All Episodes
Jan. 24, 2025 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
01:39:57
A Very Technocratic 2025? IMA Ultra Panel
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here, and what you're about to watch is an awesome ultra panel from the Independent Media Alliance.
It is a buckle up.
You are not going to want to miss it.
Hour and a half plus.
Bang diddly anger.
Do you want to remind people at the very top of the show, can't do it without you, consider supporting me with the links down below.
Also check out all the documentary films for free.
Loose Change Final Cut, Fabled Enemies, Invisible Empire, A New World Order Defined, and Shade the Motion Picture.
Love you guys.
Check this panel out.
Welcome to the latest.
Independent Media Alliance panel, my name is Derek Brose with The Conscious Resistance.
Today, this group of people here, and maybe Catherine Austin Fitz, will be discussing the second Trump term, which has just started.
We'll also be making general predictions for 2025 and what we see from our varied perspectives here.
Just as a reminder for those who aren't aware, the Independent Media Alliance was announced by myself, Ryan Christine of The Last American Vagabond, and Whitney Webb in September, October of last year.
And it's still an ongoing project.
We do have a website coming very soon, which we are excited to share with you really soon.
But in the meantime, we are going to be doing these panels and discussing different ideas, trying to show those out there who are maybe feeling a little bit lost and confused about what's going on in the world, how we should be looking at this false binary that is kind of recreating itself right now, largely under Trump and folks like Elon Musk and others.
But that's what we're going to get into today.
Before we do that, guys, would you like to just go around briefly, introduce yourself and who you're representing?
I'm not shy.
I'll jump in.
Oh, sorry.
Go ahead.
Why don't you start with you and we'll go around that way.
That would make it easy.
Yeah.
That's what I thought.
We'll go around that way.
Yeah, my name's Ian Davis.
I'm a blogger and writer and researcher and author from the UK. I write at iandavis.com as well as other outlets.
Jason Bermas, Independent Media.
You can check me out over a ton of different platforms.
Documentary Filmmaker, host of Making Sense of the Madness.
I'm from geopolitics and empire.
It's funny.
On that note, I always wonder whether the view is the same for everybody.
So I feel like we all have different squares in different places.
Brian Christian, The Last American Vagabond.
I'm glad to be here with all of you yet again because I really love these panels and I'm looking forward to this conversation because I think a lot of our predictions have already come true.
So let's get into it.
I'm Steve Poikinen.
I host a number of shows and you can find them all at amwakeupshow.com.
You are muted, sir.
Ah, there we go.
I'm Patrick Wood.
I'm the editor of Technocracy News and Trends, and I've become a trend forecaster for sure.
I'm also the author of several books on technocracy and transhumanism.
And I'm Kit Knightley.
I'm the contributing editor of Guardian.org.
All right, wonderful.
So I think that's everybody.
And as I mentioned, we might be joined by Catherine Austin Fitz of the Solari Report at some point.
So guys, let's just jump right into it.
And Patrick, I'm really grateful you're here with us today because I think you're going to have some really important insights.
And you have been calling this out since many of us, before many of us here were born and talking about this for quite some time.
I want to start with the announcement of this Stargate project, which everybody here has heard about now.
I just published a new article over at The Last American Vagabond.
Ryan published it.
I wrote it.
It's called Stargate.
Trump partnered with technocrats to promote mRNA injections, AI, and transhumanism.
And by now, everybody's heard about this.
This is $500 billion coming from Oracle, SoftBank, and OpenAI.
OpenAI, of course, right off the heels of one of their whistleblowers, a whistleblower being killed in some weird circumstances.
Jumped right into the Trump administration and now they're announcing this Stargate project which they say is going to do everything from building new AI infrastructure but also they're claiming that it's going to lead to things like cancer vaccines where we're going to have AI scanning our blood and then detecting.
Cancer, early detection of cancer, and maybe curing all diseases as they're trying to promote it.
But as I wrote in the article, you start looking at, obviously, many people here, most of our audience is going to be aware of the concerns around mRNA injections, just health-wise, but also the bigger implications of genetically edited humans and things of that sort.
But then you also look at Larry Ellison with Oracle, Oracle deep connections to the CIA from the very beginning.
Ellison was calling for a surveillance state right after 9-11.
He's recently made statements as just as recent as September saying that, you know, we should use AI and facial recognition to keep police and citizens on their best behavior.
And of course, we could get into, even though Elon Musk is kind of talking down on this project, he still also is kind of tied in with this whole technocracy angle.
So it seems like a lot of MAGA is pushing back and is kind of like, oh, no, no, no, okay, we support the JFK files release or thanks for freeing Ross or whatever, but this is not going in the right direction.
So let's just start there.
What are the thoughts or what are you guys seeing out there on your news feeds?
I would like to start with just what I was kind of saying a second ago, that it is worthy of not even just to say that things that we've discussed, I think a lot of people have very clear concerns for years now.
We're like Patrick, definitely around where this has been going.
But it's important to note, like starting this conversation, I was sitting down before thinking about different things, about what I think I'm predicting.
And I'm just going, it's crazy because I'm trying to think so far ahead of these now because realistically, a lot of the things that pretty much everyone in this conversation have been predicting, have been saying we're going to happen, are literally rolling out.
Some of them were abstractly.
Something's like deliberately exactly what we were saying is going to happen.
And so it's just interesting.
And I think that's worth noting to start.
You know, very clearly, this is a lot of the things that encompass the technocratic direction, the control grid that Catherine talks about.
So I just think that's worthy to note to start.
And, you know, so anybody wants to start a prediction, I just want to throw that out.
Otherwise, I can jump in with different things.
But I think that, you know, Derek started off on a good note there.
Well, I guess I'll jump in.
I think it's unfortunate, but it seems like no matter what, this acceleration, especially based in technology and surveillance, is going to escalate no matter what, right?
And I've talked about this before.
When we were talking about differences between a Biden 2.0 or a Harris administration between Trump, I'll be honest.
The things that I said were good and might happen have absolutely just happened – Like, I couldn't be happier about the January 6th stuff, the Ulbricht stuff, the document stuff.
Again, let's see what we get there.
I think it has to expand.
I would have liked to see Malcolm X there and then a pathway to things like 9-11.
It's very early on, so we'll see.
But the guy's obviously surrounded himself with not only, you know, the quote-unquote tech bros, but the apex of that with Musk, whose wealth on paper...
has increased exponentially since COVID-1984, and he is the quote-unquote head of so many of these organizations that are in the automation, AI, transhumanist field.
One of the things that Trump is like the only person talking about it, other than a story here and there, is the fact that we're going to start building many nuclear centers to power these AI centers, right?
It was just announced, I think it was Google and Amazon said they were going to do this.
Obviously, Trump is on board, and he actually mentioned it very quickly in his address to the WEF, these centers, and how they would be powered.
Now, look, I've been advocating for fourth, fifth, sixth generation nuclear power for the populace for cheaper power.
I think what we're going to see is actually, given we're on this pathway and everybody starts going along with it, an escalation of an economic boom that will trickle down to the middle class with these technologies, but at the same time, a total escalation of the surveillance state and the digitization, tokenization of not only currencies, but a lot of social behavior, tokenization of not only currencies, but a lot of social behavior,
In the sense that you're going to QR code with your phone.
Maybe your biometrics are going to become more and more prevalent when we're talking about going to a club, etc.
Going to a stadium.
You know, they've already eliminated cash in so many places.
Like, I went to Chicago now two plus years ago to Bellator.
You don't get a ticket.
They wouldn't let me buy a ticket at the place.
I literally had to run it through their app and they had to text me the ticket just to get in.
You know what I mean?
And then inside, forget about it.
You couldn't get concessions.
So I don't see that pushing back.
You talked about mRNA medicine.
That is also something that is escalating at probably the more alarming level.
And I'm hoping, again, like you said, that MAG is not down with that and there's going to be a pushback.
We'll see, right?
Because we don't know what Bobby Kennedy is really going to do as HHS secretary.
But as I've talked about a lot on this program and others, we've been in the bio-nano era since 2020 now, officially.
And one of the things that I'm going to do in a broadcast coming up is once again go over that NASA Future Strategic Warfare document published in 2001 because it's 2025. Go down the list.
Just about everything in there has come to fruition and is now publicly available.
So I think really that's the track that we should look at and at least the agenda.
And obviously, I'm a big maintainer in as much freedom and humanity as possible.
And I think mRNA is probably the next big fight, at least that we're aware of.
And I'll pass off to someone else.
I think it's important to note quickly that while we all acknowledge that we're on an accelerated path, inversion comes into play tremendously.
So it's not just acceleration, but it's acceleration and inversion.
Because if you would have told MAGA in 2019 that Donald Trump was going to partner with Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt to deliver AI solutions for your biometric future, they probably would have cussed you out.
They probably would have.
And yet, because it takes a quote-unquote Republican to pass what is perceived as a Democrat's policy or it takes a Democrat to pass what's perceived as a Republican's policy, the inversion is something that really needs to be included in this conversation.
Yeah, and I'd just like to pick up on what you've just said, what you've both just said there about the acceleration point, because there's a nexus around Trump that believe in something, or have shown that they believe in something called the dark enlightenment,
which expressly is about this idea of applying Schumpeter's kind of creative destruction to the max to accelerate the breakdown of what we might consider are supposed to be the traditional kind of state model, to move towards something which is much more closer to a corporatocracy.
And I think when we're looking at things like some of the things that are happening around, you know, Pete Thiel, for example, and the backing that he's given to Vance to put him where he is, I think that there's a danger that...
Seemingly off the wall, quite kind of crazy ideas such as the Dark Enlightenment and things like that.
There are people around this Trump administration that are pursuing those goals.
Certainly Elon Musk with regard to technocracy, you know, he's openly stated that he wants technocracy.
So, although, you know, he said it in the context of Mars, but, you know, it's quite obvious that he would quite like to see it on Earth as well.
So, I mean, I think that there are very powerful philosophical drivers.
That aren't talked about very much, that are involved in the kind of power nexus around Trump.
And I think we need to be familiar with those things, because there are people that are putting those philosophies into practice now.
Just to comment on MAGA, I got a comment from one of my paid subscribers today, and basically, again, chiding me for putting out so much doom.
Porn and wanting to celebrate the executive order where CBDCs were banned, right?
And I'm thinking, okay, but what about PBDCs, private bank digital currencies?
You know, I still can't use PayPal and I don't have a problem, you know, with the Duma because it's just being realistic.
And so I just see that being the trend.
And, you know, I just read in the news about here in Mexico.
They're talking about Mexican banks bracing for the impact of the U.S. designating cartels as terrorists.
And there was a line that said, from an independent consultant, this is going to be know your customer times 10. So isn't that convenient?
They're going to force clients now to give more documentation, more control.
And so I just see us perennially just moving towards this technocratic state.
Even looking at the news in Croatia, I was shocked that now restaurants in Croatia are removing some of them octopus from the menu meat because of sustainability.
And I'm just thinking, like, so again, this trend is just moving forward.
You're going to eat the bugs, digital IDs, digital passports, and so forth.
Can I jump in on two of those points just really quick?
Because two of the executive orders that I thought...
I don't know exactly what they mean and I think could be dangerous even though they sound good.
Number one, we're going to end censorship by the government.
What does that mean?
All right, so many of them were being used through proxy networks.
We've never...
Got into the signature reduction issue.
I used Grok last night to illustrate the point that Google is a military-industrial complex company, probably started by them, by the way, but has no doubts about having huge contracts with NASA and the DoD on what?
Quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
You know, and they're narrative-based.
It's a joke that YouTube can be a private company and decide and pick winners and losers.
We know they're still doing that over on X. I know Ryan can probably speak to that better than anybody else.
In fact, I got Grok to admit that it is not a meritocracy on there, and it's algorithmic-based, and they can program the algorithm for anything.
So what does that mean about misinformation and disinformation?
That's one.
That's a big question.
And then let me take the cartel question.
And I think you were right to bring up the banking situation, because the cartels love banks.
Hey, you know what else they love?
Our intelligence networks, because we run them.
All right?
So now the real question is, does this mean that we're going to have some kind of reprieve on the Central Intelligence Agency and their proxies for what actually went down in Iran-Contra, what actually went down in Afghanistan with the opium networks?
I don't think so.
So who's actually getting banned here and who's actually being labeled a terrorist?
So look, if we want to take those agencies, We want to do mass declassifications and show their criminal activity.
Okay, maybe these things will work.
But unless you get the raw and the infrastructure out, I'm not sure what those executive orders mean.
And again, I'll pass it off.
On the same point, just to piggyback on that, I'll get into some predictions as well.
But, you know, it's obvious to me, my opinion, but I think it's very transparent that what we're seeing are floated concepts that are meant to kind of eclipse.
The reality of what's happening, and many of which are toothless, you know, like saving free speech.
Okay, I'd like to see that happen.
What does that mean to each individual?
You know, they just write these things out.
And of course, let's not forget these executive orders, which are not the same thing as passing law throughout the country, but they apply it that way.
But sort of the CBDC point, again, in the actual order, which I really thought was interesting, it says, yeah, one of the points about banning these things, but to the first line that's underlined, it says, To the extent required by law, comma, they're banned.
So what does that even mean?
So ultimately being, that could be circumvented with some other law or something else that happens.
So it ends up being toothless.
And I want to point out another aspect of this kind of same thing, is that through the World Economic Forum dynamic, what I'm seeing a lot of right now is this over-fixation on the woke politics, which I frankly think is a complete, like, it's part of this, but...
It's really as like what Jason and I have talked about in the past.
It's like it's the step into the transhumanist direction.
So I don't think these people truly care about the pronouns and all the nonsense.
It's a means to an end.
And so when you have all these people screaming about, you know, Malay and then, you know, challenging them with their woke politics, they're going, I'm glad they're here.
They're supporting the project.
Like that's what it's really about.
So I think that's interesting as we keep seeing these kind of direct redirections to this woke mindset.
But really, it's about the technocratic drive that that leads to.
And so I think that's what it's really about.
It's a big shell game we're seeing.
And I do have a lot of predictions, but I'll throw it to Derek before we get into all that.
Yeah, I got a couple of comments I do want to make, but I did want to throw it to Patrick first before we get a little further, because Patrick, you, as I said earlier, you have been, I mean, you were, I think, one of the earliest people really pointing out technocracy.
Like I said, even before, most of us were born working with Anthony Sutton on your books and your research, talking about the trilaterals in Washington.
Jimmy Carter just died.
His administration was full of trilaterals, as you guys reported back, you know, 20 plus years ago.
How are you seeing Trump 2.0 in that historical context of technocracy?
Number one, I see a merger of technocracy with the populist movement.
This will have huge implications going forward.
We call it, of course, techno-populism.
This is something that Europe has been familiar with, I think, for at least probably five or six years.
In Italy, Spain, UK, where the populist movement rises up to launch a candidate, and then that candidate embraces the technocrats to run everything from that point forward.
We're seeing this.
I don't think the populist movement had a clue what would happen.
But it's been made obvious totally at this point that Trump...
Has identified himself as a techno-populist, if not a technocrat himself.
So, you know, it's going to be a wild ride, I think, from this point forward.
And there's not going to be much that the populist movement can do about it, other than complain about it.
Because, unfortunately, the populist movement doesn't have the political machinery behind it to do anything.
At least in our country, we have the Democrats and the Republicans, and they have political machinery.
They have networks in every state, every county, every city across the country.
And collectively, they can get stuff done.
And unfortunately, the populist movement doesn't have that kind of a voice or that kind of things at their fingertips.
So it's going to be a wild ride, and we're going to see mostly that this is going to be headed by Trump.
And the technocrats have sunk their claws into him like crazy.
In fact, this is the first time, I think, in my recent experience, the technocrat crowd has made itself visible for the first time probably in history.
They've always been satisfied, you know, being visible, not visible on the surface, but working under the cover.
Now they're flat out in your face everywhere you look.
And even with Elon Musk, with his aspirations to be the head technocrat in the whole world, sticking his nose into business in the UK. And Germany and other places in Europe.
You know, he's lobbying, I think, to be more than just an American representative of technocracy.
He wants to be the technocrat king, huh?
That's right.
I think, yeah.
I'll just get a couple comments.
I'll just add real quick and then I'm going to make the first prediction because I do want us to share some predictions and I know you guys got some.
I just wanted to comment real quick on what Ian said a moment ago because I think it's really important about the dark enlightenment movement for those who are not familiar with that or they used to call themselves the neo-reactionary.
This is what it was called before we ever heard the term the alt-right and the guy behind that is a man named Kervis Yarvin who goes through Mencius Goldbug or whatever his name is.
He's got aliases that he uses.
And he was a huge influential, philosophical influence to Steve Bannon and coming into the first Trump administration, as well as Peter Thiel.
And so a lot of Peter Thiel's ideas, especially going back to the Stanford Review, which goes to what Patrick was just talking about, this idea of technocracy, which for those in the audience who are not familiar, this essentially says that politics is no longer the best way to...
You know, govern human affairs and monarchy doesn't work.
So we need the scientific and technological experts, the elite, to micromanage society.
They talked about energy credits, all this sort of thing.
Curtis Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment, the neo-reactionaries, absolutely believe in that.
And right now, what we are witnessing, from my perspective, as somebody who's been involved in the American libertarian movement for 12 plus years, They are co-opting much of that libertarian movement through things like freeing Ross and making promises in the crypto community.
They're taking some of that same populism that Patrick was just talking about and redirecting it towards the MAGA movement, which is influenced by, of course, the technocratic ideas and the dark enlightenment.
Peter Thiel has really taken that idea.
They believe that, again, the governments are no longer sufficient, which I think many of us would agree that governments are not fixing things, they're not working.
So they're taking that kind of Populist ideal of the libertarians and others who are dissatisfied and saying, okay, yeah, we're going to free you from the chains of government, but it's not because they want to free the people.
It's because they imagine themselves in that role as the technocrats micromanaging society.
And even to the point, I'll just make this last one in a prediction, the Department of Government Efficiency, the technocratic movement of the 1920s, 30s and 40s was actually preceded by a movement called the Efficiency Movement, which is an outgrowth of progressivism itself.
I think that's really what it's about.
Of course, that appeals to libertarians and small government conservatives.
Let's make the government more efficient.
But I think it's really a wink towards the old efficiency movement that predates the technocratic movement.
And so as far as predictions, I'll just say my first one related to Jason mentioned it, and a few others have mentioned the CBDC executive order.
And obviously our IMA ally, Whitney Webb, and her writing partner, Mark Godwin, have reported greatly on this, that Trump called for banning CBDCs last year at the LP and at Bitcoin Nashville.
He has now delivered on that promise in the form of an executive order.
But many of us, including Whitney and others, were saying like...
Sure, they're going to go that route, but then they'll use things like stablecoins like Tether and maybe even a hijacked Bitcoin to still pull people into a system that is all KYC, so you've got to show ID. It's not about privacy.
They can control all the on-ramp and off-ramp, so essentially you can get to a point where digital currency can be tracked and traced and controlled.
Even though there's no CBDC. So that's my prediction is, sure, CBDC ban, executive order, it's a real thing.
You know, there's some concern about what Ryan pointed out in a certain language.
But let's say it is real.
That doesn't mean that the problem that we're concerned about that CBDC represents is over and gone.
How much money, Derek, did Tether inject into the federal ecosystem in the last, like, six months?
Wasn't it $700 billion?
I don't know the exact amount, but definitely hundreds of billions.
Something like that.
Tether has positioned itself to be the micromanager for the future digital ecosystem entrenched in the state.
And it's really, really difficult to separate the...
Freedom-oriented ideology that comes out of the Bitcoin space with Larry Fink's recent statements about how Bitcoin is going to be an integral part of the U.S. economy going forward.
And so that kind of, it really pinches, I guess, squeezes the amount of maneuverability.
That we would otherwise have in an ecosystem like cryptocurrency because of the way that crypto bigwigs have inserted themselves into the federal conversation.
So let me expand on like both of those comments when we're talking about crypto.
And you also talked about Doge, right?
What I see happening...
Is probably the legitimization and picking of winners in the meme coin space.
We already saw XRP explode the last several months.
And you've got to remember, it was, what, three, four years ago now at this point where the World Economic Forum said that they wanted to adopt that as perhaps their CBDC. So that's a decentralized global CBDC that may be backed by them.
Now, you look at Doge.
This total meme coin worth absolutely nothing.
And X is expanding into financial payment systems that I guarantee you will be linked to that Doge meme coin.
So that is going to be used in the digital arena more and more.
And at the same time, what?
Trump launched his meme coin right before.
That exploded.
So I think there's going to be manipulation in the markets, but also...
As they build these data and AI centers that are going to be powered by God knows what, I guarantee another integral part of the running of these centers are going to be smart contracts that run on the blockchain through these type of currencies.
And I think that you're going to see large markets surrounding them.
Like I said, the normalization of the tokenization of everything, right?
And I unfortunately think that is inevitable.
The question is, Where that sets the dollar and really where that sets the rest of the economy for the middle class.
You talked about Bitcoin.
I don't know where it is right now.
Was it 106 yesterday?
There's a good chance that if things keep on this pace in the next six months, in a year it really could be a quarter million.
And then who knows?
The sky's the limit.
But again, that's kind of if there's no deregulation.
I'm not sure what that means.
For the average American citizen that still doesn't own any crypto or have a wallet or understand any of this stuff.
But I do think that the blockchain and other meme coins are going to be normalized.
I think that social media platforms are also going to start embracing that.
Things like TikTok, Instagram are going to set up monetary systems based around either existing coins or ones they create.
And again, that will further integrate the kind of socialization.
I mean, one of the things we didn't talk about is Altman, right?
Sam Altman has WorldCoin.
He's already harnessing your soul and your biometrics through the orb at the bottom of the World Trade Center in New York City.
And, what, 126 other locations around the world.
There's been some pushback, but at the same time, that's still valued at $2 billion.
There's another coin.
And that one, remember, promises to use your biometrics to make sure we know you're a real person.
None of us have talked about the aspect of the commercialization of the AI-generated videos that are out there and how normalized that's going to be.
I mean, deepfakes are going to be...
Beyond what anybody understands in the next two years.
And I think that's going to have a push on the narrative as well.
So, you know, like Patrick said below, we're in for a wild kind of rollercoaster ride of this technology as it expands, in my opinion.
I would just like to jump in on that.
I would say deep fakes are already beyond, I think, the number of people that have adjusted their brains to see a video and think, well, that could be entirely fake.
is in the fraction of the 1%.
Most people are still very much in the, I saw it, it must be real cap.
And that's something that does need to change.
We will need to catch up.
Regarding predictions for 2025, I've done a series of articles for Off Guardian by expecting to do a retrospective in six months.
They've all pretty much come about already, so I don't know what I'm going to do now.
But I would say the general theme of 2025 is going to be...
A sort of throwing mass amounts.
Like they did a unifying message in COVID. They did a one-message propaganda drive that was, this is COVID, this is what we're talking about.
And it didn't really work.
And what's going to happen now is just bombarding of information.
They're going to release JFK files that may or may not be real.
They may or may not be true.
It doesn't matter.
Some people will talk about them.
They're going to blast you with stuff to distract your mind.
And then they'll take it back.
And then they'll argue about it.
I think 2025 is going to be the year of white noise, is what I would say.
More specifically, I think it's going to be about giving away a fake win.
They're going to hand people wins.
Real ones sometimes, but also fake ones.
Like the Silk Road guy, that's a real win.
But leaving who isn't necessarily a real win.
Just like the CDBC. CBDC! Yeah, isn't necessarily a real win.
The JFK files, I mean, I have more wild, longer-term predictions about what the JFK files will and won't say.
I think, to an extent, they will say who killed Kennedy, and they will blame it on CIA, maybe, or on Mossad, maybe.
And to an extent, this will mark the end of something we've...
Briefly touched on here, and have touched on in the past, is the end of the nation-state.
These crimes will be laid at the idea of nationalism, and therefore the idea of sovereign nations being greedy and capitalists will be old-fashioned, and look at all the terrible things they did.
But I think that's like a year or two years down the road from where we are.
Let me just add here that there's a war being fought, I think, by technocracy and people like Elon Musk against the central bank Powers that be, including the central banks, perhaps the Wall Street banks as well.
There's a sense of ego here, just huge, that these technocrats think they're powerful enough to take on the banking establishment worldwide.
They may not get anywhere.
It could get messy.
But I just have this feeling when, for instance, when Trump takes a swipe at the Fed, no, you're not going to do central banks' digital currencies.
That's off the table now.
Well, that means he's basically throwing it back in the face of the BIS. I don't think the BIS is going to like that.
But, you know, these people, these technocrats at this point, they figure, well, we don't need the United Nations anymore.
We don't need the World Health Organization, for instance.
And Trump just took that off the table.
Well, what's going on here?
You know, all of a sudden, all these institutions are under attack.
There's the technocrat behind every bush at this point cheering Trump on, I'm sure.
But now we have solutions for healthcare, for instance.
We don't need the WHO at all.
We have Larry Ellison to guide us now into cancer treatments, etc.
And we have alternatives other than central bank digital currencies.
What's going on here?
It seems to me that somebody's rising up behind this whole thing, saying, guys, we're going to take you all on and we're going to change the...
Complete order of things in the world.
And we'll come back.
They think you're going to come up out on top, I'm sure.
But who knows?
I think it's going to be a messy, messy model.
Well, regarding the WHO, though, the only way that's potentially any kind of change, any kind of signposted change, is depending on what happens next.
Because if Trump says we're leaving the WHO and the National Institute of Health can't report diseases anymore.
And then in four months' time, there's a bird flu outbreak, and they say 200,000 Americans just died of bird flu.
Then suddenly, the WHO is the hero, because all the other countries that are still in the WHO, they don't have bird flu.
I mean, it's very possible, you know, rhetoric is like a two-part system, and they could easily just twist the dialogue here, and suddenly Trump is an idiot for leaving the WHO, and the WHO is amazing.
So just because you mentioned the bird flu.
What's interesting here is that what Patrick's highlighting is a really important point in all this, that a lot of the conversation tends to overlook.
Clearly there could still be a divide between what is still a larger agenda, right?
Like to where you have these archaic elements for the newer technocratic drive, all of which definitely want to work together to control your lives, but arguably want their power to be, you know, I think it's an important thing that's been laid out, like Whitney's covered this a lot in the past.
And so I think that's really interesting to think about is now you can kind of see this potential pushback.
But I think what Kit is saying, I also agree with it.
I think right now we have to be very careful with a lot of the, like, everything I see happening through this administration right now is using the things that most of us want to then roll out the next control.
But maybe even in some cases doing the positive thing, but only to get us in the next step.
You know, and so it's kind of this way where they're coming out, like you said, and banning CBDCs.
But is that really what's happening?
And even if it is, is it only because it's going the private direction?
You know, and it's really hard to tell.
You know, and so I like the larger point for people that probably...
Like, again, tend to think it's all doom and gloom.
Like, you can still point out that that's a positive step in the right direction for saying you ban these, but we have to wait and see how it develops and what that really means, you know, because I think at the end of the day, it is still building that infrastructure, you know?
And go ahead, Jason.
I'll come back.
No, absolutely.
I think your point about factions, you know, and I often talk about that.
I don't think there is one ruling power, right?
And I think that's important.
I was just jumping in because he mentioned the bird flu and we've been talking about these agendas.
And look, on the 21st, we just gave almost...
$600 million to accelerate the bird flu boopity boop there via Moderna, a company I don't know that we should be trusting everybody.
So I just want to point that out on this agenda.
And I guess that really that's the next thing that we have to talk about that we really haven't talked about on two levels.
The preemptive pardons are a horrible precedent that's now been set.
I don't know they're going to be rolled back.
In the case of Anthony Fauci, And, you know, any type of accountability with the COVID-1984 nightmare, Daszak, Barrack, I'm not expecting it, right?
I've already said this.
They did this with not only Biden's family, but January 6th, etc.
You got Bobby Kennedy and Trump meeting with Pfizer a few weeks ago, having dinner with them.
You got Bill Gates out there talking about the acceleration of an HIV shot.
We just saw that shot.
When we talk about Moderna, remember they were a zombie company until they partnered with DARPA in 2013 in that first initial $25 million grant, where really they lay out Almost exactly what Ellison says via this technology that we've never really seen to come to fruition.
And what is that?
The idea that they're going to be able to enable a 48-hour to 72-hour process once they get some kind of genetic sequence and then tailor-make a medicine that works for the rest of us.
That's actually in the Adept Protect program initially in the DARPA outline.
Well, again, that's 2012-13.
We're a decade on.
All the evidence out there, and I want to be careful because I want to actually put this on YouTube, might suggest otherwise.
I haven't seen the meat and potatoes where this technology should be implemented on a large scale.
At the same time, we're seeing it implemented in our livestock, in our produce.
We talk about making America healthy again.
What about our sky and our airs?
Geoengineering programs.
They really do feel unaccountable.
And I often talk about it.
NASA, the DOD, the Pentagon, these programs are unaccountable.
They're outside of the purview of our constitutional republic of checks and balances and have been for some time.
And we know this.
So now the next question is, all right, we're going to get some of the 60s assassination stuff in there.
And I think that this is important, too.
Let's say they're real, Kit.
And I'm hoping we got our hopium train double-walked in.
There's a lot of stuff in there that's going to be about mind control programs.
You remember when they released some of the JFK stuff and all of a sudden there was this picture of Hitler, supposedly, and the FBI talking about him being in South America.
I wonder how much of that stuff is on the peripheral.
I've done a lot of stuff on Oswald.
It seems to me there's a document that's disputed.
But it says that he's CIA trained by the Office of Naval Intelligence, but in that same document, they talk about his time in Russia and possible mind control programs, right?
Now, if anyone's on the peripheral familiar with like MKUltra and others, it involved academia, right?
right?
They did de-patterning at McGill University, but a lot of the drugs they create were in concert with what is now Big Pharma.
So if we get documents for real on RFK Jr. and the programs via Sirhan Sirhan or others involve Big Pharma and academia, that's going to delegitimize those organizations as well.
So I don't really know what we're in for.
I'm I want the truth.
I want all this stuff out there.
But that is going to be, I think, could send a cultural shock, the likes of which that, number one, we're not prepared for, but...
As another cultural change is happening via this technology, via automation, via biometrics, via digital currency, etc.
Listen, I think that life in 2030, whether it's you owe nothing and you're happy, I hope not, to where it's going to be is going to be very different than just five years from now.
Those are my thoughts.
Go ahead.
So I understand.
You're saying that the public isn't ready to learn that the government killed JFK, RFK, MLK? Because I'm pretty sure that everybody's already up to speed on that.
My qualm with this is that if there was any interest in...
Identifying government malfeasance, we would move it from 60 years ago in the past to much, much, much more recent history if we were trying to address current shenanigans.
I think what I'm saying is the cultural shift, not so much in the government, right?
But I think when you look at university systems, the Stanfords, the Harvards, the MITs, if their roles and maybe beyond, or again, the companies that we're supposed to, everybody has their bare aspirin, right?
Like most people still aren't aware of the HIV bear scandal.
But if those hit a certain cultural level...
I just think there's going to be massive disruption.
I think that could be a good thing, Steve.
But at the same time, I think it opens the door, unfortunately, for the acceleration of this Internet of Bodies and bio-nanotech and surveillance.
And like you already talked about, this seems to be a populist movement, whether they know it or not, that's being pushed into these technocratic elements.
And I'm just saying...
This could be subverted as a tool to do so because the old institutions suck, man.
They do.
Are the old institutions not the current institutions?
That's my point.
Hang on, hang on.
Let me go for a second because what this really looks like to me is what Trump was trying to do in his first administration where he wanted to privatize.
These agencies, the CIA, the FBI, and all that stuff.
And what better way to privatize these entities than to expose the crimes of their past without addressing a nanosecond of the current crimes that are being committed or the crimes that have been committed in the last 20 or 30 years?
We both know.
We all know.
That Trump changed the classification system back in 2018-2019.
Limited it to two years if you were outgoing.
So now you have to have a constant revolving door of spooks if you want current information.
Well, what better way to build a fake wall of separation between the public?
And the accountable entities in the intel communities, other than privatizing.
Well, listen, I don't necessarily disagree, but they've already privatized it on so many levels.
And like my worry is...
But not in terms of budget, man.
Not in terms of financial allocation.
Yeah, but you look at like power and share.
There's still federal entities doing this.
Like, we have to recognize that.
Yeah, dude, they privatized.
They've outsourced this.
They've outsourced that.
It's been an outsourced economy since NAFTA. But again, so you're talking about NAFTA, you could talk about NATO, you could talk about Five Eyes.
When we're talking about something like Palantir, which is as privatized as it gets, right?
I mean, you've literally got Thiel and his buddy there, also Bilderberg, sitting there talking about Lavender, talking about these systems, and there's been no reprieve.
See, that's my point, is that those type of things expand while no one's watching and we're focusing on the old guard, right?
Go ahead.
You're muted, Ryan.
Thank you for that.
This is what I was going to say a second ago, and so this is an important conversation because I think the issue that's being, or I guess that's in the middle of it all, is that we're, it's like it's not one side or the other.
I think they're putting these things out because they ultimately want people to miss what you're talking about, Jason.
I don't think it works if they say these things and all of a sudden, I think the game is, and let me start with this, do we really believe that Donald Trump is going to acknowledge or highlight or expose that Israel killed JFK? That's what I believe, and I think the evidence is quite frankly shockingly obvious.
Or that any number of these other overlapping points that end up hurting them in the long run, I don't think that's going to happen.
So I think a lot of this is about feigning revelation.
I think like what Kit was saying.
Whether it comes out and saying, oh, well, Mossad was involved, but it wasn't this or X, Y, and Z, and it ends up being something they still use to change.
I think that's what this all comes down to.
I'm still on the mind where it's not even like a half revelation.
I think it ends up being a bunch of nonsense like last time that doesn't really evolve the conversation so people can say, Look, he did it.
He's the hero, just like the fake Gaza ceasefire.
So he's the peace hero forever.
And that kind of eclipses all the stuff that's coming out.
I mean, I know that's sort of like square one right now, but I think that's what this will be.
Guys, we got a little bit of breaking news I want to share just to kind of add to the conversation.
Trump just, he's already, of course, floated this idea, but he was just doing a press conference and apparently just said, if Canada agrees to become the 51st state, there will be no tariffs on them.
So let's kind of talk about that as well, because you guys have seen the same maps I've seen.
Patrick, these maps, I'm sure, look familiar to you because they remind us of the North American technate.
We've got the Club of Rome.
We've got Other organizations that come from the same milieu that we know is the sort of predator class that have promoted similar ideas.
But let's get some conversation on that.
What do you guys think about it?
I mean, is this just like the stupid renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America?
I guess that appeals to a certain base, but is that just Trump talking?
Or do you guys actually think there's a realistic chance that Canada goes for such an idea?
This is a message to Mexico, not to the base.
The Mexico is on the target list.
What do you think about the Canada discussion, Patrick, about 51st state?
Do you think that's realistic?
The same thing.
Look, Trump has been talking about 100% tariffs on Canada as well as Mexico.
But not only them.
There are other entities in the world that he's threatened with all these tariffs.
For instance, all of the BRICS nations.
You have to wonder, why is he going after them in particular?
Is he thinking he's going to take them over also?
But this is the technique that Trump has used in his business dealings, where he comes out with a big bluster and he'll make it so painful for you that you have to accept his offer to get relief.
This is just a power play.
I look at it.
Obviously, he could actually do tariffs against Canada without any...
Congress doesn't have to be involved with that at all.
But this is the sledgehammer.
Show them the pain.
Tell them they can get rid of the pain.
Would they do it his way or the highway?
Otherwise, you're going to pay the price.
Mexico is in the same vice grip right now.
Can we also just point out how ridiculous it is to have people that have spent...
How many, however many years talking about the importance of national boundaries and everything else and sovereignty and then jumping right into the idea that this is just best for us so it doesn't matter what they want.
Despite the level of, you know, Greenland wants this.
As far as I can tell, and I've done my due diligence, I can't see any indication the people of Greenland nor the government actually want this or Canada or Mexico.
So I think it's pretty ridiculous.
But let's be clear.
This is naked imperialism, right?
That's what this comes down to, whether it's Greenland for mining rights or, as Steve pointed out, even renaming the area as if it's now the Gulf.
Are we going to pretend the North American Union map isn't identical?
Do you have anything you want to add about that, Patrick, about the map and just the similarity?
Are we just being silly or do you think this is literally them putting it in our faces?
No, I think that this was a dream of technocracy in the 30s, and that's why they have this book on the, that's the book that held up there, is the official technocracy study course, okay?
They never said how they're going to do this.
They had no army, they had no money.
How they would get all these nations to agree was a mystery, even to them, I'm sure.
But they thought they could do, somehow they could do it.
This dream has surfaced with the Trilateral Commission, especially wanting to foster an economic block consisting of Mexico, United States, and Canada.
This has been on the table for at least 30 years.
We saw it with Trump.
We saw it first with Agenda 21, with some of the stuff that Bill Clinton did in the 90s.
Then we saw it in 2005-06 with Bush.
And then we saw Obama.
He played the song, too, to get everybody together, and that fell flat.
Now, all of a sudden, Trump has just announced this is the future of mankind.
However, now it's different.
Now it also includes Greenland, right there.
And this is shocking to me, because he's, and I have to say, this is unfortunate, but also, all of this is being done under the name of manifest destiny.
I really don't like that, because that brings kind of a flavor of, you know, Christianity into it.
I hate, I don't want to, I'm a Christian, personally, I don't like this bastardization of, Theology.
But when you say that God has opened the door for you to go and do this expansion, that puts another spin on the whole thing.
He's also using that term, manifest destiny, to go to Mars.
Oh, God.
He said it exactly that way.
It's our manifest destiny to get to the stars.
Whoa!
This is...
This is shocking to me that they have this, some spiritual advisor around Trump is advising on this, I'm sure.
And the MAGA base is picking up on it because, you know, they, well, I don't want to speak bad about them, but a lot of people don't have any discernment at all.
But, you know, this whole thing is being wrapped up in kind of a spiritual cocoon.
And, you know, At least these tectocrats think that somehow they have a divine mandate to do this.
I don't like that at all.
Think about what's going on in the world really quickly.
Israel, Zionism, and the whole prophetic vision of all this.
I mean, it's very weird to see those two overlap.
And I'll add really quickly that the funding from this whole Stargate project goes right to 2030. Could be coincidence, of course, but it's hard to miss that.
I think there's a couple of things here that are really interesting that Patrick's just alluded to and also Kit said earlier.
So there are people around the Trump administration that are technocrats in the technocracy, Inc.
sense.
They are technocrats of that ilk, not just technocratic governance like people like Fauci, we might say as a technocratic governor, but real technocrats.
Now, I think that Trump's announcement is kind of like a signal, a signal that we have got our hands on the helm now, because it is purely the North American tech, Nate.
That's what he's just said.
That's what he's just announced, especially with the inclusion of Greenland, which makes that very, very clear.
Now, I don't think it's a realistic prospect that they're going to actually be able to achieve that.
But it's a signal.
And it's a signal that says who is running the show now.
And that signal is not for us.
And I don't think it's particularly for the public.
That signal is for other members of the oligarchy.
And I think Patrick said something really important earlier when he hit on, and also Jason, talking about factions.
Because if we look at the minister...
The military-industrial complex, for example.
Thiel and people like Adrenal, or whatever it is, or Palmer Luckey's company, along with OpenAI, and along with SpaceX, and along with Palantir, are bidding for basically control.
It looks like they're forming a conglomerate.
To attack the military-industrial complex and try to seize control of it.
Now, this is all happening very, very quickly, and it's all happening at the same time.
Now, as I said, I don't think it's realistic that they are going to establish a technet, certainly probably not in my lifetime.
But it's all about, and going back to what Kit was saying, this is very much part of narrative control as well.
Because you think about the decisions that Trump has made almost immediately.
They're all isolationists.
They're all withdrawing him from the globalists and his administration, supposedly.
From the kind of global governance structures that lots of people, certainly in this kind of set, people that voted for him, are opposed to.
So it's appealing to his base as well, but also it's a signal that, you know, with the talk of tariffs and so forth, and, you know, literally putting up a wall around this kind of US-centred kind of power block.
Well, interestingly enough, if you look at what the Russian government said when...
Trump made that announcement.
They immediately came out in support of the World Health Organization.
We're already seeing a kind of separation of will between...
We're already seeing a separation of goodwill between the US and Europe.
Europe is not looking favorably.
The Eurocrats are not looking favorably upon the Trump administration.
So we are seeing a polarization.
In narrative terms, a polarisation geopolitically.
So I think, I mean, we're talking about predictions.
I think Kit is right.
Between now and 2025 onwards, we are going to be bombarded with the so-called polycrisis.
I think we can expect to see a lot more false flag terrorism.
I think there'll be a considerable amount of talk of different kinds of new kind of terrorist factions.
We're already seeing that in the UK, where they're talking about, you know, basically saying that anyone that questions the state is a terrorist.
I think that's going to be expanded and used a lot, especially in Europe.
You know, I mean, Gladio, I'm of the view that Gladio never finished, but it might be Gladio 2.0 or whatever you want to call it.
I think we're up to three now.
Three, three or four, yeah.
So, I mean, you know, I also think that the, I mean, I know that, you know, the US has never ratified Kyoto anyway, but nonetheless, you know, signalling that you're pulling away from the sustainable kind of sustainable development agenda, all of this is leading to polarisation on the global kind of geopolitical level.
And I think that that is in pursuit.
You know, we can always go back.
Ultimately, that is in pursuit of what, you know, the Club of Rome and even the Rose Milner Group and all these people were talking about many, many, many years ago of setting up that system.
Of blocks, which enables, instead of having to manage 194 countries, being able to manage five or six blocks, because that simply makes global governance that much easier.
And I think a big, big part of this, this kind of crazy kind of chaos, and I think white noise is probably a very good description of what we're likely to see this year.
It's all heading for that.
And if you can sow, the more confusion they can sow, I mean, as you were talking about, Derek, with people like Curtis Yarvin influencing people like Theo, they have taken creative destruction to heart.
They really believe it.
Fucking Randian, theosophist, dyed-in-the-wool zealot.
I don't understand why people listen to him.
I really don't.
He hides in the shadows.
I mean, honestly, most people don't even know who he is, I don't think.
I just want to throw in one prediction of my own and pass it on to whoever to kind of pick up what Ian was saying.
I think in addition to this inversion and the changing of the guard that we're seeing, one thing I've been noticing is that...
Elon, Tesla, Palantir, and all their different associates.
And of course, the whole PayPal mafia that is up in Trump's cabinet from David Sachs to Ken Howery and a few others, Jim O'Neill and HHS, who will likely be under RFK if he is.
But what I want to say is that these companies, these big tech companies, they are now, now that they're in the positions, I believe we're going to see maybe not a complete replacement, but at least a joining where they're going to become the new military industrial complex.
They're already, if you looked up, I think a month or two ago, OpenAI, Tesla, and maybe Palantir's, a few others, they formed a new alliance that they said they're focused on becoming the new defense contractors.
They want to replace Northrop Grumman and Raytheon and things of that sort.
So I think we'll get to a point where the inversion, this great inversion, as I call it, will be that so many people who have The military-industrial complex is a bad thing.
We'll now celebrate it just like we're seeing with the kind of big tech bros because that is one position they're staking.
They want to be the new defense contractors.
Definitely.
Do you want to jump in before I do my predictions?
I thought I'd say raise your hand.
Did you have a comment?
Patrick, no?
Can I just jump in on Canada really quick because we're moving away from that?
Go ahead.
The one thing I did want to say about that is I heard Trump kind of talking about this.
Pre-inauguration, maybe a week or two.
I hope it's a joke.
You know, it seems like a bit, because just like everybody out there, this whole North American Union thing, especially for the quote-unquote right, everybody remembers, you know, obviously I worked at Infowars.
I did an alternate cover for the Obama Deception, where we had the North American Union in the background and the highway grid right there.
I remember a time when, who was it, Hal Turner had put out the false information about the Amero, etc.
I don't know that the European Union and that faction are going to give up their power over Canada, but if there's a massive integration of technology and kind of policy, maybe.
And that would scare me because I don't think that happens without a bunch of censorship, right?
Because I don't think the EU and that faction is moving away from thought crimes and arresting people for their social media posts.
If Canada were to integrate, I think obviously we're moving in the wrong direction unless there is some kind of a real populist revolution that I don't know is possible.
I mean, let's be honest.
Look at what happened in France with the yellow vest.
That's a real populist movement.
How far did they get?
Look at Brexit.
How far did they get?
So if we really are talking about building that, I'm just saying that's frightening because the policy direction, in my opinion, Probably wouldn't be in a positive one.
You could make the argument that the Yellow Vest movement died because of COVID. I don't necessarily disagree.
It certainly hindered it massively, right?
And the ability.
But again, that's kind of like...
And the platform that they put forth was pretty legit.
Oh, I agree.
In terms of what they were asking for.
100% agree, Steve.
And that's my point, though.
I mean, is there any larger global example of outright techno-fascism and the acceleration of force against people's thoughts than the COVID-1984 nightmare?
There isn't, right?
And that's super recent.
So if all of a sudden...
We do somehow, like, I don't see, again, that faction giving up their influence over Canada.
Canada was not great during that time period.
I mean, they literally had the camps, right?
Like, they had the centers you were going into.
That frightens me.
You know, that is preparation.
So, listen, I just wanted to get into that, and I hope, Ryan, do your predictions.
But he mentioned Mars.
And I think that we should talk about that.
Because that narrative is out there everywhere that we're going to Mars.
And I know no one's cursed in this entire conversation.
But let me be the first.
We're not fucking going to Mars.
That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing.
Ever.
Okay?
Human beings going to Mars by their own admission and the available technology that we know about, that is imagination land times 10. Okay?
Well, we're not going using rockets.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And that's why I want to get into that larger discussion.
Of what's going on with these quote-unquote UAPs, the idea of disclosure, all these podcasts with these people talking about aliens and Johnny nonsense.
Meanwhile, we've got drones flying around city and suburban districts that are clearly human technology, totally unaccountable.
We still don't know what's going on there.
So that's a whole other arena I want to get into, but Ryan, please.
I just want to say one thing about Mars.
I am...
I don't care.
I want them to say they went to Mars.
I want to see viral Twitter videos of some poor schmuck in a really shitty spacesuit on the universal backlot.
And they can all say, wow, new technology means we got to Mars in 24 hours.
And the bunch of fucking morons that will eat it up and say, oh, that's amazing.
Well done, Elon.
We need new Kubrick's!
I demand new Kubrick's!
There's a lot to be said about a lot of things.
Even still ongoing with SpaceX or a lot of this that people argue are still false.
Let's be real about that in a general sense.
then I think there's a lot of evidence to pretty much everything he does, where he leans a little bit too much into fake it till you make it, maybe fake it entirely.
I think ultimately we keep seeing. - So people think you made it.
Or just until enough of the industry, like the joke I make about these people that, you know, I think I pretty much everybody could ultimately be a success if they can fail an infinite amount of times until they eventually succeed because they have enough money.
You know, it's like, that's not the same thing as being a success in my mind, which is not the same.
He's never succeeded, but it's different.
Like Donald Trump.
Declaring so many bankruptcies until, you know, it's the same, it's a little bit different.
The average person typically fails and then doesn't get to try again, you know, because they don't have billions of dollars.
But it's interesting to think about.
But since we're about an hour in, I just wanted to kind of, I'm just going to go through, like, my general, in a way I think sort of connect a lot of the things I think will come.
But I do want to comment on what Derek and Ian were kind of highlighting, is that the consortium, is what they're calling it, around the Anderle, Palantir, kind of basically arguing that they want to just, Like, make a grouping of all of what they're calling the little tech.
Literally, they call SpaceX little tech.
It's ridiculous.
I jokingly said it's sort of like when Donald Trump pretended McDonald's were small businesses during the pandemic.
Clearly, we're being manipulated.
But I think it's interesting because it is arguably becoming, you know, they're trying to say we're going to bid on all these contracts together, and so they're centralizing the control over how that all works.
And the point I was going to make is I just checked on the last, I think I did the show yesterday.
As of that point, it's still going forward.
And our reason I think that's important is because, yeah, exactly, you can see that SpaceX, Elon Musk, OpenAI, Sam Altman, and more than that, a lot of other connections like that show that Elon Musk and Sam Altman and OpenX and XAI are still overlapping in a lot of ways.
So if Elon Musk is going to say that they're the enemy of humanity, then why is he working alongside them and working with them in many ways?
And I think a point I was making last night is that right now, I don't buy any of this back and forth.
I think it's ridiculous to pretend that Elon Musk wouldn't be aware of this, that Donald Trump was already working on this.
He literally called Sam Altman the leading mind in AI. Do you think Elon Musk wouldn't be aware?
The whole thing doesn't line up to me, but it also makes sense in a small way that Trump does his own thing.
I've seen that before, where maybe he doesn't feel like he has to involve Elon Musk.
Maybe there's more of a rift than we know.
Everything about it doesn't seem to line up.
And I think we're all over the mind that there's a lot more psychological operation going on than I think we've ever seen.
Fifth generation warfare for sure.
But here's what I'm seeing in general.
I think overall, and again, as always, these are all predictions.
A lot could change.
But I think that under the cover, and this is what I was saying before about the WEF thing, under the cover of like Donald Trump and them fighting woke ideology, which I think we all should be against, but realizing that it's, I think, more of a manipulation to get us directed on something other than the bigger picture, like the transhumanist idea.
Under that, they'll end up pushing this all the way, and I think that's what we're all realizing.
And again, a lot of the stuff that you know I already think that I think has already come to pass, we won't even really get into, but I think we see the rollout of, you know, basically the grand, the real globalist, the real technocracy in earnest, obviously, but through something like… What we've worried about, like whether it's a Project Blue Beam or some kind of a larger event that gets them to rationalize why we need one world government.
And what we've all seen is, you know, the people that we're talking about today will flock to it, even though 30 seconds ago they couldn't stop worrying about it because Elon said, or however that works out.
I do agree that we're probably going to see more false flag dynamics, but I'm worried about where this goes in the sense of what we've all kind of been predicting, this kind of intersection between terrorism, biotechnology, white supremacy, vanilla ISIS, like that kind of convergence where it becomes, you know, a Iran working with MAGA with a biochemical like that kind of convergence where it becomes, you know, a Iran working with MAGA with a biochemical attack, like something like that And I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems like it would work very well.
And I've already seen that kind of build to a certain degree.
Now, I do think it's interesting what we've all been talking about.
I think that we might end up seeing because of how this is shifting.
I don't believe the majority buys this right now.
That's my opinion.
I think there's more conservatives right now that are...
Very uncomfortable.
So I think we may see some sort of a MAGA revolution, whatever that may look like.
I don't mean like in the sense of like a government thing, but like the MAGA may ultimately decide to recognize that there's a bigger problem here.
I don't think that will take the...
I don't think that'll be against Trump.
I think as usual, it'll be like, oh, it turns out Elon Musk was against us or something like that.
But I get the sense that that will have to happen because they've already kind of lost control of the narrative.
Now, I worry that we'll see another pandemic type thing.
But again, at my other point, I think it'll be interconnected with some sort of a bioweapon aspect if it happens.
And I'm worried about that because clearly I don't think they're just going to roll out another COVID dynamic.
I think that's what a lot of people expect.
I think it'll take the form of something different.
And then, of course, I'm worried how that will intersect with the smart dust, the Internet of BioNano things we're talking about.
That's one of the big things I want to say for this coming next four years.
I think we're going to see the in earnest, Admission, acknowledgement, and use discussing smart dust.
Nanotechnology in real time, like the idea that, oh, well, it's already everywhere or it's already in your bodies because of X, Y, and Z. Whatever form it takes, I think it will be...
Because right now, most people don't even acknowledge it.
Even though I think it's been around for a long time and already been in use, I think it'll be like, this is real and it's here to save us for X, Y, and Z. That's kind of the worry I have.
I mean, Ryan, it's documented in First Platoon during the...
Iraq War.
So, again, who knows?
I mean, that's one way to roll it out.
It already has been not only documented in white papers and that whole story is about a unit utilizing that technology and targeting somebody they thought was a terrorist because, again, what you're able to receive from the smart test technology through surveillance isn't 100% and that person ends up being someone different and the whole story is that they don't end up killing that person, etc.
But you could easily integrate that into We're good to go.
These units were there.
They inadvertently ingested the smart dust.
We didn't know the implications.
It then spread throughout the populace through their kids genetically, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know.
Meanwhile, you could have other covert programs where they've been spraying it on the public the entire time.
I mean, we already have on record numerous, you know, I often point to the cadmium sulfate they dumped on human beings without them knowing, U.S. citizens, etc.
No one's been accountable for that.
I think disclosure is going to be a part of it, right?
You know, one of the things we haven't talked about.
Let me finish my thread, though.
I was kind of trying to do a little thread, and then I'll let you jump in.
But what I was going to say, though, is that I agree that that could be something that is ultimately, like, it wasn't our fault, right?
Like, this was used, and we didn't know, and now it's too late.
But here's how we can make it work.
Like, that's kind of what I'm getting at there.
And I'll be quick, just the last few things.
And if you can bring up that screen share right there, that's a Wells Fargo patent for using smart dust at, like, the ATM. Like, these kind of things are, patents I know are not all.
It doesn't prove that they're there, but it shows you this is a real-time conversation.
It's literally called MEMs, right?
It's a smart dust, IE. But so my point is, I agree, Jason.
I think that's kind of where that revelation comes through.
Now, on a foreign policy sense, just the last few things, oh, and then I would, what I was going to say is that intersects with, like, the bio-weapon, rather neuro-weapon, neuroscience direction.
And I think that's coming really full circle, really, you know, in our face.
But then on a foreign policy side, I kind of wonder whether or not how Israel's going to go forward.
I think it's interesting that I don't see how they get away from what just happened.
I think that once this, whatever that looks like, stops being immediate wartime murder and genocide, there's no way they get away from what just happened.
So I think an interesting prediction is some kind of massive change around what we see as the state of Israel.
That's one that I think is an interesting thing to think about.
And whether that is, it goes away entirely or they shift into some, I just don't see how it continues the way it is.
And I would argue that I think that we'll see, you know...
An effort to use that in a way to argue like the U.S. involvement with Israel and how that ends up where they expose that to some degree but use that to sort of change it into something that can be continually controlled.
Like the whole point I'm making with everything.
Exposing the problem but then using that to roll us into the next control structure.
And lastly, I don't think RFK is going to be confirmed.
Let's see how that goes forward.
And I'll blame it on the Democrats, but I think that was always the plan.
So I'll leave it there.
Anyone of you guys want to touch on it if you want?
Go ahead.
I think RFK might be confirmed, because this isn't a prediction, because this is very much a hypothetical theory, but it can go one of two ways.
They can confirm RFK, and he can do a terrible job, and they can report some made-up spike in deaths for preventable diseases, and suddenly every anti-vaccine in the world is a moron.
They could easily do that.
And seed oils are good for us, right?
Sorry, go ahead.
I forgot what the other thing I was going to say was.
So someone else jumped in.
Well, yeah, so there's been a lot of good things mentioned.
I just wanted to, as we were thinking about technocracy, I had this link pulled up that actually I think probably the only other place I saw it was Patrick's website, technocracy.news, where he does a great job of keeping up with all this.
And that is specifically, let me see if I can get it pulled up, that the Trilateral Commission considered 2023 to be the first year of the new world order.
I know a few of you guys probably saw that, but of course, Trilateral Commission has been the longtime group that, That Patrick and Anthony Sutton and others were pointing out.
Back in the 70s, as some of the kind of next generation of technocrats, of course, we also had Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a longtime ally of Kissinger and others, who wrote the book about the technotronic era.
So yeah, I don't know if you guys caught this, but in their annual meeting, they called 2023 year one of the new world order.
Just wanted to kind of put that in perspective as far as here we are 2025 and a lot of these things that we're discussing technates now, North American technate, things that weren't even seemingly in play, just You guys talked about how there's a shift away from traditional military-industrial complex companies,
Northrop Grumman, Raytheon.
I think that that shift is into things like SpaceX, right?
For instance, SpaceX surpassed Boeing.
I think one of the things that we really didn't hit on and still haven't hit on is you also nailed it with people cheering on the military-industrial complex.
I interviewed Sean Stone recently.
I think like a month ago he put out a new series on TCN, and he advocated for parts of the military-industrial complex.
And we actually had, you know, uh, quite a debate about it because like he started, he started talking about the need for one and this idea that there's good guys in there.
And certainly Musk has been portrayed in that fashion, but what he unfortunately went Q and on Sean has become Q.
Just throwing that out there.
Go on.
Again, I don't even want to delve into the Q and on sense because this has been a pretty reality based conversation.
But when we talk about what SpaceX is actually doing...
Like, everybody's concerned about the re-landing rockets and, you know, sending the Dragon capsule up there, although they didn't really focus on the numbers there for many reasons.
What are they really doing?
They're setting up not only what's left of the Blackjack system, which is the DARPA control grid, but Starlink is a backdoor communication system for the DoD, 100%.
That's why they backed it.
It is the information skin.
There's a reason that the most Starlink dishes still remain in Ukraine, because other than communication systems, they directly hook into the Ghost and Sidewinder drones.
We've talked about Palantir, yes.
We haven't talked about Lavender.
And not only lavender, we haven't talked about how the Israelis literally hooked up devices to explode in public areas via remote.
It's a new type of warfare all around.
So I think we're going to get a rebrand of what the military-industrial complex is and people cheering on SpaceX thinking we're going to the moon and Mars.
Meanwhile, they've set up the communications grid.
They're utilizing AI for targets.
We're seeing drone strikes like we've never before seen, and maybe other technologies that are some type of, I don't want to say beam-based, but certainly they've played up the Havana syndrome a lot lately, right?
So there's going to be a lot of different types of warfare, and they're going to have a sect now cheering on that because they have made Musk into a hero.
I mean, we talked about Larry Ellison and mRNA.
No one has held Elon Musk to account or question that it was his company, Tesla, again, a military industrial complex company, bringing in automation and human robots and AI that helped print up the shots with their partnership with CureVac, right?
So I see more of that.
And that's the rebranding of it.
I think they're going to work away from NASA, etc.
You're going to hear about them less and less.
They'll still be doing work.
But it's going to be more SpaceX and the branding of these new companies as kind of like superheroes with their Tony Starks, if you will.
Yeah, I think that's already happening from my perspective.
Derek wrote an article for T-Lab here that's pretty alarmingly, like it's interesting how this is...
So perfect to this conversation are all the different things are overlapping with Stargate and all of it.
You know, it's entitled You Can't Hide.
Elon Musk and SpaceX are helping U.S. intelligence build the world's largest spy satellite network.
And then, you know, literally the National Reconnaissance Office has quoted the director saying, now you can't hide because you're constantly being looked at.
Now think about that and literally says that Elon Musk is going to be building AI to make this all work together.
Think about the context of that with what's just happened in Stargate and, you know, internal biosurveillance we're talking about.
You know, not necessarily where we know it will go, but just as it is right now in this moment.
You know what I mean?
Hang on, man.
Hang on.
Are you telling me you don't want Larry Ellison to personally tailor a vaccine that will cure your specific ailment?
That's weird.
You never trust a man with that much Botox, Steve.
You never trust a man with that much Botox, bro.
He looks like he's transitioning into Richard Branson, and it's kind of freaking weird.
It's kind of weird.
I don't know, dude.
Hey, guys, I just want to do a check.
Where are we at on time?
I know they have another 15 minutes or so.
How's everybody feeling?
How's everybody's schedules?
Does that sound good?
Cool.
All right.
I mean, we can keep going, but I just want to know if anybody needs to pop up.
We've got a lot of great conversation, and we appreciate everybody who's tuned in.
Again, this is a panel of the Independent Media Alliance that we launched last fall, and you will see more of these panels.
In fact, we're planning another panel next Friday, which Whitney Webb will be hosting, focused more on the Syria issue, which a number of our alliance members will be joined as well.
But yeah, let's continue.
Kit, you got any other thoughts?
You've been a little quiet over there.
I know you've got some more predictions, maybe things you want to share.
You guys have been on top of this at Off Guardian.
I mean, I think you guys have been doing a great job calling it all out.
Well, I'll go back to something Ryan said about COVID. I think 2025 is going to be the year they put the full stop on COVID. I think Biden couldn't have made Fauci look guiltier if it named him as the guy responsible.
I think that they're going to play that COVID was a bioweapon that was released on purpose or by accident.
And they're going to hang a few people from the gibbet, including Fauci.
And that's going to be the line under it.
Because I think there is some realization that they can't do another one while COVID is still hanging out there unexplained.
They're going to take COVID and say, OK, yeah, we copped a bioweapon, shouldn't have done that.
And that will...
Lead also to this military-industrial complex shift we've been talking about, because they will blame it on the old military-industrial complex for doing gain-of-function research they shouldn't have been doing.
You know, what's interesting on that, too, is that do you think it'll be that they blame the government, or do you feel it'd be more likely that they then, like I was saying, kind of choose to make it about Russia or another country?
Because that would then open the door to a lot more maneuverability in that narrative, you know?
I think they've already done the China thing.
The two-party system is such.
The two-party system is such that...
Yeah.
Some people will blame China.
Some people will blame America.
And neither of them will see the evidence to the other side that they were working together.
Can I have one more thing real quick, Jason?
I'll throw it to you.
Let's not forget the interesting, and this is kind of what I keep seeing in all of this, right?
So, literally, they roll out the mRNA platform bioweapon discussion for, you know, fixing cancer and all that.
Literally, this is what we all know this kind of stems back to.
And then Donald Trump goes, I think it's reactionary.
I think it's, oh, MAGA's not buying it.
Let me sign a piece of paper that says I'm fighting gain of function.
You know, it's like, okay, guys, well.
Yeah, that's great.
I'm happy he wrote that, but he just rolled out a gain-of-function MRNA platform program.
I think that's the kind of block we're seeing in this conversation, but I just wanted to add that.
But I agree with you, Ken.
I think that's where we see this going.
Go ahead, Jason.
No, I think you nailed it, right?
So many of these executive orders, they're so wide-ranging.
It's like, what can you actually do?
And this almost goes back to the declassification stuff.
Yeah, we want that.
And it goes back to the white noise discussion that Kit had.
I think that we are going to get a bombardment of information.
I hope the vast majority of that is valid.
I hope that we're not in that world where that Smith-Mund Act would actually allow them to put out false documents, right?
Too late.
I'm just saying, man, like if we start seeing that, then that muddies the water even more.
And I get it.
We're in the post-truth world, brother, according to Bilderberg 2017. But that's going to muddy the waters even more.
I want to believe, and I do believe, by the way, that good and evil do exist.
And I don't think we can live in a utopian society, and I pray to God we can never get into the ultimate human dystopian society.
But let's be honest with ourselves.
There are some pretty oppressive dystopian societies that exist now and have existed in the past, right?
And with this technology, we run the risk of a global techno-feudalistic society where we're not even human at the end of the day.
So I think that we have to acknowledge, again, there are differences within the system.
Humans are going to make mistakes, but we have to hold everybody to account and somehow push the realization of the technology, like you said, that's already being utilized.
We can't play into spazzy, not-Nazi guys going around.
We can't play into billionaire figureheads.
It still boggles my mind.
That people kind of accept like Zuck runs Facebook, Bezos runs Amazon.
Huge stuff, right?
But then Elon runs everything.
He runs the boring companies, SpaceX, Neuralink, Tesla.
Go down the line.
That should be a huge red flag that these are indeed military industrial complex companies.
All of them are.
Everything that I've just mentioned, right?
We can't aggrandize guys like Peter Thiel, but I'll say this.
If they're willing to have the discussion, let's have it, right?
We need more of that.
And these people are on the podcast circuit.
I don't think that Joe Rogan is necessarily evil.
I do think that he's certainly been utilized to push a certain perspective, right?
And kind of the last thing I'm going to say about even this conservative movement, in which, hey, The Reawaken America tour let me for two and a half years, I think nine times in front of thousands of conservatives, talk about transhumanism and take a hot steaming dump on Musk like nobody else, all right, and talk about all these aspects.
So I give them credit for that, and there are people on the inside.
They need to do better, right?
Like, you can't be, you know this, Ryan, you can't be like, Andrew Tate's a good guy.
No, he's a pimp and a pedophile.
Let's hold them to account.
You can't be having Conor McGregor at your inauguration off the heels of a conviction of a violent, brutal sexual assault that he should be in jail for, especially when you're the Christian conservative party.
Again, Ryan, I point to you.
I'm not even a Christian guy.
You know that.
But let's not be hypocrites.
So at the same time, on that arena, you need to hold your electorate.
And Trump, as much as you love him, accountable.
So let's push everybody in the right direction.
Technology's moving forward.
False narratives don't necessarily have to.
And I think that's what we all have to do, is constantly point out as many false narratives as possible.
Go ahead, Steve.
Thank you, Jason.
Hey, Steve, let's with you start going around for closing statements, and I'll wrap up when you guys are done.
So we find ourselves at the intersection of transhumanism and neoconservatism with the Trump administration.
This is something that we should all sit up and take note of because when transhumanism and neoconservatism merge...
All of our individual autonomy goes away.
So we should be hyper-vigilant right now because, like Burma said, you are going to get some good things.
You're going to get some...
Ross Albrecht is a free man, and that is a wholly beautiful thing.
I can't...
Free Roger Ver.
I'm glad that...
You know, on his way out, Biden granted some clemency to Peltier, but there are a lot of people that are serving time for undeserved crimes right now.
Trump isn't going to recognize them at all.
We got our celebrities out, and I'm very, very undyingly grateful for that.
Yes, but this is the convergence of neoconservatism and transhumanism, and we have to be hyper-vigilant about that.
And I just want to say I am honored to be on a panel with Patrick Wood.
You're an absolute legend, sir.
I really appreciate it.
And yeah, I'll yield.
Me next?
Well, so, you know, Jason, you want to go since you're on top?
Go ahead.
Okay.
I think he closed out already.
Okay, gotcha, gotcha.
So, you know, I mean, I think generally the conversation we had today pretty much hit a lot of the main, most of the main points that we would kind of reiterate here.
And I think the things that I've been talking about are what I want people to pay attention to.
Like, I think the main thing that we should all, like Steve's highlighting, is, you know, Ross and anything like that, it's definitely something that is good, and it's not, like, it's this game that's being played where people criticizing the power structure being called blackbilled, or somehow doom and gloom, which is certainly possible, right?
We shouldn't be acting like, you know, the point is simply that we see a lot of bad things happening, and a time when it's never been this, like, provably clear.
We're suddenly seeing people that are jumping over the top and saying that you want to make it all bad and all doom and gloom and yet it continues to roll out.
I just want people to be critical of this.
Question, especially the people that you think you support, especially us included, right?
Those are the people you should be holding the feet to the fire more than anybody, because it's certainly possible that they're wrong, and then you'll wake up and, as we've talked about, be inside of this pectocratic panopticon that we don't want to find ourselves in.
But I think we see these things being floated that are positives, in some cases even just hollow words, but then cover the real action that is literally right behind it, if not included within it.
And so that's what I just want people to pay attention to, because I think that's...
Everywhere right now, like the gain-of-function point.
You can't ban gain-of-function while you're literally utilizing what it produced or literally is if you really want to break it down.
And I think that's a major concern where all this goes.
But I think it's important to see, of my opinion, that more people are aware of this than not.
And I think I said that during COVID, and yes, it's my opinion, but I think we've proven that, right?
I think that was a nonpartisan reality of people waking up to that.
And all these things slant one way or the other.
Like with Israel, for example, same thing.
I mean, clearly there's a slant of people, you know, whichever way you want to look at it, they have more of an opinion that Israel's not committing genocide.
But I think the world around is explicitly aware of that.
And I think it continues to show you that more people are seeing it.
And right now, I believe more conservatives are wildly uncomfortable with what they're seeing because they're not stupid.
They've been told these things are bad.
And now they get shown that thing.
And then they look to the people like we were saying, and they're going, Elon Musk is saving free speech.
And they go, well, that's not right.
Something's wrong here.
And so I'm asking those people to just find the courage.
The integrity to stand up and speak your mind, even though it feels uncomfortable because the parties are telling you you shouldn't be talking about it.
And again, I also want to, you know, I'm honored to be here with you as well, Patrick, and I think this is a great panel.
I think we had a great conversation today, and I look forward to a lot more coming your way.
Cool.
Well, I'll continue.
This is going to be the year that technopopulism explodes.
I think this will be the year led by Trump.
That technocracy will take huge strides that they've never seen in the last 15 years.
I think we'll see the advent, truly the advent of AI this year.
I think that technocracy has declared war on the whole world, not just on America.
I think their aspirations are far exceeding just America.
And as such, Trump seems to be removing all obstacles to potentially for a takeover of technocracy around the world.
That's just, that's kind of sketchy at this point, but this has been so far the, also, this has been the bombshell year of new announcements from a world leader like Trump.
For all these things, we never heard about them before the election, but all of a sudden, boom, boom, boom, stuff's coming up, this crazy stuff.
But it's like the shock and awe invasion of Iraq in the first place.
We're going to see more of this, I think, in the future.
Look for things.
I had one...
In my mind, I was thinking about all the tariffs that Trump is threatening to levy, I guess, the world.
I'm just thinking out of the side of the box here.
But if Trump had an idea to take the BRICS nations down and the BRICS block down, What better way to threaten them first with tariffs than join the group altogether and change it,
reform it from the inside to build a totally acceptable digital currency that everybody in the world could accept.
Now, I'm just saying, we should think outside the box to figure out where Trump is going to head us into.
Nobody was thinking this way for sure even a month before the election.
Even a month after the election.
All the stuff we see all of a sudden that just sprung out of nowhere.
We're going to see more stuff like this going forward.
So all I'm saying is the technocrats apparently think that they can take over the whole world.
I don't think they can probably do it just the way they think.
But nevertheless, they're in the driver's seat.
If you have $400 billion like Musk does, you can do anything you want to do in the world.
If I had that kind of money, I would do some stuff too.
But anyway, that's just my opinion of things right now.
I think this is going to be a huge, huge increase for technocracy.
And this year, who knows about next year?
But for this year, this is the...
This is going to be the year of infrastructure development, especially with AI, moving into 2026. I would agree with all of that.
I think we're in a transitional phase of global history, really.
Going back, I would say...
Anybody with any knowledge of world history would know that the United States Empire was going to rise and then it was going to fall.
And I think we're in the decline of the American Empire and there is a transition.
And I think in some ways Trump, moron, Biden, senile Trump, moron, is the last three sequences of possibly notable American presidents for a rather steep decline away from American power going longer term.
I think 2025 is going to be Trump's goal, and yeah, they're going to give him a good year.
He's going to get a few wins.
They might give him a Nobel Prize.
I honestly think they might give him a Nobel Peace Prize.
And then in 2026, it's all going to collapse, and it's all going to have been Trump's fault and nationalism's fault.
And in the long term, we'll move away from nation states because of Donald Trump and the danger he poses and the kind of person that he is.
That's my long-term prediction.
Yeah, I would echo a lot of what was said there, and especially, you know, I'd also like to reiterate that it's one honour it is to be on a panel with Patrick, because I'm very fortunate.
I think this is the second time we've been on a panel together, Patrick, so I'm very lucky in that respect.
And I'd just like to go a bit and ask you a question, seeing as you are here.
We've currently got a Prime Minister who is, well...
No longer, apparently, a serving member of the Trilateral Commission.
But on the Trilateral, and maybe you know this, I can't think of anyone better to ask, on the Trilateral Commission's website, he's listed, along with a couple of other people, as a former member on their active membership list.
So I was just kind of...
Are you aware of them?
I've looked back at a few other membership lists, and I haven't seen that before.
Are you aware of them doing something like that before?
Well, yes.
Unless somebody resigns from the commission, they keep his list, a name of a public servant, in a special section below the active members.
And it'll say former, no, it'll say, yeah, former member in public service, something like that.
And when they get out of office, they simply moved up the list into the regular list again, okay?
So that supposedly shields them from criticism that, well, you know, they're not really speaking for the Trilateral Commission now, but they're a member for public service.
And what a sham.
In my opinion, just a sham.
Well, thanks very much for answering that because that's what I suspected.
Exactly.
Anything else, Ian, before we close out?
No, that's it.
Awesome.
All right, well, my last closing thoughts, I mean, I pretty much agree with everybody here as far as the direction we're headed and transition moment.
2025, I think what you said there, Kip, might actually come true.
The idea of Trump winning a Noel Peace Prize, as far-fetched as it sounds, obviously we know Obama got the same thing, so it wouldn't be a surprise to me, because I do think we're going to be in this great inversion of the easy wins coming and that transition, and where people like us, who are skeptical, and I think...
Any independent journalist should be skeptical towards power.
We're going to continue to be called blackpilled and labeled negative and doomers and et cetera, et cetera, for continuing to call these things out.
And I think everybody here has acknowledged, okay, there are some wins.
We can point to that and clap for a moment, but we're not going to forget about all the rest of the stuff going on.
But I do think that's what's going to happen is that we are going to watch not only allies and colleagues of ours, but our own audiences turn against us if we continue to be critical of some of these things.
Not that anybody here cares about us.
about that is going to change their mind.
That's why you're a part of the Independent Media Alliance.
But I do think that's a part of what we're going to witness, that transitionary moment, some hate, some pushback.
And I just want to mention and plug my book if I can, because I know there's a few comments about solutions for anybody who is looking for solutions.
I don't claim to have all of them, but I've written a book about technocracy inspired by Patrick's work, but more focused on the solutions, ideas of what we can do.
It's called How to Opt Out of the Technocratic State.
You can download it for free or listen to the audiobook for free at my website at theconsciousresist.com.
And yeah, I'm just really, really grateful for our panel today, guys.
I hope everybody has learned something at home.
As I said, there's going to be more to come, and we're going to continue to do what we can.
This is the reason we formed this Independent Media Alliance, to have these kind of conversations and to bring you perspectives that maybe you're not hearing on the rest of your news feed.
So with that, we're out of here.
Thank you, as always.
Remember, like Ryan says, question everything.
And as I say when I end my show, you are powerful, you are beautiful, you are free.
Export Selection