All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
37:43
Jack Posobiec
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- Welcome to The Dealing Pod with me, James Dealing Pod.
I know I always say I'm excited about this podcast, but I'm tickly excited 'cause I've got him at the very last minute and I've been trying to get him for but I'm tickly excited 'cause I've got him at the very last Jack Puzzabitz.
Is that right, Jack?
You gave me a tutorial before we started, but I got it slightly wrong.
So there's sort of two, yeah, there's two schools of thought on it.
So there's sort of the traditional Slavic or Polish, you know, pronunciation of my last name, which would be that in the family we would say Posobiec.
Well, I'm not going to use your surname again at any point in this interview, so I suppose it's kind of like that.
Well, usually we just say Poso.
Usually people just say Poso.
and I don't try to, you know, have to explain that to everybody.
We just say Poso Bic.
So it's, you know, it's pick your poison, but, you know, I'll take either.
Well, I'm not going to use your surname again at any point in this interview, so I suppose it's kind of like that.
Well, usually we just say Poso.
Usually people just say Poso.
They sometimes use it as a promo code, for example.
So, Jack, while I was waiting for you to appear with your rather interesting background, what is that in the background?
Those strange geometric, those squares and rectangles and things?
Oh, it's like, it's like, it's like a wooden wall.
You know, so we do the podcast with Human Events Daily.
And so here in the studio, when the guys were setting it up, they bought these pieces of wood and then basically some were painted different colours and it's sort of a range and they just set it up this way as sort of a podcast background.
So if you're back against it, it actually looks kind of neat.
So it's not kind of some kind of satanic, Freemasonic symbolism that I'm as yet unaware of?
Well, James, if it was, I certainly couldn't tell you.
At least until you've passed the proper rights and cycles of initiation, of course, at that point, yes, perhaps.
I'm way beyond the 33rd level.
People who know me know about that.
Okay.
Okay.
While I was waiting, I glanced briefly at your Wikipedia page and it turns out you're a really bad person.
You are a very naughty person, very naughty thoughts, probably do not follow me, do not listen to me, or you may come back with naughty thoughts yourself.
Good.
Well, I'm glad now viewers and listeners have had that warning.
They know to turn this off, because otherwise they might be a bit worried.
Definitely, definitely not.
I mean, you think that's bad.
You should see what they're saying about Elon Musk and Joe Rogan and Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson and everybody else.
Jack, since you mentioned Elon Musk, where are you on Elon?
Do you think he is a white cat?
Do you think he's kind of secretly working for the other side, but comes across well in interviews and when he's got a joint in his hands and he seems to be one of us, but he's not really, or what?
So, I mean, I think that Elon is somebody who's generally, and I'll speak frankly, I think he's generally out for Elon, right?
So when he goes to China, for example, and he's got a Weibo account up, which is Chinese social media, I don't think he's probably tweeting it himself.
I don't believe he speaks Chinese.
I do, actually, as a matter of fact.
I think that he's he's pro CCP, because that's what you have to do to be to be successful in China.
And he's got his his factory there in Shanghai.
He's got a plant or a showroom or something out in Xinjiang where the Uyghurs are.
And so then he'll come to the US and he wants to do electric cars.
So he's talking about green energy.
Then he gets the government subsidies that he wants to do space.
So he goes to NASA.
Right.
And so I think that he's generally out for his own interests.
And I don't begrudge that.
I don't begrudge a person for doing that.
But I don't know if he's necessarily, quote unquote, one of us in terms of do I think he's, you know, a conservative or a member of the new right?
Does everyone talk about?
No, I don't think that necessarily.
Yeah, yeah.
I think that's probably right.
I just noticed that some people on what you might loosely describe as our side of the argument are thinking that Elon is the saviour because he's given them Twitter back and, you know, He says some cool stuff sometimes.
And, you know, he was anti the lockdown and seems to be not persuaded by the vaccine and stuff.
And I'm just not sure that that is enough.
Ultimately, he is part of the technocratic elite, which wants to turn us all into slaves.
He wants to put chips in our brains.
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
So let's not forget that either.
But at the same time, I look at it this way, right?
And you can look at any sort of political movement throughout history, anywhere in the world, that if a political movement does not have the support of Some or at least a cadre of elites of those with who are in power, you are not going to be able to be successful.
You're not you're not going to be able to get traction.
You're not going to have the ability to perform in a society.
And so if there are things where we completely disagree with Elon, you know, when it comes to some of this You know, his AI and, you know, brain chipping setups.
But at the same time, he also is for freedom of speech.
He's I mean, he's going on Twitter calling out media matters and the funders of media matters directly by name, you know, and I'm not going to sit here and say that I disagree with that.
No, no, absolutely.
No, no, I agree.
He's done some good stuff.
I just don't think he's... I don't think he's a reliable ally because, as you say, he's looking after himself.
Now, I wanted to ask you something, which is, you are ex-naval intelligence.
Navy intelligence, that's right.
Yeah.
Was Bill Cooper naval intelligence as well?
I'm not familiar.
You don't know Bill Cooper?
Not off the top of my head.
Sounds kind of familiar though.
Bill Cooper is the conspiracy theorist.
I mean, he was offed by the Feds a few years ago, but you should check him out.
I mean, he's absolutely amazing.
I discovered him about six months ago.
When you start going down the rabbit hole, Sooner or later someone's going to say to you, have you checked out what Bill Cooper was saying?
I'm pretty sure he was in some form of military intelligence, maybe, I think he was maybe in the Navy, because I think in one of the podcasts he describes, unless I'm confusing with somebody else, he describes being on a ship In the NAM during the Vietnam War.
And that was when he first saw a UFO, whatever, or some kind of unfeasibly powerful machine emerging from the water and sort of spiraling into space.
Oh, wow.
Yeah no well that well that kind of ruins my question which was you know do you get to see shit in as I mean obviously you can't tell me exactly but when even at a fairly junior level in intelligence I mean you you were you weren't you you didn't have access to all the all the the really heavily classified stuff but did you see stuff?
That's that's not really how it works it's not so much on um What's the best way to put this?
It's more about what type of operation you're working on.
So these things are compartmented.
It's called SCI.
So it's a sensitive compartmented information.
So if you're working on a program, it could be extremely classified.
But if you're assigned to that program, you're going to have access to it.
So it's more about what you're assigned to, rather than quote unquote, what level you're at.
So that being said, somebody like Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, sure, we've all talked about that server and the classified operations that were on it.
Now, because she was at that level, right, she would have broad access to all sorts of what you might colloquially refer to as, you know, black ops, right?
These types of things, or ACCMs, we would talk about in essentially just compartmented operations for that.
That tier one operators will be running.
So for me, it was more like if I was working on, I'm not confirming, but if I was working on something specific, then I would have access to that.
So I was in the Navy.
I did do a deployment at Guantanamo Bay for one year, served in the interrogation cell there.
And then, but I spent the majority of my time focused on East Asia, CCP, and, you know, really what was going on in the Pacific.
Well, at the time we called it Pacific Command or PACOM, but now it's called Indo-Pacific Command.
Right okay so look here's my here's where I'm leading with this.
I until really until the stolen presidential election I was what you would probably call a normie.
You know, I believed in the left-right divide.
I thought of myself as a kind of South Park conservative.
I thought that America was a bastion of freedom and democracy, that the Supreme Court was a model of justice, that states' rights would sort of preserve, you know, give people sort of an element of autonomy within their life away from the federal The overreaching federal government.
I thought that when I saw James Bond movies, I rooted for MI5 and MI6.
I thought they were on my side.
We all did, as we all did.
Okay, now I don't believe any of this stuff.
Well, I mean, look at me.
I'm a guy who, I believed it so much, I ended up joining the intelligence community and saying, I'm going to go save the world and be one of the good guys.
Right, yes, well, good, then you can help me out here.
So what was your trigger point?
What was the thing that removed the scales from your eyes?
You know, I mean, I've always been a conservative, even prior to this, you know, even prior to joining the military, joining the IC, but For me, when the, I know it sounds kind of cliche, but it actually was, so the events of Libya and the Libya invasion, which led to the Benghazi attack.
Yeah.
And being, so I had a little bit of a different vantage point though, than some folks, because I was in the Intel community when it was going on and day of real time, 24 seven.
We could see the truth that was happening on the ground, and we were all waiting for some kind of response.
What's the rollout going to be?
Are we going to send the Marines in?
Are we going to, you know, really roll in and go after these guys and shut down that entire city?
You know, a U.S.
ambassador was killed, assassinated, right?
You know, that is not something that any country should ever take lightly, clearly.
And certainly not when it's done by a terrorist organization.
And then to see the President of the United States, and at the time Secretary of State Clinton, coming out and just claiming something that we knew was demonstrably false as we were sitting and we could see the videos from the Benghazi compound of what had happened.
That point for me, I really stepped back and said, wait a minute, you know, We know what the truth is.
We can see it on our, you know, our screens right here.
And yet here are political leaders going out and just blatantly lying about the whole thing.
And then that starts to get you in on the heels of the Iraq War.
WMDs, it really starts to get you to question, wait a minute, how much of this is, you know, is it a situation where this kind of way I put it, is that the intelligence becomes more political, the closest it becomes to it comes to Washington directly.
And I imagine the same is true with for London, that you The intelligence collectors in the field and the people doing the work, they know exactly what the truth is.
They know what's going on.
They know what the level of a rumor that hasn't been fully confirmed yet, hasn't been run down and studied and verified.
Because, of course, that's part and parcel of running intelligence operations.
You get rumors, you get walk-ins, you get a detainee says something in an interrogation, and that's something that someone said, so you write it up, but you have to verify it before you can go and run it up.
But so many times we would be working on an operation or working on some analysis product, and you would be essentially told what your conclusions should be by the higher-ups, so that at the point where your report is actually being sent to, and I've briefed at the Pentagon, I've had products that were put in The President's Daily Brief.
I've gone to every three-letter agency in the D.C.
area.
I've been in their buildings, whether it be, you know, NSA or CIA or FBI, etc., and NGA, actually, it's satellites.
People don't know about that one as much.
And you realize that there are agendas, right?
And you realize that it's agenda-driven, it's not fact-driven, it's not truth-driven.
And even though there are thousands and thousands of people that are going in there every day just to do their jobs, you do get situations, particularly in the Middle East, where there You know, there are agendas that are pushed.
And then if you say something that's against that, or if you have an analysis that doesn't fit with the agenda, you know, then you're told, well, suddenly your work is called into question and your character is called into question and everything else when you're just, you know, connecting the dots and following a thread.
So most people in the military just suck it up and accept that that's the deal.
Mostly, yeah.
I mean, for a lot of people, you know, it's a job, it's a way of life, you're putting food on the table, once you got a couple of kids, you know, you don't want to rock the boat, you want to get your next promotion, you want to get that, you know, who's getting the good deployment, who's getting the Gucci deployment to, you know, who gets to go to
Dubai, who gets to go to KSA, who gets Bahrain, you know, one of these nice, you know, cush assignments with sometimes they have, you know, great per diem, or, you know, depending on where you are, if you're in a active arm conflict, you know, then you might be getting tax free status on your income.
So I mean, there's, there's lots and lots of perks to just kind of keeping your head down and going with the flow.
Just before we go on, what, what brief version, what actually did, did happen in Benghazi?
What's the truth?
Well, it was a terrorist attack that was conducted on a CIA annex, a CIA facility, which the ambassador from the United States was visiting.
Now, what they don't really talk about is that, and I'm relying on open source reporting here, nothing that I was directly touching, but that essentially what was being done was an arms shipment.
operation, whereby in the U.S.
was supplying these MANPADS, which of course we're seeing these all over, you know, Singer Missiles and NLAWS and other types of these implements in, well, Javelins from the U.S., in Ukraine.
So it was the same situation, but they were going from the rebels in Libya, and this is a year after really the downfall of Qaddafi, the killing of Qaddafi, And then being sent off to Syria.
And so these terrorists realized what was going on and then attacked the CIA annex there as means of essentially retribution for going after the U.S.
because you had these, of course, various jihadist groups in Benghazi.
And so the fact that, you know, President Obama went on TV the very next day and Susan Rice, of course, was on all the, you know, the Sunday shows that week with her now infamous talking point saying it was a retaliation to a YouTube video that got out of hand.
And people also forget that there were Incidents at embassies in the region outside of Benghazi.
There was an incident in Egypt the exact same day as this, where they were probing defenses and this was a much larger, much wider scale operation than people realize.
Right.
So this was one of the factions within Libya, was it, that was responsible for this?
Right.
What were they called?
Al-Qaeda in Libya or ISIS in Libya or what?
I believe, I haven't looked at this in a minute, but I believe it was tied, not ISIS directly, but one of the groups that was later associated with them.
But call me cynical.
I mean, I've rather changed my views on Islamic terrorism in the last couple of years.
I've come to realise that often it's used by the deep state, by the intelligence services, by the CIA or organisations like that, to further their own ends.
That this is a cover for other deeper, darker shit that goes on.
Was that possibly the case in this operation?
Keep in mind that it's not as easy as that, right?
So you have these regime change operations that are pushed by American political leaders or, you know, I call it the deep state, the permanent state, the administrative state.
Steve Bannon says it's not the deep state because it's in your face, right?
It is.
And so it's not that deep.
But the idea was that Gaddafi was trying to strengthen the African Union.
He was putting together, essentially, he was going to issue these Libyan dinars in gold-backed currency and really pull, essentially, pull Libya and then potentially the entire African continent off of the petrodollar standard.
He was stockpiling gold in order to do that.
Which would have been very strong because, I mean, you look at how Unstable Africa in general isn't certainly Libya and even go back to his UN address in 2009 where he talked about this.
He said I interesting enough.
He actually he also mentioned vaccines at one point in that in that address, which is quite interesting to go back and look at now.
But he talked about how he said, you have a strong European Union in Europe, and all I want is a strong African Union here.
We want economic prosperity and we want stability for our people.
We are not belligerent towards you.
We just want to be able to run our countries.
That's what he said.
Right.
That's what he said.
The regime change operation came after him, and the problem is that it starts with this idea that we're going to install democracy, right?
So he's installing democracy by emboldening these groups that are against the government of record.
Those groups in Libya, and then later on in Syria, just about one or two years later, you know, 2011 to 2013, end up being these jihadist groups.
And of course, we were told by McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the others who went over that, well, these are just, they're moderate rebels.
They're, you know, they're, they're totally fine.
We're sure everything's going to be great.
And to that same extent, you also saw the US working with, and we've seen Numerous publications, even left-wing publications, used to talk about this Jacobin that the US and UK were working with in Ukraine with elements like the neo-Nazi Azov battalion because they were standing against the state of Russia and some of these Groups within Ukraine, which are seen as closer to Russia, obviously Yanukovych, the former president being the most ubiquitous of these politicians.
So in that, the operational elements, you certainly saw a connectivity between these far-right nationalist brigades in Ukraine, but under that same thinking, well, the enemy of my enemy.
But the problem is, like in Benghazi, sometimes they get completely out of control when you're sending weapons, when you're sending materiel, when you're sending communications, technology, intelligence, and training.
What happens if they go, you know, what happens if they go rogue?
What happens if they go off the reservation?
We certainly saw the same thing.
With the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and to an extent you could even talk about how it was the Germans that sent Lenin off on his special train to Russia and started the Bolshevik Revolution.
This type of thinking has been going on for a very long time and it never turns out well because it always goes back to the law of unintended consequences.
Yes, and it's probably the same shadowy people ultimately pulling the strings behind all those operations, you know, the Lenin's train with the gold on it and, you know, the people who funded the Nazi war machine and so on.
I'm really glad you mentioned Azov because I'm being quite, I'm quite troubled by having, having had the media banging on nonstop about how Nazis are all around us and it's, and they're a terrible threat having had the media banging on nonstop about how Nazis are all around us and it's, and they're a terrible threat and,
And then suddenly in the last, in the last three or four months, suddenly we're backing Nazis and giving, I mean, actual Nazis, you know, people with Nazi insignia on their arms with, with, with swastika flags in their headquarters with tattoos, Nazi tattoos and a with swastika flags in their headquarters with tattoos, Nazi tattoos and a Their logo and their flag is the Wolfsangl, which is a very well-known Nazi implement.
The people who used to take my, you know, my family's Polish by background, and we're actually from the region of Poland that is directly adjacent to Lviv.
That city of Zhezhov that's actually receiving a lot of the weapons shipments, a lot of the NATO shipments, the the Pesobic hometown is probably maybe a 30-minute drive from there.
And I think they model themselves on the SS Das Reich, don't they?
The ones that committed one of the most notorious war crimes of the Second World War, where they destroyed the... So the Ukrainian, right.
And so Stepan Bandera was one of the major leaders of this.
He wasn't the only leader.
He's actually taken on a larger role in years since, but if you go back to the actual events, he was just one of the leaders of this.
And the idea was between these far-right brigades in World War II, they were so virulently anti-Soviet that when the Nazis rolled in, they ended up joining with the SS as a way to clear out this idea of we can create a space because at the time that that borderland area was quite diverse.
You had Poles, obviously you had Jews, you had the Roma people were there, you had all sorts of people living in that region and they went in and just started wiping out village after village after village.
involved in this.
Babi Yar was an example of this.
And so, you also had a lot of Poles who were killed by this.
And so, you know, people that, in these villages, again, very, very close.
The region is called Galatia.
And so, not to be confused with Spanish Galatia.
But so, this was going on in East Galatia.
My family's from West Galatia.
So are you, how are you finding it in the US at the moment?
I mean, over here in the UK, there are very, very few people in the media who are speaking out against this relentless pro-Zelensky propaganda.
You know, everyone's waving blue and yellow flags.
Everyone thinks that, yeah, Putin's a madman and he must be stopped.
And, you know, we must send more weapons out there to help the Ukrainians Well, with the exception of Pope Francis, he was kind of, of all people, right?
Yeah, he just pops off and we covered that on Human Events Daily today where, you know, and I think he was, I don't know if there, you know, I went into the actual Italian newspaper and was looking at his remarks and he, you know, he pointed out, he said, look, I think this war is brutal.
I think it's terrible.
I'm anti-war.
But then they asked him, well, what do you think led to the war?
And he said, well, I think I think the expansion of NATO and pushing up again, I believe word he used was barking.
NATO barking at at the Russia, Russia's front door is what led them to have this angry and terrible response.
And you're not allowed to talk like that!
You're not supposed to say that!
So suddenly the media, which is usually very, very pro-Pope Francis because he's a progressive and a Jesuit, suddenly they're saying, well, we have to contextualize his comments, you know, because you're not supposed to see somebody with that stature.
Which, by the way, Very similar to last week when you had Professor Noam Chomsky, a man of the old left, coming out and endorsing President Trump's stance on this conflict because he's one of the only true... Noam Chomsky, right?
You know, what are the folds of the timeline that leave us to this?
Where Noam Chomsky is saying that the greatest Western statesman to speak about peace is Donald J. Trump.
It's very confusing, isn't it?
I mean, like, the Pope.
I had the Pope down as a complete rongan working for, probably working for the devil, or somebody similar, Lucifer or whoever, and then suddenly he comes out with this.
I mean, maybe his programmers got the... Well, it reminded me of Pope John Paul II, who In those early days, and I have to say this, that I remember the war hysteria from 2002-2003 in the US regarding Iraq.
I mean, the entire populace was whipped up, and keep in mind, in the emotional aftermath of September 11th, The people were exploited.
The traumatized country was exploited to take out their anger on the country of Iraq.
And Pope John Paul II was one of the few people to speak out very publicly against this and say, don't do this.
This isn't the right move.
This isn't the right time.
You're operating this in terms of anger, and I remember at the time not understanding, you know, what do you mean?
We have to go to war with Iraq, you know, that's what everybody says.
And then you realize, looking back, that wow, this is exactly right.
So it's not the first time a Pope has spoken clearly about something like this.
Right.
Okay, you mentioned the Pope.
As a rare example of somebody speaking out against this nonsense.
But are you finding in the US, as in the UK, that people are banging the drums for war relentlessly?
Quite a bit, but you do actually have some news in the U.S.
of a rare individual who spoke out against it and actually just won a huge victory, and that's J.D.
Vance in Ohio.
So Ukraine became a huge issue in the Ohio primary.
Where there were multiple candidates running who supported this idea of a no-fly zone for Ukraine, who wanted NATO to get involved in a direct capacity, not just Lend-Lease, not just Materiel, but actual fighters and equipment going over.
And then J.D. Vance came out very publicly, goes on War Room pandemic with Steve Bannon, where I co-host sometimes, and said very publicly that he said, I'm not concerned with Ukraine.
I'm not concerned with something that's 5,000 miles away.
I'm concerned with the border here in the United States, and I'm concerned with the state of Ohio.
And National Review and many men, Karl Rove and so many of these blogs were, and really establishment institutions really turned their fire on him.
And here we go, just a few weeks after saying that, he won by eight points in the state of Ohio.
Right.
If only others could follow his example.
And what about the media generally?
Is that as relentlessly one-sided or are you getting more nuanced?
I would say it is, but honestly, it's just something where You know, and I'll just say this, you know, we were covering it very directly on my show.
I've seen other people that were covering it very directly and very, you know, city by city, town by town.
And the mainstream media has started covering it less and less and less because people in the US.
At first, they thought it was very shocking.
They were against it.
The U.S.
is generally, I think American people are very war-weary after the last 20 years.
But after the initial shock wore off, I think a lot of people saw the fact that it wasn't having this huge effect here in the U.S.
other than, by the way, the gas prices.
The fuel prices that have been going up like crazy.
So people just, you know, the media hasn't been covering it as much.
And yet you'll see it on the cover of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post pretty much every day.
But when I look out on Twitter, when I talk to people, when I'm just sort of going around in political spaces, seeing what events, you know, what questions I get asked, it is not something that's a huge topic of conversation among the American people, for better or worse.
I mean, you do see people generally saying that they want The war to end, that they want peace.
But there's also a sense of, you know, that's something that's far away.
It doesn't touch us.
Right.
I see.
What are your big worries at the moment?
I'll tell you what's really worrying me.
Well, actually, there's so much to worry about.
But these mysterious fires and plane crashes.
It's quite strange.
It is quite strange to see all this happening at the same time.
And keep in mind that we're seeing a fertilizer shortage as well.
Do you reckon that this is, as I do, this is part of a plan to starve us?
It's quite strange.
It is quite strange to see all this happening at the same time.
And keep in mind that we're seeing a fertilizer shortage as well.
Yeah.
The breadbasket of Europe, of course, you know, Ukraine, Russia is a huge part of the wheat producer as well.
We're also seeing, as well as fertilizers, the potash that comes out, Belarus also involved with that in terms of exports of potash.
In the U.S., we're seeing drought conditions and had a potential winter kill of a lot of the wheat seeds in the U.S., and so also issues in the American breadbasket.
And so, when you combine that with these food processing plants and who knows what's going on there, but it does seem to be a string of it, that it does look as though potential food shortages and certainly inflation in terms of the upward pressure on prices is going to be a real issue here going into the summer and going into the fall of this year.
Something that we never thought we'd even have to be talking about.
Well, exactly.
We haven't got much time because I see my wretched Zoom thing is about to run out of time.
I do see that, yeah.
I think what we'll have to do is schedule another longer chat because it's getting late-ish now.
But what do you think is really going on?
I mean, you've been down the rabbit hole.
Well, I think that this is, you know, you're of course seeing competing interests, right?
You know, Putin and Xi and Russia and China are certainly working closer together than ever.
I think that driving them together is going to be seen as one of the great foreign policy blunders of the West.
Pitting them against each other certainly would have seemed like a much better idea in terms of policy, but we didn't do that.
So here we are.
But I also think that what you're seeing in the West is a coalescing of forces that, you know, for better or worse, it's called the Great Reset, right?
I think that's the best all-encompassing term for what we're seeing.
And of course, they have their meeting coming up in Davos here just in a couple of weeks later this month.
It's going to be in Davos, Switzerland.
It was delayed.
It was originally going to be in January.
And you're going to see the same forces of authoritarianism being pushed across the United States and across the West writ large.
We're here in the US, we are starting establishing our own Disinformation Governance Board under the auspices of our Homeland Security Department.
This is part of What I call the authoritarianism, the rising authoritarianism of the West.
And it's something, by the way, that we learned from the CCP.
When I was in China, when I was living in China, I was there in Shanghai and I would see these American leaders would come over, these Western leaders, business, politics, and they would come over and learn about China's system.
And remember, we were always told, right?
We're always told, well, the way the relationship will work between China and the West is that when we open up with them, That will cause their society to get a taste of freedom and a taste of capitalism, and it will make them more open and transparent and freedom loving.
But it's actually been the opposite, right?
Hasn't it?
It's actually we who have become more closed, more elitist, more controlling, and ultimately more authoritarian.
And I can't think of any better example of that than in the lockdowns that we've seen.
You think the lockdowns were bad in the UK, And in, you know, Italy and in part and in France, certainly, and Australia, and then parts of the US will go look at what they're doing in Shanghai right now where they've got an open air prison of 29 a city I used to live in these people were neighbors of mine, who taught me Chinese that took me into their homes, you know, we have a host family and be making dumplings.
And now they're all locked in.
Starving and then Beijing are worried about it happening to this is the kind of authoritarianism this idea.
It's anti-human.
It's anti-freedom.
It's certainly anti-human rights that they want to implement here in the West because they see it as easier and these corporations.
These massive multinationals like Blackstone and BlackRock, working with central banks like the Fed, are realizing that if they can dole out their money, they can dole out their loans and their investment and their financing to people who go along with these ESG scores, this corporate social credit score, then they can essentially control, they call it nudge, right?
They said, we can nudge your behavior and we can nudge your investments.
And these are huge issues.
And Elon Musk is having some interesting talks about Passive investment versus active investment and some of these questions.
And it'll be interesting to see if he kind of delves into any of these issues.
But from what we've seen, it seems to be a way where the powerful are becoming super powerful and they are trying to do anything they can to shut down podcasts like yours, podcasts like mine, the ability of people to speak freely and share information and have that dialogue across the internet, because that is the greatest thing that stands in the way of this.
So are we going to win?
Can we win?
Oh, I think so.
I absolutely think so.
I think the cat's out of the bag.
I think there's there's far more people that want to choose freedom.
There's far more people that want to choose bodily autonomy, self autonomy, religious freedom, of course.
And I do.
I'm a glass half full kind of guy, right?
We wouldn't know this.
We wouldn't even know this was going on if the last six years hadn't happened.
And certainly with COVID, right, with the way that The Western governments reacted to COVID.
It really became a frog in the boiled pot kind of scenario where, you know, some people originally were saying, hey, you know, I think this water is getting a little warm here.
Maybe we should do something about that to the point where everybody realizes we are in boiling water now.
Yeah, yeah.
I love talking to you.
Tell me where people can find you, first of all.
Yeah, of course, you can find me at Human Events Daily.
We are a podcast for people who don't like podcasts.
We are the, you know, the cliff notes of your day's news.
25, 24 minutes a day.
We give you top four stories, analysis.
Our motto is be good, be brief, be gone.
I'm across every social media.
Jack Kosobik at Twitter, Getter, Truth Social, Instagram, all of them.
We're there.
Jack, should we do another one at some stage?
I mean, soon.
I'd love to.
This was great.
We've got loads to talk about.
I do, but we should do it in person because your background is much, much nicer than mine.
I got to say, it looks lovely there.
Oh, listen, I'd love to meet you in person if you came over here.
I can't go to America at the moment because I haven't had the death chat.
Oh, right, right, right.
I'll have to let you know.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Dear viewers and listeners, do remember that I really appreciate your support on Subscribestar, on Patreon, on Substack, and on Locals.
And yeah, you'll find lots more podcasts like this.
Jack, thank you so much.
I wish it could have been longer, but we'll do another one.
Absolute pleasure.
We'll have to.
Okay, take care.
Bye-bye.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection