Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
BTC - 1AwdUPdbMvEyTG1zRFkmyfyVUqLdSdVqf9
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior #BreakingNews Show less
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much, we feel too little.
More than machinery, we need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe, and our food is unfit to eat, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy.
I'm a human being.
God damn it!
My life has been you have meddled with the primal forces of nature.
Don't give yourselves to brutes.
Men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, tired you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men!
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
You're beautiful.
I love you.
Yes.
You're beautiful.
Thank you.
Ha ha.
It's showtime.
It's time to buckle up for making sense of the madness.
And who loves you and who do you love?
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here.
And I got to tell you, today is a really special episode.
My guest today really doesn't need an introduction, but I'm going to try to do my best to give him one anyway.
This guy is an author, an academic, a documentary filmmaker, and somebody who I admire to the level of probably almost nobody else on the planet because his work not only speaks for itself today and yesterday, but will speak massive truth into the future and tomorrow.
I, of course, am talking about G. Edward Griffin.
It is a pleasure to have you here, sir.
He is the author of books like World Without Cancer, The Creature from Jekyll Island.
You can also check him out as a very prevalent role in my film, Invisible Empire, A New World Order to Find.
Thank you so much for joining us.
We're going to be talking about Red Pill University.
We're going to be talking about an event a couple years ago.
But first, I just kind of want to give you an opportunity to talk about not only your work, but where you see it in the realm of not only mainstream, but alternative media today.
Because, I mean, this is the guy, folks, that got the Yuri Besminoff interview all those years ago.
And I see it to this day being posted on social media and still having a great impact.
So what is that self-reflection in comparison to the models that we see today?
Well, Jason, first of all, please allow me to thank you for that very kind introduction.
It makes me feel like, who is he talking about?
You know, oh, it's me.
That's wonderful.
And yeah, it's good to know that my work over all these years, I'm 93 years old now, but I've only got about 60, 65 years or something like that in the fight.
So I'm still a beginner in all this.
But it's nice to know that my work has had some impact on it.
But anyway, thank you for that.
But your question is profound and massive.
What is going on in the world today and and what's my perspective on the future.
Well um, probably.
I'm guessing that the people watching your program pretty much have their own ideas, or they wouldn't be watching your, your program, so they're probably.
We're all in the same tribe, so to speak.
Conspiracies and Civilization's Decline00:09:39
We have the same worldview, which means that it's a strange mixture of um, I hesitate to call it optimism, but realism.
You know, often we think we have to be either optimistic, so I think that that middle ground is uh, pretty important.
The realistic, and that's what I like to think of myself, which means it's not too hot, my view of the future is not too great, but it's not so bad that we can't make make it work for humanity.
In other words, what i'm trying to say is, I think what America in particular, and the world in general is has been on for ever, since World War One and possibly before that the argument could be made is on a straight path, going from greatness to annihilation.
And um I I I sometimes, in the beginning of my studies on all this, I ran into the idea that this is the, the natural, normal decline of empires.
You know, like the Roman empire rose, it grew and then it declined and was it destroyed itself, and historians often describe that as a natural repeat cycle of civilization rise and fall of of empires and civilizations.
I used to believe that and I think it is true in many cases, but i'm convinced that it's not true in the case of our present world.
I think I discovered there was another element that was introduced into the mix along about the time of well, starting with a civil war actually, but it was really in full blown by World War Ii I use those as the benchmarks rather than putting years numbers on it and it changed in that time because there was this thing that that you're not supposed to acknowledge exists and it's conspiracy.
I've discovered that this was not the natural decline of a civilization.
There might have been a little bit of that involved, but it was being boosted along, rapidly assisted, so to speak, by people who were very smart and very wealthy and very powerful, who saw that they could gain much more from a population that was in despair and in crudeness, that was in actually struggle mode to survive,
then from an affluent society with a large middle class, where people could make up their own minds and say, screw you, you know i'm not going to take, i'm not going to follow these laws, i'm going to be a man of my own, and so forth.
That only come, that only comes from the middle class, and so I saw the beginning of this design by a group of people which it's always been hard to identify by name.
I'm very much against classifying people by group, Group or group names, because it's always the individuals within that group.
Use for this is cabal, and that's the word I use nowadays.
It doesn't mean that I have anybody that I would classify automatically as being in the cabal because of their appearance or their race or their religion or anything, or even their politics.
It's because of who they are individually.
Well, there is a group like that, and I call them the cabal, and they're all over the world.
Now, right now, I think the greatest concentration of the, or at least where the power levers are, are in the United States.
I think they sprung into being in England and the United Kingdom, and that became the center of international finance and all that sort of thing.
So, it's a long, interesting, and complicated, fascinating history.
But anyway, I became aware that there was a cabal.
It was international in scope, and they were very smart people, and they held a lot of the cards in their hand in this game.
And we didn't even know they existed until fairly recently.
And so, there's one thing about a conspiracy that is, in order for a conspiracy to survive and be successful, they have to be secret.
That's one of the definitions of the conspiracy.
Once it is exposed, it's not a conspiracy anymore.
It's a former conspiracy.
So, naturally, one of the first natural instincts that any conspiracy would have is to protect itself from being exposed.
So, the first thing they have to do is discredit any movement or any information, any individual who's trying to expose the conspiracy.
And, of course, in our day-to-day, the best formula for doing that is to call people conspiracy theorists.
And anybody that, you know, anybody that has any idea about a conspiracy is called a conspiracy theorist.
Well, the implication, of course, is that it's all theory, it's all their minds, they're all crazy, they're all hallucinating, and so forth.
I kind of feel sorry for people that believe that because it tells me that they've never read a history book.
Because if they had, they would know that probably, I'm going to say at least 90% and possibly even 100% of all the great events of history have been spawned by conspiracies, which by definition, this is an interesting thing.
Nobody wants to define a conspiracy except to say they don't exist.
But if you look it up in the encyclopedia or in the dictionary, there are different vague generational rather descriptions of what a conspiracy is, but they all seem to have the three elements.
And they say it's a group of people comprised of two or more in number.
That's number one.
Got two or more people involved.
The second thing is they operate in secret.
And the third thing is their goal is considered to be illegal or unethical.
Now, that's the definition of a conspiracy.
Now, if you go to any civil court of any size anywhere in the world, you'll find that maybe a third, if not of half, of all of the legal cases being tried in the courts have to do with conspiracies of one kind.
Conspiracies are the most common thing almost in our natural environment.
It's like rain or snow in the cold weather.
A conspiracy is almost that common.
But we've been trained in school to believe that they don't exist anymore.
They've all been wiped out somehow by the advance of civilization.
Well, anyway, we know that conspiracies do exist, and we do know that the centers of conspiracies are usually groups of people who have or desire to have a great amount of money and or power over other individuals.
Now, in my book, the money is secondary to power because the reason they want money is so that they can have the power over other people.
So I would just say it's power over other people.
And there are certain institutions that have a concentration of power and the money that comes with that.
And the larger those institutions are, and the more power and money they control, the more of a magnet they become to the predator class in society.
All the potential crooks of the world want to be on the inside of these institutions and running them because they can perform what would normally be illegal or criminal acts, but they're paid to do it by the population.
And immune from prosecution in most cases.
Immune from prosecution.
They're the ones that don't go to jail.
They're the ones that put other people into jail.
So it's a handy place for a con artist to be located.
And so all of the con artists in society dream about having high positions in institutions of that kind.
And of course, what are they?
They're right at the top of the list are governments, of course.
And then you go down the list, the big corporations, the media outlets influencing all these people, having a lot of money.
A lot of church organizations, actually, and religions, I'm sorry to say, but they're not immune to this.
If they have a great concentration of money, they're going to be a magnet to the predator class.
And these people that go in are experts at pretending to be what they are not.
And I've often said that I've never met a con artist that I didn't trust.
And that's kind of the art of the game.
You know, you said a lot right there, but just in light of the consolidation of power, you talked about some of these power structures and this predator class.
I would be remiss if I didn't say that right now, Bilderberg is checking in in Sweden.
We'll probably get the list tomorrow.
Now that people like yourself and others have talked about that group for years, there's a website.
We get bullet points of what they're supposedly talking about.
But really, that is kind of a post-World War II synthesis of the roundtable groups that you discuss in that World War I to two generation and beyond.
And you identify groups like the Royal Institute of National Affairs, of course, the Council on Foreign Relations.
There's a lot of think tanks out there right now.
And we do seem to be being pushed into more and more quote-unquote globalism slash collectivism.
Communism's Core Conflict00:15:26
You're one of the few people that really have identified that term collectivism as the main driving point for this cabal, if you will.
Could you kind of speak to that?
Because we hear about socialism and communism, et cetera, all the time.
And really, those are kind of, I would say, reflections of collectivism.
They don't really care how they get to that collectivist goal.
They'll call it whatever.
But those are the modus operandi of the moment or society right now.
Yeah, that's the big elephant in the room that nobody sees.
I didn't see it until relatively late in my career of learning about all these things.
You know, I became active in the 1960s.
And at that time, everybody was worried about the rise of communism.
Well, rightly so, by the way.
I mean, after all, here's a new ideology we thought.
It was a new ideology.
It wasn't, but we thought it was.
And they had taken over Russia.
They'd taken over China.
They were taking over countries in Latin America, South America.
They'd taken over Cuba at our door.
We had communist parades in New York on our streets.
Well, we better take communism seriously.
And we knew that they were murdering millions of people that didn't agree with them wherever they came to power.
So we were justified to be concerned about communism.
And I was one of those.
Well, I didn't understand what communism was.
I read a little bit about it.
So I was an anti-communist.
And so I fell into the trap in those days of believing that anybody that said that they also were an anti-communist, well, they had to be on my side.
They were the good guys, right?
We were the good guys.
They're the bad guys.
And that, by the way, that simplicity is still at work today.
Look at politics today between Republicans and Democrats or any division which you want to look at using those old-fashioned words.
It's just the good guys versus the bad guys, you know?
That's about it.
That's about as deep as it goes.
We'll get the good guys in office and everything will be fine.
Well, anyway, to make a very long story somewhat shorter, I have to explain this: that in those days I took an interest in what communism was.
And I started to hang out.
First of all, I had a pretty good job with a large corporation in Los Angeles, headquartered down there.
And I was the corporate guy, right?
And I was rising up the ladder, climbing the ladder.
I thought I was going to be, if not the president of this company someday, at least I'd be a vice president.
I'd probably live in a nice penthouse in New York and have a chauffeur and, you know, all the good things, the material things of life.
I was a very materialistic person at that time.
And so that was my view of being the opposite of a communist.
I had a lot of money.
I thought that the communists wanted to take all my money.
So I was an anti-communist.
And so I decided to find out more about what attracted communists because I knew that it didn't turn out that way where they came to power.
So I was curious.
I started to hang out at the communist bookstore down in Los Angeles on Larchmont Street, I think it was.
It was called the People's Bookshop.
I went down there.
I'm dressed as a corporate guy, and I got the narrow tie, the shiny suit, the sideburns, you know, and all that.
And they're looking at me very strange.
What's this guy doing here?
And I was wondering what I was doing there myself.
But I struck up some friendship with these guys.
They were nice enough people.
They were very dedicated.
And, you know, they were dedicated to communists, socialists.
And they wanted to prove why they were on the right side of history with all these books down there in the bookstore.
So they recommended this book, that book, and these two books over there.
And I started buying these books.
And I read them.
I actually read them, which I say that with a smile on my face because it turned out I discovered very soon that most of these guys down there that were selling the books had not read them.
They were selling them, but they hadn't read them.
They might have read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, but very few of them had read Das Capital, which he wrote too.
And they hadn't read the works of any of the other communists.
And they certainly hadn't read the works of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
And there was a big section in the store.
I think it was four or five volumes, thick books of the collected works of Vladimir Lenin.
I bought those and I read them.
And that's where I really learned what communism was.
Now, I go into that because at this time, I was making notes as to what these principles were that the communists believed in.
And then I got curious: well, what about the opposite?
What's the opposite of communism?
Well, we knew the most vocal and powerful opposite of communism was fascism, right?
Or Nazism.
I mean, the communists and the Nazis fought in World War II, and they tried to destroy each other.
They were fighting against each other.
So surely they were opposites.
So I said, well, I wonder what Adolf Hitler has to say about these things.
So the Nazis didn't have any bookstore in Los Angeles.
So I had to go find one and buy one through the library, found out in the library, and then I bought one somehow.
And I read Mein Kampf, and then I read the works of Mussolini.
And then, and I was starting to take these notes like I did when I was reading the works of Marx and Engels and Lenin.
And all of a sudden it dawned, I'm writing the same points.
What?
This is what they believe.
And the deeper I got into the so-called right-wing literature, I say so-called, I'll come back to that in a moment, I realized that these guys believed exactly the same thing.
If you just stripped away some of the colorful language, and some of the things are relatively minor, one of the principles of all of these is that they have to have a hated enemy class of some kind.
You have to hate somebody.
So you think with passion rather than reason, I guess suppose.
But they all have a hated enemy that you can blame as the cause and the reason you have all your problems in your life.
And well, the communists were, they hated the wealthy class, the capitalists versus the communists.
They were the wealthy versus the working class and so forth.
And the Nazis hated the Jews because they were, in general, the more, many of them were more profitable and were making a lot of money off of the working class.
But they only had to have somebody to hate, you know.
But it was a hatred symbol.
The symbol or the ideal or the principle is to hate somebody.
Well, they both have, all of these regimes have someone to hate.
It's a conqueror or it's a foreigner or it's another religion or it's a different race or something.
It's a colonial imperialist.
You've got to have a symbol.
All right.
So I started to realize that, well, wait a minute, this is all the same thing.
And it is exactly the same thing.
And then I realized that fascism wasn't the opposite of communism at all.
It was the same thing as communism.
How can this be?
And then I started to dig deeper and I discovered it's because there is a name for this collection of principles that both sides believe in.
And it had been used quite extensively in the old books, like at that time over 100 years old.
Now it's almost 150 years, 160 years old before that.
And those words are individualism versus collectivism.
It wasn't right versus left.
It wasn't communist versus fascist.
It wasn't Republican versus Democrat.
It wasn't right-wing versus left-wing.
All of it was called collectivism versus individualism.
And then I discovered that the powers that be went out of their way starting after World War I to eliminate those words from the vocabulary.
They were frowned upon.
And authors who wanted to be published by publishing houses which were financed by big, powerful banks who all had an interest in how the nation worked and what principles they believed in, because it turned out that most of those people and those corporations were collectivists.
They weren't communists.
They weren't fascists.
But they were the same thing without a name.
They were collectivists.
Now you have no name to describe them, so they can get, you don't even recognize them.
I just made a little side trip and remember when I was learning about the most famous conspiracy group of all, which was the Cecil Rhodes group that was formed by Cecil Rhodes.
Well, he was alive, of course, but I'd forgotten the years.
He was the most powerful and wealthy man in South Africa and had gained a monopoly in all their mineral mines and a lot of natural assets.
And when he died, he left all of his money not to his family, but to a cabal.
He left it to a secret society.
And in his own private papers, which I was able to get access to, he said, we will not have a name for our organization, because if they have no name for us, it'll be difficult for them to describe us.
Now, this is, if you don't, if this isn't a conspiracy mentality, I wonder what it is.
So here's a group that was conceived by Cecil Rhodes.
And he said he wanted his group to take over the world without the world knowing it was being taken over, which means that they had to take it over from the inside.
They couldn't attack it from the outside, nation against nation, but they had to take it from the inside by person against person, ideal against ideal, mentality, psychology, and so forth.
And they were one of the most powerful men in the world.
And they had no name for that very reason.
And so I've found out that everything they believed in was called collectivism.
And they used that.
But I discovered then, finally, I had been duped.
I was thinking I was a right-winger.
Why?
Because I wanted to be the opposite of communism.
All right, communists.
Communists were left-wing, right?
So I, as a dummy, young guy, well, I'm on the other side, so I'm a right-winger.
I actually called myself a right-winger with some pride, you know.
And then I discovered that I was supporting political leaders in America who called themselves right-wingers and anti-communists, but they were the beginning of the deep state.
They were collectivists to the core.
That was a profound moment in my life, and I'm trying to share it with you and your viewers because everyone needs to take that trip to realize that all of these names that they throw at us are decoys to keep us from understanding the hard core that's beneath it all, which is a conflict, an eternal conflict between the principles of individualism and collectivism.
And once you get that understanding, all this business of divide and conquer and group identity, group politics, and identity politics and so forth fades away because the battle is not between groups, but between ideas.
And so I don't know whether that's what you wanted to hear from me, but it all came to mind when you asked me that question.
And I think it's the core of our battle today.
If we understand that battle and are wise enough to play according to the rules, and there are rules, we can win this battle even now.
But as long as we continue to not understand this, we're like little babies trying to win a wrestling match against a professional wrestler.
So let's talk about that.
And I'm glad that you really fleshed that out because I believe at its core, you know, when people pin me up against the wall, you know, what are you then if you're not a libertarian or a conservative or a liberal?
I go, I go, at best, I'm a constitutionalist because it was the perfectly imperfect document that could be changed, but not just by majority vote.
You had to have two-thirds, then three-quarters.
They knew how dangerous it was.
We knew that down the line, obviously, you know, black people aren't three-fifths a person.
Women are going to get to vote, et cetera.
There are going to be these social movements and change, but not so much so that you don't have checks and balances.
We really start losing those checks and balances in mass post-World War II when we have an executive within the executive created, things like the Manhattan Project, compartmentalization, et cetera.
And now we're kind of in this new wave where, and I want to get into the Red Pill University in a minute, but you pick that name because of the Matrix and the Red Pill, but a lot of conservatives have gone on that because they made it about red and blue, you know, left and right.
When I always tell people it's never about left and right, it's always about right and wrong.
And I would say right now we're fighting that battle with the Trump administration, right?
There are certain things I like about the Trump administration.
Some of the rhetoric is great.
A lot of the actions aren't necessarily, right?
But at the same time, you know, I just discussed Bilderberg.
Peter Thiel sits on the steering committee of Bilderberg across from Eric Schmidt, who's supposedly on the left.
Jen Stoltenberg is now on the steering committee, the former head of NATO.
I'm sure they're going to have things to talk about.
Palantir has this database out there.
Now, anybody who's been following this, they know that also Palantir is involved globally with things like lavender, which is AI warfare.
Now the machine decides who the terrorist is and the AI drone can attack.
You've lived a long time, sir.
You've seen a stretch now of this, but you've also seen cycles.
Are you now kind of seeing that same cycle that maybe you fell to as a young man where the communist was the enemy?
I'm a right-winger.
I'm so happy.
And now so many of these right-wingers or people just waking up latch on to that and they don't question further.
And if so, how do we break them out of that?
Well, there's no way to break anybody out of it.
They have to fight their way out of it on their own.
First of all, they have to want to.
They have to realize that something is fishy.
Something is wrong with the existing system as explained to them.
And if they don't see that, then there's not much you can do.
It has to wait until it gets even worse, I guess, before they start asking and probing to find out what reality is behind it all.
But once you understand, you get the vision that these institutions called governments are magnets for the predator class.
And then you begin to think, well, wait a minute.
My job is not to be so trusting, but to be more questioning.
I'd like to tell another little story that was part of my awakening that touches on this point.
Assume with Caution00:12:27
I was shuffling around one day looking for something and involved a statement from Thomas Jefferson.
And I got to the Jefferson archives of documents for his, you know, what survived in his career.
And I came across an exchange between Jefferson and a friend of his who was a doctor.
And the doctor had sent him a letter right after the formation of the Constitution.
And in the letter, the doctor said, well, Mr. Jeberson, now that we have this new system in place, how can we be certain that only good men are elected or in positions of power in government?
Only good men.
See, there it is.
We are assuming.
How do we get only good men?
The good guys versus the bad guys.
And Jefferson's response was so amazingly clear to me.
It was almost irate, but it was controlled, irate.
He said, let us not speak of good men in office.
Rather, let us bind men down by the chains of the Constitution.
And I studied that and the more I thought about it, oh, I get it, I get it.
What he was saying in the modern vernacular was, good men in office, are you kidding?
Wake up, man.
You're never going to have good men or you can never rely on good men in office because he understood it was a magnet to the predator class.
Scoundrels will always go into government and they will convince you they're the greatest heroes of history.
And you will believe them until they betray you.
In fact, you may not e believe it then.
It's their advisors.
He had bad advice.
He didn't do that.
It was his advisors.
And I knew he was a good guy because I voted for him.
And I would never vote for a bad person.
So that makes whoever gets elected is automatically a good and sincere person.
Anyway, Jefferson knew that.
And so that was one of my other turning points is people that you trust.
And the answer is you don't.
You don't have to judge them, but you do have to distrust them.
As harsh as that is, if you assume that if somebody is in office and therefore you have to trust them, you have just signed your death warrant as far as your liberty is concerned.
Well, let me say this.
You know, you can trust, but verify.
Not blind trust.
Trust, right?
You don't just say, oh, they're going to do it.
If they said they're going to do it, like with all these doge cuts, right?
Okay.
Show me who's getting fired.
Show me who's getting arrested.
Show me where it's gone.
And then what?
Now we're voting against it.
It's going to keep going.
And even if it's not USAID, you know as well as I do, there's a dozen different avenues.
They're not getting cut.
That's right.
And the little people are being laid off, but the ones at the top are still there.
Okay.
That's the thing.
Now, once you see that, once, that's a bell that cannot be unrung.
But the hardest part is seeing it for the first time or hearing it for the first time.
And once you get the picture, you realize, I get it.
Good men in office, you got to be kidding.
We have to, I've forgotten who it was.
It might have been Madison or somebody.
It was speaking about a proposed amendment to the Constitution, even right after it was written.
And he said, we should be very suspicious of anyone who approaches that jewel.
Okay.
He was like, this was a jewel that everybody wants to steal and take away from you, your freedom, your constitutional liberties.
If we're going to amend the Constitution, we better slow way down and start asking questions, who wants to change it and why?
Are they trying to steal something from us and so forth?
And that was really good advice.
I think to live in the real world, it doesn't mean we have to be negative or we just have to be aware of reality.
And that is, first of all, government is not designed to take care of us and give us all the things we want.
It's designed to protect us, to protect not us, but our lives and our liberty.
And that's all.
I can go into that later.
But it's part of the awakening is what is the function of the state in the first place?
And if you assume that it's true that the state should only do those things which the people authorize to do, they have the power, the people that have the power to delegate it to them, then it means that the government can only do those things, which means, back up, what is government?
Government is the legalized use of force.
Let's get to it.
That's it.
The legalized use of coercion.
That's what government is.
And can I stop you there really just quickly?
Because there's so many people out there.
It's not so prevalent now, but that would give me the kind of anarchy argument of no government.
And they would say the non-aggression principle.
And just like you kind of just said earlier, you have to live in reality.
And that means we can't have comfort narratives as well, where it's like you have to deal with what's on the table so you can navigate that, whether you like it or not.
We live in the real world where we not only have governments, but militaries with a lot of weapons that civilians don't.
We also have cultures, et cetera, that are extremely different.
Warfare, unfortunately, I'd love to get rid of it.
It's a reality.
Governments are a reality.
That's why, I mean, that's one of the reasons, one of the great things you've done is you warned against that collective government in the fearful master when you were talking about the United Nations.
I just had to cut in there quickly, please.
Well, that's quite right.
You're absolutely right.
Reality is important.
And it's not a question of just being distrustful.
It's a question of being realistic that these institutions are magnets to the predator class.
And when you're dealing with authorities, whoever they are, the chances are that most of them, and I'm going to say this, most of them are capable, if not on purposely designing, to become criminals.
They want to do something which is totally unconstitutional, totally contrary to your best interest, and totally in favor of their best interests.
We're building a movement, as a side note on this, right now at the grassroots level, and we want to help select candidates for office.
We want to make candidates for office.
We don't want to wait until the election time and then say, well, let's take a look at the ballot and see who's running, so who I can vote for.
It's all over by that time.
If you don't put your people on the ballot, you lose the game.
That's one of the rules.
You don't wait until you have no choice except what they choose.
Somebody else chooses for you.
And so we want people to run for office who do not want to run for office.
And that eliminates most of the people who are now in office.
They want to run for office.
Why?
Why would a sane person want to take on all that responsibility unless it was for a very high, altruistic purpose?
They don't want to be paid.
They don't want to be honored.
They don't want a life term or anything.
They just want to go in there and do what they have to do to protect that jewel, those limitations on the power of government so that we can enjoy freedom.
That's the only reason they would want to go into government.
And there are darn few of those.
So our job is to find those people and get them on the ballot and vote for them.
This is part of the new awareness, you might call it, of reality in politics, is that it cannot be based on trust.
It has to be based on distrust.
Otherwise, you lose the game.
I think that we have to not only remain skeptical of everything, but like I said, hold people's feet to the fire.
And that doesn't mean you attack the guy that you voted for, but you say, hey, I voted for you for this.
I mean, you were telling me day one, we were getting out of Ukraine and Russia.
We're 120 days deep.
You said you were fixing the Middle East problem.
Lots of problems still going on there.
And you could keep piling it on.
But those are real things that if you don't continue to speak up on, unfortunately, they're going to be moving in a negative direction the next four years and beyond.
And like you talk about, unless we put better people in there.
And I often wonder, you know, how well that is.
I'll give you an example here in Iowa, and we'll get to Iowa and the Red Pill University in a moment.
I have a state representative that when I moved here, I met, we had lunch, really nice guy.
And recently, he had a hearing about the geoengineering here in Iowa and spraying in the skies and trying to ban that.
And I've pondered on this show.
You know, even if I ran for governor and won, could I stop that?
I'm on the border of Illinois, by the way.
I'm like, could I stop it?
And so my friend runs a local paper here as well, the RC Reader.
He was there.
And of course, the opposition, Jeff is a Republican state senator.
A Democratic state senator shows up and he knows, oh, and didn't know you were going to be here.
And after all these people have presented evidence of geoengineering, solar radiation management, the different agencies, et cetera, this guy gets up there and he gives the talking points that, hey, we don't even know that this is taking place.
But if it is, I want it to because they're fighting global warming.
Like the same thing we've now heard for 20 plus years with no opposition.
You know, he gets to give his statement.
No one gets to challenge him on it.
And lo and behold, you know, the bill, but we are seeing these bills in other places be successful, has not been successful here.
And even if it is, who knows?
I'd say this, you and others like yourself have helped at least move that conversation into politics.
How do we move it into the next level where they have to take action, even when our representatives are now taught?
I mean, I don't want to go too far because we're on YouTube here.
But when you've got the current HHS head formerly calling the last whole thing bioweapons and then talking about the spraying in the sky by DARPA, that Overton window has moved massively.
But what have we been able to actually do on the ground level, right?
Right.
Yeah.
Well, that's the point is because we assume that our leaders really are sincere.
And if they hear that, well, they're going to act on it, aren't they?
Or are they?
I mean, I often wonder if they can act on it.
Well, that's the point.
That is the point.
Are they the part of the cabal or are they puppets of the cabal?
And my personal view is they're puppets of the cabal.
And they may not even know the depth of what they're doing, but they do know that they got their support, their money, their press support, their prestige because they agreed to something.
They agreed to play the game for somebody else and they're paying their debt back when they get into office.
That's why they can do certain things.
And for some unknown reason, all of a sudden they turn around, make a 180-degree turn because they got a phone call.
Say, hey, Charlie, that's not what we agreed to, right?
Oh, it's not.
Oh, I see.
Well, that's pretty tough.
You know, I've already stated, you know, that's too bad.
You got to turn it around.
Got to be done.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Very good.
You know, that's, I almost tell you how the conversation goes.
Well, again, I'm always skeptical when I hear we're getting the JFK documents.
There's going to be an independent investigation into 9-11.
That's the new thing.
Now Kurt Weldon is making.
And I interviewed Kurt finally after almost 20 years about talking about the subject.
Schaefer came on the show.
Hell, I interviewed Rudy Giuliani this year and got to talk to him about 9-11.
That's how much that window has moved.
I mean, that just shows you.
But again, what's getting done about it?
Nothing.
Yes.
That's the point.
You can talk about it until you're blue in the face.
And you could be thought you're a good guy because you talked about it.
Yeah.
Deception In Political Chess00:03:50
And that is dangerous.
Now, that's part of something I'm going to be talking about at the web, at the web, the Red Pill Expo coming up in July, is this business about how to play chess in politics, the chess game called politics.
And in the chess game, there are many, many moves.
Most of them, I'm going to say, are moves that are designed to be decoys, to fool your opposition and to lure him into an indefensible position by making it look good to him.
And you do that by sacrificing something.
You sacrifice one or even two of your important men.
So it looks so good to the opposition that they rush into the voice.
Ah, he made a mistake or we're winning.
But two or three moves down the line, they discover, oops, now I'm trapped.
And they take your king and they win the game and you lose because you believed that they had made a mistake or that you had lost.
Now, if you read The Art of War by Sun Tzu, he explains all that.
He says, one of the goals of warfare is to deceive your enemy into thinking you are weak, into thinking you are defeated.
In fact, one of the most important rules of chess, by the way, was formed or devised by the old Mogul conqueror Tamerlane, Timur the Great.
And some of his military moves were included in the chess game as we know it today.
And it was based on feigned retreat, pretended weakness.
And I remember reading about Tamerlane, some of his military actions some years ago.
And it's the best described.
Here's Tamerlane's army.
And he's outnumbered by two to one by his opponent who is approaching for a fight.
And so Tamerlane moves his men into an indefensible position, an indefensible position.
And they know that they can't fight at night.
So they move into this position as the sun is going down, and they let the enemy see that they have moved into this position.
And then as the sun comes up in the morning, during the night, he's taken all of his troops and put them into the side bushes and trees in this position, and they're hiding there.
But in the morning, he orders all of his wagons and all of the women and children and the oxen to move out, moving away from the enemy.
And they wave behind them branches from trees to stir up a lot of dust.
So at a distance, it looked like the whole army was retreating.
So the enemy says, ah, look, the cowards are retreating.
We must go after them.
And so they come right into the indefensible position.
And there, of course, they're encircled now by the Tamerlane's troops, and they're defeated totally.
And Tamerlane was expert, and he was noted for his pretended defeat strategies.
And these wound up in the game of chess.
That's why I'm mentioning it.
Because the game of chess really is loaded with pretended defeat strategies to make it most effective.
Most people don't play chess, and those that do never get to be champions.
But the champions know what I'm talking about.
I can't think far enough for that.
You need to think two and three times, three moves ahead to make that work.
Well, because you might miss something, and then you'll be trapped by your opponent's same strategy, but you fell for it.
Responding to it.
Pawns and Politicians00:09:44
But anyway, the reason I mention that is because the same ploy is used in politics brilliantly.
And people are not trained to see this.
They don't know the rules of the game.
That both sides in any political conflict will pretend defeat or weakness.
Or they'll put up people who will pretend to be opponents of their opposition when actually they're agents.
And their job is to put on an act.
And they're very, very good at it.
Now, the average person doesn't even conceive of this as a possibility.
Well, that would never happen in real life, would it?
Well, yes, it does.
In fact, in my view, it is the most powerful chess move there is in politics, is to pretend that you're losing.
Well, I would say this also about the chessboard metaphor.
You know, one of the big globalists, collectivists no longer with us, Brzezinski, wrote.
the grand chessboard.
And this is somebody who was trilateral commission, you know, a Rockefeller acolyte involved in how many administrations, really up through the Obama administration in some regard, extremely powerful and was constantly talking about those things.
Let's talk about Red Pill University because I think that you've been doing it now.
It's got to be close to 10 years, right?
I mean, well, our first event was 2017.
Yep.
So now I'm about eight years deep on it.
Anybody can go right now to redpilluniversity.org.
Now, you know, just briefly, I guess we're going to discuss this.
You know, I was at your event.
Geez, it has to be almost two years ago out in Iowa.
That's where I live.
My buddy Pat Militich, UFC Hall of Famer, was going there.
He's a big soil savior guy.
And I'm like, yeah, no, let's go.
And when I was there, I noticed somebody, but I didn't quite recognize them.
It ended up being this guy, Andrew Callahan.
I had noticed him because he had an HBO movie coming out at the time called This Place Rules.
He was from Channel 5.
I saw him talking to different people, but then I saw him talking to you.
I came over and filmed.
He put the thing out, I don't know, a couple weeks ago.
Obviously, it's gotten millions of views between him and another YouTuber that put it out.
I want to give you the opportunity to talk about not only Red Pill University and its events and its genesis, but kind of respond to what you thought about that piece.
Because we really started off this whole thing with the media's need to discredit people as quote-unquote conspiracy theorists that dare to challenge the status quo.
And, you know, Andrew kind of, I guess in popular culture, comes off as somebody who's supposedly not left or right or doesn't have an agenda.
But, I mean, you see the types of deceptive editing.
Hell, even when he asked me what he could do better, I said, well, you know, the Zoom shots and the slow-mo, that's all funny, the gotcha moments.
But how about live and long form?
So you have the actual discussion and the free flow of ideas.
You know, that's how I think honest journalism is done.
I mean, don't get me wrong.
I like a documentary film.
I'm a documentary filmmaker myself.
I think there has to be a narrative and a flow.
But I always try to, after the fact, put out the full interviews so you can get that person's full perspective.
We're all not going to agree on nuances, et cetera, or some of the major things.
And obviously, when someone puts out a piece like that, it's through their lens.
So let's start with Red Pill University and get into your response on this video.
Okay, thank you for that because I wanted to talk about that.
Anyway, and I suppose I was going to say, I was going to say that there's no connection between what I just said and this topic, but there is.
And that is the idea.
This is a chess game.
And one of the favorite moves in chess is, well, in fact, all of the favorite moves of chess are based upon deception at some level or another.
And so that's the connection.
And that really is perhaps the theme of the day because they used to say that there's nothing new under the sun.
But that's not true anymore.
There is definitely something new under the sun since the arrival of technology.
And that's the ability to control the thinking and the attitudes, the opinions of everybody in the whole planet at the same time, because of the ability to not only have the technical ability to transmit information that is not true, but they also have the scientific knowledge of how the brain works.
And they now know how to manipulate how people think, not just based on principles, but in terms of repetition and rhythms and sounds and images and so forth that create images in the mind.
The primitive people of the world and early ages didn't have any of that.
They perhaps knew how to influence people with a smile or a trick phrase now and then, but it's become a whole professional course.
You can go to universities and learn how to sell anything, whether it's canned soup or political ideas.
And it's based on a high degree of scientific knowledge of how the brain works and how emotions work and so forth.
So this is new under the sun.
And so now that's what I want to talk about is that people are still thinking of fighting a war that's our biggest danger is an atomic bomb, for example.
Or China.
Or China, yeah.
Or some other country, you know.
The idea that it's coming from within, from people who are American citizens, but who are the enemies of the American tradition, is still foreign to most people.
And it's being kept that way by the media.
You'll never hear what I'm just saying now on mainstream media with their knowledge.
I mean, I might surprise them and cut me off maybe, but it's never going to be programmed because they don't want people to think of these things.
If you don't hear about something, you just pretend like it doesn't exist.
That's like that's Hitler's advice backwards.
Hitler said, if you tell a lie that's big enough and often enough, why everybody, people will believe it.
And the opposite of that is if you have a big, big truth and you never allow it to be spoken at all, people will not believe it.
So that's the other side of the formula.
Okay, so anyway, I don't know where I was going with that, except that that's the connection between the Red Pill Project, which I'm really quite involved with right now.
So let me take and try and make this short.
I've been talking too much, I'm sure.
Listen, sir, you have never talked too much.
We can't get enough.
But let me just talk about that secretiveness, right?
Really quickly, because I think it's important.
Like you just said, if it's repeated enough, you hear people say it all the time, right?
For instance, the Trump administration says that they have now signed an executive order where the government's no longer going to censor.
Yippee.
I'm not exactly sure what that means because right here, we have a military program that has never had a hearing.
This was revealed in 2021 called Signature Reduction.
It's an art form.
It's not even the official name.
It is the largest undercover force the world has ever known, created by the Pentagon over a decade.
Some 60,000 people now belong to this secret army, many working under masked identities and low profile, all part of a broad program called CIAs, or I'm sorry, signature reduction.
The force more than 10 times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA carries out domestic, that's here, everybody, and foreign assignments, both in military uniform and under civilian cover, in real life.
So going to work and online.
These are the Russian bot trolls that you hear so much about.
Sometimes hiding in private businesses and consultancies, some of them household name companies.
Now, I could go on, they have full access to all databases.
They can create, eliminate, alter identities.
I mean, this is a good read right there.
That is the DARPA hand sleeve that they use that can have anybody's biometrics and omit human oils.
This isn't talking.
You don't think they're in Twitter or X or Google or all these places that they censor?
Of course they are.
And there has been no criminal repercussion, not only for our government, but the businesses that have worked with them to censor.
We can talk about the CIA Project Mockingbird.
I doubt that it's ever ended.
I think that it's gotten extremely sophisticated and much more reverent.
And that's why, you know, when you look at something like the Red Pill University that's trying to combat that, and at a human level, by the way, in an era where the algorithm is curated against truth and questioning unless it's narrative approved, right?
It leans you into a certain angle or a certain personality, et cetera.
Then it's not there.
That's why your stuff is so important because you do still bring human beings together.
So I'm going to let you take it from there.
I mean, you had a great group there and you've had great groups get together now for, like I said, the better part of a decade.
Yeah.
And it's only getting better.
Yeah, the word is loud, but we've got a long way to go.
We have to go faster, faster, faster.
So that's my mission right now.
So anyway, yes, thank you for that because I think your analysis is perfectly spot on.
Censored Internet Sovereignty00:08:38
Most people just aren't aware because, first of all, they hear opposition to it from the cabal.
Oh, this is all conspiracy theory.
This is ridiculous.
Ha ha ha.
So that's the one side.
And the other side is they never hear our side at all.
So, you know, you can't blame them, really.
I was a victim of that at one time.
And I think most people have been.
I came through the public school system.
And of course, the truth is not allowed there.
We run a meme on our website recently.
And there's somebody, two, two little kids talking to each other.
And the one kid says, oh, they're sitting at a school desk.
And the one kid says, yeah, they'll never teach us what we need to know in order to doubt what they're teaching us.
Correct.
Well, you know what?
Right now, I'm helping raise my sister's kids.
My one niece is upstairs right now.
They're 14 and 16.
And I constantly have to, especially now that we're in current events, not just history.
What are you learning?
What are you giving presentations on?
And it seems like on one end, at school, they're getting the mainstay stuff you're seeing on NBC, ABC, all the mainstream and left-wing outlets.
And then, you know, the supposed enlightened people that I talk to, unfortunately, 50-plus% of them are giving me the kind of now right-wing or conservative talking points.
I do think that, like, for instance, Callahan falls somewhere in the middle, but especially when you get to people like yourself that are questioning both, they try to make it as ludicrous as possible.
You know, that's one of the points that when I actually talked to him, I made.
You know, I talked about David Icke, for instance.
David Icke, I've never been into the lizard people.
I know that you've never gotten into the esoteric or metaphysics stuff.
And I go, look, I think a lot of that's goofy and I don't believe it.
But I respect the guy for remaining anti-war when I've seen other people flip.
So I kind of, now that you've seen so many people come and go and these different, I mean, you've heard lizard people.
You're talking about the Federal Reserve.
I'm sure you've been called a flat earther at this point on top of it.
What's your viewpoint of all that and kind of the wackiness that goes with it?
I obviously think that hurts us in the long run.
But at the same time, now we're in a world in 2025 when people want to go like refer to Zuckerberg or Bezos as a bad person.
They say he's a lizard.
They don't really mean it, but it's hit that level of pop culture, right?
Yeah, it's a pop-pop thing.
Well, it's all part of the warfare because the war is not being fought in the open ground where you recognize it as a war.
And you get to talk and argue and debate and have strong disagreements on things that are relatively unimportant.
So I guess the brief answer to the question, it's primarily a decoy, is to keep us busy so that we don't really think about or talk about the things that are really important.
What are the things that are really important?
Well, that's a tough one.
It's a big scale.
But I would say at the very top, the first thing for America, at least, and probably all countries, is their sovereignty.
Are they going to remain as a country or are they going to be swallowed up in this collectivist world government called the United Nations?
That is perhaps the most important question of all.
How much do you hear discussed on that on the news?
How many people on either side of the aisle, Republicans or Democrats, discuss that?
No, they're all in agreement on that.
Okay, that's number one.
Number two would probably be, well, well, it's related to number one is who controls the military?
I mean, if you have a strong military, you can defend yourself.
But if your military gets smushed into an international core of some kind, you don't control your military anymore.
Now we're back to item number one, which is you've lost your sovereignty.
Now, who is talking about preserving sovereignty in our U.S. military?
We're talking about we need more military, but now we go and do international chores and we invite people from other countries to come with us and accept a shared command and so forth.
We are giving away our unique control of our own military to an international source, whether the voters know about it or not.
And they're not going to learn about it by their news media, and they're not going to learn about it from either their candidates or either party because they just don't talk about it.
There's number two.
What's the third one?
Well, what about our money supply?
What about our economic foundation?
What about this international new money they're talking about?
This, you know, digital currencies, it's a central bank digital currency.
Have you noticed that that's not just an American movement?
We're giving away our money, our sovereignty of our money too, to an international pool.
It may not be centered in the UN, obviously.
It'll be centered in the banking system, which has always been really, in my view, more of the power center of government anyway.
If you're going to talk about the cabal, the next step toward the center of that cabal is go to the banking fraternity and you're going to find most of the members that we're looking for in that fraternity.
And you can go higher than that into the occult, I suppose.
I don't know much about that.
But anyway, I do believe in that pyramid that you see on the back of the dollar bill with the all-seeing eye.
I think it's quite symbolic of what is really going on in the world.
So anyway, back to the main thing.
If you don't hear about something, you don't think it's important or even that it exists.
And that's why the biggest issues of all are not changing between one party or another, or even people who fight viciously over whether we should be in this war or that war, or whether this guy is a good guy or a bad guy.
They never even discuss these more important issues.
And that's how they win.
They just keep us squabbling over little things that can be changed from time to time, but not the big things that once they're done, they can never be undone.
You know, I want to get into some of those big things.
But before we, because I want to, you know, you just kind of talked about warfare, who's in control.
I mean, that's a very blurred line when you have autonomous systems and you have programs out there and now AI into these systems.
And of course, Google working on drone software, because you also talk about the information war.
I mean, their collaboration with NASA in quantum computing.
The list goes on.
Their involvement with China.
You know, I remember it wasn't big in the media here, but when Eric Schmidt got put on the spot, I think it was in 2017 or 18, about them developing Dragonfly, China's censored internet.
Well, you can't really call it China-censored internet because it's here.
You know, I mean, Google is as censored as Dragonfly.
Yeah, it's just censored internet.
I mean, this is supposed to be a private company with all these defense contracts.
It's just like Elon Musk is supposed to be a private citizen when he's the number one defense contractor.
So, I guess I'd like to get your take on that.
And then I'd love to get your kind of direct response to that Channel 5 piece and what you thought of it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I guess my response is that I agree with everything you said, Jason.
And I think most people at some level agree with it too.
They understand that it's true.
They don't necessarily are willing to go all the way like you and I have to the ultimate go-to-the-wall with it, but they will eventually.
And they're on the path because everything points in that direction.
There are no arrows other than the propaganda ones, which you can recognize.
In other words, if the opposition to something is censored by the something, then you know there's something wrong with the something.
You don't have to censor opposition to truth.
You don't have to.
Who would want to unless they represent a lie?
If you're using coercion to prevent something from even talking about that of which you disapprove, I think there's more reason to be suspicious of you than the person you are trying to censor.
Censorship is only used by those who are trying to cover up something.
That's generally the truth.
Or trying to do something which is unethical or illegal, but primarily unethical.
So people know that at some instinctive level.
And so I think eventually, if they just keep their eyes open, all of it will suddenly snap into focus like it did for me.
And from that point forward, the bell has rung and there'll be no unringing of it.
So anyway, that's what we're all about with Red Pill, our Red Pill project.
You mentioned Red Pill University.
Red Pill Project00:15:46
Well, International, which is an organization I created back in, I think it was 2002, if I remember correctly.
And I did that in the Dominican Republic of all places.
I was invited to present on the Federal Reserve System before an investment group, which identified itself as being offshore, so they could talk about the real, you know, the real things going on with money.
They couldn't say certain things because in the United States, the land of the free, because they would be put in prison if they said it.
And it was true.
So they meet offshore.
And so they invited me to speak about the Federal Reserve.
But most of the other speakers were concerned with investments that you could make offshore, which would not be regulated by the federal government, all the different nations.
FTC, Federal Trade Commission.
Yeah, Federal Trade, FTC, and others, too.
Their banking rules and so forth.
So anyway, I was there.
I knew why I was there.
That was to scare everybody into taking their money away from conventional investments and put it in these offshore investments.
That's why I was there.
I didn't care.
As long as I could tell what I needed to say about the Federal Reserve, I was reaching people and I thought it would do some good.
The need to do certain things to bring about change to the thinking of the American people, which had to come before any political or social change would come.
First, the people have to be thinking that they want it.
Otherwise, they're not going to get it.
And so I said, we need to form an organization.
I've given some thought to that.
Maybe someday we can do it or something like that.
Well, I had a lot of people ask me in the Q ⁇ A period, well, tell me more about this organization that you're talking about.
And I said, well, I'd be glad to, but my time is over here.
So I understand I, after dinner tonight, and I hadn't planned to use it, but if you want to get my thoughts on that, I invite you to come to this room and I'll go down there and tell you what I think about it.
Well, it was a room that could hold about 60 people probably.
And I got down there, there were about 80 already in the room.
People were sitting on the floor, sitting on the tables, standing around the walls and everything.
I said, what is this?
And so I squeezed myself in there and I told them that I wanted to create an organization that would be built from the ground up, not from the top down, that it would be dedicated to certain principles that could not be changed by the whims of any members or owners.
There'd be immutable principles and that we would have to know what we believed in as well as what we believed against and so forth.
And I said, this is what we're going to do.
And some chap at the end said, well, how do you join this organization?
And I said, well, I don't know.
We don't really have it yet.
And he said, well, here's a check.
I just wrote my check.
I think he gave me a $50 check.
And he said, who shall I make this out to?
And I didn't know how to answer it.
So I've forgotten how I answered it, actually.
I might have said, make it out to American Media, which was my company.
I don't know.
And I knew I was smart enough not to say make it out to me.
So anyway, I had my first member, and I didn't have an organization yet.
I had somebody pay dues for a first membership.
So that was the beginning of what I eventually called Freedom Force International.
It took me about two years really to get that thing rolling.
And we grew pretty well.
And we got to an international membership where we had people in, I think we had about 18 or 19 countries already represented.
And so we were rolling.
We eventually converted that into a real organization, not just a computer-based organization.
And we had our first meeting, I think, in about 2016 or 15 here in the United States.
And that's what we formed a real organization with members and dues and a bank account, accounting records, publications, and so forth.
Well, okay, that survived very well and was growing nicely.
And then it came to my realization that no matter how well we grew on this basis, we weren't going to change anything in the world because we were too small and our requirements were too steep.
We needed millions of people participating in this, but there are not millions and millions of people that want to read books and become intellectually involved at that level.
We have to in order to provide dependable leadership that can't be corrupted and all that sort of thing.
So I thought we formed, we didn't think too much about it, we formed an organization called Project Outreach.
And the idea was to find a way to simplify our message a little bit.
We had all these rules and regulations and this, that, and so forth.
We've got to simplify that to something more easily digested for the larger numbers of people that we needed in the movement.
We wanted to be accurate about what we did.
We didn't want just slogans that sounded good.
They had to be severe slogans.
One of them, for example, that we survived with very well is that why fight City Hall when you can be City Hall?
And that's one of our movements that we've got to get people off the dime.
Quit going to their city hall, looking in the windows and say, oh, you people in there in government, won't you please do what you're supposed to do?
Won't you please follow the Constitution?
And won't you please do what is right?
And they laugh at us because we're outside looking in and they're inside looking out.
Well, we should be on the inside.
We can get in there too, just like they did, if we're willing to do it.
So that's one of our slogans.
And we simplified what we're talking about with a slogan like that.
We did a few other things.
And the next thing was, well, how do we reach a larger number of people with Freedom Force International as our name?
That sounds pretty dry.
It sounds very noble, which it is, but it sounds dry.
Who wants to join Freedom Force International?
The old-timers, maybe, the old folks, not the young people.
They want something more exciting.
So I came up with the idea of Red Pill.
Let's put on a Red Pill Expo.
And then we had to have an organization to sponsor that eventually.
So we called it Red Pill University.
And then Red Pill University puts on, first it was an annual event, and now it's two times a year event called Red Pill Expo.
Now, that's all part of the Red Pill Project Outreach.
And our object is to reach out to a larger group of people, millions of people all around the world, who understand the principles that we're talking about, but who can't necessarily spend their whole lives to it.
You know, they're people with families to raise.
They got jobs to go to.
But we depend on those people who are solid as the rock to help us in this movement.
And so we decided to make it a more popular appeal, the Red Pill.
Take the Red Pill, man, and see how the world really works for a change.
And we wondered if that would work, whether people would say, oh, it's too pop culture.
No, it worked.
Our first event in Montana.
I'm trying to think of the name of the town right now.
It escapes me.
Anyway, it's in Montana of all places where it's cold.
Nobody goes to Montana except in the summertime.
Well, this was in June.
So anyway, we put it there, and lo and behold, we opened the doors on Saturday morning.
The place was packed.
I mean, we had the huge auditorium was full.
And we had people there from not just the United States, but from France, Mexico, Canada, Belgium.
I forgot.
We had true international representation.
I knew we had struck the right chord.
We're reaching out to a larger group of people who can't make this a full life career, but who want to dedicate a significant portion of their life to making all these things come true.
So that's where we are now operating at a public level, at the outreach level, which is called Red Pill University, which operates full-time 24-7, but their expo operates twice a year.
And that's where we go public with putting speakers on the stage and we have breakouts and so forth.
And that's where people get to meet each other from all parts of the world and form into coalitions.
You can't win this war by sitting at your computer and sending emails.
You've got to make liaison connections with your friends at your local level and build local, we call them campuses, so that we can go to the council meetings.
We can put our people into council member positions, maybe influence who is elected for the sheriff, city council, mayor, and so forth, and board of education.
There are a lot of things at the local level that a group of 30 to 60 people can influence tremendously well if they work together and are dedicated.
And that's what we're doing right now.
That's what we're building.
So now we come back to what's it all about?
Well, it's all about building a resistance movement, not just ideas, not just talking about what needs to be done, but actually reaching for the positions of influence that makes it possible for us to do it.
You've got to be into positions of authority.
That means the government.
It means the media.
It means the schools.
You need to be leaders, in other words.
So that's what Red Pill is all about.
So you've got one coming up in July.
And what I do love about these things is, like you just said, you can't just sit on a computer.
And I've been very lucky over the last almost now 20 years of doing this to travel, to speak at different events, to meet people.
But even when these things are over, some of my favorite times are after the event at the bar, whether it's at the hotel bar where you really get to sit down with different groups, families, et cetera.
I still remember, I think it was the Save the Long Island conference where we went and did karaoke together many, many years ago.
And then there was a panel in the morning.
I think the social camaraderie on top of, you know, seeing maybe your favorite documentary filmmaker, your favorite author speaking is as important because you not only realize there's more and more people like you, but you get into a window of like, I'm not the only one that's got it together.
You know, these people have a lovely home and a family.
We are all in this together.
That's the type of collectivism that I'm actually into, right?
It's not forced collectivism.
It's that collective camaraderie, right?
That decentralization.
You got the essence of it, but there is a word difference.
There are two different words.
How shall I say this?
Just because I am an individualist doesn't mean I have to move my piano alone, right?
It's going to be awfully hard.
I can call my friends, my neighbors, or I can hire somebody, and they can come and help me on a volunteer basis.
If they want to, if they don't want to, fine.
That is collective action.
Collectivism is where you will do this or you will go to prison or you will pay the fine or you will die.
That's collectivism is.
Everything is coercive.
A lot of the goals of collectivists are meaningless.
They're good goals.
I don't have any problem with their goals.
It's their methods by which they want to achieve those goals.
If I want to help my neighbor, I can give him what I have or what I think he deserves or something because of a charitable instinct I have.
But if somebody knocks on my door and they got a gun pointed at me, says, we want $150 from you right now to give to your neighbor who needs this money.
That's a different analysis.
That's a different world.
And that's the world we're living in today.
You will do this or you will pay.
And the idea of freedom of choice is almost never considered.
I talk a lot about transhumanism, technology.
You're somebody who's literally seen technologies as they emerged, as they became popular, as they've become obsolete.
The big technology we haven't discussed is artificial intelligence right now.
And obviously, it's a huge topic.
It's a wide array of different things from the chat bots to the automation to the deepfakes, et cetera.
What is your overview of that technology, especially with that 30,000-foot view of somebody that saw, you know, radio go by the wayside and television become popular.
Now television, nowhere near as popular as computers were, but computers aren't that popular anymore.
Now it's the magic box in our pocket.
Do you see this as an extension?
Because for me, my biggest concern, obviously other than some of the moral implications, is the narrative it's already selling on.
It seems to be an extension of that mainstream narrative, right?
And so many people are now relying on this thing for their research, for their viewpoints, for even their social lives, right?
And how to act.
And to me, this is ultra-artificial and ultra-dangerous.
At the same time, obviously there are things that you can utilize it, just like I can utilize a Google search, just like YouTube may censor me.
I'm going to try to reach as many people on it.
What is your overall kind of, I guess, hammer technology viewpoint of this?
Is it building the house?
Is it bashing the head?
Is it a little bit of both?
Is it even more of the fearful master than something like the United Nations?
The short answer is all of the above.
But that 30,000-foot view is interesting.
What is it?
Well, it's a continuation of a process that's been going on for a long time.
The advent of technology does have a, it is a two-sided sword.
We know that it can be used for good or evil.
But we also know one more thing about it that we seldom talk about.
And that is that it always ends up being used for evil more than it's used for good.
We keep forgetting that part.
I don't forget.
See, that's my biggest issue when like we get into, I just did a big panel on disclosure, right?
And I'm highly skeptical of all the alien stuff, et cetera.
But I often point out that there's clearly technology that's out there that's being utilized for warfare that we're not privy to.
And that same technology, instead of enslaving humanity or just for warfare, could empower us probably with cheaper electricity, an abundance of resources, maybe food that wasn't genetically modified to hell, Mr. Griffin, you know, those things.
Crazy Stuff in Medicine00:11:57
But what have they chosen to do?
They've poisoned our food.
They've poisoned our air.
They've poisoned our water.
The technology in many ways has poisoned our mind.
I wish it was the other way around, but like you said.
Yeah, we all wish that.
But let's be realistic.
We're back to realism versus pessimism or optimism.
Realism teaches that technology always will be used against the betterment of the human race.
Why?
Because there's motivation for evil people, we'll call them evil people, for the cabal, for the predator class, maybe that's a better phrase, to use technology to their advantage.
And if they can and they've got sufficient money to do that, they will succeed.
And the average guy would be running around saying, well, what am I going to do about it?
What can I do about it?
I've got to have a telephone.
I got to have water out of my pipe.
I got to flush the toilet.
I got to have food from the growth.
What can I do?
So as long as the average person is denied the knowledge of what he can do about it, and that's what we're into now, if he has no vision of what he can do about it, then he's sunk.
It doesn't make any difference whether the technology can or cannot be used for good.
It will be used for some good, but it's going to be used for control by those with the predator class who have come in and taken over our governments and our media and everything else.
And that is the story of history.
It's the story of human nature in a way.
So why don't we fight it?
Let's acknowledge it exists and start thinking of ways to chain men down with the chains of the Constitution.
We need to write some new constitutions.
I like the old one.
I think it was a great beta model.
But it needs to go further to recognize this new age in which we live.
Yeah, I think we have to find a way for true criminal accountability within that system of government that we've clearly lost along the way and really only saw remnants of, say, with Iran-Contra.
That was the last bastion of any kind of oversight.
And those were slaps on the wrist.
And they made it about one guy, Oliver North, who got book deals and radios, because that's how you discourage people.
You don't send them to prison.
You give them a million-dollar book deal and a radio show that's going to pay a pension for 25 years.
Giabor Griffin, people can learn about the Red Pill Expo, which is coming up on July 12th and 13th over in Tulsa, Oklahoma at RedPillUniversity.org.
It's redpillexpo.org.
Oh, well, this one's got you on redpilluniversity.org, and there's the expo page right here, just to let everybody know.
Yeah, but if you put it on your URL and just type in redpillexpo.org, it'll be forward to it.
Gotcha.
If you put it to Red Pill University, it'll probably go to Red Pill University page.
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
So anyway, keep it simple, just redpillexpo.org and you'll be there.
You got it.
What would you like to leave the audience with?
You've been extremely gracious with your, we were going to talk briefly at least about that encounter.
Yeah, let's talk.
I thought you maybe wanted to gloss over it afterwards.
I'd love to talk about it.
No, I don't like to talk about these things.
If you have the time for it.
Yo, I've got all the time in the world for you, sir.
Go for it.
Well, I thought this guy that was interviewing me, this guy that was interviewing me, I thought he was asking me a lot of good questions.
I never knew at the time.
You never know because you always trust con artists, remember?
And so I trusted him, but he was really setting me up.
I found that out later.
So when I saw that video a couple of weeks ago, I was shocked, I guess, because I didn't expect it, but I should have expected it.
So anyway, what is it?
Why are we even worried about it?
Because I think so many people can see through it.
But I do want to, for those who aren't aware of how the opposition works, I wrote a few notes here the other day about that video that they made around my interview.
And for those that haven't seen it, I should explain it.
It was an interview done to me at one of the events, the Red Pill Expo events.
And here comes this guy with a microphone and a camera, like happens all the time.
And he wanted to interview me.
I said, oh, great.
This is exposure, right?
We get some, get the word out.
I didn't know he was trying to set me up and make me look bad, which he did.
Well, he didn't make me look so bad, except the fact that I was the creator of this organization and this Red Pill Expo, which was lousy.
And look at the people that were associated with it.
You know, they were lousy people too.
So therefore, I must, by indirect reference, be just as bad as they are, or I wouldn't have mingled with them or invited them to participate in our event.
So that's where the trickery comes in.
The first thing I said, okay, there was the first thing, the first quote I heard from him that I wrote down, and he was making us all look bad.
Okay, we'll come to some specific points in a minute.
But then he said, and I quoted, this is what he wrote.
The big problem I have with people like this is that 10 to 20% of what they are saying is so unfathomably true and based that it makes it disappointing that the other 80 to 90 percent is this like deleterious BS.
It's very disappointing for me.
It's very disappointing for me to see this, to see.
This is crazy.
This is crazy stuff.
Okay, that's the theme of the whole pitch that he was making, that he is a good guy, and he is sort of a moderate.
He was looking at both sides objectively.
Yeah, yeah, 20%, maybe 10 to 20% of what was presented at the Red Pill Expo was true, maybe, but the other stuff is all BS.
And that's, now, actually, I agree with that statement.
I think it's totally accurate, except we don't agree on who's on the 10% and who's on the 80%.
That's the only difference.
And other than that, he's absolutely right.
And the stuff that he did is crazy.
I agree.
It's crazy stuff.
Well, what did he do?
Well, stuff like, he put a clip up of Dr. Lee Merritt, who gave a wonderful presentation.
I thought it was quite scholarly about the origins of fascism, the fascism cap.
And she had some stuff about symbolism that came from ancient history that I had never heard about before.
She'd really done her research.
Now, the lady is a brilliant lady.
She's a doctor.
She's a surgeon.
She was in the military for a long time as a surgeon.
And she came out and started giving lectures on some of the crazy stuff that's going in healthcare today.
And then she got sort of worn out on talking about medicine, medicine, medicine, and healthcare.
And she started going into history about this cabal that I'm talking about.
And she came up with this study of what's the origin of some of the symbols that are used by this cabal today.
Anyway, so she's on stage, and she's got low-heeled shoes on.
And she's a very casually dressed lady.
She's a very refined person, very smart.
But he filmed her in such a way and showed her feet, just her feet and her open-toed shoes and so forth, and stayed on it a little long.
So you got the idea that how dare would somebody stand in front of an audience with shoes like that?
Well, now when you see stuff that's done like that, your alarm bells should start going off.
But they're not interested in the message at all.
They're interested only in what you think about the people delivering the message, because they really can't argue with the message.
So they fall back to making the people look bad.
That's my opening discussion on this.
What else did I come up with here?
Oh, there are a couple of completely fabricated video segments in the video that he showed that made it look like it was being produced by us because the statements being made by people I've never seen before were using words that we would use, but they were using it in such a combination as to sound crazy, you know?
And it looked like it was us speaking.
And that was completely fictitious.
That's trickery, you know.
And this was done very well, by the way, I thought.
And another one that they took, they took a picture of who was it?
Oh, it was Hillary.
Hillary is shown in the picture, and all of a sudden, her face turns into a demon.
Well, now the viewer, the viewer thinks that we did that.
The viewer thinks that we did that.
Well, we would never dream of doing that.
It was so crude and so, it's just unacceptable.
Even though I don't like what Hillary is doing, I would never, I would.
You don't think she's a shape-shifting lizard person, J. Edward?
Shape-shifting lizard, yeah.
So the point I'm trying to say is that here is a guy that's pretending to be objective and he just wants the facts.
He's not interested in the facts at all.
He's interested in making us look ridiculous.
And he did a good job of it, I would say.
Except for the kickback, I gathered from the letters that were responding to his video that a good number of them, maybe 40%, maybe 50%, were taking our side in spite of all that.
So I would just say that it's probably not worth worrying too much about because the word is out.
The cat is out of the bag, and tricks like that are not working so well anymore.
Well, you know, I'll just say, again, you know, the guy said he would come on my show.
In fact, he shows it with my interview where I ask him, says he'll do it, gave me the number, did say he was reading your book, by the way, said it was crazy-S.
So he said he was reading the creature from Jekyll Island.
Never heard back from him after that.
Doubtful that he'll ever actually do the interview that is long form.
But that's the thing.
If he's got an opinion and he wants to say something's crazy, let's have a debate.
I would love to facilitate a G. Edward Griffin Andrew Callahan debate where I would give each person ample time to make their points because unfortunately, again, that type of journalism is extremely deceptive and it's extremely popular.
It's kind of the game.
And look, he's not the only one that I'll criticize.
You know, I'm one of those guys also with things like Project Veritas or now O'Keefe Media Group.
Put all the videos out.
Just like with Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, give me all the documents.
I don't want curation when it comes to social, economic, and government issues that affect every single one of us so significantly, right?
We want as much source information and I would say conversation as possible.
What do you think?
Oh, absolutely.
Because Lord knows many, if not most, of my cherished beliefs as a young man have been changed by life's experience.
And had I not been open to new ideas, even though I may not have liked them the first time I heard them, I listened to them.
And in many cases, it changed my whole way of thinking.
The first really controversial book I wrote, well, the first book I wrote was a controversial book too, on the United Nations.
I mean, I used to be a true believer of the UN.
I was taught in the university that the United Nations was our last best hope for peace, you know?
And here were people telling me it was just the opposite of that.
UN Revelations00:06:09
How ridiculous.
Well, I looked at the facts.
I went to the library, started to check it out, read some of the books written by the UN personnel themselves.
And they were boasting about some of the criminal things they were doing.
I thought, is this really real?
And yeah, this is books by those people, the general of the peacekeeping force, so-called, the United Nations that invaded Katanga in the Congo and really destroyed the only peaceful nation or province in the Congo at the time.
In the name of restoring peace to the Congo, which was war-torn, every place else except in Katanga, they sent the military to Katanga, which didn't need it.
And they overthrew the regime of Katanga, Mois Chambe's regime.
And he was a free enterpriser guy.
And people were happy and peaceful there.
But the UN went in there and tore it apart and invaded and blew up, killed civilians.
It just destroyed.
It was an invasion.
And this general who was in charge of it wrote a book afterwards.
And in his book, he said, well, of course, we lied about all of this because all bureaucrats lie.
That was his excuse.
And you know what?
That's another thing about this video that was extremely deceptive.
They made it sound like, you know, you charge everybody $500 a month.
That's the only way that you can go there.
Folks, first of all, everything's free, but I think at the first donor level, it's literally $3 a month, which is $36 a year.
You can't get fast food with the family for $36 anymore, folks.
And you don't have to do any of that.
And he acted like he got kicked out of there because he didn't have $500.
No, he's dressed like a lunatic.
And of course he had his agenda.
Go ahead.
Yeah, well, that would perhaps be the most poignant point he tried to make is that it seemed like everybody had to pay $500 a month to be part of this movement.
And he stated that over and over and over again.
And even some of our defenders in the Q ⁇ A period, and then the questions that were sent in, the comments, try to defend that we were charging $500.
Well, you know, like many donation-based organizations, you have choices.
You can start, in our case, $3 and then $5 and then $12 and $25 and so forth.
And $500 is way up at the top for the big rollers that we hope to attract.
And so after this was over, I called in my office manager, said, how many of those do we have?
And she looked at me like I was crazy.
She said.
And that's the thing.
Let's say you had one, one of those people, right?
Well, that would be great.
It'd be $6,000 a year for a movement, folks, that's worth $6 billion if you think about our freedom.
Like, it's nothing, especially compared to even local political donations.
You know, the idea, Mr. Griffin, that you have been in this for monetary reasons is so beyond the pale because, you know, like you, you know, you talk about being a younger guy, having a good job, having these materialistic things.
When I was extremely young, now this is like when I'm just starting to go to college, I thought my whole life was going to be about money.
I grew up extremely poor.
I thought the rat race, get a good job, corporation.
I thought I was going to do commercial art as a graphic designer for these people.
9-11 changed everything for me.
And it wasn't just the event.
It was learning that I'd been lied to on a massive level.
All of a sudden, those things didn't matter as much.
And I guess being a younger guy at that moment, not being used to be in a nation that was at war, that maybe could have a draft and all these things, it just said, wow, this wasn't what I signed up for.
And it's not what's really, it totally changed my view on things.
And I can see that you had kind of those revelations where, look, money's important.
Got to pay those bills.
Got to send the kids to school, try to do the best for them, all that kind of stuff.
Want the car working.
It is not the only thing.
It is far from it.
If you can't speak your mind, if you can't travel freely, if you can't love the people you want, have the friends you want, speak your, it's worth nothing, in my opinion.
It's absolutely true.
And I think almost maybe, no, no, everyone in our movement has come to that conclusion that money is important, can't get along without it.
But it's pretty far down the line when you start thinking about your liberty, your freedom, your health, and all of that, you know, your self-respect, your privacy.
Those are the really important things of life.
You recognize them more readily as you get older, when you can compare the two sides a little bit.
If you've had experience on both sides of, you know, like the old saying goes, I've been rich, I've been poor, but richer is better.
But that is true.
You have to admit richer is better, but you also realize that not at a price of losing your integrity.
It's not better.
That's worse.
So those things you learn as you grow older.
But most young people don't have that experience, you know.
But anyway, yeah, the idea of money behind our movement is a laughing thing because I've never drawn any money out of it.
And I've probably, I've funded the whole thing in the first 10 or 12 years out of my own surplus.
Fortunately, my books are selling well.
So, oh, hey, this is mailbox money.
What am I going to do with it?
I buy a bigger house.
I like my house as it is.
You've got a lovely home, sir.
You do.
And by the way, your books are going to be, like I said in the very opening to this, your books, your work, they are going to transcend your earthly existence in a way that I don't even know that you're going to comprehend.
I know how they've affected me, others around me.
I know when I'm talking to people on the street, they reference your books.
Religious Battles and Big Decisions00:06:16
And not just the Red Pill crowd.
The creature from Jekyll Island has taken on a life of its own.
Kudos to you for that, sir.
What, if anything, would you like to leave my audience with?
And tell people how to come out to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I've been out to Tulsa.
It's a cool spot.
I'm not sure if you've been out there yet, but I like Tulsa a lot.
I think that you're going to do extremely well there.
But for those that have never been to one of these things, maybe just learning about Red Pill University, tell them why they should come and how they can support your work.
Well, the main reason I think anyone should come is because they want to know whether or not their suspicions about what's going wrong with the world are correct.
I think most people by now know that something is wrong.
And they know it's not being answered by the official pronouncements of what it is.
And many of them have heard of us and they think maybe we've got the answer.
So they're coming out to hear what we have to say.
By we, now that's the other part.
We're very selective on who we invite to our platform.
Very selective.
There are a lot of people who want to come and tell us how bad things are.
Oh, we discovered this and they did this to me and it was unfair and so forth.
And those are good stories.
And most other events do feature speakers on those things.
And we have done that occasionally.
But I get very bored.
Maybe that's the wrong word.
I get very impatient with repetitious stories about what's wrong.
I want to know, okay, what are we going to do about it?
I think we come to the point where people think that, well, all we have to do about it is just be aware of it and tell others about it.
And somehow magically it's going to go away.
Well, it's not going to go away just because we know about it.
In fact, I think we're entering a point of history now where this cabal doesn't really care whether we know about it or not.
In fact, maybe they want us to know, want us to know about it.
You know, there's going back to Sun Tzu, he says supreme excellence in warfare is to defeat your enemy without having to engage him in battle.
Well, the best way to defeat your enemy without having to engage him in battle is to convince him that resistance is futile, as they say in Star Wars.
So if they convince enough people that it's futile, there's nothing you can do about it.
It's done.
Well, then it gets easier to do a mop-up operation.
I think we might be going into an era now where they not only don't care whether we know about the truth, but they maybe want us to know about the truth so that we become discouraged And say, well, there's nothing we can do about it.
So that's another thing that needs to be considered.
Maybe some, maybe not so true.
But eventually, I think it comes to that.
They don't care what we know.
What are you going to do about it?
We're in charge here.
We've got the weapons.
We've got control of everything.
We've got the money now.
And if you have to depend on us now for your money, which is their next and final step, then there is nothing we can do about it.
So anyway, that's part of it.
So what do I think about all that?
I think it's time for people to come together.
And not because they want to so much just know if it's as bad as we think it is, but to meet with other people of like mind so we can explore the possibility of uniting behind a coalition, an international coalition of boots on the ground where we can really make a difference in our local communities as the beginning of a long process that may not be completed in our lifetime, but it's a beginning.
I go to bed every night with a smile on my face, thinking that, well, we're a long way from the finished tower of success, but today we laid a couple of more bricks.
We're building the foundation for the future.
It's very pleasant to know that.
So maybe that's our role.
Maybe we will turn this thing around in our lifetime.
I hope that it'll happen in the lifetime of most of your viewers and in your lifetime.
Probably not going to happen in my lifetime.
But I mean, I've been saying that for a long time.
I think it's that eternal struggle, though, right?
I mean, if there's one thing I've learned throughout this, you know, I don't adhere to any religious beliefs or dogma, is that good and evil do exist.
And that, you know, we can't just sit on the sidelines, that we have to work towards good, not just for ourselves greedily.
Hey, I'm looking out for number one, just like the next guy.
But if my neighbor's not free and he's not doing well, then my nieces aren't probably going to be free and they're not going to be doing well.
And the whole thing is that to me is the meaning of life to fight for humanity and fight for the betterment of humanity.
And I think you're aware of that.
That's where you stand out there, Jason.
You're willing to fight for what you believe in.
Many people shy away from any kind of conflict or controversy.
Increasingly, you hear people say, well, this is a religious battle, you know.
And that's where they stop.
I say, of course, I know it's a religious battle.
But it's not only a religious battle.
I mean, you just said it yourself, Jason.
We've got to fight for these things that we believe in.
If we're opposing evil, we have to fight evil.
We can't just say, well, it's a battle.
Let that go.
Let's show up for the battle, you know?
Yeah, exactly.
I get it.
I get the Godwin.
And I don't want to disparage the Christians or any.
And I have great, not only empathy, but respect for a lot of people that believe in these things and fight for those beliefs.
But at the end of the day, you got to be able to take up that sword.
You have to be able to say no to things.
You have to be able to move.
I had to move across the sky.
I had to get out of New York during COVID.
You have to make big decisions when big decisions need to be made.
And when you see injustice, you must not only speak against it, you have to act against it everywhere.
There's an old axiom I heard from my aunt Alice who raised me.
She said, you can pray for potatoes, but then reach for the hole.
Welcome to Red Pill University00:01:17
JiRa Griffin, that is a great way to end this one.
Folks, redpillexpo.org, redpillexpo.org.
I mean, I hope we do it again and soon.
I'd love to get you on in the next few months and maybe get your take on not only this, probably post-Bilderberg and see where we are in not only the Middle East, but where we are in general with our foreign wars, where we are as a country economically, because this stuff is moving really quickly.
And there is no better oracle of truth than you, good sir.
So thank you once again.
Well, I'll do my best to live up to that reputation.
So thank you.
So to everybody else, I welcome you to Red Pill Expo.
I welcome you to Red Pill University.
And I welcome you to the Coalition for Freedom and Justice and Truth.
G. Edward Griffin, thank you so much.
There he is, folks.
He is the man, the myth, the legend, G. Edward Griffin.
I am just so happy that I was able to spend almost two hours with him.