Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4VFYRaltcc&list=PL5vtMLUWgYehCTEfSmgEzAEC9Dvt9FZmc
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 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 and 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.
You've got to say, I'm a human being!
God damn it.
My life has value.
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, diet 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 is 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 we have a banger of a show.
I am holding James Corbett's book, Reportage, Essays on the New World Order.
I got a little thing marked to read for later, so that should give you the idea of who the guest of the show is today.
It is none other than James Corbett.
Now, before we get to Mr. Corbett, I got to tell everybody about the Corbett Report.
If you have not been to CorbettReport.com, let me repeat that, CorbettReport.com, over the past, I would say, four years or so, you have missed out on a ton of information.
And my friend here is now reposting this to YouTube.
It was in fact the Burmese Brigade that got me to get James back on, although we have been on some independent media alliance panels together recently.
I don't think that we've done an individual show for literally close to half a decade.
And I know that sounds wild, but I think right after the 2020 or 2021 broadcast, again, we only did panels together.
And that's because James is super busy.
I end up getting super busy with a couple of independent media operations.
We're going to talk about all that.
So, Mr. Corbett, let me ask you right now, in 2025, where are we in the AI-driven post-truth world, both online and in reality?
Excellent question.
You got about 18 hours and we can really dive into it.
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack with even a question like that, but I think we are about where I was expecting we would be in the 2020s timeline.
Because since the beginning of the 2020s and the scandemic nonsense, I knew that the long-term goal was going to be obviously to herd us into the digital panopticon playpen.
How do we get there?
And the first step is towards the digital ID.
And of course, the first enactment of that was the vaccine passports and all of that QR code infrastructure that was set up during the scandemic, leading us into a digital ID.
There's going to be a CBDC and or stable coins and or some sort of monetary version of what's going on.
And I think ultimately that's leading us to hot war.
And the hot war part of that scenario is exactly like World War I and World War II looked nothing like warfare before those events.
I think World War III will look nothing like warfare of the past.
And to the extent that it takes place, there's going to be a lot of autonomous drone swarm, botnets, whatever, all sorts of craziness that we can but dimly imagine at this moment.
So I think that's where we are and we're about to plunge off that particular cliff.
Well, I certainly want to get your take on Venezuela, whether or not there are going to be any, I would say, concessions via the Ukraine-Russia conflict, or are we going full world war?
Is that the trigger point?
Of course, the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, but really the greater Middle East, as a lot of people still aren't talking about things like Yemen or Libya in Africa.
All those are military hotspots for the United States government and its allies, and they almost never get mentioned on the global stage.
And you have, for instance, this Lucky Palmer guy.
I don't know how familiar you are with Lucky, but I just became familiar with him probably over the last two years.
And he runs a company called Andrell.
And Andrell is also Palantir sponsored.
Peter Thiel, very much behind this, integrated into that Alex Karp network.
And this is like the new hip tech billionaire, even hipper and cooler than Karp and Teal and Musk, wearing a Hawaiian shirt, invented the Oculus Rift.
And he's telling the people out there that the United States needs to be the world's gun store.
Now, in large part, at least to our allies or those that we're allied with at the moment, we are the world's gun store.
What is your feeling on this sale?
And Trump does it all the time, especially when talking about the Ukraine-Russia conflict, that, well, they're buying the weapons now.
Personally, that doesn't make it any better for me.
I don't find that awesome.
Oh, oh, we're not footing the bill anymore.
Oh, we're still profiteering.
I don't know how that deters these wars.
And I don't know how becoming the world's gun store deters these wars.
I do understand having the best technology, having the most forceful stuff, and being able to be in that posture because you have it, but not taking that technology and selling it to others to create warfare.
So what are your thoughts on this new breed of billionaire and this new talking point of the world's gun store?
Yeah, you hit on an incredibly important part of all of this.
And I harken back to 2015 when candidate Trump was going around saying that NATO is obsolete.
And all of the people that were high on hopium at the time were thinking, oh, great.
You know, this means that we're not going to have that kind of warfare and NATO isn't going to be doing all this warmongering.
No, no, no, no.
What Trump actually meant by that is that NATO, the NATO countries weren't paying enough to the weapons manufacturers in order to continue the NATO conquering of the globe.
That's what he meant.
And now he brags that NATO calls him daddy because he's transformed the conversation.
And now all of these European states are willingly, happily dumping.
I think Germany just announced they're going to make their single largest year's expenditure on armaments in the history of Germany.
Yay, wonderful.
Mission accomplished, I guess, for, of course, the predominantly American-led munitions manufacturing industry.
And yes, what you're pointing to is the complete turnaround in that industry, or at least a revolution that is happening in that industry.
We, of course, we know the Lockheeds, we know the Northrop Grummans, we know the Boeings, and we know all the other grandfathers of the military-industrial complex, but there's a new, there's some new kids in town.
And yeah, Paul Merlucky being probably the most obvious face of that, Andrew being AI autonomous weapon manufacturers and looking to be the storehouse of the armaments of the world.
And of course, joined in that, joined at the hip with his mentor, Peter Thiel, and Palantir, obviously involved in that as well with their AI targeting systems, et cetera.
So this is the future of the military industrial complex.
It's all going to be about the autonomous weaponry and the drones and whatever.
And, you know, how effective these technologies will actually be remains to be seen.
But as long as the money is flowing, I mean, that's the most important part of it.
And the money is flowing.
And that's why the next person I want to discuss in that realm is the Muskernuts himself and this conflict via Ukraine and Russia.
But before we get there, folks, I do want to just mention I do need your support.
The links are down below.
The buy me a coffee, the PayPals.
And yes, we could talk about teal, PayPal, and Musk.
That's why we had this little thing.
By the way, marigoldresources.com, buying or selling a business.
They support the broadcast.
Give them a check out.
And then, of course, River City Reader, rcreader.com, a truly independent media operation since the 90s right here in the quad cities.
Go check them out.
Musk.
So he has positioned himself, especially with this second Trump administration and the run up to the second Trump administration as some kind of libertarian techno savior, right?
And the idea that X is the free speech platform.
Well, I've got news for people, you know, especially in the X realm.
I've lost about 50 to 100 followers on X. I've never even been in the realm of being able to monetize it because my analytics are so bad.
And you were one of the first people to point this out.
I mean, probably a decade ago on how you were getting like no traction whatsoever on Twitter at the time, especially for your size.
And there are accounts out there that, you know, I've only got, I think, 42,000.
I think accounts with 5,000 have much better analytics than, and I want people to understand that.
I'm doing better on YouTube right now.
In fact, one of the things that I'm doing, James, is there were about 60 videos they took down completely.
And one of those videos was with me and you.
I'm doing replays with those.
Not only are they now getting played, but they're also being monetized, which, again, it shows you a shift.
I don't know how long that's going to be.
But the truth of the matter is, if we're actually weighing it right now with free speech, YouTube, Google, Alphabet, if you will, is actually ahead of Musk and X at this point.
And people don't realize that.
It's almost like they're leapfrogging each other into oblivion until we get the next major crisis.
And then we're going to take those two to 10 steps back.
So in that regard, and then we'll get into the weapons of Musk.
Who is Elon Musk to you?
Where does he lie in the Corbett verse?
Yeah, Elon Musk is a technocratic huckster.
And for people who want the full deep dive on that, I did a podcast a few years ago now called Elon Musk, Meet Elon Musk Technocratic Huckster.
And I think it's at corporatereport.com slash Musk.
So all of the data is there.
But even at the time, I was pointing out all of the things that I think we know, people who have been following Musk in his career know about the meteoric rise of this technocratic huckster out of nowhere more or less to his place of predominance in the technocratic oligarchy.
And of course, you know, it just so happens his grandfather was literally a card-carrying technocrat and all of these, you know, relations and links he has to the historical technocracy movement and he calls for the Martian technocracy, et cetera.
So, I mean, this is somebody who knows what he's saying when he uses words like that.
It isn't just a cool word.
But yes, of course, we know Musk and his entire economic fortune has come completely through government handout subsidies and contracts.
And so he is a government cutout.
The intelligence agencies, the military have clearly used Musk as that third-party cutout that they can use.
Look, it's not the military putting up Starlink.
It's this totally private company that's completely funded by the military.
So yeah, that's his role to play.
And I think he is just a serviceable puppet in that greater scheme.
I don't think he's controlling any of this.
But you raise an incredibly important point that often gets neglected from the free speech conversation, which is that algorithmically controlled speech is not free speech.
So by definition, X is not a free speech platform.
And we've seen this, obviously.
No one can doubt that what Musk personally wants to amplify on X, he will amplify.
And what he wants to squelch, he will squelch.
And so voices like yours and others that call out Musk and call out Israel and call out other inconvenient parts of the agenda will get algorithmically crushed on that platform.
And that is a form of censorship, but it's the soft censorship because your stuff is still there.
And if somebody really, really tries to find it, they can find it, but they'll just never be served it on their algorithmic feed.
So that's such an incredibly important part of it.
And yeah, for whatever reason, YouTube is suddenly more lax than X.
I don't know.
I don't know what's going on there.
I got my channel back a few months ago.
So why?
How?
I don't know.
But just suddenly, those horrible community guideline violations that I committed during this candidate, daring to tell the truth about what was going on at that time, suddenly we've, you know, we've reviewed it.
We've decided, you know what?
Yeah, you didn't violate the community guidelines.
Here's your channel back.
Sorry about the last four years.
Just craziness.
And, you know, another guy back on there with another book out is David Icke and the roadmap.
And, you know, I've had a lot of respect for David for many years now.
Obviously, in the very beginning when I was in this and it was just 9-11 Truth and kind of the new world order stuff, I was very annoyed at the lizard thing.
I'm sure you were as well.
You would get into an interview and somebody, oh, you believe in lizard people.
Now it's shifted so much, you don't even hear about the lizard people.
You're a flat earther, right?
And David has remained extremely consistent, right?
So I always anti-war.
I may not agree with a lot of the things that he puts out there.
And there is a lot more, I guess, esoteric stuff than some of the historical stuff that you cover, ad nauseum, but he's still great.
I want to go back to what you said about Starlink because I think that's so key.
Yes, the DOD openly has a backdoor into Starlink.
However, what people don't understand is while they launched Star Link, and they just did a couple Falcon 9s this past week, they're also launching Blackjack.
Now, Blackjack was the open DARPA program for these spy satellites.
They've since said that they've pulled back big on that.
But at the same time that they pulled back big on that, they contracted Musk for the new spy satellite network, which I can't think of it off the top of my head right now, but I found the report last week of what it was actually called.
And I went over it for the first time.
Actually, I think I might have done it on that IMA panel, the last one.
I'm not sure if you were on it, but I had it in front of me.
And I finally found the only reason I found it is we had a Amateur astronomer who picked up some wavelengths that he wasn't supposed to pick being picked up that were obviously from this network.
Now, SpaceX is a heavily subsidized government program.
Again, not a private company, doesn't exist without NASA, just like Blue Origin doesn't exist without NASA.
You mentioned other military contractors, old school like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon is amongst them.
A lot of those, a lot of that work is done at these black sites, you know, whether it be old school Area 51 or beyond.
And another of Musk's companies, the Boring Company, is all about creating those black sites by digging underground tunnels.
Now, again, sold to us as the cool guy with a flamethrower, and he was going to give us some kind of underground driving system that we just never even got mentioned again and came to fruition.
But the company's still there, and it's still doing all of those things.
And then, even in the green movement with something like Tesla, right?
Again, we had plenty of other car companies, some of them big companies, you know, monopolistic companies, try to get in that arena, Ford amongst them, GM amongst them, not government subsidized, failed.
Musk makes it, but then that same company is building what?
The humanoid robot Optimus.
Okay.
He owns the Neuralink, which is using a lot of the same software.
Guys, just so everybody knows, they're all integral in this thing.
And even with Tesla, they're the tiny home people.
They want to give you a tiny home as well.
Do you think that people have a chance of waking up to this?
Because when the media attacks him, they attack him Trump line, MAGA line, Dogeline, and you never hear about the defense contracting.
And then when he goes on podcasts, he never gets asked these challenging questions.
And instead, like today, the things that go viral is, oh, Elon Musk thinks there might be a God.
Well, we better listen to Elon.
So what do we have to do to get it past just people that have Trump derangement syndrome on one end that are keying Tesla's because now they know he's bad and Trump derangement syndrome on the other end where, well, he's part of MAGA and he's behind Trump, so he must be the best thing since breakfast.
Because I'd say, especially even in the scale of independent media or independent thinkers, we're at the 5% to 10% level if we're lucky.
How do we get to a tipping point where people be like, okay, well, let's talk about the real issues.
Yeah.
Well, excellent question, but it's been the same question for the entire time I think you and I have been in the independent media.
When just before it was like, how do we get people to understand that 9-11 was a lie?
Now it's like, how do we get people to understand that the whole, yeah, essentially the left-right paradigm is a lie is what this is.
And it's been the most remarkably effective psyop of all time.
Can there be any doubt about it?
Precisely because, as you say, you can talk till you're blue in the face about all of Elon Musk's connections and what he's doing actually in reality, et cetera.
But 90% of people that you talk to are going to see it in that left-right way.
And either they're going to support him because he's a Trump or Trump guy or they're going to hate him because he's a drum guy.
And thank you for pointing that out.
I always try to point this out because when I hear the term Trump derangement syndrome, I think of the people who are deranged into loving everything Trump, not the people who are deranged into hating everything Trump.
But either way, it is, yeah, it's a mirror image of the same thing.
It's different sides of the same coin.
And that is the thing that we need to find the way to disengineer in people's minds, un-indoctrinate them, un-brainwash them from that spectrum.
But I don't know how to do that because it is so incredibly powerful.
It has such an incredible grip on people's minds that they can only understand people in that framework.
But then exactly along the lines of, say, like Larry Ellison and Oracle and what they're up to.
And he gets up and starts talking about, you know, individually personalized, tailored mRNA vaccines of the future that are going to be designed by AI.
And Trump's like, yeah, this is great.
We're going to.
And somehow, because people have Trump derangement syndrome, they think, well, it's MAGA, so it's good.
I don't know how to, I don't know how to put it any more plainly.
If you're against, say, the personal engineered mRNA vaccines, you should be against them regardless of what political puppet is supporting them.
But for some reason, people turn their brains off when they see that left-right divide and think, well, it's on my team, therefore I got to support it.
And the phenomenon we're talking about is kind of parallel to these opening two paragraphs of your essay here in Reportage, Biotech Billionaires and GMO Doomsday.
So I want to read this for people because, again, this is that paradox that he talks about.
All right.
A curious double standard pervades mainstream thinking, and I would say even alternative thinking, just the way that we're discussing here about corporations these days.
On the one hand, it is not at all uncommon to hear corporate fat cats referred to as devils incarnate, men and women who are prepared to do anything up to and including destroying the very planet itself in pursuit of their financial goals.
On the other hand, merely questioning the motives of the corporate fat cats behind the genetic modification of our food supply is enough to get you dismissed as an anti-science kook.
The double standard is fraught with irony.
As evidence of the dangers of genetically modified crops continues to mount, it is the bought and paid for scientists shilling for the GM industry who increasingly find themselves on the anti-science side of the debate.
And I would argue that it's not just GMO foods.
This also goes, I mean, you could do it verbatim for big pharma.
You could also do it verbatim for the climate issue and especially what we're seeing in the skies with the solar radiation modification and management.
At the same time, you've got to admit that we've moved the Overton window enough where these things are at least being discussed and being discussed by more and more, I would say, mainline politicians.
And, you know, that's where I'll go into this, the MTG phenomenon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, far from perfect, bought hookline and sinker into the QA nonsense, even went public.
You know, I watched a video of her talking about the QA nonsense and the white hats and all that other stuff.
Got in there, you know, at least remained consistent, actually introduced the Clear Skies Act, talked about the weather modification, stood up to the president on Epstein with Massey.
And as I warmed up to this woman, you know, because I'll be honest, there's some things about her I didn't love.
I didn't love her dressing up like Cruella Deville at Biden's State of the Union and all those other types of things, right?
But she remained consistent and now she's gone.
She's not even going to serve out her term.
If we can't even keep somebody like that that maybe wasn't the best in the beginning, but got so much better in a short time period, what do we do?
Because we also see people like Ron Johnson that have talked to you.
We'll get into Thomas Massey.
But with somebody like MTG, where you can see that arc and now her leaving, what are your thoughts?
Well, I guess my thoughts are fundamentally colored by the fact that I do not recognize the authority of the state at all.
It has no say over me, not only because I'm not American, but even if I was American, I wouldn't be voting anyway.
And thus, whatever the government is doing has absolutely no authority over me as a free and sovereign human being.
But of course, men in shiny hats and shiny badges will come into your door and throw you in a cage if you don't cooperate with the system.
So everyone makes whatever peace they can with the system as it exists.
But from my mind, yeah, the point isn't whether some people like that are in positions of political authority or not.
It's that they exist.
And I think what you're pointing to is that someone like MTG, yeah, certainly there's a lot of things she said over the years that I would definitely disagree with.
But my sense, and what do I know?
Because I don't know her personally, but my sense is she actually really believed what she believed when she believed it, like the queue of nonsense and whatever.
And now she has a different set of beliefs that she genuinely believes and is not going to play the political game and compromise her beliefs in order to, you know, so her team can win or whatever the case may be.
And that's what the MAGA phenomenon is ultimately about.
And that's why Trump demands loyalty and allegiance over whatever happens.
Whatever he said last week does not apply to what he's saying this week because it's not about what he believes.
It's about whatever political strategy and stratagem he's trying to run.
So exactly like the Epstein files, he wants people like Kash Patel or whatever who will, when they are not in power, say, it's the FBI director who is the person who has the Epstein files, who knows the names, put on your big boy pants, release the list.
And when he is FBI director, he'll say, nope, he killed himself.
Nothing to see here guys.
Case closed.
That's the kind of phenomenon he wants.
So it's not even about the political office and who's in political office.
It's about people who are going to be consistent to their principles and who genuinely believe what they believe and will fight for that.
That's what we need in every sector, in every level of society in every walk of life.
And if MTG can be more effective doing that not in political office, then more power to her.
So that kind of brings me to Massey because Massey is sticking it out.
Massey's actually been around longer than MTG, and I think he's even remained more consistent.
I also think that he's remained more level-headed.
He never got on the quote-unquote MAGA train.
He was never cueing nonsense.
He's always been pretty down the line, mainline constitutionalist.
And I know a lot of people want to put him in that libertarian sense, but really he's just anti-war and consistently anti-war.
He introduced yesterday the Not a Trusted Organization Act, the NATO Act.
We read the whole thing live here on air.
It's under four pages.
A fifth grader could read it, understand it, no problem.
It just lists, hey, everything about these treaties that got us into NATO said we should be out of NATO already.
I don't know what we're doing here.
And he's been someone, obviously, that's been viciously attacked by Trump because he has not been loyal.
But once he, again, moves that window far enough, Trump has to change his tune.
I think that is, number one, a significant difference on Trump than these other political leaders that will just ignore the base completely.
And to his credit, at least that's a little bit positive.
But at the same time, I think it's disturbing and disgusting that you would attack somebody like Massey, say things like, you know, the Epstein files are a hoax when we all know not only isn't it a hoax, but there are a multitude of documents from a multitude of cases that we know about that have not been released, let alone a multitude of evidence that was collected in New York that includes hard drives, CDs, DVDs, and binders of material that have not been released.
Thoughts on Massey and his political future?
I mean, this is a guy that lost his wife, I think, less than two years ago.
I know he remarried, but you know, he doesn't seem like the regular politician scumbag that might be at the strip clubs and just doing whatever.
He actually does seem like a family guy.
So there are those personal relationships and that pressure.
I think that's a real one.
But a guy like me, hey, just like I liked Rand Paul in 2016 and hoped he ran in 2020 and 2024, I wanted all those things.
I'd like to see Massey in 2028.
Man, a Massey Paul ticket would be amazing for everybody but Kentucky, but that's only if they actually won.
What are your thoughts on Massey and then even the movement of Trump?
Because there is a difference, in my opinion, on Donald Trump than regular politicians.
You know, all these other people prior to him wouldn't even address these things and quite frankly wouldn't have to address them because the media would never bring it up, right?
Whereas the media now, every once in a while, does have to bring things up.
And even outside of that, he addresses them.
So Massey and current Trump go.
Yeah.
You know, okay, so I think the important point of this is exactly, as you say, the moving of the overted window.
So for people who don't know, this is the allowable spectrum of discourse, which can either widen or shrink or it can move over here, it can move over there.
And things that were politically unfeasible, you could not even say them, are now feasible.
So for example, as you talked about, Senator Ron Johnson talking about 9-11 and maybe we need a new investigation, et cetera.
Yeah, maybe we do.
There's a lot of important stuff that we should look at there.
That would have been absolute political suicide even a decade ago, let alone two decades ago.
But now it is sayable.
Why is that?
It's because of the efforts of people like yourself and others who have been tirelessly bringing this to the attention of various people who can get it in front of someone like Senator Johnson.
So that is significant.
And it's significant precisely because it's not like these politicians are gods on Mount Olympus and that we have to slavishly follow what they're saying.
No, the entire point is politicians at the very, very, very, very least love to get out in front of a parade and pretend they're leading it.
And if they get the sense that, hey, a lot of people are parading in this whatever, 9-11 truth direction or anti-war direction or whatever the case may be, then the ones who have political sense will get out and pretend to be leading that parade.
And I think that's what you're pointing to with someone like Trump.
At the very, very least, he will adopt his message to whatever he thinks will be the most politically viable at any given moment.
That is how the Drain the Swamp, Drain the Swamp chant got started.
It was from people at his rallies, started chanting this and applauding.
He said it once and people loved it.
So he started saying it more and more and more.
And of course, it was total, complete, utter, 100% brazen, cold-blooded reptilian lie to the face of everyone who was voting for him.
But at least he adopted the slogan, right?
Because he knew that it was one that resonated with people.
And that's the extent of the power that we have over this rigged, phony political process.
At the very least, we can change the conversation so that the politicians have to adopt this or that rhetoric.
They have to look at this or that issue because they can't afford not to.
And to the extent that we can light the fire in the minds of men and women out there about these issues and put the spotlight of attention on things that actually matter, like Musk and the technocratic deep state and Angeral and these AI weapons systems and this type of thing, rather than concentrating on the scandal of the week that the dinosaur legacy media wants us to concentrate on.
No, if we can keep the spotlight of attention on things that matter, that is our win.
So that kind of brings me to the, you know, you talk about Drain the Swamp and, you know, along with that chant came lock her up, right?
And we were going to put Hillary Clinton in prison and everybody was going to jail and there were all these indictments and white hats and blah, I'll say this.
When the second administration came in and they stripped security clearances of people like Clapper, Brennan, et cetera, long overdue.
I mean, like I said, when that happened, I've got to give the guy props.
I'm like, all right, great.
Then we get into indictment territory and we hear that Bolton is going to be indicted and he is.
You see Comey and Letitia James indicted.
Okay.
You get a little bit of hopium up there.
You got to report on it.
You got to say, hey, this is actually a good thing.
But at the same time, let's see where it goes.
Obviously, we've had a judge drop the Letitia James and Comey thing.
Can we change the system before we get an actual conviction via the executive branch?
Because that's the big hump that I think we're in.
And I think we've talked about this probably 100 times over the last decade plus.
And me and James have known each other now almost 20 years, actually, is that we haven't had that type of hearing since Iran-Contra.
Those people were largely pardoned after the fact.
A lot of them got slaps on the wrist anyway.
Obviously, Oliver North wasn't at the apex of that.
George H.W. Bush had way more to do with it.
In fact, Lee Hamilton, who helped chair that commission and then the 9-11 commission, actually admitted that he had more to do with it.
And yet, obviously, nothing was done there.
The only person even within the executive that I can point to that has done jail time since then was Scooter Libby.
And that was, again, being the fall guy for Cheney and Enron and that corruption.
There could have been dozens of arrests there.
Trump pardoned his ass, okay?
And said he got a raw deal.
Hey, maybe he did.
Maybe he's not the big-time criminal that I want to be going after.
But as you rightfully pointed out, and this will even dovetail into Venezuela, a topic we'll handle later, who says we're still not dealing with drugs?
In fact, you just did a piece that very much points to the fact that our intelligence apparatus is very much involved in that same narcotics trade.
So if we didn't fix it in the late 80s, early 90s, and we haven't had a successful prosecution of anyone in the executive since, and some of these are the deep staters that were trying to take Trump down.
Doesn't look like we're getting it in these next three plus years.
Can we save this system?
Or does it actually take a prosecution and conviction?
And if that is possible, who's the lowest hanging fruit that matters?
Who do you think we could get a successful prosecution against?
Anybody?
Yeah, it's an excellent question.
I mean, I would think that outright lying to Congress would be the easiest kind of conviction you could secure.
So wasn't it Clapper that was saying that there was no, we weren't targeting individuals with NSA data?
And it turns out, oh, he was absolutely 100% blazonly lying to Congress.
We know that now for a fact.
You would think that would be a slam dunk prosecution.
So until we see at least some basic slam dunk prosecutions like that, then yeah, I'm not exactly expecting justice from the so-called justice system.
But I, you know, one of these phenomena that's come up in the past year that I've definitely been keeping my eye on, because I think it's kind of the bellwether of exactly what we're talking about is Maha, the Make America Healthy Again movement, which for me, and to my mind, it does is not about a politician.
It's not about RFK.
It's not about the political process.
It is about people suddenly, or well, not suddenly, but at any rate, the Overton window has shifted to the point where people are now actually, they really care and they really have seen what big pharma is doing.
And they have seen what these monstrosities and the engineering of the food supply has done to them, etc.
And we are now starting to get some of that reflected via the political Maha movement in, say, the CDC and the FDA and places like that.
And we just had that bombshell memo where they finally admitted, you know, there's at least 10 children that died because of the COVID vaccines.
Well, obviously, orders of magnitude, probably off in that assessment, but at least they have now put that on paper and now it is part of the official record.
And to my mind, perhaps the best thing about this, I don't want to save this system.
This system is not just corrupt kind of by a happenstance.
No, it is corrupt from the bottom up.
The entire system itself is rotten.
I want it to ultimately get dissolved and how we're going back down to the decentralized individual level, but maybe that's a pipe dream.
But in the meantime, the delegitimization of, say, the head of the CDC said it, therefore it's true.
At the very, very, very least, we have now seen the people who five, 10 years ago, well, five years ago specifically were telling us, you know, the CDC says it, Fauci says it, therefore the science has said it.
How dare you question it?
How can science be politicized?
Are the very same people who are now saying the science is politicized and we shouldn't be listening to the CDC and the FDA and NIH.
Yeah, well, welcome to reality.
I'm glad you got here one way or another.
And if it took this Maha movement to do it, then great.
Because to me, again, it's about the delegitimization of this false, illegitimate authority that is the real goal here.
So yeah, I'm not holding my breath for prosecutions.
Again, as I say, there are absolute open and shut slam dunk prosecutions that could be made against some of these deep state critters that have not been made.
Until that happens, I don't think we're going to see justice through the justice system.
And I believe the study that you're talking about is the one out of Stanford that was just published that is now admitted to the deaths and heart issues.
And if people want to see that, they can just come right over to my advice.
I'm not even referring to a study.
There was an FDA memo that was just released.
Oh, I'm referring to this, which I posted maybe two hours ago.
Scientists at Stanford University have revealed how the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause damage to heart cells.
And if you notice the headline, deadly heart damage as launch probed into vaccine-linked deaths.
You know, it's just an Ivy League university a little too late.
No big deal.
I want to talk about this legitimization or delegitimization of these authority figures because you mentioned somebody like Clapper, right?
Brennan is another one that I've mentioned, two heads of the CIA.
At the same time that they're being delegitimized with a large sector of the populace, they're also at the forefront of this disclosure movement and this, you know, UAP thing.
I don't know if you watched the Age of Disclosure yet, but I watched it.
And Brennan's in it.
Clapper's in it.
On top of that, Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, he gives a sit-down interview in this thing.
What is your feeling of guys like Clapper and Brennan, who are complete ghouls, promoting this idea of not just UAPs, but alien life or interdimensional life?
They frame it in different ways and the susceptibility of the general public to just say, hey, this is an authority figure.
They must be wanting to tell us something.
Because one of the most alarming things about this documentary, to me anyway, was I went to the rotten tomatoes, right?
All right, the critics kind of panned it, whatever.
I expect that.
They're going to do that with most of these type of documentaries.
But as far as the user reviews, it had over 500 reviews, which you know on any of those platforms is huge.
And that was within the first week.
And I think had like a 94 or 95% rating.
Meanwhile, you know, I watched the thing.
Doesn't really present any evidence.
Certainly nothing I haven't seen before.
Some of those black and white videos that have been going around now for the past decade via the New York Times and otherwise.
So what do you think is behind that?
And how do you feel about a public that has been, in my opinion, you know, we talk about predictive programming, has been programmed to receive a certain narrative about these craft, this technology, and to associate it with extraterrestrials?
It's an excellent, excellent point, an excellent question.
And for full disclosure, I don't follow the disclosure movement and all the twists and turns in it on a daily basis precisely because I did, for example, I had a podcast episode over a decade ago now about how to fake an alien invasion.
And I was talking at that time about people like, of course, when Clinton was the shoe-in to be the next president back in 2015, and everyone was assuming that was the case, who was her campaign staff manager?
It was, of course, it was John Podesta.
And he was out on the late night talk show circuit and other places talking about disclosure and how we're going to reveal, you know, what's really going on with the UAP.
I have to update my vocabulary because it's not UFOs anymore, right?
Et cetera, et cetera.
So I, I mean, and when you look into the roots of this disclosure movement and people like Lawrence Rockefeller and things like this, yeah, it's always been infested with these deep state critters.
So to hear, you know, that Rubio and others are talking about this at this point, again, doesn't surprise me.
And I frame it, I have framed it in the past in that framework of, yeah, whatever they are working on in the skunk works of the Pentagon, whatever crazy technologies that they're planning to release in the event of World War III, they are doing so under the cover of, hey, guys, we're reverse engineering alien technology.
Hey, look, what do I know?
I do not know what technology really exists or what things happen, and I don't rule anything out.
But all I know is, I mean, do you think the SR-71 truly is the fastest plane that was ever invented, et cetera?
It's like 50 years old now.
You know, come on.
They are clearly working on technologies that they don't want us to know about.
And the best way to cover that up is, hey, look at these flying things in the sky.
It must be UAPs.
You know, and I'm so glad that you brought up the SR-71 Blackbird and how, you know, it's supposedly the most advanced plane out there.
Even when Trump talked about B-2 bombers via the Iran strike, I was just super skeptical.
I'm like, why would we be using B-2 bombers in 2025?
I mean, let's be real with ourselves.
Do you really think that they would want our fighters to even get that low or come that close to possibly, possibly being detected and thwarted when we know that some type of space weapons exist, not only in our arena, but Russia obviously has them as well.
And, you know, I guess that could bring us into these like modern warfare communication systems, right?
Because Russia and Ukraine, obviously Starlink is the communication system.
Some of the communications are now through fiber optics, but these communications centers directly honed in with the ghost and sidewinder drones, these autonomous drones that pick their targets.
So you have that type of warfare.
You wonder what is even allowed up there, because obviously there has to be a strategic alliance and I would say treaty between Russia, the United States, and now China, because we're all spacefaring nations.
What are your thoughts on that?
Space weapons?
Because a lot now, I mean, Sam Altman just discussed how he's getting into the space arena.
You know, Musk is out there, rightfully so, trying to tone down the we're going to the moon talk because Duffy's out there saying that we're going to put nuclear reactors on the far side of the booth.
It's so ridiculous.
We're going to put nuclear reactors on the far side of the booth.
I mean, maybe if we've got technology that I just don't know about and we're going to construct these things.
But there does seem to be, especially if you go back to what we know via Sputnik and the fact that the Russians were first in space, that the ISS has all three of them.
In fact, we just had a landing from the ISS out in Kazakhstan with these Russian astronauts.
You know that I don't think that space is fake.
You know, I believe we're actually up there.
How far we've gone, what's up there?
Hey, that's up for debate.
But I don't think there's a debate that that is kind of the next frontier.
And unfortunately, whatever they decide to do up there that comes down here, talk about plausible deniability.
That's going to be extremely difficult to prove, is it not?
Oh, absolutely.
No, it's such an important issue.
And of course, you bring up what I think was the test run of QA nonsense was the space is fake flat earth nonsense that I know you saw getting algorithmically promoted back a decade or so ago.
And suddenly everyone's talking about, you know, now I think the Earth is flat.
And what is one of the effects of that is that it starts, it certainly makes people think that, well, whatever's happening up there, it's all fake.
It's all nonsense.
Don't look at it.
Don't care.
Don't ask questions about it.
I don't know about you, Jason, but if I were in the deep state and I was running some sort of operation to control, you know, the next domain of military fighting, as even I think NATO has officially declared, space, what are they going to do?
They're going to make sure that the people who would be the most opposed to that agenda don't even believe it exists and aren't even looking in that area, right?
So I even think all of the Apollo 11 never happened kind of stuff.
I think that's been seeded into the public as well.
But I'm probably in the far, far minority of conspiracy realists on that one.
My take is it would probably be something much more like an alternative three scenario for people who remember that documentary from a couple of decades or several decades ago now, where there is a space program.
There's a secret space program that's gone a lot further and done a lot more than what the public knows about.
And, you know, and that's what Catherine Austin Fitz and others have talked about, the secret space program, et cetera.
That's probably how who knows how many trillions of dollars have been pumped into that from the trillions of dollars that have gone missing from the Pentagon's coffers, et cetera.
And so, yes, all I know is we don't know what's going on up there, but there is stuff going on up there.
And exactly right, the plausible deniability of, hey, whatever, something just blew up and who knows how.
And rods from God, oh, no, no, no, that space stuff is all fake.
So don't worry about that, guys.
Don't worry about anything that's happening above our atmosphere.
Well, I think, again, clearly there has to be some level of coordination and cooperation going on, as you say, between the space-faring nations.
And on what level is that being engineered?
Because that's the level of real geopolitics, not the 2D nation-state geopolitics that were fed at the bottom level of the propaganda pyramid.
I'm talking about the deep state 3D politics that is really engineering the coming conflicts of the 21st century.
And when you do talk about the technologies up there, we're not just talking about rods from God.
Just straight satellite communications are things that people should really be concerned about.
I did this watch along with an individual named Michio Kushi from 1984.
And I think I told you I got to send you this.
I never sent it to you.
I need to send you this.
It's a must-watch.
But he basically goes through this timeline up until 2030, which is incredibly accurate.
And about midway, he starts talking about this bio-nation that will be manipulated not just through biometics and genetics, but that once this becomes the communications via different wavelengths of information will also be used to control people.
So he's talking about big pharma.
He's talking about these different waves.
Even Trump today, I don't know if you caught it, but he was talking about 6G and not 5G.
And he was talking about it not only penetrating the skin, but creating a network where they can see you through these waves bouncing off of other things.
And of course, this stuff has been utilized since Wi-Fi and 2.4 gigahertz networks.
So these wavelengths are real.
They are interacting with biology, which also includes us.
And we just don't know exactly what is happening.
And, you know, as far as the Apollo stuff, you know, I'm somewhere in the middle on all of it.
You know, I love Joe Allen, the author of Dark Eon, because whenever, you know, somebody goes off the rails and says, oh, it's all alien technology and our iPad, you know, blah, blah, blah.
He's like, you know, there's a lot of paperwork out there and patents out there throughout the decades that would probably say otherwise that is publicly available.
But then you do get into these technologies that obviously we're not privy to, that we get hints of, admissions like NASA's Impossible Engine, seeing technologies like graphene oxide being deployed, and the fact that even on the ISS, they're building organoids, which for those that don't know, are biological human material, often brain cells from stem cells, that they're integrating with traditional electronics.
They're also doing 3D printing of organs out there because of the microgravity.
And they're also doing the hydrogel technologies over the last 20 years.
So, you know, I used to watch NASA TV is now defunct.
You can still go to their YouTube channel.
But, you know, you've got the, and here's the other thing.
You watch NASA TV, and I'm not kidding you, James.
It's a bunch of 20 to 30-year-old attractive women that are all at NASA now.
And they're telling you about how this technology is all.
It all seems like a PR campaign.
You know, you don't get to see the real engineers most of the time.
You only get a glimpse at the quote-unquote astronauts.
And you almost never hear about the technology, especially AI and quantum computing, which they have been in bed with Google with over a decade, claimed quantum supremacy.
And now, James, with technology, the consumer is being worked out of all of it.
And what do I mean by that?
Yes, these AI data centers that have been built are horrible for the environment, are taking huge fresh water supplies, and they're pumping up people's power bills, all that.
But one of the things that I seem to be the only one talking about is the explosion in RAM prices.
I don't know if you've seen this yet in hard drive prices.
So now the makers of DDR5 RAM, they were down to four companies last year, down to three.
And then Micron, who makes all the crucial brands, they opted out last week, all to build AI data center RAM.
So I actually, I showed this, and maybe this is the first time you're seeing this.
This is not Photoshop, everybody.
This is the real deal.
Okay, this is a store.
How much, James?
Now, this is an upper end.
How much USD for 128 gigs of RAM, 264 gigabyte slots?
What would you pay?
Oh, man.
Come on, prices right now.
I've got a lot on this.
I would have no idea.
Well, let me just show you because it is over the top at this point.
And by the way, it's on sale.
$1,494, and that's a saving of $505.
So to put that into perspective, okay, this September, if I had bought that same RAM, it would have been $505.
Yeah.
I was going to say $500, but nope.
Oh, my God.
I was showing people RAM that I had bought, DDR4 RAM, in 2023 in October for $89, $240 right now.
This is the first time in my lifetime that technology has not gotten smaller and cheaper and instead has become more expensive.
I often point to the consumer aspect of Xbox and PlayStation.
They both debuted both of their systems at $500.
Right now, the Xbox is at $650 five years later, never happened before.
And so is the PlayStation.
It also increased to $650.
Does this trend continue, especially in a world now driven by virtual money in many cases, where it is zeros and ones more than ever?
Where in fact, you know, we talked about the digital ID in one of our last IMA panels.
I don't know if you saw it, but Illinois adopted the digital ID with your Apple wallet.
It's 100% legal now in Illinois.
There's about 14 other states that are on the verge of doing it.
I think five other that have done it.
Is this now the norm?
Is this part of the you will own nothing and be happy, the renter society, where now we can no longer afford consumer technology and consumer technology doesn't get cheaper to empower the regular person?
Yeah, you know, that's, I'm not sure that is the core central part of this agenda, but it is an interesting knock-on effect.
And yes, it will have that effect as this technology continues to get scarcer, as more and more of it is diverted to the AI industry.
I haven't been keeping my eye on the RAM issue and the pricing of computer parts in particular.
But one thing I have noted is the interesting switch in narrative that this has affected the AI data center energy behemoth having to be fed more and more energy is starting to affect a change in one of the core Agenda 2030 narratives, which as we all know is that, of course, we have to get rid of all energy sources except for wind and solar because it's going to kill us and kill the environment.
Well, of course, we all know Gates came out with his Gates note right before COP30 saying some tough truths about the environment.
And it turns out, you know what, all that climate doomsday stuff, well, that's wrong.
We're not going to die because the temperatures are rising.
But what we, one of the things that he is pointing to, of course, in fact, right underneath that Gates note about the COP30 and trough truths about the environment is a new approach for energy, specifically the future of energy, is subatomic.
Because of course, Gates knows what side the energy industry is buttered on.
So now he's talking about the new fission and fusion technologies that are coming online that will make nuclear energy even better than before.
Now we're starting to hear about small modular reactors that can supply 10 to 300 megawatts and how these are going to be running small towns, mining operations, urban centers, or I don't know, maybe data centers.
And we see Microsoft, for example, going to restart Three Mile Island, et cetera.
We see China starting their Manhattan Project, quote unquote, for energy, creating new sources of energy.
And they have just put on the world's, it is now operational, the world's first thorium salt reactor in China, which is a huge game-changing breakthrough because, of course, uranium is relatively scarce, hard to come by, hard to get.
But thorium is incredibly abundant, and China has basically an unlimited supply of that.
So if they can start doing thorium-related nuclear energy, that's going to be the future.
So, it is interesting that the entire narrative of we're going to have to be essentially energy peasants living on the neo-feudal plantation, eking out an existence from bugs and rainwater and maybe firewood if they allow us to burn fires has suddenly changed.
And now it's like, no, let's start building nuclear plants everywhere precisely because of this energy equation as to the AI data centers.
And, you know, especially with the nuclear power, we come from a generation where we were literally in classrooms watching the day after tomorrow, where, you know, Steve Gutenberg, who was huge in police academy, folks, fine actor, is in this like debt.
You know, you're thinking you're watching a comedy and he's in this destitute world.
And I don't know if anybody's seen it out there.
Again, it's my generation, but let's just say it doesn't turn out great for anybody in that one.
Everybody's dying of radiation poisoning.
You know, this sky has the nuclear winner.
We don't want.
And I remember, I think I saw that movie the same year that I went to the nuclear power plant in, I believe it was in Newburgh in upstate New York or in that area.
And, you know, I watched how everything was fine and, you know, everything's good.
So I saw the propaganda from one end and then the propaganda from the other end.
And I still to this day remember one of those early Simpsons episodes where they actually tore the nuclear power plant and it reminded me of that.
But that was it.
Really, by the end of the 80s, nuclear power had been demonized so much that it wasn't even a thought, right?
Nuclear power bad.
We're over that.
We're not doing it anymore.
Well, now, like you talked about, many of these centers, which are the sizes of cities, guys, just to let you know, like the one that Meta wants to build in Kentucky is two-thirds the size of lower Manhattan.
They're talking about building four to eight of these micro reactors there.
Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with that other than the fresh water that it's going to use and the impact on the environment in that manner.
But also the fact that, oh, now we're gearing up to do all this nuclear power.
Why were we not doing that to empower humanity?
Why are we doing it for the machines?
Exactly.
To me, that's the whole point of this: is that again, they can change their narratives as need be.
So one week you're supposed to believe nuclear power is the worst thing that ever happened.
And now you're supposed to believe it's great and we should be building them everywhere.
And that to me is the point of this.
Yeah, well, if they're great and we should be building them everywhere, why weren't we for the last few decades?
Oh, that's because you've been trying to transform us into the neo-feudal peasants on the neo-feudal plantation.
But now that the agenda, you know, has a different, there's a different flavor to it.
So now we're expected to swallow the new propaganda.
And to me, that's what it's about.
That's why so much of what I do is about individual empowerment and decentralization.
Because guess what?
The people who are at the top of the system are not looking out for you.
It is not your interest that is their key concern.
And to the extent that we can bring this down to the individual level or the community level, so much the better.
And who cares whatever narrative they're trying to sell us on why you should definitely shouldn't try to empower yourselves, guys?
And we need to keep the third world in this state of energy poverty because reasons.
And oh God, oh no, they're going to anger the weather gods by trying to industrialize, et cetera, et cetera.
No, I think we have to realize that this has never been on they have never been on the side of team humanity.
And if we are, we should be concerned about how people are going to empower themselves and their communities.
And especially when it becomes technology that they're able to cordon off from the public, and that is the essential AI technology, right?
Everything's cloud-based.
I can't take my computer offline and use Sora or Firefly.
In fact, I've been paying monthly for Adobe since 2012.
They can take that away at any point.
In fact, they jacked my price up.
I had no say in that.
And just so I could use Firefly, so I could use their AI.
You know, all these things are built on servers outside when, you know, again, I've got a bunch of video cards.
You know, I could download a certain LLM model, but they don't want you to have access to these tools because it may empower you.
And that's one of the things that really concerns me about this is that we have the CAIO program and even me typing it in.
You know, you do get the Google AI, but just the fact that I'm not getting the government document that lays it out.
For those that don't know what that is, that's the chief artificial intelligence officer program.
And it affects everything to do with AI.
So what does that mean?
That means if you're a private company and you're in the business of creating software or hardware that is AI-related, you need somebody with a top secret clearance that has been approved of by the government in your company at all times because this technology is just too powerful.
That's not free market.
Okay.
That is the definition of techno-fascism.
And I mean, it's very well outlined.
The only people that will not be subject to audits are the defense and intelligence community that has been implanted inside.
Mark Andreessen talked about this.
You know, say what you want about Andreessen.
I know he's a huge proponent of things like Andrew and Palantir.
He's been pretty frank about this.
I don't think it's gotten better under the Trump administration.
What does that mean?
And do you think that it ensures the United States will be at the head of the AI race?
Or are we kind of just going to see this blob of the five eyes nations versus maybe the conglomerate of China and Russia, et cetera, that the BRICS nations?
What are the alliances in AI that you see playing out, nation state or beyond?
Because as you know, a lot of these nation states have, I would say, less power than the organizations, the bureaucracies, the companies that have oversight over their information, such as a palantir.
And that's why it's so concerning.
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly right.
No, I wouldn't, I would not put this in the nation state framework, although, you know, I would say it's more about the individuals and the boards of these various companies.
So we're looking more at the altmets and teals and carps and musks, et cetera, of the world than we are at nation states.
But obviously, there is a conglomeration and consolidation of so much of the AI industry in the U.S.
And it is now seen as a strategic weapon, essentially.
Because say what you want about how much of the AI promise is hype.
At any rate, there is something that is happening here.
And there is a game change happening in terms of technology and the way it's being deployed.
And at the very, very least, if even a fraction of what is speculated about about general artificial intelligence, even we can even reach a fraction of that, it would be an incredible advantage over enemy nations or enemies of any sorts, including, of course, you and me and everyone else who might disagree with the way the technocrats are trying to run things.
And so, yes, I think there's definitely they're trying to gatekeep and wall off this industry, this sector, so that people aren't running the LLMs on their own personal computers.
No, they are going through the cloud, signed up for the Open AI account, whatever, in order to access the technology that is needed out to them, which will always be far from the cutting edge of this technology.
Because fundamentally, this technology is about power over not just, I mean, whatever you want.
The nuclear question, for example, becoming a nuclear state was always a huge thing.
And who gets to join the nuclear club and who doesn't and under what circumstances?
And oh my God, North Korea has now got nukes, et cetera, pales in comparison to the idea of AI, which could ultimately train your nuclear scientists in how to create the nuclear weapons and everything else, including the synthetic life and GM technologies, et cetera, that are coming online now that the AI will be able to train other people about as well.
So even if it doesn't reach some sort of sentient, godlike Skynet general artificial intelligence, just what it is capable of doing already is clearly something that they do not want the average person to have access to.
So we got two more major topics I want to hit with James before we wrap it on up.
First one, Venezuela.
Yesterday, it escalated to the point where now we're on the terror tankers.
And the day before that, we had F-17 jets flying around.
We've renamed the Department of Defense to its original name of the Department of War, something I did not love.
I mean, I know some of the Heg Seth firsts are loving it or whatever.
I just, sorry, I would rather be on the defensive, even though we're not, than just declare we're just the war, you know, faring nation.
Does this get hot?
Because I'm not seeing the pushback I even saw 20 plus years ago after Afghanistan, before Iraq.
That scares me, you know, because we kind of slepwalked right into Ukraine, Russia, that obviously has not been resolved and gotten worse.
The idea that we have U.S. troops in Venezuela and that they're the fentanyl or something is such outward bullshit that I don't know how anybody is falling for that.
We know that the United States strategically has wanted the resources of Venezuela for a very, very long time.
It has spanned through all administrations in my lifetime.
Is this going to be Trump's hot war?
And how accepting, because, you know, to their credit, a lot of folks that did vote Trump, you know, him going to the Bitcoin conference, him cowing to the libertarians, a lot of them did so, not just because of the monetary stuff and the crypto, but because, you know, they're anti-war.
And this guy literally promised that he was going to end both the big wars, the one in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine conflict before he even got sworn in.
And look, I like that rhetoric.
I said, hey, great.
Let's see if it happens.
I'm not holding my breath, but the other person certainly wasn't talking about that.
But here we are.
Those conflicts are still going on.
No end in sight.
We can talk about whether or not they're going to be worked out.
I don't know.
But this hot war is something that could just, I mean, I could wake up tomorrow and all of a sudden we could totally be surrounding Venezuela.
So is this the powder keg that maybe brings us into that global conflict you talked about in the very beginning of the broadcast?
Yes.
I mean, it is a potential.
But here's the way I envision this.
I would be absolutely flabbergasted if there is not regime change in Venezuela over the course of the next year.
I think it is very, very, very much not just on the table as it has been, as you point out, for decades now, at the very least, going back to Chavez and the attempted coup there and all of the U.S. involvement in that.
But it's been percolating there for decades now.
But I think it's definitely on the agenda for this Trump administration.
So I would be flabbergasted if there isn't regime change in the next year.
But that regime change doesn't necessarily have to be a hot war scenario.
I think Maduro, at the very least, may just see which way the wind is blowing and try to cut some sort of deal where he can abscond to some third nation and keep some of his assets and basically hand over the reins to whatever CIA puppet the U.S. wants to install.
That could be one way that this is affected.
The other way could be an actual military offensive.
And to me, the calculation might be as to how far they want to push this new narrative that they're pushing.
I don't know if you saw that the U.S. just released their latest national security strategy last month that is now suddenly downplaying the China boogeyman, which they've been playing up for the past decade plus, and now is talking more about the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as in, hey, we're going to be concentrating on our sphere of influence on the Western Hemisphere.
And if they want to start showing what that looks like, there might be a demonstrative display of military power against Venezuela as a, hey, guys, this is the new norm and we're going to be concentrating military power in this region.
Maybe one way that they do it as a signal to others, as much as it is about achieving that goal in Venezuela itself, because obviously they want regime change.
Obviously, the resources, the natural economic resources of Venezuela are part of what is being lusted after here.
But the question is, what kind of precedent, what kind of example do they want to set for everyone in the region?
Well, what worries me is what ended up happening in Syria after so many years of U.S. involvement.
I mean, we're talking about around a decade, maybe a little bit more via Operation Timber Sycamore.
And just when you thought there was no way that Assad was actually going to be taken out, he was taken out in literally a 72-hour, maybe even less fashion.
And the person that they installed was literally Al-Nusra, aka Al-Qaeda, and no one blinked an eye.
Even the mainstream press kind of lauded it.
You saw a couple of headlines, but all of it was downplayed.
So, you know, I'm definitely paying more and more attention to Venezuela for all of those reasons.
Last thing I want to bring up, the Charlie Kirk assassination.
And I know that's way off topic from everything else that we've discussed here, but in a way, it's not because it's about narratives.
It's about people taking sides in a lot of ways.
It's about people breaking out their jump to conclusions, Matt, in a lot of these cases and say, I know this and I know that.
And one of the things that I've really tried to do over the years is keep an open mind, not make total and complete definitive statements over things that I don't know about and point to the evidence that's publicly available.
That said, I certainly have questions, but with the publicly available evidence so far, in my opinion, there's very much the possibility that Tyler Robinson could be the shooter, that he could absolutely be the person involved.
Without seeing all of that evidence, my mind is open.
Candace Owens.
It's the big hot.
I mean, there's no one hotter topic than her and the Charlie Kirk murder.
Owens has got some big things wrong.
I want to remind that to my audience.
You know, this is a woman that defended Conor McGregor after he lost that sexual assault lawsuit where he should have actually gone to prison and actually been on criminal charges.
And the way she spun that made me want to puke in my mouth.
Showed me either she had an agenda there or was completely ignorant to the facts.
I've watched a lot of her stuff on this.
There's been literally nothing that has been definitive one way or another that's point to whether it be an assassination team or Israel definitely involved or somebody in Turning Point USA involved.
I know there are people that have jumped on Kirk's wife, et cetera.
One, do you think we'll get to the truth of the Kirk assassination?
Two, how do you feel about the assassination culturally in the sense that, you know, forget about who did it or why.
It very much feels to me, especially after the attempted Trump assassinations, that we have regressed into this time period of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, et cetera, where these things are on the table again, where I just, I did not feel them through, that was ancient history, didn't feel them in the 90s, certainly didn't feel them even post 9-11, right?
The more fear hype wasn't of an individual being taken out, but a large-scale terrorist attack against citizens.
So, number one, what is your feeling on the evidence out there and your thoughts on that?
But then again, culturally, how has this changed America and maybe even the global perception of what's going on geopolitically?
Yeah, good question.
Well, speaking of not having a definitive firm stance on things that I don't know about, I will not opine too much on the evidence surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination because I have studiously, if not ignored, at least not paid attention to that issue, precisely because I felt it was a manipulation of me and my mental energies insofar as before the Charlie Kirk assassination, I had spent exactly zero minutes and zero seconds of my life thinking about Charlie Kirk or anything regarding him.
I get that he appeals to certain people at a certain demographic.
That's not me.
I'm a Canadian in Japan.
I'm 40 plus years old.
I don't know or care about Charlie Kirk, so I'm not going to spend my life going down that particular rabbit hole.
But the societal cultural effect of that is the important part of it.
I very much agree.
And in fact, every year I do a New World Next Year show with my co-host James Evan Pilato.
We do New World Next Week every week looking at news events.
Well, every year we do a New World Next Year special where we talk about the story of the year and make a prediction for the coming year.
And my prediction for 2025, people can go look this up.
I was talking in the context of the, at that time, fresh, hot in the press, Luigi Mangioni assassination and the way that that was having cultural impact at that time.
And I was looking at that and saying, hey, look, in 2025, can you imagine if whatever some crazed nut goes and kills Elon Musk or whatever it is and the way that that would be used to forward all sorts of agendas and the police state agenda and others.
And We're heading into a time where those types of political assassinations are becoming part of the political discourse.
And some people are even cheering it on and praising, you know, Mangioni, yay, he's such a hero, etc.
Well, when you play around with that fire, you're going to start getting some, yeah, you know, some blowback that you may or may not intend.
And when you start putting political assassination on the table as something that people are starting to think, well, maybe there's some utility to it, that is something you that is a Pandora's box you don't want to open.
So, will we ever get to the truth of the Charlie Kirk assassination?
It seems doubtful at this point.
There's enough mud in that water that, you know, drilling down on it seems in retrospect maybe impossible.
But in terms of its cultural effect and the cultural effect that it has had, at the very least, in implanting in the public consciousness the idea of political assassination, that is extremely dangerous.
And I think just speaks to the general, you know, drifting towards Civil War 2.0, whatever it is, however you want to frame that.
The idea that the left-right spectrum paradigm has now gotten to the point where people will literally kill their opponents, or at least putting that idea on the table, is going to weaponize a lot of mental cases who will be pushed over the edge by seeing this and the glorification of that violence.
So that to me is the real important part of this, the sort of the cultural effect of this.
Well, I think that is the danger because, first of all, I've said this over and over.
I don't think there's a possibility of a real civil war in the United States.
I think the demographics of 300 plus million, I think the demographics of what the citizenry has as weapons compared to the military, just not even comparable.
We couldn't have that type of scenario.
However, could we have pockets of violence that are amped up via the media to make it look like there's a civil war and place military on the streets in different places and have a hot martial law?
That's my greatest fear.
And then, as far as Kirk himself, he was certainly obviously not somebody that I followed or really even paid attention to.
Like you said, not my demographic.
You know, I actually watched the South Park right before the assassination and the pot shots that they took at him I thought were kind of fair.
Actually, you know, talking about debating college kids.
And, you know, I kind of talked about this culture that, you know, I don't need to be sitting outside of a protest to dunk on some girl in a pink pussy hat, right?
Like, I'd rather have the conversation where all of a sudden maybe they look at some of my evidence and we're not in a screaming match.
To Kirk's credit, one of the things that did catch my ear is he was one of the few people that made the connection between the transgender and transhuman movements.
And I was actually supposed to have him on the show, and of course, canceled.
I wish he hadn't because that was going to be my mainline topic.
And with me saying that, James Corbett has just done an amazing video in the past couple months on the from transgender to transhuman movement with a very cool clip that I had not seen from I think a BBC type television show over in the UK.
If you want to see more from James Corbett, CorbettReport.com, look at these documentaries.
It's like an endless whirlwind of information that you need from 9-11 to the banking system to Bill Gates.
There may be nobody that does it better than my friend James Corbett.
Mr. Corbett, what would you like to leave my audience with?
Obviously, they need to get this book.
You're not getting the first edition signed.
Those are all out.
I got that.
You don't get that, but you do get a hell of a book with some.
First of all, the printing on this, awesome.
I love the little bound, but it's really the material, the beefcake material that's in this that people really need to check out.
What do you want to leave everybody with, James?
Well, first of all, Jason, I want to correct you.
That transgender, transhuman podcast that you're talking about actually didn't come out a couple of months ago.
It came out, I think, four years ago, but it didn't come out on YouTube at the time.
So, for people who don't know, I've been re-uploading some of my older videos to YouTube that didn't get uploaded during my cancellation.
So, that one has resurfaced recently.
I guess people can follow my YouTube channel for those updates.
But as you say, go to corbettreport.com if you want the real deal and get it as it's coming out.
Having said that, yeah, the book is Reportage Essays on the New World Order.
It is at reportagebook.com.
And as we are recording this, in the next few days, the audiobook will finally be available for purchase.
The audiobook, the complete entire unabridged book read by myself, as well as the foreword written and narrated by Whitney Webb.
So, people want to check that out.
ReportageBook.com is the place to go.
And you just republished a great interview that you did with Whitney Webb from a few years back over on YouTube that is just as relevant as it is today.
In fact, last night we streamed an Operation Warp Speed video that we did on October 7th, actually, of 2020.
And remains just as important today.
James, once again, I can't thank you enough for joining me.
I know that we're going to be hooking up via the 9-11 truth stuff.
Big stuff coming there.
You did an excellent job with Ron Johnson.
I will see you on the next IMA panel.
Independent Media Alliance, folks.
That's another thing you can check out for me and James together again for the very first time.
Thank you, Mr. Corbett.
Take care.
You got it.
Guys, James Corbett, kicking ass, taking names.
You know the drill.
I can't do it without you.
$5, $10, $15.
It absolutely means the world to me.
The links are down below.
I do want to thank everybody that gave me the super chats in here.
Let me just go through some of them if I can, if I can see them here.