Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 2, 2023 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas

01:09:29

Exposing The Agenda From All Sides With Ryan Cristian

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here, and for the next hour, I am excited to bring you one of my favorite independent journalists out there.
	He is the creator of TheLastAmericanVagabond.com.
	Right now, one of their most featured articles and one of the most interesting ones out there is The Prince and the Spy.
	All about Eric Prince, privatized spy and mercenary craft, and so much more by the great Whitney Webb.
	But to join us today is Ryan Christian.
	We're going to be talking about AI, aliens, possibly World War III, Zombie J, 2024, and so much more.
	Mr. Christian, how are you, sir?
	Is this one of those conspiracy theory podcasts?
	I think I'm in the wrong place. I don't think I'm supposed to be honest.
	I mean, they'll call it a conspiracy theory.
	I'm always happy to join you, brother. I always look forward to our conversations.
	Yeah, you know, we haven't talked in a problem.
	I don't know that we've talked on air since maybe even January.
	Maybe we did something in between January and now.
	Maybe one thing, but even then, that's not enough.
	Um... News is moving quicker and quicker and quicker, more and more events.
	I can tell you that the last time we talked was probably before Nord Stream and now this latest incident in Ukraine where you have...
	Basically, the flooding of a civilian populace.
	The direct attack on a civilian populace.
	And I can't sit here and act like, oh, America didn't used to do these things and we were never involved in these things.
	Anybody that studies history knows that we were vicious in World War II. We killed a ton of civilians in World War II. And Dresden is still notorious in...
	So this precedent has already been set.
	And you can call it whatever you want.
	You can call it warfare.
	You can call it terrorism.
	I call it the murder of men, women, and children who have nothing to do with this conflict other than being pawns on the chessboard.
	So I guess let's start it there.
	Let's talk about what's going on overseas, where you see it going, how much...
	The public is even privy to just the slightest bit of reality when it comes to that conflict.
	And is there any hope of getting the United States out of that conflict before the 2024 election?
	Well, ending with that last one, or starting with that last one first, I think we all see...
	I don't think it's the only reason this is happening.
	It's not only political, but clearly it is political.
	And it is very clearly...
	At all, at your expense, going to be...
	First, I don't think it's going to end regardless because of how much is going on.
	But if they were worried it was going to end, they would stretch this out in every way possible to the election.
	Because I think wartime is always important from a political perspective in particular the presidential election.
	But it's hard to say because it's obviously kind of going back and forth and teetering where...
	You know, some people see it as a positive that, you know, Biden's fighting for freedom.
	Anybody honest can see that all of the government is involved with this very clear fascist proxy war kind of concept.
	But yeah, I think I don't think it'll end anytime soon.
	And I think that's by design, quite frankly, both because of miring Russia and the same kind of classic idea, like with the Mujahideen and Afghanistan with the Soviet Union, the same exact play, you know.
	But on top of that, we know that there's new agendas, the bio labs and research going on there.
	And I mean, even just human trafficking.
	I mean, it's just gross to even get into that topic because of what a clear boon it's been for the, in particular, the Poland and Ukraine border, which was a problem before this, which has just exploded.
	No one wants to talk about it, which is like it was in Syria.
	You know, I quite frankly think that's an industry that's part of the plan that happens every time we see war.
	It's pretty disgusting to think about.
	But I wanted to point out what you said there.
	It's interesting. The civilians I think the real thing, and a lot of people are beginning to become more comfortable acknowledging this reality, that it's all about narrative, not actual real changes.
	I think, to your point, any war in history, especially U.S. wars, I don't think there's ever been a war where civilians were targeted, ever.
	By all sides. It's just the fact that at one point they realized, oh, we need to pretend to these people that we are what they want us to be, right?
	They're starting to care more and they have more power.
	And so let's, oh, we're going to do our best to avoid them or we're going to, you know, so that's an interesting point to think about.
	They're always targeting. You know, you brought up the human trafficking and I was on the phone with my brother this week and I was totally ignorant of this other than the fact that I had heard for a very long time and there had been rumors for a very long time that Mel Gibson was working on some kind of a project that was going after the elites, that was going after the predator class.
	And one of the things that it circled, I feel like, for over a decade was that his big follow-up movie was going to be on the Rothschilds.
	That's what spun around.
	Never really saw any evidence of that or commentary on that.
	However... Recently on Redacted, which has come out of nowhere to be this alternative media show, I think The Daily Wire puts it on.
	They make a report that Mel Gibson is about to put out a four-part documentary series about human trafficking, much of it taking place currently in the Ukraine.
	And I would have maybe dismissed it.
	Had the individual working with Mel Gibson not been presented in a video talking about how the documentary series was essentially done and they were almost ready for distribution.
	As you just said, this is not new.
	And it seems like every time during the quote-unquote fog of war, whether or not there's a huge conflict or even a small conflict or even emergency that's not in the fog of war, like, I don't know, say Ebola and the World Health Organization, you get into this...
	Dark corruption of those in power exploiting women and sometimes children in the sex trafficking trade.
	And this is a trade that has been known to us since the beginning of time.
	Yet, we constantly either ignore it or completely marginalize it to the point where all of a sudden there's a headline On the Wall Street Journal that Instagram, no kidding, and Twitter and every other social media platform has these black holes and back doors for pedophiles to communicate.
	And that's just a microcosm of what's going on on a larger scale.
	So speak to that headline because I saw that going around for a while.
	People have been saying, oh, Pizzagate's been vindicated.
	I'm like, well, if you were paying attention, a lot of what was going on during those DC emails had already been vindicated.
	It was simply mixed in with hyperbole and talking points and Bernaysian propaganda in order to discredit the whole thing.
	Hillary Clinton's running a sex trafficking ring out of a pizza shop that's taking peripheral issues, combining them into one glob of not true.
	Rolling it out there for the public perception and then dismissing the emails about children being Ubered to a farm for entertainment in a heated pool.
	You know? Right. Glossing over the fact that Alephantis had Antinous, the...
	The Greek god of man-boy love, literally pedophilia god, as his avatar.
	Those things never discussed in the mainstream media.
	This comes out, oh, pizza emojis and CP, cheese pizza, does have communication levels for pedophiles?
	Weird, weird. So what are your thoughts on that and how it integrates into the larger picture of governments and institutions that Like those in Ukraine.
	Like the World Health Organization.
	Being involved in these scandals repeatedly over the decades.
	Yeah. There's like three questions and all that.
	I hope I don't forget some of it. But the part that I'll start with is just since you mentioned it.
	It's so interesting that the Pizzagate conversation, even the things you mentioned, which by the way shouldn't be dismissed.
	Obviously there's something weird going on there.
	But it's superficial.
	It's subjective. You could argue that he didn't even know that or whatever, right?
	I don't believe that. But the point is that on top of that, as you and I have discussed...
	And that's why I think it's important to point out that there was something that we could get into and investigate around the pizza place or the artwork, or as I pointed out recently, the aggressively open, like there was these weird, as you know, these late night, like right after they closed for children, and sometimes the children were still present, where they had these weird like LGBTQ sex shows where they were dressing in drag and screaming very violently sexual things.
	It was very uncomfortable to watch.
	It's horrifying. And so this is a pizza place.
	Anyway, the point is there's something weird there, but then we also know that there's things like we often talk about, the Laura Silsby discussion, Chuck Todd discussing on NBC about the State Department and pedophilia allegations and trafficking of children.
	All this stuff is not up for debate.
	These are facts. The children from Haiti that Laura Silsby was trafficking got caught for, that Clinton stepped in and got them up.
	I mean, these are undeniable.
	The only reason they let her go was because they said they were going to hold them accountable in the United States, and that didn't happen.
	So it's obviously there was something going on there, you know?
	So what's interesting in the bigger picture, when you see the constant marginalization, the downplaying of this problem, when even when you got something like Epstein that they're now grudgingly pretending they care about, right?
	It shows you that there's an industry, governmental, society-wide kind of downplaying of something that we, as you said, it's a historical reality.
	That's always been the case.
	And so it's so alarming to see that, especially now with this weird rise of the focus of the overt sexualization of your children.
	I mean, we all seem to know...
	I actually just saw somebody dismiss this online, which is so embarrassing.
	Like, the Disney stuff, which we still pretend like nobody...
	Everybody knows this stuff.
	And it's not just some quark of stuff in one graphic that showed some word.
	There's subliminal messaging.
	There's clear erections.
	I mean, all this weird, creepy stuff.
	So it shows you there's been this weird underground that's been right there this whole time.
	And people are finally beginning to pay attention to this stuff.
	But so you talked about the bigger picture first with Mel Gibson.
	That's really interesting to me.
	Because I don't know if you saw, I don't know if you know, maybe it's even connected.
	There was the guy, I forget his name, from The Passion of Christ, who's apparently coming out.
	Caviezel! Yeah, it's actually apparently a movie.
	Which looks like it might be pretty well done.
	But you never know with these things.
	They can get politicized in very dangerous ways using the truth.
	But I know he's been kind of ostracized from a lot of things as Mel Gibson has in interesting ways.
	And so maybe, you know, I'm going to watch it when it comes out.
	And apparently it's about the true depth of the child trafficking industry, which is just a hard thing to watch because it's real.
	And nobody wants to pretend that, you know, no one wants to engage with this.
	The numbers are obscene.
	I think during, I forget what time this was, where that guy came out whose entire business was around Tracking this and monitoring this and investigating and put some numbers out in the field that people didn't even want to believe it.
	That this is like the number one industry in this country and stuff like that.
	That's hard to wrap your mind around.
	But to see Mel Gibson do this, I don't know.
	Same thing. I'd have to see it and I'd have to really take it with a grain of salt.
	But what's interesting is, last note on that, and I think there's one part that I didn't
	address, that if he makes a documentary focused on the Rothschilds, of course we know what
	they're going to call that.
	Anti-Semitic.
	Despite the fact that that's, you know, it's such a, everything peripheral now is kind
	of like glommed into this, you're a racist now for anything you do that challenges the
	narrative, even if it doesn't make sense.
	Yeah, and I mean if they can't get race, they'll go to bigotry.
	And to kind of go into Hollyweird and these films that may or may not expose high-level trafficking or at least get us to think about it.
	I'll never forget it. It's got to be...
	Man, close to five years now, if it's not five years, I got invited to one of my fraternity brother's weddings.
	And his dad was huge in the New York City Hollyweird scene in the sense that he was the head of the union that built the sets.
	So immediately when he got out of college, he'd already been working on huge movies like...
	Oh man, the one with Will Smith where he's the last man on earth.
	It's the remake of The Zero Man or whatever.
	I forget what it's called.
	That's just one of the many movies he worked on.
	My other friend, who I was a roommate with, in the beginning is a loose change.
	Well, loose change second edition was still being made.
	In one of the bedrooms, he was always around.
	We were just kind of learning Adobe Premiere, all those type of things.
	College dropout like myself.
	Wanted to get into Hollywood.
	No one believed he was going to do it.
	He did it. He did it.
	He got a job from my buddy.
	Started as a PA. He has now been the assistant director on huge features like A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.
	The Tom Hanks movie that's not really about Mr.
	Rogers, but as a peripheral character.
	Old Man and the Gun.
	The Green Knight is his most recent one, which...
	It's a mind-blowing film.
	Either you love it or you hate it.
	But I'll never forget I'm sitting there having a conversation with him at the wedding.
	And the wedding, he actually rented out a summer camp.
	So we're at this old summer camp.
	We're in bunks. It's a bunch of fraternity brothers.
	Hadn't seen each other in years.
	He starts talking to me.
	Essentially, about something that sounds like the Franklin scandal as a feature film he says he wants to do.
	At least it sounds that way to me.
	And he's telling me it's about this vigilante that is taking out high-level pedophiles with a ball-peen hammer.
	And I'm like, Tom, they're never going to let you make this movie.
	It's done, Bermas!
	It's done! I go, what?
	The Joaquin Phoenix movie, you were never really here.
	My buddy basically wrote that script.
	He gets some credit in the film, but not exactly what he deserved and not the assistant director.
	And I'm like, how the hell did you get this made?
	He's like, it wasn't easy.
	And then we also discussed True Detective.
	And the first season of True Detective.
	And he had actually had, I forget what the director's name and the creator, but he'd had some conversations with him.
	And he said, essentially, he wanted to make it even more hardcore, especially in the second season.
	And they pulled a lot of that out of there.
	And I think that's why he's not involved with the upcoming fourth season.
	I think they, you know, they basically had watered it down enough by the third season,
	even though the third season literally references the Franklin scandal in it by name and shows
	clippings of it.
	So that tells me, you know, on the outskirts of Hollywood, there are those that are very
	well aware of what's going on.
	There are those that are trying to bring some attention to this, but the overwhelming majority,
	I mean, that was a, that was a film that was carried by Amazon.
	Amazon was like one of their first originals.
	I mean, you got an A-list actor.
	The movie looks incredible.
	It does relatively well.
	If you look, I think, at its scores across the board, it's like 8.5 and above.
	Here's what's interesting to me about that.
	That's actually not that new.
	I mean, there's movies with Denzel Washington where he's doing something similar, where he's rescuing a child from kidnappers.
	I mean, there's Taken, right?
	I mean, these aren't that unique, right?
	What's interesting is that there's...
	So what we should really be dissecting is what's the difference, right?
	Why are those ones okay?
	And the ones... I think I already know the answer to this.
	And I think the reason you get these...
	One, if it's a documentary about the reality, that's not what they want people thinking about.
	about because I think you and I've even discussed the point of predictive
	programming and in the way that they use movies and TV and media in a way to
	release the truth in a lot of ways but in a way to undermine it, right? So when
	like for instance we make that joke about the X-Files reboot and it came out
	and they basically were like laid out. I still laugh about that when I watch it.
	I'm like my god that's just they just lay out the thing you know and it's like
	my god and so what's funny though is that then when you come out and you and
	you make an honest argument to somebody with information to show
	here's what's actually going on. Oh you heard that from X-Files, right? That's in their mind.
	Oh, that's that thing from X-Files.
	And so it's immediately dismissed, even if you have evidence.
	So my point would be that when you cut too close to it, and there's certain things that you...
	And you're working with the wrong people, that gets blacklisted, right?
	But I think some of these movies, I'd have to...
	I've actually not seen that with Joaquin Phoenix.
	Oh my god, dude! You've got to watch it!
	It's so good! I know that it's going to be very violent, and I know it's going to get into topics that I'm not always wanting to get into.
	Like, I have a real hard time watching Rape and stuff.
	I don't know why anybody wants to see that in a movie.
	Like, there's ways you can do that in a movie without showing...
	That stuff, always, I want to turn it off.
	But especially when it gets into the child trafficking stuff, it's really hard.
	Like, from Taken, that...
	That still haunts me.
	Seeing how that ended up, it really does.
	It sits with me. So I think I want to watch it just because it does look good and I think it's an important thing, whatever.
	But nonetheless... I bet you that there's probably stuff in there we could dissect to realize, okay, here's probably why they would allow it.
	Because one, it's perceived as fiction and that kind of thing, but I don't know.
	I didn't look through it to see, but that's just my thought on it.
	Well, I'll tell you this.
	The Joker stole so much from that film.
	I mean, the whole feel of the Joker is that movie.
	And by the way, Joker's alright.
	I had my issues with it.
	I think the whole thing is a fantasy and none of it actually occurred.
	It's all in his head. But...
	The Joaquin Phoenix movie so much better.
	And at the end, it kind of teeters on that fantasy aspect of it.
	Not as violent as I would have thought.
	I would have thought the same thing.
	It actually does a pretty good job stylizing the violence so it's not too much.
	But I agree with you. I have a big problem.
	Sometimes I'll watch... First of all, I'm a movie buff.
	I'm a pop culture buff.
	I watch a lot of 70s films.
	And I think that people that are kind of watching...
	Maybe got into cinema as the popcorn, 80s, hero, Rambo, Schwarzenegger.
	They don't realize how raw a lot of the 70s movies were.
	Rape is in a lot of films in there.
	Not just in horror films, by the way.
	I'm talking about dramas.
	I was watching, I think it was Bobby and Billy.
	I was just scrolling through it.
	I downloaded it. And it has a whole thing on group rape a couple of times.
	And it's not even a film about that.
	It's a film about a relationship between two people.
	It's in there a lot.
	I feel like it was way more pervasive in that culture in the 70s and the 80s.
	We started to stomp it out and say, hey...
	You know, this is a serious crime and we're not just going to poo-poo it and we're going to start putting people away.
	But we never got to that point with kids.
	Have you noticed? And that was always very troubling to me.
	Like, I never understood in the very beginning when I was a teenager and it started to come out that the Catholic Church was involved in high-level pedophilia.
	Why aren't these guys in prison?
	Why are they being moved around?
	And it's not until much later that you find out, like you said, that this is like an inbuilt feature of the power structure.
	And the higher someone goes, the more incentive there is to protect that person because you have to protect the overall power structure and infrastructure of this business, which is very profitable, Ryan.
	Right. And I think that it's, you know...
	I'm of the mind with someone like Epstein and the things we've seen that there is entities, an entire network that facilitates in particular things like this, things that get much darker than what we're even talking about.
	But I also think that it's not, you know, I think there's different levels of this, right?
	We have people in power that may come, you know, maybe not even aware that they're dealing with certain people that also deal in this because they're just going to that person for, you know, things that are Dramatically less dark on the scale, but still things that are black market behind the scenes that powerful people want to get to, you know, whatever that may mean.
	And so we just have to realize that this is, again, it's like talking about the concept of trafficking or slavery as if these things are post, like we're in some modern time that doesn't exist anymore.
	It's just ridiculous, right?
	All these things still exist and the powerful are catered to by somebody.
	If you've got the wealth and the resources and the wherewithal, you can make anything happen.
	Assassinations, anything.
	You know, and that's another topic, by the way, that it's just so frustrating that we pretend like that's just beyond us.
	Like, I mean, right now Pompeo's getting focused for just the open discussions of assassinating Julian Assange.
	And it's not some unique thing.
	This is constantly on the table.
	And even worse, it's not even the government's really in my mind that are the focus that happens.
	But it's these multinational conglomerates out there, these gigantic corporations that get away that are arguably more powerful than the governments.
	I mean, I believe that. But they utilize the governments and their agencies for cover-ups, if not the black ops themselves.
	Because you spoke about assassinations, this is a breaking story that I just saw over the last 48 hours.
	and think about how far away from this event we are.
	Second shooter behind John Lennon murder.
	New evidence reveals bullets from two different guns were pulled from Beatles legend's body in the autopsy
	in the autopsy and they actually present the autopsy right here.
	and they actually present the autopsy right here.
	Now obviously for years people have suspected or theorized that Mark David Chapman may have
	been under mind control.
	The FBI, there's the FBI and John Lennon, great documentary.
	You know it doesn't infer anything other than the fact that the FBI was all over this guy.
	Just like they were all over MLK Jr. and you'd think if they were surveilling him he would
	be protected and yet this happens.
	And now if you found two different bullet types from two different guns that certainly
	doesn't suggest that Mark David Chapman was bad bad.
	Yes that something else happened in the early 80s literally at the beginning of my lifetime.
	Here we are 40 plus years later.
	This isn't a headline.
	This isn't all over NBC, ABC, Fox News.
	And this guy was a literal cultural icon for decades.
	There are documentaries just about him and the anti-war and peace movement.
	And yet here we are in 2023.
	How is this not a significant story other than the fact that we now live in a post-truth world with massive narrative control?
	Yeah, well, I mean, I think we've always lived in that, but you're right.
	I think they're just leaning into this at this point.
	But what's interesting to me is, I mean, I'm in a similar stance, though.
	Like, I see this.
	And the first thought I have is, okay, well, is there some kind of new information?
	Right? Like, what motivated somebody?
	Or are they just combing through the information that's always been there?
	And if that's the case, then why is this only coming out now?
	You know, it either shows you a very clear, controlled flow of information where they're dripping this out now to get us to go, oh, and bat at the new cat toy they dangle in front of us, right?
	Or there's something new that came out.
	And so, why?
	Why are they continuing to investigate this old story?
	It rings hollow to me.
	It doesn't feel real, right?
	And if it is, like, the real question is, well, that's like the JFK argument, right?
	I think I'm going to argue, well, let's see, it's a hard one to say that, but let's just say your opinion may be that we can't prove that he was assassinated, right?
	I think we all generally have just come to accept that that's the reality, right?
	It's an interesting thing that's happened, you know?
	And you take polls.
	It's like 90% of the country.
	We know this, right? The Warren Report is like the 9-11 report.
	We all know these things are fake, right?
	And I think the evidence has come out pretty strongly.
	But yet, it still kind of drifts along.
	We don't get more information.
	And so it's the same kind of a thing, you know?
	It's like with him, I think people are pretty aware that some foul play took place here, you know?
	And I think these are efforts to keep you dangling along While in real time we already have things like people should be in jail right now for what happened with the COVID scam.
	People should be in jail right now for what they're still doing in East Palestine.
	People should be in prison right now for what they're currently doing in Ukraine.
	Like we can prove these things.
	The Hunter Biden laptop, right?
	But yet they're like, aliens!
	She's looking at this old story from 40.
	It's like, really? And people are taking it.
	But we shouldn't ignore these things.
	I put it aside.
	I'll look at it at some point.
	But it should not be that focused to me.
	But I'm interested.
	I'll probably look at it at some point. I want to get to the 9-11 report and the Warren Commission in a second.
	But what interested me a lot about this is that it was an author and TV producer, David Whelan.
	Okay, and I had Richard Andrew Grove on my broadcast for a premium interview like this one
	And then I did his show and I can't remember which one he brought it up on
	But somehow I brought up John Lennon and being shot in the head and he goes or he was shot in the chest
	According to David Whelan. I'm like really?
	I hadn't heard that before.
	And I'm not sure if they interviewed Whelan weeks or months ago or whatever, but it was after that.
	Again, I hadn't looked much into it.
	I was just like, huh, that is interesting that maybe the autopsy showed something different.
	Then this story comes out, and it's not just shot in a different place.
	It's that they pulled two bullets from him.
	I'm very interested to see what project this guy's doing for sure.
	Right, so if you've read this, tell me, so why didn't people know this?
	So the big story to me before even reading this, if it's true, is that we just proved, if it's true again, that they covered this up.
	I mean, if it's the same old autopsy report, they knew about it then.
	Well, this isn't an autopsy report.
	I think this is a police report, not the official autopsy report.
	So it is official documents, but he said, basically, from the article, and again, I haven't Looked too much into it.
	Just looked at the document. I was like, damn.
	That it was a three-year investigation.
	This guy did all sorts of FOIAs, went through the old stuff, and unearthed this document that seems to be 100% legitimate.
	But I would agree with you.
	Why does it take 43 years for us to find this out?
	Well, I think it's obvious the question answers itself, right?
	I mean, with the intent, we don't know.
	But if this was there, somebody involved chose to keep it under wraps.
	And that's authority. That's either police, government, I mean somebody.
	Because it wasn't like this. This isn't a new report.
	As if, again, just going off what we've already discussed.
	I haven't read this.
	But it looks, you can see the report itself is old.
	You can see it in the image, right? So it's very clear.
	We shouldn't be under the impression that our government lies to us as a matter of policy.
	And we should know that they lie about things they commit.
	They lie about things that are about their allies they don't want us to know about.
	That's all this is to me. It just bolsters the idea that he was assassinated, right?
	I mean, that's what it says to me.
	But also, here's another interesting thing to think about.
	I would argue they would be willing to inadvertently prove like this that they did it to get us
	distracted from what's going on today.
	Because they already know that we know these things like JFK, right?
	Like it's an interesting thing to think about.
	I mean, especially with the level of corruption with the current administration and Burisma.
	And I know that so many people are thinking that indictment was timed for the same day
	that more Burisma evidence was released.
	You had five different whistleblowers saying they wanted physical protection after that
	latest report came out to almost no media coverage whatsoever in the mainstream.
	Even on Fox, everybody.
	No in-depth stuff on Fox.
	You know, they just have their little talking points and their buzzwords.
	But you mentioned something that I think is really important.
	The Warren Commission and the 9-11 Commission have this thread called Lee Hamilton.
	Okay? You know, among other things.
	But Lee Hamilton, young guy during the Warren Commission, a part of it.
	He ends up being the...
	Head of the 9-11 Commission with Thomas Keene, with Philip Zelikow, as oversight.
	And even during that time period, the majority of mainstream media that lauded it still had to admit at the end all the questions weren't answered.
	Within three to four years, you started seeing The New Yorker and others publish.
	It was a whitewash. No kidding.
	Keene and Hamilton, we have it in our film, or in my film, I think it's in Loose Change Final Cut, had actually said some of the testimony warranted an indictment or was, you know, criminally covering it up.
	And, you know, Keene gets asked that question and he laughs and goes, I don't think...
	I don't think we ever categorized it that way.
	And then Hamilton comes in and he goes, I'd never correct my partner here, but we did.
	And then they laugh it up! It's friggin' hilarious!
	Well, the dark cartoon continues and the joke continues to be on us with this new COVID war report.
	You know, our government couldn't do it, but we brought in the mainstream media and Philip Zelikow, the same guy that oversaw the 9-11 commission, so that we can have more tests, more authoritarianism, and fix the problems of the COVID-1984 nightmare without addressing...
	That it's a biologically created organism from a lab by every account at this point that believes that their sequencing is true anyway.
	You know, I see more and more things coming out about the hate and lie shot.
	Whether they're true or not, I'm really not qualified.
	But the latest thing that I've seen that is alarming is that again...
	These are molecularly printed bio-nanotechnology with CureVac and Tesla.
	And there's one individual that claims that the sequence for SV40, simian virus 40, something that was in the polio vaccines and they got in trouble for it.
	Is in the sequence for these shots.
	If that's the case, that's premeditated murder.
	Okay? Yeah, this goes into the DNA contamination.
	Dr. McKernan has been really breaking this down.
	And last I checked on this, I just showed this again, and possibly it was yesterday or the day before, that this has gone beyond him now.
	So his study is undeniable.
	Peer-reviewed, it's very clear.
	But now apparently it's been picked up, and I think three other, at least multiple locations around the world are finding the same thing.
	The lady who was presenting this, she has her doctorate in the, I forget exactly what field, but the relevant field, and she's basically laying this out.
	She's saying in some cases it can be up to a third of the material in these files.
	I mean, to me, I'm like, that's almost impossible to believe.
	But, you know, I think we need to realize at this point that this is, as you're saying, this is deliberate at some level.
	I mean, I don't even, I'm not saying I can prove that.
	But my personal opinion, based on everything we've seen, I mean, my God, how many things can you mistakenly do, just let's say, you know, do the wrong way that perfectly aligns to cause the maximum problem in the search?
	Like, everything that happened, I mean, I pointed this out the other day, everything they told us in the beginning, every single thing about this, every one of them has changed.
	Either completely proven to be false, or the opposite, you know, some far distant from what they told us.
	You know, safe and effective, stop transmission, you know, everything.
	It's just really crazy to see.
	And so this is about, you know, this then opens that door again to, you know, graphene oxide.
	Is there something else in there that we don't know about?
	Like, it's a valid point to ask these things.
	But the DNA part of it is, you know, we're worried about the DNA trans, uh, transfection, you know, the genome.
	And it's like, well, that it's, it's not, we're not talking about some byproducts here, but this is inside the injection material or the, you know, the vial itself.
	And so that's leading to all sorts of crazy things.
	Like you're talking about autoimmune problems.
	In addition to what we discussed, uh, all, uh, what did she say?
	Uh, uh, fertility problems.
	I mean, Basically, everything else is causing.
	You know, it's weird how they all seem to point in the same direction.
	I'm going to be talking today probably about endocrine disruptors and that same point, you know, and how this all seems to be leading in the same direction.
	Well, I had not seen your work on the SV40 thing, but I did see that presentation.
	And again, it's just...
	I've only taken it from her, by the way, so I haven't researched the SV40 specifically, but she mentions it in that discussion about how that's one of the things, and she even says...
	You'll remember this for those of us that took the polio shot.
	So you're absolutely right. I will be looking into that more.
	I mean, that raised so many alarm bells because when I first went to InfoWars and I had that discussion with Jones, I still, from my indoctrination, was like, come on, could they possibly be lying about climate change?
	And come on, do they hate us that much?
	They'd inject us with poison.
	And he immediately said, hey...
	Just look into SV40, look into the polio shot, and come back to me.
	I'm like, okay. So not only did I find cases in which, you know, people took the shot, got cancer, and won in court, there was one case that just blew my mind.
	And it was that their infant had been injected.
	They had not.
	And that they had contracted cancer from changing their diapers and won in court.
	So I want people to understand that, that a court, way before the vaccine courts existed, you're talking, I believe, a case in the early 50s, if my memory serves me correctly.
	And I'm reading this and I'm like, oh my god!
	You know, this is terribly potent stuff and would make sense for a rise in cancer like we never saw in the 70s and 80s and through today.
	Right. You know, because, you know, they were telling us, I mean, I know you come from my generation, that we were going to stomp disease out by the turn of the century.
	We're going to cure all sorts of cancers.
	I'm promising that right now again, right?
	Oh, it's a moonshot!
	Cancer moonshot! Exactly.
	They're recycling the same lies.
	And instead, it's not just the opposite of what they said.
	It's multitude times more dangerous and more prevalent to the point now it's like one out of two.
	Not one out of ten.
	Not two out of ten. One out of two people that will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.
	And if we go along this trend, it's going to be three out of four.
	And then four out of five.
	And then nine out of ten, Ryan.
	I mean, if you look at the graphs and the progression, that's where we're headed.
	And in many cases, you can't tell that to people.
	Or you tell it to people and they're completely dismissive.
	Yeah, what are you going to do?
	Yeah. So that'll bring me to the latest Trump video, where he says he's going after Big Pharma.
	He never uses the V-word to try to protect himself for what he did with warp speed.
	But at the same time, he talks about autoimmune disorders.
	He talks about...
	Autism. You know, he's got all the right buzzwords.
	Right. And for me, I was like, you know, this is his PR talking point, mea culpa.
	I'm sorry about the shots.
	I can't say I'm sorry about the shots.
	But instead of partnering with Pfizer this time and partnering with Moderna and giving Google, because he's, our good friends at Google, they're going to help.
	And big tech. Now you're on the opposing side.
	And I think that, you know, As U.S. citizens, as human beings, we have to point that hypocrisy out, whether the establishment is going after Trump or not.
	They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
	It can be the same thing.
	All that matters is truth, guys.
	I mean, the idea that you would even internally decide to not call something out because it's the— I mean, that just shows you the truth's not your primary objective, right?
	And so for me on this, I made the same point.
	I tweeted out about this, that he— Talking about, we're going to investigate all these childhood problems, and he makes a point to say for the last decade, which is correct.
	We know that. It's been going on long before the COVID-19 shot.
	But of course, the reasoning, and then I pointed out, okay, well, the main point is that the predominant problem, even including these old shots, which we can see on Bears, is due to the things he still pretends are a success, that he won't look into, that his entire hubris and career and reputation is all staked on.
	So it's just so frustrating that they'll come out and make this Half-hearted argument to investigate what they were just a part of.
	But here's the craziest part. You know well, you know, whatever, you know, it was Q at one point and still is, by the way.
	It's amazing that it still exists. But that we have people that are going to support him under the assumption, and it will be an entire assumption that, well, he knows, right?
	Q has told us he knows already.
	He's realized he's wrong, but he can't say it now because then he would lose, right?
	So he's going to pretend that he doesn't see it, but then when he can end it, it'll all go back and we'll change it, fix all the problems in the world, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And it's like, my God, man, how can we keep falling for this?
	Why do you want a savior?
	Why are we assuming about what, you know, he's saying what he means?
	I mean, if we've gotten this long so far, it's like, Remember the argument was, oh, give him two years.
	After the first two years, then everything's going to change.
	And here we are.
	Nothing changed. It's just so frustrating.
	Politics and the two-party paradigm are going to kill us.
	I swear. So I guess that's a good point to lead us into 2024.
	Obviously, by now, usually the cycle is heated up where we're starting to talk about the first debates.
	Which is so crazy, two years out.
	We're not quite two years out now.
	We're literally, what, I believe five and twelve, so 17 months.
	We're less than 18 months away, right?
	So naturally, the votes...
	I remember when we started seeing the debates right around that one and a half year mark two cycles ago, 2016, 2012.
	Even in 2008, they started having those early either town halls, which we are seeing on
	CNN and then the debates.
	So far, I haven't seen any plans for either Republican or a Democratic debate.
	I believe that the establishment is going to try to snuff Trump out of the Republican
	debates.
	DeSantis is clearly the front runner with leading neocon talking points to be spread
	out throughout the debates if they happen with people like Nikki Haley, Michael Pence.
	I know, Nikki Haley's like the worst.
	She's such a joke. Oh man, she's so terrible, dude.
	I watched some of that town hall on CNN. It was very, very difficult.
	But, you know what?
	It's really interesting. To the point on the town hall with Trump where, you know, he ends up looking like a rock star with little Leslie Stahl, like the imitator next to her.
	No, no, blah, blah, blah.
	I saw a thread of one of the audience members that was in there.
	And he was like, you know, what really upset me is not only did the moderator...
	It wasn't that the moderator challenged him.
	It was the amount of time the moderator took from people that wanted to ask questions and how the people who wanted to ask questions about the vaccines and the response to COVID weren't allowed to ask those questions.
	Of course not. Never got there.
	So even in something that...
	You know, the masses believe that Trump dominated.
	It was hard for even CNN or MSNBC to spin that he had failed there.
	Most of them instead went with the route, why did CNN even give him a platform?
	Why did they even allow him to talk?
	And by the way, that guy had to resign.
	Ha! He didn't even last a year over there.
	Chris Licht, he's out! He's out!
	I don't know what his intentions were, but I see a lot of rebranding over there.
	I mean, you gotta realize, Chris Cuomo has his own show now, talking a lot like Trump over at Dan Abrams Network with Bill O'Reilly and those folks.
	I see a reshuffling of the appearance of the media, but the media narrative staying the same, right?
	And really getting worse now that they've gotten rid of the only guy that was telling even a semblance of truth, whether you liked him or hate him.
	And by the way, I have my problems with the Tuckins, especially on the alien issue, which we'll get to in a moment.
	And especially on the alien issue, because every time he seems to bring it up, including in his last web broadcast, what's he talk about?
	JFK, real.
	9-11, real.
	Jeffrey Epstein, not killing himself twice, real.
	And then we get to UFOs and aliens and some whistleblower that doesn't even really exist and isn't a whistleblower.
	He's another one of these guys that's on the UAP program that's not telling us any firsthand accounts of craft he saw or aliens he saw, but he talked to some people high up that told him.
	And I'm sorry, that's not enough, especially the way that the headlines are everywhere.
	And then, in the same week, we get that really bizarre video of what is said to be a green asteroid.
	I have no idea. Could be.
	And then a family that swears to God there's some kind of a crash in their backyard or landing in their backyard and eight to ten foot beings.
	Which these things happen all over the world, every day, all the time.
	Like, the fact is that the media is now pointing at it.
	That's the interesting part. This family said this over here.
	Well, guess what? NASA scientists have said more than once that they can prove to you that ships are using the rings of Jupiter to charge their ships.
	I'm not making that up, by the way. That's a real thing.
	That was years ago.
	So there's been multiple presidents that have admitted this.
	It's very ridiculous. It's clear that they're just going, OK, now we're going to start pointing at it.
	It's like Epstein. You're fake news.
	You're crazy. You're a conspiracy theorist.
	Oh, Epstein's real. The media is only a controlled flow of information.
	That's all they've ever been.
	And your point about the other places?
	It's the same thing. I mean, they're reshuffling because they are trying to take over what we have built over the last 10 years.
	It went from you guys are a bunch of fringe conspiracy theorists in your mother's basements to them desperately trying to carve out a corner from what we've built because they're losing the information war.
	They're now primed off what we talk about every day.
	Everyone's seeing this now. So they're trying to restructure.
	News Nation and all this different, it's just corporate media.
	Tucker on Twitter, it's corporate media, guys.
	That's what this is. What do you think Twitter is?
	What is its biggest platform?
	This is corporate media.
	And it's not independent by any stretch of the imagination.
	Twitter is not on your side.
	Have we forgotten that already? We just went through the fake Twitter files and now we're like, yay, Twitter and Tucker.
	And my point I joked about was, if all we've got to do to pretend that everything's back on your side is to come out and say, JFK, aliens, 9-11.
	It's Trump's speech all over again, man.
	It's like, my God. Now, you know what?
	As I said, I hope he comes out and fights for everybody.
	Like, I hope Trump does. I hope RFK will.
	I always hope for the best, but I just don't buy it.
	And I'll wait for facts, you know?
	But back to your original point, and we can go, any one of those you want, is the election.
	I thought it was interesting. You know, I wanted to point out that I think it's absurd.
	It's a small point, but it really does show you how little they care about what they pretend their job is.
	It was well before two years.
	That they were already kind of beginning the talks about the election.
	They were already starting to put out some ads.
	You know, yes, we're closer now, but it started well before two years.
	Think about how dumb that is. So there's two years, especially for someone like Biden or whoever's in the presidency.
	So you're telling me now you're going to begin your campaign two years out?
	And so at the very least, no matter how you spin it, you're going to be lessening your efforts and time for your job.
	Just the small thing of conducting the American play.
	Really? But yeah, that's what happens, right?
	Well, I'd be concerned if the guy was actually running anything.
	But it's so obvious he's not.
	And then what's even more obvious...
	Listen, I totally get that point because that was something that...
	That was... One of the most odd things and different things, like truly different things about the Trump presidency is he never stopped running.
	Like you thought the rallies were going to end.
	Because Trump pulls the mask off. Because they all do it.
	He's just going, fuck it, I'm just going to do what you got.
	Oh, it's about the oil.
	Oh, shh, shh, shh, don't say that.
	Clearly, he just goes, whatever.
	And that's why, to some degree, I actually appreciate that.
	You know, it's like, if you're going to do the thing, just tell me, be who, you know, lie about it.
	Or rather, don't lie about it, just do it, because you're going to do it anyway.
	At the very least, we have an honest engagement, then we can discuss it, we can critique it.
	When they come out and we're like, it's about freedom, then we have to wade through all the ridiculous people out there that buy that, first of all.
	You know, I mean, it's a whole point we can go into, but that's...
	I like that about him at the very least.
	I mean, I also...
	I liked how he pulled the mask off.
	I just, again...
	I hate it at the same time.
	Well, I mean, it's tough because...
	Look, man. I'm not into cult figures, right?
	But you can't deny the guy's popularity.
	And the guy was literally having a rally every three months, bare minimum.
	Throughout his presidency. Sometimes more than that.
	Okay? Very smart on his end.
	It gave fodder, though, to the other side that relatively has the narrative control or the massive amount of meetings.
	This is a cult. Look at his cult followers.
	There's cultists. And, of course, he had those Bernaysian talking points.
	They work for elections, but they work on the other side where all of a sudden you're wearing a MAGA hat.
	You want to make America great again?
	Bigot. Racist.
	White supremacist.
	And then they exposed themselves as a cult.
	So I think this is why they're realizing the game of excusing Trump of the thing they're all doing, it keeps biting them in the ass.
	They're just exposing their hand when they do that, and I think we keep realizing that, or they keep realizing that.
	I see it. It's just such a weird place we're in right now because not only do you have the weird E. Gene Carroll lawsuit that went through that he wasn't convicted on the major charges, but some of the others, and it was such a wild...
	Listen, again, I said it before he got elected.
	The guy's a womanizer. No doubt about it.
	I mean... If you don't think he's a misogynist and a womanizer, again, you did not follow Trump for decades.
	He was very open about all that stuff.
	That's why I wasn't bothered by the grab him by the you-know-what comment.
	Couldn't have cared less. So you had that about him.
	Like, the Stormy Daniels thing, there was no doubt.
	Anybody that was denying that to me, I'm like, you're not in reality, okay?
	He slept with that woman and he paid her.
	So let's just stop.
	Either you accept that or you don't.
	Just stop it with the cognitive dissonance of such obvious behavior.
	This is a guy that ran beauty pageants of teenage girls for years.
	This is a guy that had three separate wives and was notorious for affairs.
	This is a guy that probably has more children than we know about.
	In fact, one of the things they don't discuss...
	About this new Stormy Daniels case, which is another one of these cases that's outside of the...
	Latest indictment is there are two other people that are involved in it.
	Another woman that claims to have been paid off for a sexual relationship with Trump.
	And a doorman who didn't even know he was part of the case, but had allegedly shaken Trump down for a love child.
	And whether he was paid off or that was real, he's now said, oh, I'm not part of this case and I don't know anything about a love child.
	But those were the three things.
	And we never hear about the love child.
	It's all porn star.
	It's all Stormy Daniels.
	It's all...
	He's a bad guy, right?
	Well, here's what's interesting about the case that happened, you know, the trial or whatever, the civil trial, right?
	Is that, you know, the two-party illusion serves its purpose as always.
	I don't know the reality of it.
	I don't think anybody honest would say that they do unless they were there or they've, you know, whatever.
	Even the information could be falsified.
	So the point is that we see this case come out.
	As you said, anybody honest can gauge what you just said.
	Clearly, it kind of lines up, right?
	But we don't know, you know? And so the case goes forward, and as you're right, it didn't end up charging for rape, but there was clearly charges where they said, yes, he did something to her.
	I forget what the actual charges were, but it was something sexual.
	And so he lost, right?
	I mean, that's what happened. They said, yes, you're guilty of these things.
	And of course, then you get the right media that comes out and says nothing's real.
	You get the left that comes out and says, he probably raped her 45 times.
	I'm just kind of joking. And then the truth gets lost in the middle.
	And so you get everybody who's aggressively wrong other than people that are beginning to wake up from this, which I continue to argue is the growing majority.
	But it's just so infuriating to deal with this.
	That's just constantly pumping out fake information in both ways, and people just gobble it up.
	It's the team sport politics, you know?
	But that's what I'm always striving to get past, man.
	That's why I think it's important that we always do what we're doing now, you know?
	Have this engaged conversation and discuss both sides of this and realize that it's usually somewhere in the middle.
	So then, what are your thoughts, man?
	I mean, I think he's, obviously, his intention is to run.
	I think he's going to have three more criminal investigations, aka trials, going on.
	Right in the heart of the campaign.
	Which will probably make it more popular.
	It probably will, but the problem is that when you have control, like you said, Twitter has not changed.
	It may have the appearance. The bar is so low that the guy that now tells you it's okay to speak freely, but we're still going to censor you.
	Freedom of speech, not reach.
	That's the hero, right?
	The number one defense contractor.
	The number one transhumanist.
	That's the bar. That's how low we've got.
	The fact that they... The source codes showed that the FBI and intelligence agencies still had a backdoor to de-boost anybody they wanted at any time.
	The fact that I had to buy a blue checkmark so I could put my show on because they got rid of the media creator studio and not one of my posts has been boosted because I've got a blue checkmark.
	No one's seeing my stuff more as they promised.
	That's all bullshit.
	That's not real.
	Unless you're pushing conservatism or liberalism, okay, or a flavor of one or the other, you're not boosted, period.
	You know this. You know how hard it is that you make anonymous accounts with 1 5th, 1 20th.
	Of the amount of followers you have, and they get more traction than your old accounts.
	That's not by mistake.
	That's narrative management.
	That's algorithmic control.
	And now, it's what they're calling artificial intelligence, which to me is anything but.
	It is algorithmically controlled narrative management.
	And to me, that's why it was at the top of the Bilderberg agenda this year.
	Yeah, yeah, no, I agree.
	But, I mean, I think there's a conversation to be had.
	I mean, it really comes down to the definition of what we think artificial intelligence means.
	If we're talking the singularity, you know, sentient being, then obviously I agree with you.
	I think they're clearly, as Whitney's written about, you know, they clearly want us to think that either we're right there or it's already happened and they're hiding it from us.
	I don't believe either of those things.
	I think that they're continuing to like that's one of the reasons why and there's a lot of kind of out there theories
	we can Get into about the injection and different things, but that's
	why I think they're Desperately trying to kind of map using Twitter map the way
	our brains work map the way we interact with each other on a large
	worldwide scale because they have to understand how Reproduce that's what it means, right
	You're trying to create a fully functional, sentient, independent consciousness, right?
	And I just don't think they're there.
	But even Eric Schmidt's come out and said in podcasts that, you know, one day we're going to get to a point to where AI is going to be telling us what to do.
	And they may say things that we think are immoral or bad, but we have to trust it, like paraphrasing.
	But he literally said something almost identical to that.
	And they're seeding this very aggressively right now.
	So it scares me where this goes.
	But I agree with you. I don't think we're there yet, but I think that's what all of this is about, both the injection discussion and what maybe is going on in our bodies.
	I mean, that's something we shouldn't be shying away from asking.
	I can't prove that, other than the nanotechnology in these directions and the new shots coming out, ferret and spike protein platforms.
	I mean, it's just crazy, but also the actual background of the technology that we've talked about.
	You know, the Robert Langer, Charles Lieber, the overlap there, the actual brain-machine interface technology, that's all the same stuff, but as well as the The nanoparticle delivery system, right?
	The implantable mesh monitoring biosurveillance.
	This is all the same thing.
	The injection ties back to all of this stuff, or rather, I should say, the injection's one part.
	Like, I actually am now beginning to feel that the injection itself was an experiment, and the injection was just the current vehicle that was used, and we're building past that now.
	They're still going forward with the platforms and all of this stuff, but I'm telling you, man, we're One moment away from them introducing things that we already know are there.
	The implantable biosurveillance stuff and, you know, the actual injectable nanotechnology gene therapy overlap where it's like, hey, we can do this and, you know, like really to the point to where it can change how you think and act and, you know, your abilities.
	These are real conversations, you know?
	I mean, to some people, they're rolling their eyes right now.
	Well, they can roll their eyes all they want.
	They openly discuss this fourth industrial revolution, which goes from the Internet of Things, which is already clearly here, to the Internet of Bodies, mRNA.
	And the Internet of Nanothings. Have you seen that?
	I wasn't even aware of that until like a month and a half ago, and I saw this and was like, holy shit, it's not new.
	It's called the Internet of Nanothings.
	It's the same concept, but literally in regard to your nanotechnology, your nanobots, both internally and out of your body.
	It's addressed right in the documentation.
	So then you can have nanotechnology, which you might not even be aware is in your body, that is connected to the internet, to somebody in some DARPA lab, right?
	I mean, that really keeps me up at night.
	Well, again, the aerosolized stuff, how would we ever know?
	And I continually play this clip of Howard Scott, the founder of Technocracy, Inc., where in one breath he talks about, oh, I knew Margaret Singer.
	I knew her. She was right down the block.
	And then he begins to talk about, you know, we have birth control, but that's not really birth control.
	You know, that's voluntary.
	So what we need to do is we need to get into the water supplies or the food supplies.
	And he talks about the exact amount of rat poison.
	That they could add to the water supply that would be undetectable and have all mammals, not just human beings, unable to reproduce until they took it away.
	And then he talked about how the Russians had already done that with candy at some point.
	This is a 1973 interview.
	If you haven't seen it, I've got to send it your way.
	It's absolutely wild.
	I sometimes have a hard time believing some of these older...
	But I'm very interested.
	It wouldn't surprise me at all if it happened that long ago.
	Send me, please. I'm pretty sure it's 73.
	The fun thing.
	The fun thing about this.
	Is that it's an audio conversation with him and somebody else, and they kind of laugh about it.
	You know, they think it's funny.
	But continually throughout, they actually show stock footage of Technocracy, Inc., and where it was located, and the neighborhood it was in, and what it was promoting.
	And the idea of transhumanism has now been around a very long time.
	They feel its time has come.
	I really did believe during the COVID-1984 nightmare that them separating us, Facial ability to communicate with one another, to stay away from other human beings, was a lead to transhumanism.
	And then, when the hate and lie shots were so obviously bio-nanotechnology, I go, this is more transhumanism.
	They're not going to tell you what it is until years later and say, oh no, you've already changed your DNA. And we saw that.
	That took about 18 months after the shots were instituted for mainstream media being like, yeah, it does change your DNA, but so what?
	It's for the better. Gotcha.
	Gotcha. Well, and see, and this gets into so many concerning things, you know, about what that means.
	I've interviewed Dr.
	Jessica Rose, Ph.D., and plenty of others about the truncated spike protein and all these different things, and now, again, with the DNA contamination.
	And the bottom line, the question should be, if these things are changing us genetically with something that we now know is, in fact, provably modified, which means it's patented, Let's just take one example.
	We're talking about that people still don't know these things, which is mind-blowing.
	We're not dealing with mRNA injections.
	These are modified RNA injections.
	Mod-RNA. It says it right in their documentation.
	They just use mRNA because it's simpler, I guess, but it's a lie is what it is.
	It's not organic and bio-lite.
	They make this. It is N1-methyl-pseudouridine-modified RNA. That's what it is.
	That's from their own documentation.
	And so the point is, this is a patented concept.
	Now, if that ends up in your body and ends up integrating with your genome, are you patentable?
	Are you owned? In other words, are you owned by that patent?
	Are you now property? Well, no, I mean, that's a different argument, I would say.
	Or is your biology their property?
	My point would be, so you could be under that patent.
	My point would be, though, could you then be patented secondarily?
	Like, you're now a new thing, right?
	And this is how this actually works.
	Now, again, these things are really crazy for some people.
	But I'm not saying I believe this is necessarily happening right now,
	but I can prove to you with their own documentation, their own discussions, think tanks,
	that this is something that's a very real conversation.
	That they've already ruled that you can patent living things, but they stop at a full human being.
	But the point is, if you can prove, and this has already been fleshed out,
	that that's not necessarily an organic human being, whatever that means.
	But of course, when they wrote these things, they're thinking, you know,
	a hundred, you know, a thousand years from now, it's happening right now, technically speaking.
	We saw this with Monsanto, right? And their seeds and all this difference. It's a very real thing.
	So that's one thing to think about. And that scares me, but who knows if that's 10, 20 years,
	50 years or tomorrow, you know, it's a real concept.
	But we know that you and I have talked about a lot of these different angles.
	We've talked about the transgender conversation as kind of a precursor to normalizing the transhuman technocracy direction.
	Let me read you something.
	Let me just read you something.
	So from the author of From Transgender to Transhuman, Martine Rothblatt, the most powerful transgender person on the planet, in my opinion.
	Comes Unzipped Genes from 1997.
	Let me read you a little passage from 106.
	And I mean, every time I read this, it just blows me away.
	Because what you just said, this is 1997, taking charge of baby making in the new millennium.
	And by the way, the subchapters here of Unzipped Genes are talking about the good eugenics.
	You know what the good eugenics is called, Ryan?
	Eugenics. How about transgenic creationism?
	My Perfect Monster, page 69.
	How transgenics works.
	Should we fear transgenics?
	And then it's followed up by the bioethics of birth.
	This passage here.
	Just close your eyes and think about the agenda that's being pushed in 97.
	A transsexual Chinese couple...
	You know, because there's so many transsexual Chinese couples in the late 90s, everybody.
	I mean, want to have hermaphroditic children so they can enjoy the pleasures of both sexes.
	The portion of the gene sequence that turns on male sexual characteristics is added to a sperm carrying only an X chromosome.
	The resultant child has both male and female reproductive traits.
	They're advocating in here not only that a Chinese-style society or citizens are going full tranny.
	They're getting together.
	They're deciding to have a kid.
	They're not going to have the kid traditionally.
	And they're going to make...
	The kid a freak.
	And that's okay because it's going to be on their sexual pleasure.
	That's insanity.
	And that's what they're trying to push as promoting it.
	The same people that tell you there are billions of sexes or an infinite amount of genders.
	And ultimately, it is to confuse your biology, in my opinion.
	It's also to take away your humanity and what's left of our spirituality, of our belief in a higher power, whether that's Jesus Christ or Or Allah.
	Or any multitude of major religions.
	Or even minor ones. Just the idea that you could connect with something outside of what we see, hear, feel, and smell every day.
	That's a big problem for me because then you are talking about humans as gods or science as gods or humans that control the science as the gods and ultimately that's where I think they want transhumanism to lead is a bifurcation of the species.
	These people being able to biologically live forever as they experiment and On the populace with what allows them to do that, as they also integrate the human populace into different types of mechanics.
	Mechanical technology, whether or not that's hard computing or like you've talked about bio-nanotechnology, injectables, and change that species in a way that they're just ready to upload.
	That they also believe that they're not part of a bigger thing, that there is no connection with your biological family anymore, and that ultimately you'll be able to live forever in whatever the metaverse or the multiverse becomes digitally.
	And these people are sitting there chuckling it up because they'll be able to hook into that whenever they want, but they'll be able to come out.
	We won't be able to come out.
	We'll essentially be culled and basically convinced into euthanizing ourselves.
	And I brought that point up with Ian Crossland.
	That's where I think this ends up going.
	And that's because I have read Rothblatt.
	And I have read Kurzweil.
	And although Kurzweil in 1999 with the Age of Spiritual Machines argued that we would create entities that would simply convince us that they were conscious.
	Not that they would be conscious.
	He immediately talks about non-carbon-based life and how that's the future.
	Well, if non-carbon-based life is the future, the rest of us, we ain't got one, Ryan.
	Yeah. Well, what's interesting is, and we can kind of end on this point, is I think Matt Arrett just put an article not too long ago out about one of the arguments being made here is that what we're seeing is the same ruling structure that's always been there for centuries.
	Right. And then a long time ago, they got together.
	And, you know, this is obviously a very truncated thing of a very long process of time, but kind of worked in the convinced us that we were somehow putting them in power when really they were just, you know, the international, like, supranational concept kind of just pulled back, got, you know, went behind the scenes.
	We have these fake puppet political discussions.
	And the argument is today the same kind of eugenicists, the ones behind the eugenics in the United States that was later in Nazi Germany, you know, the same kind of, these are the same people that have always been driving these things are now deciding that they're ready to step back out of the shadows, right?
	So now what you're seeing is this kind of grouping that is, that's the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the world, you know, the kind of global, forming global government.
	And these are the same entities that have always kind of been there pulling the strings with their lobbying and whatever else and all the You know, the CFRs, there's different conversations we could have in these influential groups.
	But you can see they're now coming back out.
	They're saying, no, now we need to cede sovereignty to these groups in these international conversations.
	And that's really concerning, seeing as how we already can prove that they're directly tied back to the same eugenics conversations, the same companies, the same And on top of that, what has Klaus Schwab been telling you the entire time?
	What is the fourth industrial revolution?
	A merging of your physical, digital, biological, or that wasn't physical, but merging your biological and digital identities.
	We need to listen to these people.
	They're telling us that's now.
	They're telling you you're in the fourth industrial revolution.
	And alternatively, he's telling you when you're there, as if it's something in the future, that you're going to merge with this system.
	And then he calls conspiracy theorists.
	It's so infuriating.
	But the real question is whether you think that's going to be something where they're like, here's your device.
	Merge with it. Or it's already been done.
	Whether it's being sprayed, whether it's in something you put in your body.
	And to your point, I thought about this too, about whether this is something that's just going to be like, one day they went, oh, whoops.
	You were right. We did make a mistake.
	But too late. Now everyone's got it in their bodies.
	But here's how we'll solve the problem.
	Right? That's kind of the way these things tend to go.
	Right? And they'll still admit we were wrong somehow while admitting we were right.
	It was for your protection.
	We're moving at the speed of science.
	We made a mistake. The speed of science.
	That's one of the words. The speed of science.
	Ryan, as always, the speed of these interviews flies by.
	An hour goes by so quick when we hit on all these topics.
	Although I think in the intro we hit every damn topic I talked about, which we usually don't do.
	I usually have a teaser for something we never get to.
	We've gotten to it all.
	Tell people about thelastamericanvagabond.com and the multitude of podcasts that you now take part in.
	Obviously, you've got your own, but you're also doing the Unjected show.
	I believe you were also a speaker at that recent event that Courtney Turner put on over in Nashville.
	Tell us how we can find everything Ryan Christian and what you got coming up.
	The Last American Vagabond.com is always the best place to go for all this.
	You'll find all the links and all the way to support us.
	And, you know, right now what I'm really focusing on is trying to, you know, take some next steps with all of this.
	You know, because as I've been really talking about lately, is that I think, actually we addressed it in the show today, is that it's very clear to me that we are seeing a, you know, almost like a desperate attempt to take what we have created.
	And in a sense, we're not just like Take it and remove it, but actually kind of co-opt it, as we've seen in every—I mean, what have we seen throughout history?
	Every movement that begins to make a difference is co-opted by the power structure that doesn't want that to happen.
	It's happening right now.
	We are literally watching this effective—and not just stopping us from doing it or stepping in and pretending they're doing what we're trying to do, but at the same time trying to snuff us out with removing revenue, with creating technological ways to censor us better, suppress us, to obfuscate it.
	Just drive people with your false illusion of free speech on platforms that are cutting us out.
	This is all happening simultaneously.
	So what I'm focusing on is just trying to take these next steps, trying to find people out there that are interested in working with us to grow this, to rise to the level where we can all work together, to where we don't need Even something like, you know, look, I mean, I love StreamYard, or you're using Google, but StreamYard, I love the platform.
	That's great. But I'd like to get to a place where we don't need any of this stuff, that we don't have to rely on any of these things to get the word out, you know, to where people can come to us, we can have our own setup.
	So if you want to support the platform, there's plenty of ways to do it.
	The most important is just to share the content.
	Share it, read it, talk with your friends.
	But I am looking for those out there that might be interested.
	And as I've said many times, I will never, ever, over my dead body, allow influence on content or editorial choices.
	That's going to make it very difficult for me.
	Well, you know what? That's why I've been blessed, bro.
	You know, as I told you, I actually Monday, for those that are watching, I start a new show, which is an evening show, which is a very different flavor from what I do in the morning.
	I put on the jacket.
	I look a little spiffy like Ryan here.
	There's a graphic behind.
	In fact, I'm going to be interviewing, I was looking at some of my guests this week, I'm going to be interviewing Norbin Laden.
	The niece of Osama Bin Laden on Tuesday.
	Yeah, it's very cool. I look at some of these lineups that they get me and I'm like, awesome.
	It's a very different flavor of a show, but no one's telling me what to say.
	No one's going, hey Jason, you can't ask that question.
	And even with my morning show with Red Voice Media, this is a separate company, I'm doing the night show, they distribute my show.
	That's it. They have no editorial control.
	I'm in complete control of what I say.
	I'm the one responsible. I've signed the paperwork.
	If they're going to come, they're coming for me.
	And I've never been told, hey man, you've got to pull back.
	That was a little too much. And I've been with these guys almost a year.
	Instead, I get texts like, holy shit.
	I had no idea I'm going to look into that.
	And then people on my network who do look into it, they end up talking about it.
	And it gives a bit of a different flavor to the conservative media or even the alternative conservative media, which is my ultimate goal, man.
	I'm not sitting here to preach to the choir.
	And I'm not sitting here to call people right-wing fascists or libtards.
	I don't like either one.
	I don't like it when either side calls somebody a domestic terrorist.
	As soon as that comes out of your mouth, you're literally discrediting yourself because you don't want that group of people to have due process.
	You don't want that group of people to have constitutional rights.
	I was having a conversation, actually, with my girlfriend about this just yesterday.
	And she was using that term.
	I go, baby. We can't just throw that term around.
	Whether you think they did that or not, charge them with the crimes and do it in a court system that you have a jury of their peers like it was supposed to be.
	It's not perfect. But I'm telling you right now, a military tribunal where you're guilty until proven innocent is way worse of a scenario.
	And it's way worse of a scenario when they can hold you indefinitely in a black site like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, or name a dozen others that we have no idea about Because they said you were a terrorist.
	And believe me, they're coming from the alternative media.
	They're coming for guys like Ryan Christian.
	You better believe it. So support them over at thelastamericanvagabond.com.
	Ryan, we've got to do it before six months down the line, even three months.
	Let's get together in the next couple months and hash it up, brother.
	Sounds good, man. And one last note, I'm going to be having Dr.
	Peter McColl on tomorrow to talk about specifically the endocrine disrupting We're good to go.
	Yes, I am. And then Jay Dyer walked through the door and I started to have a great conversation with him.
	So listen, it's great to be surrounded by other people that are trying to make a difference.
	That's why I'm smiling all the time, man.
	In my own, you got to take charge of your personal life.
	You can't let this stuff seep into that as though it's oppressing you, even if it is affecting you with your children in the school system, with your job and mandates, with your paycheck, with inflation.
	You got to navigate that yourself while trying to bring the truth to others and hopefully doing it with a smile like myself, like Ryan Christian.

▲