Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 27, 2023 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas

01:10:14

Tucker X And THAT CONFLICT With The Last American Vagabond

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here.
	Number one, I know this has been a while since I broadcast.
	It's been a while since I've started the show with those words as I had been doing the RVM morning show Monday through Thursday for two hours for over a year and really loving that show and that opportunity.
	You know, let it be a lesson to those that think or want to take alternative media for granted and that's going to play into our guest today as well.
	Don't. If you actually like what people do, you have to understand.
	Like, a two-hour broadcast, I get it.
	I'm just a schmuck. But it's not for free.
	It's kind of tough sometimes.
	And I don't just do it off the cuff.
	There's a ton of planning.
	I mean, the amount of crap that I have to read and watch that I don't want to, but I'm now addicted to doing one way or the other, is unreal.
	And... I'm about to talk to a guy that has done it on another level.
	And I think that he's one of the most important people in alternative media.
	By the way, if you're looking at the background and you haven't seen this show, I'm still around.
	Monday through Friday, actually.
	6 p.m. Eastern Time over at AmpNews.us.
	Doing some really interesting stuff.
	Some of the stuff... Not my cup of tea.
	I'm going to get into that with Ryan and just kind of the limitations of media.
	We're going to talk about the Tucker Carlson Network launching.
	We're going to talk about X, Twitter, Infowars, all that good stuff.
	But before any of that, as I may be introducing new people to my good friend Ryan, Ryan, tell people how you got into the alternative media space and how you created thelastamericanvagabond.com.
	Did he freeze up? Did I lose him?
	Of course I lost him. For me, it wasn't planned really.
	I'm getting a little bit of feedback here.
	I don't have headphones unfortunately, but it was not planned.
	It was something that ultimately we were traveling and a friend of mine decided to start a website.
	And I Didn't have any plans to do anything like that.
	I kind of just thought about it for a second, was like, sure, it might be fun.
	And then kind of in the process of trying to start something, I was trying to decide what I wanted to do this about.
	And one of the things that was standing in my mind, I've talked about many times over the years, is cannabis law reform.
	And it was a really prominent thing for me.
	Long story short, I ultimately set up a website, thinking it would be some little small project.
	Somebody has to talk about these things, seeing as how nobody in the corporate media was being on as kind of a thing.
	And over the years, it just developed into something that became about anything we're being lied to about.
	And then over the years, again, it kind of became clear that This was something people were desperately thirsty for.
	Like, not just discussing topics, but from a nonpartisan, objective perspective.
	Almost, you know, objective to a fault, as I jokingly say over the years, irritatingly objective.
	And I think it's important that we lean into that more.
	But it grew, and it grew, and it got to a point to where I realized this was something that people really wanted, and I decided to take a leap of faith.
	And I look back at that, it was such a terrifying moment.
	To step into this field and leave my job as people don't...
	Most people don't even know. I was a classically trained chef.
	I am. Ran really high-end restaurants.
	I was a GM for a point. That was my career.
	I put it down.
	Took a leap of faith into this direction.
	And, you know, trust me, of all people, I know how hard it is to make this.
	Quite frankly, it's made impossible.
	You know well, Jason. It's made the point to where the only people that are meant to succeed in this field are people that go along to get along.
	But, you know, as I've been saying to my audience, I want to change the game.
	You know, like we want to make this different to where it is truly about who is most, you know, what we're trying to do.
	Honest, objective reporting and people that want to see that and, you know, value for value kind of a thing.
	Well, I'll tell you what, I'd love to see a meritocracy on it, right?
	I think that that's really where we're not at.
	For instance, you know, just let's talk about X really quick, right?
	John Cusack, famous actor, 1.8 million followers, and I might as well, I'll try to bring it up.
	Let's see if we have it here. Yeah, right here.
	Look at that. We'll bring it right up.
	So he's out there.
	I follow him. I don't agree with him a lot.
	But he said, you know, a daily reminder at Elon Musk and X are cowards who shadow ban people who don't bend the knee.
	Free speech fraud. Cowards and liars.
	1.8 million followers.
	Only 1,200 see it.
	Lie better, X. And, you know, just to make that point, within a minute of him tweeting that, I actually tweeted this and he retweeted this.
	So this gets boosted by a 1.8 million account.
	I say I don't often agree with CUSAC, but X is not a free speech platform and clearly engages in shadow banning and limits the reach of certain accounts slash topics.
	Take a look, everybody.
	That's a 1.8 million follower account.
	I have 28 retweets.
	I don't even have 100 likes on that post.
	I mean, clearly that should say it all, right?
	And people don't get that.
	Um... And I said, you know, the next day, if you really, after, because that was the day before Jones gets put back on X, right?
	And then after that, everybody, you know, the space comes out and everybody's thralling over Musk and all these things.
	And I'm thinking to myself, well, that's great.
	But number one, you have a for you tab, right?
	And then there's the following tab.
	Now, I only use the following tab.
	It's real simple, right?
	You want it to be a free speech platform again.
	Everybody that follows somebody and is in the For You tab has an opportunity to see that tweet, and basically they are in chronological order as they happen, so you can scroll up through the time and you don't miss a tweet.
	There it is. Problem solved, everybody.
	It doesn't go against community standards.
	It's what originally happened when you followed somebody.
	You actually got all their tweets.
	This isn't a revolutionary idea, and tell me anybody else who suggested it as of late.
	Yeah, that's the thing about this.
	Everything that's happening on this platform seems to be about training your reactions, your engagement.
	We're being conditioned, right?
	Whether that's about journalism or anything else.
	And I agree. I think what this is...
	I think it's different for everybody.
	I mean, it's always meant to be different, sort of like the Google or any of those platforms.
	They act like they're trying to, you know, serve you the results they think you want, but it's really more about controlling, trying to condition you to think to want what they give you kind of a thing.
	And I think what we're seeing here is...
	My worry is that it's not just about being cultivated to your advertising interests or whatever else, but really almost like an experiment of trying to see if we show these two people who have similar views different things.
	Will it change what they are?
	Can we create extremism?
	That's what we're being...
	I really believe that.
	This is like an experiment to see how we can be cultivated.
	But to the For You tab and the rest of it, I mean, it's as if people want...
	I mean, how do I frame this right?
	The point, as you're saying, is we should be asking for what we think this platform is, that you want to see who you follow.
	People that want to subscribe should be able to, you know, or John Cusack should be able to engage like anybody else and not have some secret plan that, you know, it's all very obvious, but then they don't do that.
	And they almost make it public, right?
	They come out and they give you all these metrics and these levers and these different, and it's the people that were on the right predominantly who asking for or pretending this is free speech are all very aware of that.
	And so it's willfully dishonest at its core.
	And I think, again, it's about trying to drive us into very specific angles, or rather, you know, corridors.
	But I wonder whether or not, like, the right in this case, who seemingly can see this problem in every other dynamic, but have a blind spot for Elon Musk, Whether or not the population of that community really don't see this, or it's the screaming, you know, the pundits of the world, the Tuckers out there that are acting like they all see it.
	You know, you see what I'm saying? And I wonder if we can't see past that.
	Sort of like the illusion of the majority in just about every other topic, you know?
	Well, let's talk about Tucker right now.
	Because, you know, on one level...
	Obviously, Tucker Carlson was an establishment as it gets back in the day.
	On another level, he told more truth on mainstream media and really was rewarded with viewers for it than anybody in recent history.
	Keith Olbermann didn't even hold a candle to what Tucker eventually did.
	And Keith Olbermann did a lot of great work during the Bush administration when it was about right and left.
	Tucker has somewhat broken that mold, in my opinion.
	And I know that you haven't seen it, but I watched the entire Alex Jones-Tucker Carlson interview, which kind of sparked the Elon Musk doing the poll and then coming on the space after he brought Jones back.
	And we'll get to that in a moment.
	But the way he started it...
	I thought it was brilliant.
	And, you know, I want to give Tucker Carlson the benefit of the doubt.
	He said, look, you know, he basically said that the establishment hates the truth and they hate to be challenged.
	And when something is so challenging and so true that it disturbs your worldview, it just sets you back.
	And he actually said, you know, that's the case with 9-11, with me.
	He openly admitted it.
	He said, I felt such anger.
	Anybody who would even suggest that, it blinded me to a lot of things.
	And I was like, man, this is a really strong opening.
	And obviously, I think it was the day after the Jones interview, he announced the Tucker Carlson Network.
	Now, I put a tweet out there.
	I said, hey, if you really want honesty and integrity, and you want truth and facts, I go, I got a pretty good track record.
	Hire my ass. What?
	Come get some.
	And look, it's not lost on me either.
	I like Jay Dyer's work.
	Is he perfect? I don't think any of us are.
	But watching him run around the week before Tucker gets fired as Klaus Schwab in a space suit.
	Talking about the bugs.
	Hey man, I want to believe.
	And here's the thing.
	I look at Tucker and I get all the criticisms too.
	I know his dad worked for Voice of America.
	I know that was a CIA propaganda outlet.
	I know he's a trust fund kid with a bow tie that I couldn't stand back in the day.
	All those things.
	But at the same time, I think there's a cutoff.
	And by the way, I know he's a Musk worshiper.
	And maybe he's been rewarded for that as his show has obviously been amplified quite a bit.
	On that platform.
	But I also, I mean, that's the cutoff.
	He's not a military industrial complex contractor.
	That's where the must cut off.
	I mean, forget about just the transhumanism.
	When you've got not million dollar profits or millions of dollars or tens or even hundreds, but we're talking of billions of dollars to be based in warfare.
	And by the way, I know it wasn't in the mainstream media, but they just had to delay another spy satellite launch from SpaceX this week due to weather.
	That's how good our rocket technology is.
	But we're going to the moon, everybody. I mean, that's a big deal.
	That's really where I step back and I say, come on now.
	And the other news, I don't know if you've seen this.
	We reported on it today. Again, not everywhere should be.
	Two million Tesla cars have now been recalled today.
	Again, so that shows that it's these people that are picking the winners and losers.
	Can you imagine? That's almost the entire run of those cars.
	So that's just my point.
	I want to get your view on Tuck.
	Is there a chance he's for real?
	And will the Tucker Carlson network be a net positive?
	Because he also launched that on Megyn Kelly.
	Megyn Kelly is still...
	And always has been at least 40% trash to me.
	I mean, there's some things she says, but she's never been great.
	I don't know how she's become kind of like this spokesperson for the alt-right or patriot movement or any of that stuff.
	It is convoluted.
	Go ahead. Well, I think, I mean, the Tucker thing is hard.
	Obviously, I can't say I know for sure.
	I don't think anybody can say they know for sure, but I think it's so frustrating to me.
	There's so many good, honest people out there that aren't tied to some mainstream concept
	or funding.
	Now, I don't think it's fair, even though it is a valid point and we should consider
	these things for anybody, to say, oh, well, his dad or family was in the CIA, or they
	have an FBI this or that.
	Those things clearly could mean something, but I get really tired of the mainstream media
	didn't say this, so that's how we know it's true.
	It's like, that's not logical thinking anymore.
	They can think past one step, guys.
	They're not that stupid. So in the point of whether or not that could mean something, you could.
	But my point is really just about the historical reality of who he is and what he said.
	of how obviously mainstream he is.
	Funding overlap, like the things that he said, or even the Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson example,
	where they both used an argument in lawsuits and otherwise that suggest that they're not real,
	so nobody should take them seriously.
	It's like, well, maybe you could argue that's a ploy, but I go by the classic concept of when someone tells you
	who they are, you should pay attention.
	And I think that's important. But maybe he's changed.
	That's also possible. Even if I'm right, maybe he woke up and went, you know what, I want to do good.
	I mean, that's all certainly possible.
	But I get, I just, my point is there's so many people out there that are, are, you know,
	people like us that come from, you know, just average people that have built something out
	of nothing and are, and care about what they're doing and care about being objective and nonpartisan.
	And yet it seems like we get this cycle of people that pop out from the inside and go,
	now I'm fighting for you.
	You know, whether that's an RFK or a Tucker or a Donald Trump, it's like, this is what
	like, like the Shiva, for example, who I've got thoughts and, you know, I think he's got
	some really good points on a lot of things and other things I don't agree with.
	But his point about the swarm kind of concept, I think, is very valid.
	And I think it's obvious to see that this is the same cycling of people from the inside.
	So taking it to the content, you know, you got Tucker Carlson who comes out of this, who, by the way...
	Whether we want to acknowledge it or not from the two-party illusion, has admitted more than once now that, yes, he was pulling punches while he was at Fox.
	Not because they wouldn't let him, but he's made multiple examples where he did, whether it's 9-11 or anything else, that's not even the best example.
	The shots are the example.
	At one point, now he's come out and said he didn't take the shots, but I specifically remember him on air while he was criticizing and saying that he took the shot.
	You know what I mean? And again, with something that is so important from the get-go, as has now been proven more and more day after day, I totally get what you're saying.
	But you know what? Let me play devil's advocate.
	It's not even really playing devil's advocate.
	It's just a counterpoint. I think a valid one.
	The Daily Caller was his baby. Now obviously he's not in The Daily Caller.
	That was actually founded out of really his mentorship with William Crystal,
	which he actually talks about. In fact, in the Jones interview, he brings up the fact that the
	Project for a New American Century was writing these white papers in the same building as him,
	and it wasn't even on his mind that Islamic terror was going to come to the United States.
	Well, a story that we talked about behind the scenes, the latest on the Dasik story,
	and them going with EcoHealth Alliance in a closed-door hearing.
	None of these should be closed-door, by the way, everybody.
	That's a big problem with the system.
	But this closed-door hearing that also had documentation where it listed off not just the Wuhan Laboratory, not just Chapel Hill in North Carolina, but New York universities as well, other international...
	Um... And then on top of that, the Department of Energy, which I think nobody looked at.
	I talked with Andrew Huff about it, and I think that's a significant portion.
	You see all this. The only people that were there were the Daily Caller.
	And it was some young, hungry journalist that they'd hired that's hanging out in the halls of Congress, as he's allowed to do with his press pass, and put Daszak on the spot.
	And that's the only mainstream story I've seen out of that.
	So, you know, I'm always of the volition that I need more media because even when we have disagreements, there's going to be those golden nuggets, right?
	I'm never going to be the guy that's going to sit here and aggrandize a Breitbart or a Daily Wire, you know, unless they significantly change.
	But, you know, I look at a Blaze, for instance, and, you know, love Alex Stein or hate Alex Stein, He brings attention to issues.
	I happen to love Alex.
	That doesn't mean I agree with every stunt he does or every statement he makes.
	But man, he, in short order, kind of mastered the attention-getting, not only stunts, but then bringing it into a Howard Stern-style broadcast, right?
	He doesn't laugh, but the Blaze to me is...
	is wildly sensational.
	And no more than Glenn Beck.
	Absolutely.
	But at the same time, as you know, man, our girl there, Whitney Webb, gets a 90-minute sit-down
	that turns some heads.
	You know what I mean?
	Well, see, I have a feeling about that, or a thought about that, though, is
	that I think that a lot of these people, it's important for people in these positions,
	especially if they know.
	And I'm not saying I know this is the case.
	I have a low opinion of most of these partisan entities, because I don't see how you can be partisan and be honest,
	quite frankly, when it comes to all these different topics.
	But I think that they have a tactic of bringing on people that they know have clout, because they're honest,
	because they're nonpartisan.
	And then they lean into that and sidle up next to them and act like we're on the same page.
	And then they scoop up some of the audience.
	That's my opinion, you know?
	But really quickly, to go back to the point about...
	about tucker and you know the idea is that okay so we have these people like tucker being the example who have made a big name in regard to pushing back against the vaccines and the great reset and then literally line up next to and work through the platform of one of the most obvious great reset connected people on the planet a billionaire technocrat transhumanist who's literally driving forward the brain machine interface the you know star um uh It's just so obvious how these things completely tie in to the very same agenda they pretend they're fighting.
	Now, of course, maybe I'm missing something.
	Yeah, see, that's the problem.
	Those things down the line, that's what I wanted to see him challenged on this space on.
	And instead, it was even this aggrandizing when they talked about the Neuralink and where it was in development.
	And he basically said it was telepathy.
	Now listen, he literally has said words now that I have said.
	He said he's team human.
	He's very pro-human.
	I've been talking about being team human for quite some time now.
	We're talking probably about the better part of five years when I realized this transhumanist thing was really kicking off.
	But That's an issue.
	Yeah. Well, the other thing is I saw him on Rogan, right?
	And when he talked on Rogan and he talked about these people being a death cult and taking basically this ecological movement too far, again, it was almost like verbatim some of the things that I've been talking about for a very long time.
	So I understand the appeal.
	But once you peel back the surface level, I mean, you just named two things, right?
	The Neuralink and the Starlink agenda.
	So Starlink is basically this encompassing of the entire planet with total surveillance control.
	And it's the consumer level of the Star Wars or Strategic Defense Initiative program that eventually will go global if these people have their way because, again, they want a global order.
	Then you look at the green movement.
	Again, they picked Tesla as the car winner.
	Now you talk about how all this is facilitated.
	A lot of it is facilitated in what?
	Underground facilities.
	Well, he's got a company for that, too.
	It's the boring company.
	I mean, it's... With the vaccine aspect, too.
	Yeah, well, again, I was going to get there after we did Tesla not just being a car company, but Optimus and Humanoid Automation.
	You know, he talks about a pro-human future.
	Why are we building robots that look like humans?
	That's not pro-human to me, especially one that's developed by the billionaire that's hyping these sort of things, that runs on this Tesla OS. And then you nailed it.
	You know, he can sit there and talk about the shots after the fact.
	Tesla, again, the other thing that they did is they partnered with CureVac and they made micro- RNA factories.
	They were the ones printing up the vast majority of the shots that were then distributed.
	And remember, these shots have now been proven to be quote-unquote contaminated with, no, not contaminated with, programmed with the SV40 sequence among all the other nasty things you've heard.
	So this is a guy that also increased his wealth 600% during that time period.
	That's how I lay it down.
	And those are the questions that I would have.
	Yeah. And on top of those, I'm sure you've talked about these.
	We've got the example of frame shifting, the extra proteins being created.
	You mentioned the DNA contamination, right?
	I mean, the risk of myocarditis being pretty much exactly what some of the biggest allegations were from the very beginning.
	Like, I mean, it's just staggering.
	And don't forget, this amazingly, terribly flawed thing won the Nobel Prize for being so amazing.
	And it's wildly—I mean, again, to your point, I think, is what you alluded to there.
	I agree. I don't think this was a mistake by any stretch of the imagination.
	I was making this joke today, in fact.
	It's like, it's amazing how every single choice they made turns out to not even—not be for your best interest, but in fact harming you.
	And then when you stand back and go, weird, how every choice they made seemed to maximize the problem— It's pretty obvious that this was at some level a design or experiment to see what would happen.
	And I don't know if you saw, by the way, now Japan just rolled out what they claim is the first self-amplifying RNA shot, which I think it's not the first at all.
	Quite frankly, I think these are already that, if not self-spreading, based on their own documentation.
	But... So back to the main point, these people are just blind.
	Everything they're involved with is bolstering the agenda they claim that they're fighting.
	And so I have a question for you, actually, because I didn't see this Twitter space.
	When you say that he rolled out his own Twitter, I know he was doing Tucker on X. Is this something different now?
	Yes. So basically, here's how it went down.
	He put out the Alex Jones interview.
	A day later, Elon Musk puts out the poll on whether to bring back Jones handily.
	And by the way, Infowars came back.
	They actually started following me on Twitter.
	They got about a half a million followers.
	I want these people to succeed.
	In fact, I think that this is a great time to do it right now in 2024 because there is an election cycle, right?
	Whether they'll try to utilize some negativity via this or not is almost a moot point.
	They've been off for five years.
	They're not getting back on Instagram.
	They're not getting back on YouTube.
	They're not getting back on Facebook.
	That's going to drive a lot of people to this platform as a video platform.
	Tucker's already done that. So then they have the space.
	Tucker is not on that space.
	And we'll get over to that bizarro space because it's got...
	Vivek Ramaswamy, who's been saying all the right things lately.
	Like, again, here's a guy that I want to believe is the real deal, but then you look at how he made his money, and he's into biotech and the chimeras.
	In fact, that's one of the reasons I appreciate Clay Clark.
	I made a small mention at the last speech I was at.
	He asked me what I knew about him, and I said, hey, Soros funded in the very beginning.
	I told him he was a biotech guy, Provax, all that.
	He did some digging. He had a great list.
	Of reasons to be a little suspicious.
	Mark Dice was there.
	And look, I've done several of Mark Dice's book covers.
	I like Mark. He's featured in my film Invisible Empire.
	Jackson Hinkle was a speaker on there.
	The Tate brothers, which I know that you and I are both very wary of.
	and Andrew Tate got a lot of time on that microphone.
	They were all on this space, okay?
	And then obviously- Can I just say that one person alone
	makes me question all of it?
	That, you know, like I'll tell you why I say that, but just, it's just-
	No, I understand because you don't have to peel back any layers for his open statements that, you know,
	he has slept with women to basically digitally pimp them out
	in houses where he made millions of dollars off of pornography.
	And look, I'm not here to tell you how to live your life or make your judgments or whatever.
	And I'm not a perfect person.
	But I do know that when I look at that industry and that exploitation of people in particular and also the gambling and casino industries, I take a step back.
	You know, that's one of the reasons out of the gates I was skeptical of Trump.
	There's a guy that ran beauty pageants.
	And, you know, you don't have Atlantic City casinos without mafia connections.
	I mean, come on. I mean, come on.
	You know what I mean? So that space, it was super interesting.
	And Matt, like I said, Matt Gaetz jumped on too.
	Like you had, it was a very, very bizarre deal.
	Just, it was surreal.
	It really felt like I was in the Twilight Zone.
	So that space ends. And then basically, the next day, Tucker does an interview with Megyn Kelly, where he announces the TCN, Tucker Carlson Network.
	And he basically says...
	Yep. He basically says, look, we've lost everything that we did on Fox.
	He goes, I was really proud of those long-form interviews and those mini-documentaries.
	We're going to start it up again.
	We're going to do all those things again.
	It's going to be $9 a month.
	And he basically said, I had offers.
	Thank you for the offers.
	I don't want to be beholden to anybody ever again.
	I'd suggest you actually watch it.
	You know what I mean? So we'll see.
	I want to believe that he's 100% honest and he's doing this out of the goodness.
	He's got the cash. You know, he's a trust fund kid.
	And you know what? Love him or hate him, he's never flaunted that cash.
	You never saw Tucker Carlson out on a yacht with 18 women.
	You know what I mean? So, I would imagine he's got a decent piggy bank, at least to start this thing.
	Especially, you know, we do a lot with very little.
	And so, you know, The Last American Vagabond, AMP News, we do a lot with very little.
	With the resources he has, he has an opportunity to make a dent.
	And that's why, again...
	I want to believe that he's the real deal and I'm more skeptical of a Musk, right?
	That's supposedly running all these companies.
	Tucker's out there fishing and hunting on weekends and runs a talk show.
	Does some documentary stuff.
	At least that's what we're told.
	But I think that the problem for me is a track record.
	And of course, anybody can change.
	But then I base that on what he does going forward.
	Not based on the, you know, and I think that's how it should be.
	But like my problem again is that Just the Twitter overlap itself is problematic.
	Why wouldn't he have just started his own thing if that's the case?
	I'm not going to say that proves anything, but it's just the worry, or rather the idea that you're leaning into something which, one, is not about free speech, as we can literally see them censoring.
	That's only a one-sided partisan thing to pretend it's saving free speech.
	So that's a lie right there.
	I've seen him numerous times go saving free speech or it's all free.
	It's not. They're still censoring.
	There's plenty. Jason Bassler is still not back on this platform, right?
	It's obvious that this is not—and it's not even about being let back on.
	He could argue it's some long, drawn-out process.
	They've censored people since then.
	You know, it's like it's just blatant.
	Or John Cusack being shadowbanned.
	So it's not real. So that's one thing.
	But the other thing is about working with the same platform or other Elon specifically,
	who represents all of these things you claim you're fighting against. But of course,
	when the good guy, right wing technocrat, transhumanist does the bad things, it's a
	good thing, right? That's the good side of the bad thing.
	But my thing about the Andrew Tate aspect is this is a person who is not, he's an objectively
	false, or he's been caught lying in numerous ways.
	Objectively dishonest.
	This isn't even getting into what I feel about his detestable things that he's openly admitted to.
	It's about the fact that you're using this person as some kind of person we should look up to.
	Bringing him on like his opinion matters.
	He's not even that intelligent to listen to his actual discussion points.
	It's clear that he's just trying to lean into what he thinks people want to hear at its surface level.
	It's frustrating. And the point is, you can hear how dishonest he is in his engagements.
	It's the same point you made about Donald Trump, or the same point I'm going to make about Donald Trump and the way you brought it up, that Donald Trump is the same concept.
	He's somebody who has written books about the kind of things, you know, love him or hate him.
	He's honest about his business dealings and the way he just wants to fuck people over and the way
	he wants, and maybe, maybe people respect that. The point is he is not the Christian event. You
	know, it's not, he is the person he wants you to see today for his political career. If you guys
	are people not being honest about that, it just, it, that's what shows you the dishonest nature of
	of the way two-party politics, it drives dishonesty.
	And that's my problem about the party paradigm aspect.
	Now, you can believe in the paradigm and not be an honest person, but I very much believe that that paradigm incentivizes dishonesty or willful ignorance at every turn.
	Because you end up with these situations where your party feels one way or not, and you basically make choices to kind of omit certain things.
	We all see it. It happens every day.
	And I think we can prove over the years how Tucker has done that with numerous topics on the air.
	And sure, yeah, he's been right about plenty of things too.
	And I hope that means he's honest.
	I'll always hope that.
	Why would we hope otherwise? But my concern is that how many times you can prove that it hasn't...
	There's pulling punches. And again, as we said before, admitting to not saying certain things, and maybe it's because he wants a successful career.
	Who's going to begrudge him that? But why we then pretend he's this truth-sayer kind of new element when there's all these things on the table, all I ask is that people question it, right?
	Don't just go along with this new aspect because I think that even if he believes it, it's going to be used against us.
	But I still hope for the best, just like I do for Trump.
	I hope they're right about Trump.
	Why wouldn't we? Oh, I can't hear you.
	You're on mute, I think. Sorry, I appreciate that.
	I did a little coughing. When I'm thinking about Trump right now, obviously he upset the system.
	I don't think this is all for show with these trials.
	I think they want him in jail.
	I think they may put him in jail.
	In fact, I'm of the belief they are actually going to convict him on one of these four cases.
	And it's kind of the same thing with Jones.
	Look, Jones is far from perfect.
	There are things I disagreed with him on the last week.
	A lot of things. Sure.
	But at the same time, these billion-dollar-plus judgments obviously want to take out his whole arena, his whole thing that he built from scratch.
	And again, the guy might live a semi-lavish lifestyle.
	That doesn't mean that we should be endorsing this type of behavior, right?
	And just like with Trump, he obviously upset the apple cart enough where they want to put him in jail.
	In fact, Jones just got subpoenaed in the Georgia case.
	No one of this is justified.
	It's all politically driven.
	And not only that, it's outwardly politically driven.
	Because we've had politically driven prosecutions before.
	That's not a new thing.
	Going after a former president of the United States is a new thing, though.
	You know what I mean? That's where it's the extreme.
	And then... I mean, because they've never gone after the president, right?
	This, again, is unprecedented.
	That they're not just going after staff for breaking the law.
	They're going after staff for breaking the law on behalf of the president of the United States at the time.
	And, you know, I talked to Naomi Wolf.
	Who I highly respect, who I think has gotten a lot of things wrong over the years.
	I think she still gets some things wrong, but at the same time, boy, she's come a long way, right?
	And, you know, I kind of said to her before she brought up the point, I go, with what they did in this election and what you went through in 2000 when you were working for the Gore campaign, there wasn't really any difference.
	Would you ever be a consultant again on a campaign for any reason?
	She's like, probably not because I don't want to go to prison.
	Right? That's crazy.
	That shows how politicized...
	I mean, that shows...
	That's Banana Republic-style stuff.
	But I mean, that's the topic on the Sunday.
	Look at Biden, right?
	Right. But I would argue, though, that that doesn't prove because of it that they are the...
	Like, simply arguing that in the case of any of these people, that by being persecuted or prosecuted does not therefore then make you honest.
	Like it's the same, it's the same dynamic, like just because the mainstream media says
	it doesn't mean the opposite is true.
	Like that's a very surface level dynamic that at one point might have been this simple reality,
	but obviously they can think past those steps now.
	Like they realize we see them, so they go, okay, let's just do the opposite.
	You know, and people still fall for that.
	But my thing is that ultimately, it's clearly politically motivated.
	Nobody can argue otherwise.
	Does that mean they're innocent? Hardly.
	I think these are all criminals.
	I think the real point is they're all, at any given moment in time, able to be persecuted for the crimes they've committed.
	It's just about whether the mob mentality will enforce on its own for some reason.
	You know what I mean? That's what this really ultimately is for me.
	So, Trump being attacked, because, I mean, let's not forget that people like Pelosi and Maxine Waters, I don't think anybody with a brain would think that they're actually in charge of anything, right?
	But they do have power, though, right?
	They could still make things happen.
	They could still be like, like, I think those people absolutely...
	I hate Donald Trump because they're stupid and they're not very informed.
	They think that's the reality.
	Like, I really believe that. The same thing goes for the right.
	I think people like Lindsey Graham are shockingly uninformed.
	Now, that doesn't mean that they don't have power.
	Like, well, and I could be wrong about Graham.
	He may be one of those people that kind of goes, well, like my point, though, is that they act out in the ways they believe And ultimately, the real string pullers are the ones that just use their emotional reactions, and sometimes it goes against them.
	But ultimately, I do believe that these people, like Donald Trump included, are not truly honest in regard to the political aspect of this.
	If we can't acknowledge that Donald Trump still won't admit that these injections are hurting people,
	killing people, maiming people, all of his base believes that.
	He knows what they're saying, and he still stands up and goes, you know, my legacy.
	Like, it's just, it's willful ignorance by people in the paradigm to continue to go along
	and support somebody who you or yourself are admitting allowed or started something that is, you know,
	unprecedentedly killed people around the world.
	I mean, that's kind of shocking to think about.
	Yeah, no, absolutely, and the other thing is, it's not just the shot.
	You know, you look at the foreign policy overall good, but remember, he was out there saying,
	we gotta get out of Syria.
	No attack happened in Duma.
	I disagree with that, though. Why?
	Well, in the sense of, like, first of all, Donald Trump, I don't believe, like, the argument he never brought us to new wars, I don't believe that's not true.
	I think there was all sorts of new dynamics that were started.
	There was continuation of old ones that hadn't been as prominent, bombing in Sudan, you know, whatever else.
	A lot of things that were going on.
	Well, I think people have to realize he inherited AFRICOM. That kept on going.
	He inherited not only the Middle East, but you also had the deal with Yemen.
	And Rand Paul, God bless him, he was one of the few people that talked about that.
	He's like, well, listen, if we're providing the weapons and we're picking the targets...
	Just because we're not pulling the trigger doesn't mean we're not the ones doing it.
	And that continued on. And I remind people, you know, he sat there, he talked tough about Saudi Arabia.
	One of the first thing he did, he did like almost a half a trillion dollar arms deal with them.
	Big problems. But Syria in particular was egregious to me.
	My point was only we didn't leave.
	That's all I was going to say on that point.
	Yeah, well, my big problem with Syria was that he was up there talking about how we're going to leave, and then the non-attack in Duma happens.
	It's actually covered by what would be the alternative right media, at least the mainstream at that time, OAN, right?
	Pearson Sharp, to his credit, went out there, and he...
	Man, it was Sharp's last name.
	I don't want to get it wrong. Yeah, yeah.
	I think it is too.
	But he went out there. He showed.
	I mean, he got one of the kids that was on tape supposedly gassed who was fine with his father that described the incident and what happened.
	Okay, that should have been game over.
	We still sent those missiles over there.
	And one of the last interviews Tucker did was with Trump.
	And Trump said he did the right thing in Syria.
	Like that was sorry.
	We have to have somebody that can admit they make mistakes like a human being.
	And that's one of the biggest faults of Trump.
	It can, can I comment on that?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, that's important.
	I see.
	This is what it comes down to.
	I hope Jason, I hope you're right.
	And I really, I there there's, this is my point about all of this.
	Why anybody, somebody who hopes that something that's bad for everybody else
	over the country, just because you hate Trump.
	That's Trump derangement syndrome on whatever side you're on.
	I hope that he believes that or he changed, but my problem is that it really just comes down to narrative.
	What ultimately happened is the same no matter who's there, right?
	But Trump will come out and say, we need to leave, but then, oh, thing happened, so we don't.
	And it's like, okay, well, all that really changed was him standing up and pretending or meaning, truly, that we were going to leave, but it didn't amount to that.
	He gave away... He gave land to Israel in Syria, the Golan Heights.
	Like, oh, Jerusalem occupation discussion.
	Like, all these different things he did, that all relates to Syria.
	You know what I mean? Or to a degree that through Golan Heights I mean through Israel.
	But the point is ultimately that we're talking about claiming one thing and then doing something else because of reason.
	You know what I mean? Like, I keep saying this about Afghanistan or Syria, and every single time, it's like, we're going to do this, but then, oh, the thing happened, and now we have to go back in.
	That was a real prominent thing during Syria, very obvious.
	And so whether Trump was being played, which I'll always give him that, he, you know, I mean, look back at his original cabinet.
	My God, like, it's like the word, it's all these people that were like, you know, you got to, what did they say?
	I forget the term they used, but basically arguing that they needed somebody from the inside to be able to change the inside.
	And they just trusted all the bad people.
	Bolton and all the rest of them.
	Bolton they brought in even after the fact, which was absolutely terrible.
	McMaster, Bolton, Mattis, all those guys.
	And look, the thing is, you look at Flynn, and Flynn's somebody who I've talked to now on numerous occasions, right?
	And I even had him on this program, Making Sense of the Madness, and I brought up Syria with him.
	And he kind of tried to call me out, because I was talking about that Donald Trump's only crime was not committing enough war crimes.
	And he jumped in pretty quick, and he said, no war crimes!
	And I said, well, you know, I got to tell you, I was not happy with some of his policy in Iran and Syria in particular.
	Obviously, Israel as well.
	I think it was dangerous calling Jerusalem the capital and just empowering Netanyahu, who by no means is endorsed by every Israeli or even Jewish political person.
	I mean, here's somebody who's really held on to power, was somehow taken out of power recently, and then put right back in power during the COVID-1984 nightmare.
	Where he really bragged about doing some really egregious things to his own citizens, the Israelis, everybody.
	So again, not a black and white issue.
	But Bibi Netanyahu and Mike Pompeo, they're peanut butter and jelly, baby.
	And because of things like that, I think the conservatives get blinded because Donald Trump is endorsing them.
	I think that's a good segue to the now Israel-Palestine issue.
	So this is where I'm at, okay?
	And it's very tough being on this conservative network because, you know, a lot of these people are all every all these Palestinians are terrorists or Hamas is terrorists and all these things.
	And listen, I don't like seeing disco kids get kidnapped and shot up.
	I mean, that's ridiculous. Obviously, I don't like that.
	I don't like to see an open-air prison of 2 million people that really have nowhere to go.
	I don't like seeing a population where almost half of that population wasn't even around in the time period that Hamas was elected, and elected really as something that was propped up by the United States and Israel as something different than the Palestinian Liberation Army.
	You know, let's be honest.
	Most people that are talking about this issue, even in the United States on a base level, they don't know who Yasser Arafat is.
	They don't even know any of the history from 25, 30 years ago, let alone the start of this.
	At the same time, I'm not ignorant.
	Israel's going nowhere.
	In other words, it's going to be there at some level.
	So the best that I can offer people is I want less death, some kind of a ceasefire, and some kind of an acknowledgment That when these trade-offs are going for the hostages of October 7th, and by the way, I have questions of that whole event.
	We can get into that in a moment.
	But when those trade-offs happen, you find out that they're getting 15-, 16-, 17-year-old kids and women That had been in prison for five years.
	What the fuck was an 11-year-old doing in prison for anything?
	For anything. I'm serious.
	For anything. Even if he fired on someone.
	What situation was that kid in?
	You know what I mean? And that's not something that's discussed at all.
	So break down what you think is going on politically in that situation.
	And then we'll get to the event itself.
	Well, that's a huge...
	You know, there's a huge topic to just break down, but I mean, the important thing here...
	The problem is, as you pointed out to start, we're starting from a dishonest place about this conversation.
	The argument about Hamas or who was voted in, I mean, there's so many different important dynamics to include, one of which, as you briefly touched on there, it's not.
	And see, the problem is the things I'm about to say will be reflexively perfused by people that have been told these are fake news, despite them being reported by Haaretz.
	Or publicly stated by Netanyahu numerous times.
	But the obvious reality that even Haratz posted on October 9th, two days after what they say is their 9-11, that Netanyahu has been funding Hamas for a very long time, going back to what you could argue was its creation, not necessarily its impetus, right? So this is not deniable.
	So first of all, if we're going to, you know, clutch our pearls, which we should because of how horrible this was about what happened with Hamas, then you immediately have to go.
	But that was Netanyahu's fault.
	That was the Israeli government's fault for funding the entity that then blew back on Israel, which, by the way, was the headline of Haaretz's article that Netanyahu has been propping up Hamas for years and it's blown up in our face.
	That's literally what they said.
	But you don't get this conversation in the West, right?
	So on top of that, the reality that with Israel's support and the United States and the West in general have been systematically funding the most radical elements of Islam for decades.
	Because the people that were in these areas that were more moderate or, you know, however you want to look at it, the ones that weren't as extreme, didn't want to just bend over to what the U.S. interests were.
	So what they did was locate the ones that would be able, they'd be willing to, more pliable, more morally ambiguous, right?
	More obviously extreme.
	They're real terrorists.
	This is what we talk about with any of these aspects, the origin of ISIS or Al-Qaeda or today, you know, These are all elements that lead right back to the funding, arming, and moving in support of the U.S. government in Israel, or the medical treatment of these people in Golan Heights.
	The point is that has to be acknowledged.
	So the other part of this, obviously, as you mentioned, is the history around the country, or Palestine.
	Which, let's not forget, the UN has always maintained because it's the reality that it's an occupied territory.
	So that does not mean, though, you can't go back another thousand years and argue that things were different.
	But the only thing we're talking about is the international law and the reality that that law has been implemented.
	And in that time frame, this territory was occupied.
	That's a fact. So going forward from that fact, the point is that it is an occupied territory.
	So the Geneva Conventions have been made, through the Geneva Conventions, it's clear that an occupied territory has the right to armed rebellion.
	You know, and by the way, that counts for Syrians, Iraqis.
	Oh, and we all call it terrorism when somebody fires on the U.S. base, but realize that's a legally protected act under international law if they're hitting a military target.
	That's a fact. There's no debating that.
	Now, you can disagree with it. You can want to change the law.
	They're protected in doing so, even if it kills a military person, which I'm not asking for or want.
	In this sense, when Hamas...
	Or if it was the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or if it was a grouping of random Palestinians that decided to use weapons to force their way into what, by the way, which were still settlements, illegal settlements, before even proper Israel, which nobody talks about, but they broke in with guns and started firing on military personnel.
	That's a legally protected act.
	And this may shock people, so too was Hamas' act.
	Now, once they then broke the law in regard to kidnapping civilians, firing on civilians, raping, murdering, stealing, robbing, whatever else you think happened, those are all crimes, and they should be accountable for it.
	Now, the interesting dynamic to compare it to would be like, okay, let's say you believe in the U.S. war in Iraq.
	It's a terrible analogy. The war in Iraq was obviously illegal and so many things, and there were all sorts of crimes that were committed.
	But let's say you believe in the war and the reasons, like John Bolton.
	Still a resounding success.
	The argument then would be, do you feel that the war in its entirety should be invalidated?
	Would you call that an act of terror just because soldiers went on to rape people or steal from people's homes, which we can prove happened?
	Right. So if you're going to make this the way it is, then it should be applied equally.
	Right. So in this sense, Hamas did what they did, which I'm not even saying I necessarily support outside of the idea of fighting for the freedom of Palestinians.
	The reason I even say it like that is because, again, you have to realize that there's surreptitious funding and direction in some ways, as Vanessa Beely pointed out, coming from elements of the U.S. and Israel.
	So we have to ask whether that played a factor that then gets into October 7th, whether they knew or not, we can talk about that.
	But my point is, they then went in and committed crimes, and we can prove they did, right?
	Because they took civilians back to Gaza.
	Those are war crimes. They need to be held accountable for that.
	But so too does everything else involved in this, before as well as after, right?
	Somebody made a great point in this clip that I saw where one of these Israeli journalists were saying, hey, you know, do you condemn October 7th?
	And the guy goes, okay, well, let me ask you this first.
	Do you condemn October 8th?
	What about October 9th? What about October 10th?
	And 11th? And 12th?
	And he goes on. And the guy tries to walk away.
	And he goes, what about October 14th?
	What about October 15th? And he goes, all the way to November 8th, which is the day that it was.
	And, you know, it may seem, it makes an obvious point.
	I care, as anybody honest cares about the civilians and what happened to them.
	But again, you have to factor in that the Israeli government was involved with that.
	But why do we not care about all the civilians that have gone on to be hurt over here?
	And this is why it's such a hard conversation.
	We can get into the human shield aspect and why that is not valid in regard to what they're using it for, or the fact that there's literally an open secret of Israelis using human shields called the neighbor procedure.
	It's a public policy.
	They were literally just caught on video using those Palestinians.
	They had it blindfolded.
	Marching them around as they went in to investigate new areas.
	It's human shields. Look, even if those were Hamas members, that is still human shields.
	There were Hamas members, by the way.
	Anyway, I can go on forever.
	Why don't you jump in? No, no.
	I mean, I think, first of all, the guy that's talking about every day after.
	Let's start there, because then we're going to have to break down the 7th itself and all the things we know about it and don't know about it at this point.
	But when you look at the response and the outward response, the public response was to cut the food, energy, and power off of 2 million people.
	That is not a correct response.
	That is a war crime.
	I'm sorry. You cannot do that.
	That's why the term selective punishment was created.
	Even if they were human shields, that's exactly why it was created.
	Yes. And then, you know, the indiscriminate bombings after the fact, again, whether you want to smoke the terrorists out of their whole combat, again...
	You now have actual hostages that have gone on the record, barely reported, saying, look, at the time we were not scared of Hamas executing us or killing us.
	We were scared that the Israelis were not only going to bomb and kill us because there were bombs going off around us and taking out homes, but then after the fact they would have said that Hamas killed us.
	That, I mean, that is a very profound statement.
	And it is a statement that I think...
	Should not go by the wayside, because I look at it like this.
	Now think about what that person just said.
	That in death, my death was going to be misrepresented on who took my life, and really more death is all that's going to ensue after that for some kind of either political motivations, war profiteering, or ideological beliefs, right?
	That's basically the motivations for all these things continually happening.
	And all that took me back to was 9-11, especially with them talking about it being their 9-11, when I had to sit there and think about all those people that died.
	And in their name, millions more would die in the Middle East that had absolutely nothing to do with that attack.
	And that revolted me.
	Revolted me. It turned my damn stomach.
	So let's get into the 7th itself.
	Obviously, the Iron Dome and its technology is no joke.
	When that was penetrated, I obviously had questions.
	Then, Hamas, who doesn't have a proper military, certainly does not have an air force, takes to the air and hang glides in.
	That also brought all types of questions.
	And then the fact that the attacks, either one of them, were able to proliferate for as long as they did and be as successful as they were, I questioned the five eyes intelligence that we know that Australia, the United States, Israel, Canada, they all had and didn't use.
	And then the rhetoric that this was planned within the last two years and almost nobody
	knew about it.
	I said, that's not possible.
	And then it went to five years and some people knew about it.
	And then some people have suggested now that Netanyahu and their forces did learn about
	it at least early on and perhaps either let it occur or let it occur to a certain extent.
	All of those things are possibly bolstered by the fact that it was barely reported on,
	but I sent it your way, that US special forces were there that day conducting exercises of
	which we do not know.
	They never left.
	And more US special forces have been sent there since.
	Those are the aspects that I think we need to delve into.
	What would you like to add to that or challenge?
	Well, nothing real. I just add to the fact that let's not forget, and rightly, we should be skeptical of all of these things because we don't really know whether this is narrative meant to bolster some agenda or if it's the admission because of some other reason of their failure.
	We should not dismiss the possibility that this is just what it looks like.
	I think there's more than that to it, especially the reality of the clear involvement of the Israeli government to what happened.
	But I genuinely think that this is not designed or executed because of, let's say, the Great Reset, which was an early thought.
	And we should still ask that question.
	I genuinely think this is the Zionist government showing what it's always been, and it's showing its hand by coercing these leaders around the world to lose all of their support We're good to go.
	As you mentioned, there was the New York Times report that recently came out that says that they were warned a year ago.
	There was a plan there. We have Egypt that came out a few months before that, on the record now, that said they warned them.
	The important things, I think, are the IDF members who said that they, and there's numerous reports of this, that reported, okay, we see training, right?
	We see them doing these exercises by the gate.
	Multiple times, leading month, it was like, I think week after week for a couple of months, they were going, we see this, we see that.
	Until they finally said, if you bring this up again, we're going to bring you to trial.
	That was a direct quote from an IDF member.
	Think about that. From intelligence or leadership.
	So to me, that's like, okay, clearly there's somebody somewhere going, shut this down, right?
	We don't want this conversation.
	So all of these things add to the very real possibility that they either were involved with this, which I don't think it's exactly that, or to some level, let it happen, right?
	So that LIHOP concept, right?
	Let it happen on purpose. So that to me could either mean that they let it happen in a sense that they never thought it would be what ended up happening, right?
	That's not even getting into what we will in a second about where it's provable that the idea of a responsible for some, if not all, of what happened there, but the idea that they would, you know, leave open some gates and let Hamas run in and cause some havoc so they could then justify what they're doing in Gaza, right?
	That doesn't make sense because of what we know in regard to what they did do on that day.
	But then the dynamic is, okay, was it allowed to happen in the sense that they were going to then take advantage of what didn't happen and cause atrocities, or were they literally involved?
	And now this enters an interesting point, which I've been unable to verify past just the video itself, but you can find video from within the October 7th circulating content Where you have, in some cases, blue shirt.
	I don't know if the blue shirt is necessarily relevant or not.
	There's different, like, lighter blue.
	The point is you can prove there are people that were there working with Hamas that were speaking in Hebrew.
	Now, you could argue that they were just members of Hamas that were speaking in Hebrew.
	Maybe even that they did it in order to make it look like it.
	You could always think further.
	But it's interesting that that's another element of this, where they were seemingly directing people In Hebrew to Hamas members.
	So you wonder whether that was literally IDF members or intelligence within the whole thing.
	Now, my opinion is that it's more about somewhere in the middle.
	They saw it happening.
	Oh, and one more aspect could be that there's a lot of division within their own political gut with their government.
	It's very possible that somebody in the government decided to do this or that to push him out and then that blew up in their face.
	You see what I mean? And what you're talking about essentially is that Netanyahu, like I said, briefly did lose power, somehow regained that power.
	It's not just the people, but the political parties.
	You actually had The ex-head of Mossad recently speaking out against Netanyahu.
	We do know just like the CIA has rogue agents and agencies and ops.
	The same thing happens with the Mossad.
	And I would argue that that rogue network of CIA, Mossad, MI5, MI6 actually really does operate a lot of times outside of the nation state and the actual channels.
	You know, that's how a lot of these things go down.
	So all you need is the right political enemy that would like to get rid of Netanyahu, and they're more than happy to help orchestrate something like this.
	Now that's maybe giving Netanyahu too much credit, because we have to remember, I think it was either 2008 or 2009, Netanyahu openly came out and said that we are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attacks of September 11th.
	And as you know, and anybody who's seen my film, Fabled Enemies, knows, just like Saudi Arabia, Just like Pakistan, Israel had a major role in that attack that is still not discussed.
	And that also makes me worrisome.
	And that's the thing.
	There's a lot of people that are aware of that inside of this alternative conservative sphere, and they're not factoring that in.
	Now, you could factor in one way or the other, just like we discussed, but let's have the conversation, right, Ryan?
	Yeah. Right. Well, how about we also overlap that with the conversation of Ukraine, right?
	Like, it's the idea that it's very, it's on the record, if you know where to look, the CIA documentation, or just open conversations and behind-the-scenes connections they don't want you to look at, of how Israel, since long before 2018, but you can have it on the record per Haaretz, that they were funding the Azov movement in Ukraine.
	Open neo-Nazi elements, right?
	I mean, all of this stuff shows you what they're really presenting.
	This really gets into the reality of what Zionism actually is, and it has nothing to do with Judaism, other than that they're using Judaism to push forward this agenda.
	Now, that's being called out by Orthodox Jews.
	That's being called out by Israelis today in Israel.
	So as much as our country acts like this is super taboo, it's back to the point that Netanyahu is an
	aggressively disliked person in Israel. He was this close to losing power again right before October 7th.
	The judicial reforms were designed to, you know, basically throw this into even more of a theocratic kind of
	state where this religious Zionism party would ultimately take control and
	ultimately though it would create a world where he wouldn't really be prosecutable anymore,
	not the way that they were. And people saw that. People in the country were like, well, you're corrupt.
	And they also are very open about the fact that they think he was involved or let happen on October 7th.
	What happened? It's being screamed.
	People are protesting up on his house.
	You know, we just can't have this conversation in the United States, which comes back to the point about the right-wing party and all this, you know, where they just don't want to connect those dots.
	And like Laura Loomer made this big grasping argument when she discovered all the things we talked about for
	years in regard to the Azab movement.
	But of course, of course left out the obvious overlap of Israel's funding of this movement.
	That Kolomoisky, who was the chief backer of Zelensky and the Azab movement,
	head of the World Jewish Congress was this central part in all this,
	the OnePlus One media station, which became his cabinet.
	And all these different elements that clearly show that Israel was involved with what is going on there.
	And magically she left that part out.
	And you wonder why, you know?
	Well, I think it comes down to tribalism, you know?
	And look, especially when you talk about Israel, it is one of those things that gets ultra-convoluted because, let's be honest, there's only one religion that's also a supposed race.
	I could go and convert to Islam tomorrow.
	No one's going to think I'm an Arab.
	Okay, but you look at how, you know, you use the word Zionism.
	And I actually got asked by one of my producers, because I was expressing, you know, after this interview, you know, some of these things.
	And she's like, well, what do you think it is?
	And I go, all right, well, let's start with its historical nature.
	I mean, quite frankly, the Zionist movement in the beginning was about the creation of a Jewish state a la Israel.
	And it predates World War I. It was clearly a political movement for a home for the Jews.
	Now, these guys thought they were getting it after World War I. That didn't happen.
	They were not happy with it.
	World War II ensues, and if you look at the agreements that were made, the transfer agreement in particular with Hitler himself, obviously this is a political movement that actually involved both sides, the Axies and the Allied Powers.
	I go, we have to remember that.
	I mean, remember, the Russians are bad now, and they were good when they fought the Nazis.
	There's a lot going on here.
	And I go, a lot of people would have made the argument at a time after Israel was successfully created, that would be the end of quote-unquote traditional Zionism.
	And I just said, at this point, I feel like the terminology simply means whoever's in power gets to do whatever they want to do on behalf of that nation state.
	Much like I would talk about the neocons.
	You know, I don't hate conservatives or people of that ilk, but they're a political party and they're going to do whatever they want.
	And if you don't support them, then you're the bad guy.
	And they just have this ultra card where if you're anti-Zionist, which is really just the policy of the day in Israel of whoever's in charge, you're a bigot, you're an anti-Semite, you hate Jewish people.
	It's wild! Well, it doesn't make sense.
	I mean, that's the problem with this.
	Let's not forget. Well, first of all, I would argue, I agree with most of that.
	I just don't, I argue...
	And this is expressed by Orthodox Jew communities, specifically Torah Judaism is a big one around the world, New York, London.
	You know, they speak about this all the time.
	But there's a lot of movement like this making it clear that, in their opinion, Zionism is not...
	It's a manipulation of Judaism, right?
	And the idea being, if you go back in time, it's not that they were ultimately seeking a state for the Jews.
	They were seeking a state of their own.
	And through Judaism is how they found a way to make that happen.
	And this is the point that goes back to how you can prove I know you're aware of the Ergun party and the Lehigh party and the different Zionism origin aspects that they were trying.
	And you can look this up on Wikipedia.
	They tried to align themselves with Nazi Germany twice and then once with Stalin.
	And the reasoning was they just wanted to find as their own terminology a fascist entity to basically bolster what they wanted to create.
	They ended up working with the British government.
	The point is it's clear that they just ultimately wanted their control.
	And all of these arguments about the religious aspects of it, even from its origin, they knew that this was about being given this entity, and they chose between multiple locations, which then got turned into, was given to us by God.
	You don't pick these locations and ask for the British government to give it to you, or rather have that happen if it's some kind of a God-given aspect.
	But on top of that, we have to realize that Zionism itself is ultimately...
	I compare it to something like, I mean, you could look at the aspects of Christianity and the same ways that we have people that aren't really believers of Christianity use that in order to manipulate Christians.
	All the time, on every level.
	And like, that's what I try to tell people.
	I mean, you could outwardly watch some of these, you know, multi-million dollar preachers and evangelists.
	And obviously...
	They're there to not pay taxes and fleece the masses.
	I mean, that's what the Osteens of the world are there for, folks.
	But they're charismatic.
	They garner that.
	And I think there's a lot of well-meaning people.
	And I think that there's also a lot of people that have been tricked into this idea that it's good to be a quote-un-Christian Zionist because the rapture has to come.
	And that's part of the deal.
	It's such a bizarre...
	Over the top.
	I mean, it's that dark cartoon, weird, like, upside-down verse that we're constantly dealing with.
	And I'm just trying to deal with it in a pragmatic sense and talk down people from both sides.
	Because I'm not on any side, but trying to keep everybody alive and finding a real solution.
	Let me add one more point to that in general.
	This comes back to the idea of race versus religion.
	And this is the important part of this.
	That's the manipulation in and of itself.
	Someone like Avi Shalom, for example, who is a very respected British Israeli historian, professor, has spoken about this.
	And he speaks about how Zionists, according to Zionists that he knew, We're in part of the Zionist underground.
	We're bombing Jews in Iraq in order to convince them that Muslims were bombing them to drive them into the state of Israel.
	Like this is the origin of this, right?
	And the idea is that he makes the argument very clearly that this is the first time in history, once the state of Israel was created, that it gave territorial dimensions to what Zionism was.
	And then that became the state of the Jews.
	So realistically, there's only Zionism and then the religion of Judaism.
	This idea that by being born in Israel that your nationality is Judaism, that's not the reality.
	This is a manipulation. And this comes from people.
	I mean, ultimately, at the end of the day, you can make this analogy with any other country.
	Right? Just because you're born in the United States does not therefore make you a Christian.
	It doesn't make any sense. And you don't then, whether or not you practice Christianity, have like some ethnic background to Christianity.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	And this is only now being able to be discussed for whatever reason because people, I mean, I think we all know why, people are starting to feel comfortable asking these questions.
	And it's amazing how it's not like debatable based, like these people ask questions, they look up documents and go, oh, he's right.
	It's very simple.
	It's right there. And the only thing you have is the government telling you you're racist for looking at it.
	Yes, which has been the playbook for quite some time and really has eroded free speech
	around the world through organizations like the ADL and the implementation of hate speech
	laws.
	I want people to think about that, how they've used actual bigotry and weaponized it to a
	point where you cannot criticize political movements, militaries, and really attempts
	at genocide and you can't call for ceasefires at this point without being called a bigot
	by some people.
	Ryan, we've been doing it, hashing it up for an hour.
	Tell people about the website, how they can support you, and what you'd like to leave the audience with.
	Thanks, brother. Yeah, thanks for having me on.
	It's always a pleasure talking with you, man.
	I always love our conversations.
	Well, I'll leave you with first, before I shout my website out, is just that point at the end, you know, the ceasefire.
	This is one of the, and there are many of them throughout this post-October 7th conversation, that they're so jarringly obvious that it's shaken people out of classically held beliefs.
	And I've never seen it this obvious before, but that example alone.
	Imagine seeing bad things happen, right?
	October 7th, clearly. People were hurt.
	People were killed. There's allegations about worse things happening.
	We didn't really get into the IDF being responsible for a lot of the killings, which is even Haratz has reported, but that's a part of it.
	But the point is that you can see the bad stuff and you call it out and you say, that's atrocious and nobody should be okay with that.
	Then it starts happening in Gaza and you say, that's terrible too.
	Nobody should allow those children.
	And then you go, okay, well, ceasefire.
	Obviously, right? Let's stop the killing until we can...
	And they say, you're a racist and redirect outrage to one side of the conversation.
	And then claim that you only care about one side when the point is the opposite, right?
	So there's a lot of... And I'm not saying there are people...
	There's clearly people that exist that...
	Hate all Israelis or all Jews and only care about that.
	That does exist. But the point is you're seeing people that very obviously don't think that.
	People saying free Palestine or calling for a ceasefire that then get called Hamas-supporting pro-terror racists.
	I mean, that's just stupid, right?
	It's just jarring.
	The average person's like, what?
	They're clearly calling for peace right now.
	And so it's shaking people out of this.
	That this is coming from a dishonest place.
	Ceasefire, like if they really wanted to end...
	Actually, I'll align with one point from Dave Smith that he made during his debate with Loomer that I thought was so powerful.
	That he really said, like, maybe you'll seem a little wishy or, you know...
	Touchy-feely with this point.
	But ultimately, if Israel really wanted to prove to the world that they were what we pretend that they are, they would have, after this horrible thing, they would have said, this is just horrifying.
	You know, it's our 9-11.
	And instead of going after all of Gaza, we're going to offer you a real two-state solution.
	We're going to work together with the Palestinian people we pretend that we're trying to fight with, and we're going to together annihilate Hamas, right?
	We're going to actually be real for the first time and offer you something real and tangible with your own borders, your own military, like a real two-state solution, and then together change this.
	And you know how that would have changed the world, like literally in so many ways would have changed everything.
	and went on to continue to murder right now over 9,000 children in Gaza, right? I mean,
	that has shaken people awake. So I'm glad to see it, even though it's the worst. I shouldn't
	say in the sense of the killing. I'm glad to see people awake because of the horrible
	killing that they've conducted.
	So thank you for having me on, man.
	And TheLastAmericanVagabond.com is the best place for all of our work.
	And if you do watch our work, you'll realize that I do my best to be as objective as possible.
	And I care about human life, whether they be Jew, Muslim, Palestinian, Israeli.
	I care about people and the oppressors that are trying to step on their necks.
	And I think that's obvious if you look at the work as much as people try to make us racist all the time.
	Yeah. Of course, man.
	I want that to just be reiterated.
	I'm not trying to wipe any race, religion, off the planet, anything.
	Like I said, I'm a free speech absolutist.
	And as long as you're not doing somebody else physical harm...
	Hey man, do your thing.
	I want the open ideas.
	That doesn't mean I have to love everything about this or that.
	But at the end of the day, like you said, I want less death.
	I don't like seeing dead kids in my feed.
	And I've been seeing a lot of dead kids in my feed as of late.
	So Ryan, once again, thank you guys.
	And again, I want to let everybody know again.
	Monday through Friday, 6 p.m.
	over at antnews.us.
	It's a different flavor of Burmus.
	It's this set. I wear the jacket.
	I clean up a little bit.
	And there's some mainline guests there.
	But, you know, I'll tell you right now, if you are going to be watching over the Christmas break, I got two great hours with David Icke.
	I've got two great episodes with Andrew G. Huff.
	And we threw in a brand new one with Jay Dyer.
	And then on top of that, we got a Naomi Wolf banger.
	So, guys, I love you.

▲