All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2024 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
58:38
Media Liars And Deep State Killers
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
We've got a great show lined up for you today.
We have author Michael Walsh.
The new book is Against the Corporate Media, 42 Ways the Press Hates You.
We've also got Peter Tickton.
He's going to be talking about what makes Trump tick.
Boy, we had him on after the first assassination attempt and now the second one.
Definitely want to know what his view is on that.
You're not going to want to miss it.
buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
And we are back.
We are joined by Michael Walsh.
Thank you so much for being with us, sir.
So, the book is against the corporate media.
I'd say there's probably more than 42 ways that they lie to us, but you've documented 42 in the book.
Before we get to the book itself, let us know a little bit about yourself and why you chose this subject matter.
Well, this is the second book in a series of against books.
The first was Against the Great Reset, which is about the scheme of the World Economic Forum to take advantage of the COVID hoax, panic, and rearrange modern society.
And that came out a couple of years ago.
So we decided to do a second against book.
And our target this time is the media.
And what I do in these books is I go to as many good writers who I think would be right for the project and commission
them to write an essay on the subject.
So with the Great Reset book we had 18, in this book we have 42 different essays because they're
shorter and I wanted to mix up the field a little bit more than we had in the first book. So that's
I'm a longtime journalist.
I'm a recovering journalist, I suppose you could say.
I started in 1972, so I've been around this business for 50-plus years.
And I know I'm sick of it, and I know the American public is sick of what it's turned out to be.
So we decided to go after them with all the guns.
So let's talk about your career in journalism.
Like you said, it spanned many decades.
I wasn't around in the 70s.
I'm 45 years young, so I have a little recollection of the 80s and into the 90s.
At the time, when there was really limited media coverage everywhere, when print media was still relevant, before the days of the internet, I certainly bought into the mainstream narratives that were out there via ABC, NBC, Fox News, etc. almost without question.
And it really wasn't after 9-11 that I started questioning anything of significance.
What was your journey like within journalism?
How did the 70s compare to the 80s, 90s, and then post 9-11?
Well, I think in the 70s, when I started in 72, it was still the old-fashioned craft.
It was not a profession so much as a calling, and you didn't need an advanced degree for it.
The ranks of reporters, they weren't called journalists in those days, largely came from the most recent ethnic groups that had come to America.
So this would be the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews from the late 19th century and throughout the first half of the 20th century.
Gradually, well that same year was the summer of Watergate, so all of us brand new baby reporters were watching Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward and what they were doing, breaking stories and getting inside what looked to be this sort of dark conspiracy that eventually brought President Nixon down two years later and it was After he had won the greatest landslide in American political history.
So it shows you how quickly the press could engineer a kind of coup, if that's a term you want to use, to take out the sitting president.
And they did.
After that, reporters became much hungrier for social change.
They became advocates rather than neutral observers.
And since then, objectivity has gone out the window.
They're frankly And we're now in this position of them functioning as propaganda outlets for the left, mostly for the Democrat Party, which is why Americans are so unhappy with journalism, because you cannot trust it anymore.
And that's sad.
Well, I would agree that you certainly can't trust it.
So you feel like it began to become more and more partisan during the 70s and even act as an arm of The agenda.
You say that this is an open coup.
A lot of people have reflected on that via the Nixon administration.
Although...
In large part, you know, the mainstream narrative surrounding Woodward, Bernstein, and all that has survived, right?
They made a movie about it with Tom Hanks.
So what are your thoughts on that?
Watching it develop in real time, watching the historical connotation of something like that, and then watching it be aggrandized by Hollywood and kind of solidified as that specific narrative within the realm of the general public.
Well, the first movie about it was All the President's Men, and that was released rather quickly in the wake of the tremendous success that those guys had with their book of the same title, All the President's Men.
And that created the notion of Carl Bernstein and Who's a friend of mine, by the way, and Bob Woodward as Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford.
So when you get played by the two biggest stars of that period, that's the version of the truth that's going to sink in.
Later on, as I mentioned, people began to look back.
In fact, we have an essay against the corporate media by Monica Crowley, who was then an assistant to President Nixon, or slightly after that, after he had resigned.
So Monica's been around for a long time and she was with Nixon during the years post-resignation and talks about the weaponization of hate that the media was able to pull off because Nixon was such an unlovely and unlikable character.
They were able to really hit him hard and they had been hitting him hard well through the 50s and even in the run-up to the 1960 election.
So the media really began to take sides at that point and as I was saying, reporters wanted to affect social change and there were two ways to do it.
Be a lawyer or be a journalist.
If you weren't smart enough to be a lawyer, you went into the newspaper business and reporting and hope to break
stories and and hope to put some scalps up on the wall too.
So journalism became much more of an attack weapon than it had been and then it turned wholly partisan
and that's where we're at today.
Traditionally, journalism is supposed to be the fourth estate, that fourth branch of
government in the checks and balance system that doesn't exist, that is
enabled by our First Amendment.
However, as you stated, it seems to be almost inverted.
It seems like the press is constantly calling for censorship and unfortunately not just calling for it, getting their way on it.
And you have a government and social media companies that are all too willing to take part.
Yes, that's a short answer.
I've seen former colleagues of mine.
I was for 16 years at Time magazine starting in 1981 and finished my time with Time around 1997 or so and never went back to journalism after that.
I became an author and a screenwriter in Hollywood, speaking of Hollywood.
So that's kind of where my involvement with this, uh, this profession, uh, ends, but I've seen colleagues of mine openly advocate the abandonment of objectivity.
Uh, one of them is very prominent.
He was worked in the state department, uh, under the last democratic administration and calls for no, there's not two sides to every story anymore.
There's only one side.
When it involves Trump, there's only one side.
And Trump is not the side you want to be on.
But to see former journalists advocating...
Using the press as a weapon is startling to me, however you may feel privately.
Heck, there were some reporters back when I was a young reporter that didn't even vote.
They were like, I grew up in the Marine Corps, so they were like Marine Corps officers.
They felt that your objectivity was paramount and you should literally not even vote.
Well, that's long gone, of course.
Now you advocate for a candidate.
It's disgraceful, but it's where we're at, and it's why we felt important to publish this book right now.
Especially with an election coming up, and to really show people how the media has deteriorated in front of our eyes, and has really adopted a policy that was first articulated back in the early 1920s by Walter Lippmann, who was a very famous columnist in those days, and kind of the forerunner of the journalist who goes in and out of government, whether as an advisor or private advisor or something.
And he advocated in a book called Public Opinion, That the media was too dumb to form its own opinions, and that the opinions should be formed for the media by the government.
Well, a hundred years later, that's exactly where we are today.
You know, you mentioned that you essentially leave the media business in the late 90s, and obviously there is a huge change, especially in television media, during that time period that kind of moves us into the digital age.
CNN had aired the Gulf War live.
That was really the first taste for America to see such a thing on a 24-hour news network.
But after that, in kind of rapid fashion, you had these other 24 news networks.
Show up whether it was MSNBC or Fox News.
The big story that kind of launched them in the public eye was probably the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
Now we had gone from about 10 to 15 channels to most homes having 60 channels, maybe even a DVR recorder in their cable box.
How do you think that has shifted the mediascape, moving from your six o'clock news, your paper, your news cycle that kind of had a time period and then you had a break, to being bombarded with it 24-7, even before we get to the World Wide Web and the Internet Age?
That's a good question, Jason.
I would say it was not just the Monica Lewinsky thing, but it was OJ that turned the news cycle into constant 24-7.
America was gripped by the OJ murders and followed the trial and the media realized this was an absolute bonanza for them and just kept it going and created its own stars who were commenters on the OJ trial.
Books were sold.
It became an industry.
And after that, the news business was just not the same.
And you're right about there being no respite from it now.
And I think that asked by other interviewers, and I'm sure you're going to ask me the same
thing here about, well, where are we going with this when it's constant refreshment of
the news cycle every few seconds now?
And my answer is Twitter.
That's where we're going with it.
Musk is certainly smarter than your average human being.
And he spent a lot of money on Twitter to turn it into a kind of nonstop news service.
Now that doesn't mean it's always right.
It doesn't mean it isn't also biased on either the left or the right.
But he believes in let a thousand flowers bloom and believes in freedom of speech which most media moguls do not.
Well let me just jump in.
I don't believe that.
I don't think he's a freedom of speech guy.
This freedom of reach thing is total jotting.
Is he the best kid in a bad neighborhood?
You bet he is.
But that's because you just have so much outright censorship.
They still have algorithms.
They still have shadow bans.
Let me just give you a quick example.
You wanna make that a free speech platform?
You can do it tomorrow.
It's very, very simple.
If I follow you, sir, I see your post.
End of story.
That's how social media used to work.
If I looked at an account, everything was in a manner of time.
So 9 a.m.
my time, if they posted, I'd see it, I'd see it.
None of their posts were taken away.
They already have two tabs, For You and Follow.
I wanna see all the posts from the people I follow.
You do that, I'll say it's a free speech platform.
Until then, it is not.
I am now paying a premium to be shadow banned only because I want to be able to post videos that are more than two minutes long or be able to live stream on that platform.
Not only that, there's a second tier!
For me, if I also want to get screwed over that I can pay to maybe make some money, but I don't think things have changed much in the entire scope since, let's say, the days of Michael Cernovich, right?
I may not agree with everything that Cernovich says, but Cernovich was one of the first people well before COVID 1984 and the massive censorship on these platforms to point out, hey, I'm paying for Facebook ads.
You know, I'm paying for my stuff to get out and clearly I'm not getting the reach that other people that pay the same amount have.
He actually, I believe he won.
They settled with him.
God knows what the litmus test was that.
You go to Alex Berenson, you know, this is pre-Musk, but he certainly did the same thing with Twitter and got some money on them as they censored him.
I have a big problem with the idea that somebody... First of all, I think Musk is a cutout.
He's in charge of way too many things.
He's the number one defense contractor in the country.
I mean, he's making money hand over fist that way.
And if he's such a threat to free speech, They wouldn't have the guy creating the new spy satellite network for the United States, nor would they have him launching their spy satellite network, Blackjack, along with his Starlink program, which is highest concentration, by the way, is in Ukraine.
The dishes there that hook into the Ghost and Sidewinder drones.
And if you listen to Putin last week, what was he talking about?
NATO and US satellites.
So look, as far as free speech goes, I think we're in a really bad spot.
You know, if that's the best guy that we got, and we've got to go by an algorithm of some cult of personality, we're in a really bad place.
Now, as far as the possible prosecutions globally, look, I think there is some gray area there.
Obviously, I don't want to be under the authoritarian nature of what we have going on in the EU.
No, I think... Look, I don't know Elon Musk.
we got, it doesn't seem to be going in a good place for me, Michael. I know I went on a
rant there, but please.
No, I think, look, I don't know Elon Musk. I've never met him. It's highly unlikely
that I ever will.
And I agree with you as far as the deterioration of social media.
I think Facebook is now completely useless.
You see the same post posted by 10 people you don't even know.
You see a million ads.
You realize, as Glenn Reynolds, I think, said way back at early in the days of the Internet, Uh, if you're wondering, you know, it's like the poker game.
When you look around, who's the sucker?
It's you.
That's the sucker for being in that poker game.
You're the product that Facebook is selling to advertisers for which you get nothing.
So that's a good racket if you can run it, and Zuckerberg's done a very good job of it.
But he's so bad now, and the platform is really for elderly people exchanging cat pictures and recipes.
But that's why they bought Instagram, because they still have the youth there.
It's not quite TikTok, but you know, you look at Zuckerberg.
One of the larger problems I have with these social media companies, it also seems like you've picked winners and losers, right?
Um, you could go to Parler, for instance, uh, during the 2020 election.
They had a real boost.
You know, people were sick of the censorship and what happens?
They get banned on the app stores.
That's, that's insta-death.
You know, you look at a platform like Google and it is really a platform, right?
Because, uh, number one, you have the largest search engine in the world, Google.
Then you have the number two largest search engine in the world, owned by Google, which is YouTube, which is the number one video platform in the world.
Then, if you combine Android and Chrome, it is the operating system on the most devices.
And then it gets worse from there.
So if you can't, if you have a business that is based online or based on information, it is very hard to survive in an environment where they have control Yeah, well, especially when they're dishonest about it.
I mean, I'm always amazed that nobody points out Sergey Brin as a Russian.
You think with all this anti-Russian hysteria that that would be a big deal?
That doesn't feed into the narrative because Sergey Brin is fine with his employees programming autonomous drones to kill people in other countries.
We're going to take a quick break and then we can talk a little bit more because before Brin you have Eric Schmidt and I want to discuss a little bit with him because He got called out on Dragonfly, the censored version of the internet, for China a little bit more than half a decade ago and he punted that question.
I argue there is no Chinese style internet censorship.
It's just internet censorship and it's here now.
More Making Sense of the Madness with Michael Walsh after this.
The donor deck represents a groundbreaking independent crowdfunding initiative driven by patriots like you to bring back our esteemed President Donald J. Trump to office.
With unwavering passion, we pledge all profits from the sale to MAGA Inc.
and Fight Like a Flynn pack.
The exquisitely detailed challenge coin is a timeless collectible to be passed down to generations.
It symbolizes your continuous dedication to assisting President Trump in his quest to rejuvenate America to its former greatness.
Get your donor deck now!
Go to the Patriot.tv store and click on Donor Deck.
Enjoy the magnificent artwork and scripture on each playing card, knowing our appreciation for your continuous dedication to assisting President Trump in his quest to rejuvenate America to its former greatness.
You'll get this keepsake collectible challenge coin acknowledging your support for Donald Trump's run back to the White House.
And the donor deck of 52 exquisite playing cards plus a beautiful display case to show your challenge coin.
Go to the Patreon.tv store and get your donor deck now.
Attention business owners, are you ready to advertise to millions of loyal Patriots ready to buy your products or services?
Here is your golden chance to advertise with Jason Bermas and connect with his massive audience on Patriot TV and his incredibly loyal social media followers.
As an advertiser on Making Sense of the Madness, you also reach his followers on the top social media sites.
As Jason dives into complex current events and conspiracies, offering investigative analysis and thought-provoking discussions to uncover the deeper truths behind the headlines.
When you advertise with Jason on Making Sense of the Madness, you're aligning your brand with integrity, loyalty, and a dedication to truth.
Jason's audience is passionate, conservative, and committed to the values your business stands for.
When given the choice, Jason's followers will buy your products or services over other woke companies.
Don't miss this opportunity to elevate your brand with the power of Patriot TV.
Reach out to us today at advertise at patria.tv And we are back we are with Michael Walsh
So you talked to Sergey Brin, and the reason that I bring up Eric Schmidt is because in that conversation, I believe it was with the BBC, 2017-2018, They had called him out on the fact that they were producing the censored version of the internet on Google and Eric Schmidt, I don't know anything, but I can't really discuss it.
I'm not the head of Google anymore.
Ask Sergei Brin.
No one ever asks Sergei Brin.
Now on the flip of that, you do have Brin on tape in these private, uh, I guess they're going out to Google employees post 2016
election talking about how this can never happen again.
I mean that's extremely problematic.
But again, since it doesn't fit into the narrative where they want to prop up Google, they want
to tear down Russia, they're never going to point out that that guy's Russian.
I just think it's odd given that they're so paranoid about everything that's Russian that
they never mention Google.
The algorithm thing is a problem.
I think Facebook is a good example of it.
And as you point out, it keeps pushing itself down in tears.
Facebook's for old folks.
Then you have Instagram, which is for middle-aged people in their late 30s, early 40s, like you, my daughter, for example.
They use Instagram.
And then there's TikTok for the teenage girls who are auditioning to be pole dancers.
Apparently, that's all I can find on on TikTok now and misinformation and disinformation.
Eventually there'll be a 24-hour constant thing for eight-year-olds and then they'll have
their own little things too and they'll be plugged into the news cycle. But where this ends
is it blows up, if that's the point.
Eventually we become so atomized, everyone's got, in effect, a different view of the world, even from whatever platform they're using, because it's tailored for you.
It says that right there on X for you.
So you don't know what's for you and what's for the guy next to you.
We're going to just go into a world where only opinion will matter, but it'll be based on nothing.
And I don't think we want to go down that road, but that's where we're headed.
You see, I don't mind the decentralization of information, but where I do have a problem with it is when that information is criminalized.
You know, you mentioned misinformation, disinformation.
They've now made up another term in recent years called malinformation, maybe the most troubling of all, where your information that you're putting out is a hundred percent factually accurate, but it happens to be inconvenient to the narrative of the day.
And because of that, it is malinformation and can also be censored.
I mean, that is just outright, in almost Bernesean language, telling you, if you say something we don't like, we're going to censor you.
And it has gone even beyond that, where the media is also advocating with politicians that we should make this a criminal offense.
Hillary Clinton did such a thing just this week.
So what are your thoughts on that?
Well, Hillary Clinton's husband was raised by a gangster named Owen Vincent Madden.
The great Owen Madden, I wrote a whole novel about him, was Bill Clinton's mentor in Hot Springs, Arkansas.
So the whole notion of how to run a criminal racket is imbued in these two grifters almost from the time Clinton was a little boy.
That's part of the problem right there.
The last essay in our book is by Bill Whittle, and Bill has been involved with the Internet practically since the day it started.
He does something called Firewall.
He ran a site called Eject, Eject, Eject.
And I asked him in this last section about the rise and fall of the Internet.
What's going to kill it?
And censorship is the answer.
If you cannot allow censorship, there's a question of shadowbinding, there's a question of algorithmic Whatever.
But when you come right out and say we are going to ban this and criminalize it, as many, I'm in Europe right now, but as many countries in Europe are trying to do and as the EU is trying to do, although they won a victory when Thierry Breton got axed the other day by the EU people because he embarrassed her.
We can't go down that road.
In fact, I'm in Germany, and if there's any place in the world that should be sensitive about censorship, it's Germany.
But Germany is now attempting to use censorship against one of the opposition parties.
They're saying that they're a threat to democracy.
We hear this in the United States as well.
We certainly hear it in Great Britain.
We hear it in my home in Ireland, where I live.
A good half a year.
Proposed law in Ireland that will allow the cops to come into your house, look through your books, and if they see anything in there that could be used to incite hate against somebody, you go to jail.
So, this is absurd, and it's evil, and we have to call them out on it, and that's another one of the reasons why we did it against the corporate media, because the corporate media is now the chief sponsor of suppression of information.
Now I would argue, you know, I talked about post 9-11 and not trusting the media, but one of the things that I did in many of my documentary films, and I still do today on my shows where I'm not interviewing people, is go to the mainstream media for articles, for news clips, etc.
And especially in the arena of Voter fraud, the machines, elections, at least early on when those were implemented, started really getting implemented after the hanging chads of 2000 and 2004.
The mainstream media still was concerned with the voting machines.
You had Hacking Democracy in 2006 from HBO, Bev Harris of Black Box Voting could still get on certain mainstream talk shows.
Greg Palast, who is still out there in the mainstream media, was reporting on such things.
Now you're not even allowed to question elections, let alone the machines, let alone the corporations that build these machines or the other corporations that provide the proprietary software that you and I can't audit. So when you look at the media, and now the
media is just stumping for these people, if you question, you're an election denier, you know,
trying to associate you obviously with Holocaust denial. What is your view on the mainstream
media and how they've handled these type of questions about elections? Well, I would say it's
part of a larger issue.
They are in favor of elections when Democrats win.
That's because most of them are Democrats.
Overwhelmingly Democrats.
But more than that, as I said earlier, they're not drawn from the same social class reporters used to be drawn from.
They are drawn from the same class that goes to Harvard.
And if you've ever met anyone who went to Harvard, among the very first things that he will tell you is, oh, I went to Harvard.
Within the first one minute, I think all of these little guys are commanded to tell you that they went to Harvard.
Okay, so Big D went to Harvard.
So what?
Well, the so what is they marry each other, they have affairs with each other, they buy summer houses near each other, they share summer houses together, they live in the same neighborhoods.
They're a cross between a tribe and a cult.
And they're the ones that are running the show now.
So they're very happy with the suppression of information that attends election coverage.
The idea that we have an election week or month, or why not forever, why not have a permanent rolling plebiscite as long as we're going down that road, that's outrageous.
The idea that you let machines through the county that are connected to the internet, that's outrageous.
The Israelis just showed how dangerous being connected to the internet actually is, since a lot of guys just lost really important parts of their body thanks to what the Israelis did.
So that's no way to run an election, and it doesn't give the people any faith in an election.
I mean, third-world countries can run an election in 24 hours on paper ballots with purple fingers, and that's it.
But we're back in the days of Tammany Hall now, where they'd vote a guy with a beard, and then they'd shave it off, and then they'd leave his mustache, and he'd come back and vote again.
Then they'd shave his mustache, then he'd come back and vote again.
Then they'd cut off all of his hair, then he'd come back and vote again.
That's how Tammany won election after election in New York City.
What's the difference between then and now, really?
Absentee ballots can be suddenly picked up at 3 o'clock in the morning at Providence Unknown, pre-filled out.
We're a laughingstock, but the regime, if you want to call it that, And the media is very much part of the regime.
They like it that way, so that's why they try to criminalize any dissent from the orthodoxy, and they start throwing words like denier around, which is outrageous if you're Jewish, to have the Holocaust hijacked by these awful people.
But they do it because they like power, and it's human nature, unfortunately.
So where are we then?
Is there any hope?
In other words, if we get Trump in there, you know, we've seen what he did for four years, far from perfect, obviously much better than the most puppeted administration in my lifetime.
I mean, this guy wasn't even conscious, let alone running the country.
You know, you could argue that presidents have only run, you know, various parts or to a certain degree historically, but let's look at like the second Bush administration, for instance.
Look, George Bush, was he running everything?
No, I mean, he was showing up, but Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, down the line you had vipers in there.
They were definitely running things.
It doesn't seem that way.
It seems more like a bureaucracy with what's running things now and whoever they just want to institute.
If Trump somehow, some way, overcomes all these obstacles, gets voted in November, sworn in in January, what are the steps that he has to take to reverse this trend and maybe restore the fourth estate, maybe start restoring the Constitutional Republic?
And is what I'm just discussing a pie-in-the-sky dream and just not going to happen no matter what?
I think history shows that it's a pie-in-the-sky dream.
Remember that Caesar was assassinated by people who wanted to restore the Roman Republic.
What they got was the Emperor Augustus, and they never got that Republic back again, not for the next 470-some years.
So once the genie's out of the bottle, it's very tough to put it back in.
Trump's personnel choices were questionable during that first administration, and I think everybody involved with that administration now would agree with that, and they've said that to me since I've had some interaction with them over these last eight years.
Um, I think if president Trump gets reelected, uh, his eyes will be wide open this time.
Uh, hopefully he won't be listening to his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared.
Uh, it should be professionalized and he really should get the best people.
Um, but he sometimes gets in his own way.
And as a result, uh, you have these problems that the campaign has had.
I don't want to mention any names, but Laura Luber comes to mind right off the top of my head.
That's not someone you want anywhere near your presidential campaign.
So that mystifies those of us who think that the incoming Trump administration will Correct the mistakes of the previous Trump administration.
And that's if it is incoming.
I mean, quite frankly, after the second assassination attempt, I think they're going for a third round.
I think they're not going to stop until they finally put this guy in the ground or maybe even perhaps kill one of his kids to give him the message that this is our town.
But that's just what I think.
Michael, we have run out of time.
What would you like to leave the audience with and where can they get this book, brother?
Well, the book is now available all over the United States.
It's not appeared yet.
in Britain, but we had a launch party in London last week for just the same to sort of get the word out now.
It's on sale everywhere.
You can get it in Kindle.
There's an audiobook in the works.
I'm not recording it myself, but we have at least one, possibly two very, very good narrators And you can dive in it.
You can read it front to back or you can just read around in it and pick the favorite topics and get yourself all worked up about how awful the media is.
That was our goal.
All right, Michael Walsh, thank you so much.
Folks, we're going to take a quick break.
When we come back, we've got Peter Tickton.
What makes Trump tick?
You're not going to want to miss it.
More making sense of the madness after this.
Flynn delivered the truth, whatever the cost.
Hand-signed by General Michael Flynn.
Order now at the Patriot TV Store.
Use promo code PTV at checkout to get special savings.
The Patriot TV Store.
A secure, hassle-free shopping experience.
The world is about to shift.
Banks are going cashless globally with the emergence of central bank digital currency, which will bring with it programmable money and the ability to turn on or off your purchasing power based on your digital social profile.
It's like the equivalent of spyware in your bank account.
You need to get out of the system with the world's safest and most precious assets, silver and gold.
Call Kirk Elliott Precious Metals at 720-605-3900.
at 720-605-3900. That's 720-605-3900.
And we are back.
We are joined by Peter Tickton.
Peter, thank you so much for joining us.
Now, you are a longtime friend of Donald Trump.
The book's been out a while.
It is What Makes Trump Tick.
Now, the last time you were on, we were on the heels of The first assassination attempt and from what I know, you had not spoken to the president after the fact.
We now have this second assassination attempt on Trump, which we know very little about, but I would argue at least the authorities have been more forthcoming and we know a little bit more about this one.
What do you know, sir?
Well, Frankly, I don't, I don't subscribe necessarily to what you're hearing about it.
Um, you know, we live in a dystopian type of situation or, or what they're trying to make us live in.
It is a dystopian situation where, um, that's why it's so important that we get this election and we, we, we make sure that Donald Trump wins this election because otherwise our collective gooses are cooked.
Uh, but.
You're talking about Ryan Roth's video, okay?
And they're all saying, oh, this is a crazy guy.
Well, everybody's a crazy guy, you know?
That's what they said about Oswald.
That's what they said.
Saran, Saran.
They're all crazy guys, okay?
That takes all the rest of the investigation off the table.
Nobody has to look at anything.
Because if you're dealing with a crazy guy, well, that answers the question.
Thing that bothers me about Ryan Roth's video that nobody's answering.
Okay.
That was, that was actually published on Twitter on May 1st, 2022.
And people are saying, oh, that was produced by BlackRock.
So he's on two commercials for BlackRock and that gets everybody's juices going and say, aha, it's a conspiracy.
Maybe something's wrong there, but it really, that wasn't.
There's something called the Azov Battalion videos.
It's a propaganda video for the Ukrainian group, the Azov Battalion.
Right.
It was for them and what their motivations are not at all crazy, greedy, disgusting, but not crazy.
So, you know, if you want to look at what, where these attacks are coming from, it's not just crazy people.
It's organized people with motivation and you know, Donald Himself basically said that, you know, his position is a very dangerous one.
You know, it's a dangerous job, he puts it.
And, uh, we just have to make sure that people are doing what they need to do and do it right.
I understand that, uh, that, uh, the Biden administration is actually giving him the protection in terms of at least numbers that he needs.
And thank God that we had somebody that was looking at the hedges that could actually
see that there was a barrel sticking through it.
I mean, that's an amazing thing.
Thank God he did.
But you know, it's not number one and number two that concern me so much as number three
and number four.
This is really where we have to have our concerns, and he needs to be protected.
Well, I would have to agree with you.
I think that the third attempt is now inevitable, which is something that is beyond the comprehension of most, right?
We had not seen somebody successfully get a shot off at a president or former president
since 1981, 43 years ago, prior to this.
And you mentioned the connections of the Azov Battalion with this gentleman.
This is a guy who you just delve into a little bit.
In 2002, allegedly got into a shootout with police officers and then they found a quote unquote
weapon of mass destruction in his car after no one was injured.
This happened to be a bomb or explosive device.
Somehow, someway, he does no jail time.
He ends up just going on probation.
He then is recruiting people for this military operation in Ukraine over the last several years.
He went from his North Carolina home to Hawaii.
Doesn't seem to have a job of any sort that could facilitate that monetarily, let alone The international flights that he's taking again and again and again over those last several years, and none of that gets into the question of how he knew where and when to be when this was not on the president's schedule whatsoever.
And I would even posit this, Peter, you know, it is great that somebody saw that gun poking out of the shrubbery, but at the same time, the way the media reported initially, what did we hear?
First story was, altercation outside, shots may have been fired, Trump rushed away.
Then, it's near the course, it's not even on the course.
Then finally, by the third or fourth story, okay, it may have been an assassination attempt.
Now, this time around, they're saying that the attempted assassin did not get any shots off, but let me also say this.
Yes, it's great that the Secret Service agent saw this.
We know that Trump and others have said that they heard shots fired and that's what really got them to know something was wrong.
They didn't hit the guy once.
Now, I get it.
You're in the shrubbery and there's a gun barrel sticking out.
But once again, you're a trained professional killer.
And now you're taking these shots and you don't get them.
Now, I'm happy about that.
I want this guy to be interrogated.
I want his past to be looked at.
But over and over again, you see these outward lapses that just don't make any sense in a historical context when we're talking about the protection of the President of the United States and the Secret Service.
Would you not agree?
How could I disagree?
I mean, everything you're saying just makes sense.
You know, we took a good look on September 6th when Donald Trump was in New York to go to court, and we weren't happy necessarily with what we were seeing there.
That was looked at pretty carefully.
I don't want to get into more detail about it because I don't want to mention what any shortfall or shortcomings are.
But, you know, your show, you know, making sense of the madness, right?
I mean, so, you know, Every time you do, every time you look at whatever's going on, if you go right to the peak of what's really involved here, which, you know, and I hate to do it in a way because, you know, one of the things that's important is that a lot of the things that I say or other people say be understood and accepted.
And the things that I say sound so crazy that It's hard to believe that it's happening.
You know, it's hard to believe that we have something like the World Economic Forum with its motivations and its decisions to do what it's doing.
And I think what people don't realize is that they already have subscriptions.
I mean, they started off with major influence to begin with, people like Bill Gates, Henry Kissinger, people that were really lending themselves to give it great credulity.
And so, you know, that's when they were able to get leaders of different countries signing on and billionaires.
And now of the 2700 plus billionaires in the world, they've got most of them that not only signed on, but have subscribed to the fact that 30% of what they hold have to be used for the purposes of the world economic forum.
So if you want to know, why is it that the media is, is, is crazed against Donald Trump?
The point that they're no longer legitimate at all.
They don't give you really the news.
They're just a propaganda outfit for the left.
It's because all of that money bought them up.
Okay, if you want to know how the educational system and all of that went that way and you know, I talked about this last time I was on your show and I mentioned some of this but what I didn't get to and what I really regretted was the fact that it's not just that they took off for all these different aspects of American life.
But they couldn't take over all of them.
And the ones that we have left are what give us our extremely wonderful chance of being able to combat this.
You know, George Washington's chances when he, you know, he took on the greatest, the most modern at the time army of all time, the greatest and most modern Navy of all time, the largest of all time, a boat and He had no chance of success, but he did because he had a certain factor that people weren't measuring and they weren't putting into it, which was, you could put it in terms of the American spirit, but it's more than that.
The people that are watching your show are the people that have their minds open and that are looking for reality.
They're not looking to be just swept away by rhetoric to which they can then get all emotional and hate Donald Trump and suffer from Trump derangements syndrome or whatever.
The people that are watching your show are the people who are thinking.
Okay.
I mean, you know, when you take dictators and despots, which is what the other side will end up being, believe me, we lose this election.
God help us all because whatever we've seen before is going to be going on an exponential basis.
They have to get things accomplished by 2030, according to their plans.
So, you know, if you think that we had a crisis in terms of raising oil prices, gas prices, energy prices, you haven't seen nothing yet, okay?
If they win this election over the next two years, you're going to see that we don't have the energy, at least the price is going to be really, really high.
So people needing home oil, heating oil, people needing to be able to travel, all kinds of things are going to start crumbling.
Well, I think we're already kind of along that road, unfortunately.
I think that Trump has to do more than just get elected in November.
He has to be sworn in in January after the fact.
And really, that's where the true battle begins.
You know, you talked about a third assassination attempt.
Look at the first one.
And I feel like they wanted it live on television for that extra psychological impact.
But this second one, it was fine to be away from the public.
And now I think that we're kind of in the realm of car accidents, plane crashes, maybe even his kids being a target.
And that is extremely troublesome and problematic.
We got to take one break.
We're going to come back.
Peter Tichton is with us. The book is What Makes Trump Tick.
You're not going to want to miss it.
Final segment of the show after this.
Don't let them win!
Patriot TV is committed to delivering the truth.
America's new network for Patriots is growing fast, and we'd love you to join us as a member of Patriot TV.
Your support makes it possible for us to continue to deliver unbiased reporting, thought-provoking discussions, and insights you won't find anywhere else.
From in-depth interviews to behind-the-scenes footage, Patriot TV brings you closer to the voices shaping our nation's future.
Whether it's political developments, cultural shifts, or global affairs, Patriot TV keeps you informed and empowered.
As a member of Patriot TV, you'll get perks, like personal invitations to exclusive Patriot TV events, where you can gather and network with like-minded Americans.
We'll also host online events throughout the year with General Flynn, who's committed to host live Q&A webinars where callers
like you can ask him questions and get real answers. Access to these events will be
members only. So, go to Patriot.tv, click on Become a Member. It's fast and easy. We have a
great membership option starting at just $9.99 a month, or save with our annual membership
for only $99, or take advantage of the best value, the two-year membership for just $159.
Go to Patriot.tv.
We are back.
Now Peter, I don't like thinking this way.
But at the same time, the way that this occurred, this would have been completely away from the public.
I know there's people talking about MSNBC being on the scene with him and maybe they would have caught something.
Maybe they weren't.
But what do you see in the differences of these two attempts?
And do you kind of agree with me that it looks like at first they wanted that big public impact and now they're just satisfied to get rid of him any way possible?
Well, yeah, they tried to destroy him any way they could.
The first thing they did, you know, well, we know, we know the history.
And, you know, remember, I'm the, you know, basically under Alina Hava, but I was the one that actually filed the lawsuit about the Russian collusion against Hillary Clinton.
And, you know, so I'm very well versed with all of that.
But when you look at the Russian collusion deal, that didn't work.
The impeachments didn't work.
Ultimately, even criminal charges didn't work, didn't take him out of the lead and the likelihood to win the election.
Then Biden, the first one, the first attempt was before, it was five days after Biden basically said, the time has come to make Donald Trump a target, which is very peculiar words to say.
And his political fortunes were really going to rise or fall on whether that was a successful assassination.
Whether he planned it, whether it was a conspiracy, whether it was a madman, I'm not making that comment.
But, you know, assuming for a moment that it might have been something more, take a look at the order of the way that that played out.
Then we have the second one where Biden's already out of the way, but they're counting the votes and they're counting their ability to cheat.
And Donald Trump has been saying we need to make it so big or too big to rake, is his words.
And that's what we have to do.
And that's what we are doing.
Because if we weren't able to do that, there'd be no need to take them out.
But they do have that need.
And it just so happens that they've got the players that are able to jump into this and do what a Manchurian candidate would do.
So, you know, we have, you know, it's a very frightening time because they cannot afford They'll lose four more years out of their agenda.
These people are afraid to death.
They think that if we don't get this done by 2030, they'll miss their opportunity to stop the progression of global warming past the point of no return, where it's going to now go all the way to zero life on the planet.
That's what they say.
I wonder how many of them are really true believers.
I mean, when you look at these restrictions, if they were such true believers, why don't they have any problem with all the smart bombs out there?
I mean, what's the carbon footprint of an ICBM?
We never hear about that.
So that's just one glaring, in-your-face obfuscation of their narrative.
You know, you mentioned the fact that they're pushing towards 2030.
I've been doing this for 20 plus years.
These people are extremely patient.
Before it was agenda 2030, it was agenda 21.
They would have liked to see this progression, I would say, a decade or two earlier.
They're settling On 2030, and I think that they're using many of their modus operandi.
In other words, a lot of these NGOs, you mentioned the World Economic Forum, but this coming week in New York City, they're having the summit of the future at the United Nations, trying to solidify many of these SDGs and ESG goals within that spectrum.
So with the United Nations, if Trump gets in, should he not make them The WHO and all of these institutions, a target.
And when I say a target, shouldn't, you know, it was great he was trying to get us out of the funding of the World Health Organization.
I'd like to see an executive order to take over the UN building, kick them out of the country and turn it into a museum showing their massive global war crimes since World War II.
But that's just me.
That might be pie in the sky.
What are your thoughts?
I would love that too.
I can't tell you what Donald Trump thinks on this particular topic, because there's always counterbalances and so on.
But you're right.
These things need to be set for very rapid investigations and conclusions as to what the heck this is all about.
I mean, why is the World Health Organization attempting to get sovereignty over the United States and every other country?
And exactly what do they have in mind?
But their agenda has to fit for what they've already done and what they've already accomplished.
There's 5.7 billion people on the planet that have been jabbed.
So those jabs, how long is it going to take before the jab becomes ineffective in terms of bringing
on whatever it is that they need to bring on? So this is all in the works. They have no choice.
They have to move according to their agenda. And that means that they cannot afford to have
Donald Trump win this election. That's why You know, God help us, you know, Donald needs to be kept safe.
Because it's not just what you're saying in terms of it could be a shot here, it could be a shot there, it could be a suicide bomber.
It could be something coming from above.
It's too important to them to not make sure that he doesn't get elected one way or the other.
And he's on the path to getting elected.
So whatever needs to be done, needs to be done.
I really hope that the Ukraine understands that when Donald Trump gets elected, if they try this kind of nonsense, that they're going to be held accountable.
Yeah, but at the same time, you know, people are downplaying the Ukraine connection, which is in your face right there, and trying to play up the Iran connection.
And, you know, look, I think Trump's imperfect, but I do believe he's the only one that has any semblance of telling the truth when he says he wants to end these conflicts.
Right?
There's no way Kamala Harris is going to end Ukraine, Russia, or what's going on in the Middle East right now.
Donald Trump, at least there is a hope of that.
That's bad for the military-industrial complex of which Raytheon and Lockheed stocks are at all-time highs.
They seem to be doing fine, Peter.
So, how do you combat that?
Because, look, Let's say he gets elected in in November.
They have now moved this sentencing date to after the election, right around Thanksgiving, but before he would be inaugurated and sworn in.
And as I understand it, if they decide to Rikers his ass, it's only Kathy Hochul who can pardon him?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Okay.
All right.
Tell me about it.
No, no, no, no.
After he's elected, none of this is going to go forward.
Okay.
It's all going to be put on a back burner.
It cannot.
You cannot take the president of the United States out of office from a local place or from a state place and say, you know, we're going to take a jurisdiction over the president of the United States.
It's not going to happen.
Okay.
Okay.
So after the election, don't even give those charges any more concern.
Yes, he can only pardon himself for federal offenses, but he can't pardon himself for state
offenses. But don't get lost in this.
That's not going to go forward. By a presidential decree, it'll end.
It has to end. And in fact, there'll be investigations.
This judge and his whole mentality, his whole craziness, he needs to be held
accountable. And he should be. And there are a lot of people that are going to be held accountable.
The thing is, everything has to be in the new warp speed. It has to be done very, very quick.
Heads have to roll. The top of our military have to go. We need to be able to assure that
that.
That we go on without this major conspiracy defeating our government.
Well, I got to tell you, I would love to see it happen.
You know, I want to believe that we don't have to be part of a revolution, but a reformation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And without any kind of criminal accountability, I don't know how we make that happen.
Peter, we have run out of time.
Go ahead.
We've got to have a debate on Elon Musk.
We should do an hour together.
That's my last guest too.
I'm not putting my hopes in some kind of a tech billionaire that's also the number one defense contractor in the world.
I'm sorry Peter, I just can't do it.
Sir, it is always a pleasure to have you.
What Makes Trump Tick is the book.
Peter Tickton, what a great guest.
Folks, you know the drill.
To me, it is not about left or right.
It is always about right and wrong.
▲
Export Selection