at what this attack was.
This was an attack on a major piece of infrastructure that is below the sea.
And it was an extremely successful attack.
Well, just looking at those empirical realities, non-state actors, terrorists, they should be immediately excluded from the potential actors who might be able to do this.
Wait a minute.
Do you mean that you need a skill set and resources that go beyond a ragtag group that doesn't have the support of a nation state and intelligence apparatus or covert funding?
Stuart!
You conspiracy monger you.
But again.
I know.
Yeah.
It's unbelievable.
Yeah, but this is just the reality, though, right?
It really is the reality.
And when you look at other things like this as well, other major attacks on infrastructure, another one that comes to mind is the Stuxnet attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities.
Now, this took a while for the Iranians to figure out what was going on here.
It eventually gets out into the wild.
I think it ends up with McAfee's systems, and they slowly but surely figure out what this thing was.
And let's roll it back for the audience because this is something that happened.
I mean, if my memory serves me, we're probably going about a decade back, maybe a little bit more, where you had this quote-unquote computer virus that had infected all these different systems.
And when you started to peel back the layers, you realized that this was a system that could be disguised as a covert attack by Russia or any other nation state or group that you wanted to blame it on because of its very nature.
And it was infiltrating these computer systems through back doors and very, very difficult to discover.
Yeah, and the engineers that find it, and again, I think it's the guys over at McAfee that found it, or it may have been another smaller company.
I don't remember.
But they look at it and they try to figure out what the hell is this thing?
What is it doing?
Because it's on all of these systems, but it doesn't do anything to them.
Well, eventually they figure out that it does do something if you put it into a very specific type of centrifuge system that the Iranians happen to be using in their enrichment facilities.
So they figure out what it is and they figure out how it's working.
And it's slowly but surely altering how the centrifuges run to such a tiny degree that it's practically undetectable.
But slowly but surely, it will destroy the centrifuges.
And it will also display to the Iranian engineers, everything's fine.
There are no problems at all.
All good.
It must just have been a bad model, right?
Go and get another one from the factory and put it in.
Surely that one will work.
Well, maybe not.
And what ends up happening with this is we eventually come to the conclusion of, again, yeah, there's no way a non-state actor would have had the resources or the capabilities or the technical know-how to produce something this damn sophisticated.
And it's practically or almost acknowledged to a degree, but it's accepted in the literature that it was probably the US, the UK, and Israel that put this thing together.
And then how did they actually get it into the enrichment facility in Iran?
There's different theories on that one.
Some interesting ones.
Is it a James Bond type figure that snuck in there?
Well, those people exist, maybe.
There's other theories that someone would have dropped a USB stick in a parking lot, perhaps where they know the Iranian engineers go and they have lunch every day.
So it plays on human nature.
Well, oh, look, here's a USB stick on the floor.
What's this?
Let me go and take this into work and see who lost this.
And then, oh, no, they don't realize they've now put the virus onto the system.
But this, again, is the point being: a non-state actor is not capable of doing some of these things.
It had to have come from a nation-state.
And that really is the conclusion that everyone said for this pipeline from day one.
Even the people that were saying that was Russia that did this, they also said, Well, clearly, this couldn't be terrorists because it's too sophisticated.
Well, then, how are we now falling back into this?
We need to smarten up here, hold these leaders to account, and ask real questions.
Well, I think that anybody that is actually looking beyond the mainstream narratives, and I would argue, really, there's only about 20 to 30 percent, 30 percent max in this country of the voting bloc of the adults that are in any way, shape, or form behind this Ukrainian invasion and this prolonged NATO battle.
But as we've discussed here, it's my opinion, and I know that you agree with this: this conflict is going nowhere fast because the leaders of NATO, of the Western nations involved, want to continue this and possibly break out some of their new toys during this very, very new type of warfare where the automation,
the automation and robotization of everything is being scaled up at an alarming rate.
And this is out of defense1.com.
The Reaper UAV is getting its own drone swarm.
And this is DARPA-based technology where you have a swarm of drones that are with your main drone.
They can be controlled by one operator sometimes.
Yes, even through human brain interfaces, not just a remote control, everybody, but thought patterns.
I know it sounds very sci-fi, very psy-reality.
But the interesting thing about these drone swarms is although they act like a larger unit, like a swarm of birds or insects, they can break off individually and have different use sets.
So one of these drones may indeed carry a regular camera.
Let's get a view of the battlefield or what's in front of us.
The other may be an infrared camera.
Okay, let's see what's hidden around.
And that yet another of these swarm drones may actually be a weapon system, i.e., an explosive charge or device.
And this is just scratching the surface of this technology.
There's also a lot of mainstream coverage now of the possibility of China siding with Russia.
And I know that some in the conservative press are now talking about Iran and their drone program and their relationship with China.
Spending Switch: Supporting Red Voice Media00:02:43
What are your thoughts on all of that going on?
Yeah, there's a lot in there.
There's a lot in there.
And if you want to hear that, you're going to have to come over to the premium portion of the broadcast.
And once again, I want to thank everybody who has come over to redvoicemedia.com/slash Jason or Redvoicemedia.com/slash uncensored.
Try it for a week for a buck.
We do this Monday through Thursday, 8 a.m. every single week.
And again, you can listen for free over at the Info Warrior.
Before we go over there, there's another great way that you can support this channel and really Red Voice Media in general, and that's by using Spending Switch.
Are you sick and tired of hearing companies you purchase from constantly pushing their woke politics on you?
Stop spending money with companies that hate you.
Make the spending switch.
Spending Switch only works with based companies who love America.
We are adding new vendors often, and our vendors will never allow your hard-earned money to be spent against your way of life.
Check us out for the best in survival food, preparedness, heirloom seeds, apparel, coffee, and much more.
Go to spending switch.com.
Again, that's SpendingSwitch.com.
All right, so one at a time, we are going to leave Rumble, Rockfin, YouTube, and, of course, Twitter.
Again, guys, thank you so much for even watching the broadcast, sharing the links, sharing the information.
I do want to remind everybody before we move on, and remember, there's a good 35-40 minutes left in that interview with Stuart J. Hooper.
You can go and check him out over on Twitter, and he has a YouTube channel.
And make sure to check out all of my documentary films as well: Loose Change, Final Cut, Fabled Enemies, Invisible Empire, a New World Order to Find, and Shade the Motion Picture.
All right, let's start signing off one at a time.
Rockfin, I love you, but we'll see you on the flip side.
YouTube, you know the drill.
I wish I could say more, but I have to say less all the time on your censorship Trojan horse civilian system platform.