All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2023 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:37:52
Lee Gaulman - Legalman
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Deadpool!
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby!
I love Deadpool!
Now listen one more time, subscribe with me!
Welcome to The Delingpod with me, James Delingpole.
And I know I always say how I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
Even though you can't see him, or maybe especially that you can't see him, because his voice is something to relish.
I've enjoyed his podcast, which he records under the name The Quash.
Well, his handle is Legalman or Lee Gorman.
Lee, welcome to the Delling Pod.
Well, thank you.
Thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, I get the feeling when I listen to your podcasts that you've been on a similar journey to me, in that I think you describe yourself as a former constitutional conservative.
And I imagine, like me, you used to spend a lot of time Absolutely.
in the system which one day if only we we elected the right guy or gal was going to sort things out and things were going to get much better and we just had to keep voting our way till eventually we got there is that a fair summary of your former incarnation absolutely i was completely and totally bought in to that standard narrative yeah i think that this podcast is going to be a really good corrective
It won't be a wake-up call because I'm afraid that these people, most of them, will never be able to see for reasons we can discuss.
But I think that there are still so many people out there, I would call them normies, I don't know what you'd call them, who still, despite Endless disappointments.
It's like being slapped in the face by reality again and again.
They still imagine that this mess we're in can be remedied through this thing that they call democracy.
Yes, it's unbelievable to me.
It blows my mind that at this point, having had the internet for 25 years and seeing what goes on every single time, every single time, they still continue to believe In this fantasy that literally has no evidence supporting it.
There's no evidence supporting it, not just in the United States, there's no evidence to support it in any country using the system that it somehow can work and reign the government in.
It's amazing.
Yeah, yeah.
So, I want to know a bit about your journey.
I mean, obviously, you are pseudonymous, so one doesn't want to... I don't want to blow your cover, man, but tell me a bit about your journey, you know, your background and maybe your road to Damascus moment.
Yeah, well, you know, I I went to law school a long, long time ago in the 1980s.
I've been practicing for almost 35 years now.
And I used to really be a big believer in the whole Constitution, conservative crap.
And there was a lot of questions I had around it when I was in law school, but I'm much too busy just trying to get good grades, really.
And so I don't really pick it apart, even though there was issues and I would have conversations.
But once I got out, And started actually practicing law, it became very clear that what I'd been told about the system, it just didn't fit with anything that I was experiencing.
And I saw a tremendous amount of corruption at every level.
I've worked at a very large firm that is an international firm and had hundreds and hundreds of lawyers in it.
And then I left there because it was so disappointing and I did criminal laws of public defender for a year and got kicked out of three different courts for the same kinds of reason.
It was so corrupt and then I did.
A practice with two other lawyers that was a private practice and personal injury and saw just a phenomenal amount of corruption in all the decisions.
And then for about the last 20 years, I've been in basically private practice.
And during that time, not only did I see all this insane corruption where nothing fit, but once I got the internet, I was able to start looking around and seeing that Well, nothing I was being told about the law was accurate.
Nothing I was being told about anything else was accurate.
I would stumble across these things and I was fascinated by researching this stuff.
Really in fairly short order, it started to become obvious that every single narrative I started to investigate wasn't true.
And it's really difficult for me at that time to believe that none of it was going to be true, that it was in fact all just a pack of lies, but that's ultimately what it turned out was the case.
And so by doing that, eventually I stumbled across Spooner and his work.
And once I started reading Lysander Spooner, it became very obvious to me that Everything I'd been told about the Constitution was simply not true.
It was just... I can clearly remember reading Spooner, spending the first five minutes of reading No Treason and realizing, oh my God, this is really big.
This is really problematic.
And from there, it was over.
I'm sorry?
Tell me about Spooner.
I don't know anything about him.
Well, Lysander Spooner was writing in the mid 19th century and in the United States.
He's a big anarchist and he was both against slavery.
He wrote how slavery was not constitutional, but he also wrote his most famous pieces, his essay called No Treason, Constitution and No Authority.
And it just goes through and shows how the Constitution has no legal authority.
And he wrote it right after the Civil War.
In order to be an aid to Confederate soldiers who were, they were trying to try them for treason.
And it was just showing you can't try someone for treason over this document.
It's completely ridiculous.
These people are not liable for treason.
And once I realized all the arguments he was making that I'd never heard a single one of and how fundamental they were.
And then I read all his other stuff, his stuff on jury trials, his stuff on all sorts of things.
And it just became clear that the narrative I'd been fed was not true.
And of course, Spooner is pretty famous in a lot of circles, but he's not well known.
But he's like maybe Herbert Spencer, who wrote The Right to Say No to the Government, or something along those lines, the title was.
And he was also writing the 19th century, The Scientist.
I think he's from Britain.
Same kind of reasoning.
And the fact is that large amounts of people in the 19th century who were intellectuals were well aware of these issues and problems.
And in fact, it's all simply been swept away.
That's the reality.
Well, thank you for introducing me to a name that I'm clearly going to have to read.
Do you know what became of him?
I mean, I imagine if he was anti-establishment in this way, speaking truth to power, did he end up Uh, in an early grave or what?
No, I mean, he died and he basically was born in 1800 and died in, uh, right around 1880.
Uh, and so he, anytime of the year, so he was in his sixties during the civil war and his last, and I, on my podcast, I've done several of his essays.
I've done his, uh, His essay on natural law took about, I don't know, five or six episodes.
I did his trial by jury.
That took about 25 or 28 episodes.
I did his no treason.
That took about 25 episodes.
And I'm doing his letter to Grover Cleveland where I read the thing, a part of it, and I comment.
And so I explain it to people.
But that was a time when the government didn't have full control.
See, most of his life, it was pre-Civil War.
And pre-Civil War in this country, There was really nothing.
There was no such thing as the Department of Justice.
The presidents themselves had virtually no assistance.
They had to bring in their own, like, nephews and stuff like that to work for them.
They didn't have this giant staff.
That didn't exist.
And so the world was very, very different.
It was after the Civil War.
Once the Civil War was held, that's when whatever the Constitution was, it died in the Civil War.
There's simply absolutely no possible way that a voluntary union of states or people or whoever you want to imagine it is could have ever survived the Civil War.
You can't fight a war to hold people voluntarily together.
It's not possible, and that's just... So, again, he died in 1880, and he was really pissed when he was writing that last letter to Grover Cleveland, which is a fantastic essay, even though it's got a terrible name.
But anybody who reads Spooner will immediately start catching on and seeing the arguments.
Okay.
Um, sorry, there are lots of things I want to pick you up on, pick up on here.
Yeah.
Civil War, for example.
Yeah.
Are you with me that almost everything we're told about the Civil War is a lie?
Complete lie.
And in fact, I've been, I've done like five different chat GPTs where I got the chat GPT to finally admit that the Norse arguments, they had no legal validity at all.
They were frivolous arguments.
that they made that they, and they also got the chat GPT to admit that the South had clearly seceded and all the arguments saying that they hadn't seceded were also clearly legally frivolous.
And so there's not one single thing about the civil war we're told that's true.
And the, the proof for that not only is in anybody who just sinks, just gives it five minutes of objective thought, but the fact that here in this country, they've got a giant monument for the guy that he's on.
He's on the $5 bill.
He's on the penny.
He's everywhere.
You can't get away from Lincoln, the guy.
They're constantly lionizing him and making movies about him and talking about he freed the slaves and all this crap.
And whenever the government is pushing a narrative that hard, you can be 100% sure that it's not true.
And in all likelihood, the exact opposite is the case.
Yes.
Please give me the TLDR on the Civil War.
What do you think it was about?
I think ultimately it was about taking people from this chattel slavery to debt slavery and growing the power of the federal government because it laid the groundwork.
People don't understand.
The time that there was a giant Supreme Court court packing scheme was actually in the late 1860s.
by the Republicans when they held the total control and hadn't even allowed the South to be seated into the Congress, even though they claimed they were still in the union.
It's just the most upside down nonsense.
And they packed the Supreme Court and they got a ton, I mean, a ton of different insane opinions out of that new packed Supreme Court.
And the most important one, besides sort of Texas v. White, which claimed to uphold the North's position in fighting the Civil War, which which I proved with ChatGPT, admitted that that decision was simply wrong.
It's bad law.
It has absolutely no basis in the uncontested facts and clear law.
And I also, people don't understand that that's when we got legal tender laws.
And the very first case shot them down.
And then one year later, after the court was packed with Grant's new people, they flipped and went 5-4 and upheld them.
And most people don't even know what legal tender laws are.
They know all about the Federal Reserve, they know all about central banking, but they don't understand that central banking is useless without legal tender laws.
Legal tender laws are the laws that force you to accept as legitimate currency this complete garbage that they spit out that has nothing backing it.
That's what a legal tender law does.
And they're clearly, under the United States Constitution, just laughably unconstitutional.
Just absurd.
Not only are they a taking of your property without due process by forcing you to exchange your goods, your actual labor, your property for something that has no value whatsoever, which is this made-up currency, but they also violate all sorts of other things in the Constitution.
And these legal tender laws were very well known.
Everyone understood what they were.
And the federal government wasn't given those rights.
And the states were specifically prevented from enacting them because nobody was going to be allowed to because they were supposed to use gold and silver.
Everybody knew that.
And once you have these legal tender laws, then that lays the groundwork about 35 years later.
That's when we got the Federal Reserve.
And the Federal Reserve, like I said, would have been useless without these legal tender laws.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, we know, do we not, that these people play the long game?
Absolutely.
And they plot it over generations.
Yes.
So they were thinking, where does Albert Pike fit into all this?
You know, I mean, obviously he's a very, I'm not going to say he's a mysterious character, but he's a character.
I would call him a character.
You know, he predicts those three wars and all sorts of other things.
He's obviously an insider.
What his real purpose is, nobody can, I can never know because the problem with all these things is I look around and look at things that are happening today.
Well, I can't get a straight answer about who someone is and where they actually fit in and they're alive today and we have all sorts of media.
So going back into time and imagining that I'm going to be able to put the pieces together of who exactly he is and what exact role he was playing, I don't know.
But I know this, that He's somebody that they want us to know about, and so that immediately makes me suspicious of anything that I'm told about him, or that I read about him, because if he was really somebody who was really somebody doing something underhanded, there really wouldn't be much known about him.
And he probably wouldn't be in a Wikipedia page, and you wouldn't have all these books.
And so, is there a lot of truth to the fact that he was obviously some very high-level Mason kind of person, to the extent that's really the way?
Yes!
Obviously, that's what they want us to know about him.
But that alone makes me suspicious about what he really is.
I like your cynicism.
You make me feel like a complete amateur there.
Can we go back a bit?
Actually, I wanted to ask you about, can you give me an example of the corruption that you witnessed in your early legal career?
Sure, sure.
Well, on the criminal defense side, when I was a public defender, we had a judge in there that basically everybody just considered it to be debtor's prison.
He wouldn't allow these people who need a public defender who can't get out.
To await trial, he wouldn't allow them to take probation.
I mean, sorry, he required that they take probation.
He would not let them, in effect, sit it out and you get credit, jailed credit.
For each day you're in jail, you get credit for some monetary amount, varies with each county in the United States.
And so say the plea deal would be offered that you can sit in jail for 14 days And at that point you get out.
Well, because in 14 days all you do is take the amount of money, you add it all up.
You can use that to pay fine, court costs.
That are on there and you can sit it out.
So in effect, if these misdemeanors required 30 days or something like that, in the county I was in, you get three to one.
So if it's 30 days, it really only means you spend 10 days.
And in those 10 days, you accumulate X amount of money towards being able to pay it because these people are paupers.
That's why they have a public defender.
They can't afford to pay anything, but he wouldn't allow that.
He would not give them a trial setting in effect, And wouldn't agree to take these pleas, and so he would force them into probation.
So, probation is a crappy deal for these people because you gotta pay probation fees, and therefore they'd be out.
And every single time, these people, over and over and over, they'd end up in a probation violation, in which case then they'd be looking at the underlying sentence, which normally would be, say, two years on a misdemeanor.
And they'd have to continuously do that.
These are people who have no chance on probation, who just simply want to sit it out.
Well, they can't.
So what they would do is he'd set the thing, the trials, for much longer than the plea itself would be.
Like you could plea and get out and say 14 days, 21 days, 30 days.
He'd give them trial dates that were 60, 80, 90 days out.
And then still not reach him.
So then you'd be faced with having to sit in jail for 90 days.
Well, you're going to lose your job.
What are these kind of crappy jobs these people tried to hang on to?
You're going to get evicted.
You're completely screwed.
You can't get out.
And he would run this process all the time.
And in fact, he left and went to work at the SEC from the judge.
It's just completely outrageous nonsense.
It was it's it's it's just such an outrageous violation.
There's no way to describe how insane it is.
So what was his game?
I mean, you say he was corrupt.
He was tough on crime.
Oh, he was tough on crime.
So he would, you know, he'd force him to plea and all this.
So this was his whole deal, that he was so-called tough on crime.
Now, most of these people, the charges were preposterous.
There's no way you could take it to a bench trial, but I saw tons of other stuff.
I got kicked out of three courts in three years, and one of them, they simply closed the public defender's office down in order to get me out of there.
They just stopped having them in there.
I saw all sorts of other stuff.
I saw judges who would refuse to bother to come out from behind in their thing in order to simply accept the plea, and they'd be going on vacation for a week and, in effect, leave the guy in jail for four more days, and good luck trying to take it to another court.
It's four in the afternoon kind of thing.
There was no one there.
I would go in all the time and find the judge and the prosecutor sitting in the back discussing the cases.
It's completely and totally improper.
You cannot ex parte without me present about these cases.
You're not allowed to do that.
I had to threaten to file disciplinary actions against prosecutors who wouldn't dismiss cases when I would present an affidavit of non-testimony by one of the spouses in some kind of spousal dispute.
And you used to, in this state, have the absolute right not to testify against your spouse.
And so the only evidence they would have in these phony baloney cases would be the so-called testimony coming from the spouse in the arrest report, because the rest is all hearsay.
And so, So you file this affidavit, and that's it.
They have to dismiss the case because they have no more evidence.
Well, they would refuse to dismiss the case.
They'd insist that my client take all these additional probationary kind of things and classes.
And I'm like, dude, you don't have any right to do that.
You have no case.
You have an obligation to dismiss this case.
And if you don't dismiss it, I'm going to file a complaint against you.
And so those were the kinds of things that got me in trouble, and I could just go on and on, just on the criminal courts, not even the civil side.
So, I mean, we are in the UK, and I'm sure, obviously, because you actually make them in the US, we see lots and lots of US-made law series.
Oh yeah!
And, I mean, a bit like, uh medical dramas yes that everyone is is committed um justice it's justice it's all about justice and justice justice is done um and i i you'll probably agree this is part of the the psyop isn't it?
It's completely absurd.
Forget putting aside the absurdity of the laws themselves, where you can literally, in this state, you can get what's called deferred adjudication.
Deferred adjudication means that you plead to the case, you do some probationary period, and at the end of that time, the case is dismissed and you don't have a conviction.
Okay, this is a pretty reasonable thing that a lot of people get for these sort of BS laws they pass.
But you can also get deferred for pretty much anything.
You could get deferred for murder.
You can get deferred for rape, okay?
Now, the prosecutors don't hand them out, but you can.
Nothing prevents it.
But you can't get deferred for DUI.
It's utterly ridiculous!
It's the most arbitrary made-up crap from this sort of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, which is another one of these phony baloney things that was created out of thin air.
It's all just a way to create money.
It's just a fake deal where They have these federal task force and the cops sit around after arresting these people who are in no way DUI.
They're not DUI.
All they do is stop them.
They give them these phony baloney tests like a nystagmus test beside the road where they flash a light in your eyes and then they haul you down to jail and they collect money.
It's about collecting money and getting people into probation and paying fine and court costs and getting overtime for the cops.
That's what it's all about.
And in fact, I'll give you a perfect example down in Austin.
When they first brought Uber in, when they first brought Uber into Austin, what happened was the revenue collapsed in the courts because there was nobody getting picked up for DUI.
And so they forced Uber out of Austin for years.
And then Uber had finally got back in, but they forced them out because they lost their cash cow with this.
And so they tell you it's all about public safety.
It's just all lies from top to bottom.
Right.
OK.
So so if we're going to because I one of the beginning of my journey down the rabbit hole was when I watched the the election being stolen in the US presidential election being which.
Which one?
Well, okay, I've got more sophisticated in my understanding of how broken the system is since, but I was thinking particularly of the, you know, when I saw this senile incontinent who hadn't been on the campaign trail at all because his minders recognised him as being a liability, somehow recording more votes than any presidential candidate in history.
Yes.
And then he beat Trump.
Now I was I'm likely sceptical of this claim, which nevertheless the mainstream media tried gaslighting me into thinking was so.
But I then went through the stage of, this was the final straw for me, of imagining that the wonderful checks and balances of the US system were going to sort this out.
And ultimately, the Supreme Court, with its conservative judges, Would see to it.
Justice was served, strict interpretation, voice of the people.
I did shows about that right when it first came out in October, November after the election.
And I told people that this is never going to go to the Supreme Court and get reversed.
They don't understand the system.
That will never happen.
The court will never do that.
And of course they didn't do it exactly as I knew they would.
Okay, so is it because the lawyers are lazy and self-interested and the legal system is a kind of shakedown machine, just a money-making machine?
Is it worse than that?
Is it because they are...
blackmailed or financially corrupted or pedophiles or in service to this kind of deep state Illuminati class that we don't know about.
What's wrong with exactly, tell me what's wrong with the system?
The problem with the systems are structural.
They're not, it's not that there aren't a ton of bad actors in there that fit the description you just gave, but the vast majority Are not bad actors to the extent that you define a bad actor as somebody who, who specifically knows and is intentionally screwing people.
Okay.
I don't think that's the bulk of them.
It's structural in that the lawyer is trained in the law so-called because in the 19 teens and twenties that they set up a scam to take over law schools, just like they did medical schools on the medical side.
They, they created this phony baloney, uh, uh, radiation, chemo, jabbing, cutting, and poisoning system to sell people as medicine.
And in the law, they started teaching people and they funded these chairs and grants for places like Harvard and Yale that started teaching case law.
And case law is crap.
And so as soon as you go into case law, it's over.
And so because the system is set up structurally through statute to make the lower courts must follow the up of the courts that are above them.
So if you're in a district court, you have to follow the appellate court that's in your district and your circuit, and then everybody must follow according to statute, whatever the Supreme Court says, and the states are all set up the same way.
As soon as you set that system up, okay, the system is structurally set up such that it can never ever work.
It will always produce the results they want, because all you have to do to manipulate every single court and all the stuff, He's not convinced of people with the voting and all that crap.
You get one, basically one kind of controllable judge on an appellate court, and that person can just create an ungodly amount of horrible law forever that the people have to follow, and then so few cases go to the Supreme Court.
So few.
They take fewer than 100 cases each year.
Tons of them, they deal with basically called per curiam.
They just kind of dismiss the thing in one form or fashion.
But it's the appellate cases that these disc circuits make.
And once they make it, the law requires that the district courts all follow it.
And so now you've got this lever where you get one or two of these corrupt guys and say, take anything like Say business commercial construction law.
How many people in the United States know anything about that?
This is a very, very small handful of lawyers working in this area.
Okay.
Nobody knows any of the construction law cases.
Okay.
But they're, they're a huge deal and you could go through and do them all.
Pipeline cases.
Do you know anything about pipeline law?
Of course not.
No, of course nobody does.
Nobody does anything about any of this law.
And so this is how it's controlled behind the scenes.
And so what happens is the lawyers, they need to make money and this is the system.
All right.
You can't go into a court and argue, You can't do it.
It won't work.
The court will toss it out because the court must follow it.
That's what they're obligated to do under the so-called law.
Now, if they had any real integrity and they understood, they would understand those laws are totally unconstitutional, laughable, and they would ignore them and they would write opinions.
And then of course they would get kicked off the court and they may or may not have a, you know, untimely heart attack or contract cancer.
At least they'd have some integrity, and the lawyers, they don't know.
The vast, vast, vast majority of lawyers, all they're doing is working within a system.
They're just trying to make money, and they understand that the way you make money is that you manipulate this preposterous system, and you take money from your client.
That's why I left that large firm, because they just ripped the clients off.
There's an old saying in the law when you're a young lawyer and you're basically interning and trying to get onto these large firms like I worked at, these so-called prestigious firms.
That they're full service.
And the full service joke is that they can take you and get you as a startup and get you public, and they can take you through litigation all the way through bankruptcy.
That's the full service they offer you, that they will take your business and run it into the ground and drain every dime out all the way through the system.
And that was not unknown at the firm.
The lawyers themselves used to laugh about it.
So that's what it really is.
That's what's really going on there.
I've learned more about the US legal system, the truth about it, in the last five minutes than I have in the rest of my life.
Exactly.
It's really interesting when you explain it that way.
So when exactly did this happen?
In the 1910s, the same as the medical Well, ultimately, it all traces back to this Marbury v. Madison case, which happened in the early 1800s with Auguste Justice Marshall, who was a complete joker and a scammer.
He wrote this opinion that was then used from thereafter to talk about how the Supreme Court has, of course, has the right to strike down this legislation because the Supreme Court gives us the law.
Okay, well, there's a lot wrong with that, but that's one of the very first cases that you learn in law school.
And since then, it's been cited countlessly, and it's created this concept that the Supreme Court tells us what the law is, and that once the Supreme Court rules, we're all bound.
And that expanded out massively.
What people forget is that when Marshall first issued this preposterous statement that somehow they tell us what the law is, that Andrew Jackson said, well, he's given us his opinion, now let him enforce it.
They're not there!
There's no enforcement provision.
That's not their job.
They are there to hear one case and bind the parties to that case.
And that's it.
And there's absolutely no other authority they hold.
None.
The rest is completely and totally made up.
And once you have that structure in place, That people imagine that you read case law, and you read what the Supreme Court has said about it, and you look at their four-pronged test this, and their three-pronged test this, and their shifting burden that, and the clear and convincing this, and the deferential treatment that.
Once you have that, once you have this concept in your mind, and you believe that's true, it's over.
See, it's completely over and there's nothing you can do about it.
It just grew and grew and grew.
And once you have the Supreme Court being completely manipulated after the Civil War, it's over.
See, if you can't just say, well, these opinions are crap.
If you want to hold me to this, we're leaving and vote to leave.
Once you can't leave that, now you're in a situation where if you're one or two states, what can you do?
You're in a minority.
How can you get an amendment?
You can't.
How can you do anything?
You can't.
You have no power at all.
You're a permanent minority.
So they can abuse you any way you want.
Anything they want to do, they can do at a single state.
And there'd be absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Nothing.
The reason they don't do it is because it would just be so damn obvious.
But you can see it in the tax code.
See, you can see the absurd outcome in the tax code in that they purport to have the ability to simply say, if you make X amount of money, you owe us this.
If you make less, you owe this.
You get credit for this, the tax exemption for that.
They don't have the authority to do any of that stuff.
That's ludicrous.
They don't have that authority.
There's nothing in the Constitution.
It clearly runs contrary to it, but the people believe it.
And once you believe something this insane, that a so-called government of the people can just write anything they want down, and then you have to do it, even though it only affects this small group.
The top 10% of the taxpayers basically pay all the tax, income tax.
The top 25%, it's virtually all.
The bottom half don't pay any income tax.
And between 50 and 25 percent, that net quartile there, then you don't have but maybe 10 percent of all income tax being paid by those people.
And so that on its face tells you that the idea there's equal protection of law or anything else, it doesn't make sense.
And so once the people are brainwashed in such a fundamental way, what chance do we have, right?
What chance do you have?
So does this mean that the Constitution itself is rubbish?
Because obviously this is another thing we're encouraged to believe in England, in the UK rather.
On the one hand, we think we've won the lottery in life by being born Englishman and we think the sun never sets on the British Empire and stuff.
At the same time, I think we've imbibed a lot of your propaganda that checks and balances, if only we had a constitution like the Americans do, if only we had a second amendment, if only we had free speech.
It's all crap!
I try to, you know, it really offends people when I tell them that the document's crap.
But it is crap.
And any lawyer who's objective about it sees that it's crap.
And this idea that it hasn't been tried or is not being upheld, none of those things make any sense.
Is the government operating under the Constitution?
If it is, well then this is exactly what the Constitution supports.
It's a complete joke!
If they're not operating under the Constitution, well then everything they do has absolutely no authority.
And so when you look into the details of the so-called Constitution, And you look at what it actually says.
Putting aside the fact that all the spoonerist kind of arguments that this is totally impossible for this thing to have ever been ratified in a fashion that could bind me.
There's literally no principle in the law that permits somebody to consent on my behalf.
There's no provision in the law anywhere that recognizes such a thing.
And the people who created that document, they all knew this was not binding on everybody for all times.
That's ludicrous.
There's literally nothing in the law that allows an agent of mine who was Dead long before I was born to somehow bind me to an agreement.
Any agreement.
Forget the Constitution, but any agreement.
So it has no possible legitimate authority, putting aside the fact that there's no opportunity for me to consent to the document.
I don't have any ability to consent to the document because all consent in the law, it doesn't matter if it's maritime law, people want to talk about this phony baloney, all capitalization crap.
It doesn't matter what kind of law it is.
There is nothing in the law that acknowledges any kind of valid legal consent unless it is both knowing and voluntary.
Well, the Constitution fails on both of them.
It's not voluntary because if I don't vote, Am I still bound by the laws?
Yes.
Is there any way to get out from being bound by the laws?
No, there's no way to get out.
So there's no way to actually dissent.
So it's impossible that it's voluntary, even if they gave me an opportunity to vote on it.
If a majority of people approved it and then they imposed it on me as a matter of law, I haven't consented because I'd have to first consent to a vote that whatever the outcome is, I would agree to live by it.
Well, I don't because I hold a minority position, so I'm not going to agree to that.
But there's even a more fundamental problem with the legitimacy.
And that is, it has to be knowing.
Well, everybody knows that you can't possibly know what the law is going to be.
In fact, the court tells us, the Congress tells us all the time that we don't know what's going to happen until the Supreme Court rules.
Well, not only do they reverse themselves all the time, but they make up a bunch of stuff that's clearly absurd and not true.
So that means that I'm in a position at the time of the so-called ratification, there's absolutely no way to know how it's going to be interpreted.
And then they're going to claim that that's the law.
Well, that means the terms of the contract I'm asked to ratify are unknown.
And therefore, again, there's nothing in the law that permits anybody to ratify and consent to a document that they can't know the terms of.
And that's what the situation is.
Right.
So I would imagine somebody who somebody who believes the narrative, the official narrative would say, Yeah, but the Constitution is the basis of America's greatness, land of the free, home of the brave.
Sure, they would say that.
I hear it all the time.
And that America is an example to the rest of the world.
Are you saying... I mean, suppose you had... Okay, suppose it was you.
You were the founding father and you wanted to create a system which would guarantee sort of Freedom and prosperity, well, liberty for everyone and the sort of world I think that you and I would like to live in.
Right.
How would you go about doing that?
Or is it impossible?
Well, you know, it's basically impossible when you're talking about hundreds of millions of people.
I've given the example to people over and over again that, look, the reality at the time was this had never been tried.
And they only had three million people in the entire country.
And 20 percent of them roughly were slaves.
Half of them were women, and the vast majority of the remaining people couldn't vote anyway.
So they weren't even attempting to represent everybody.
And if you start breaking it down, you'd need about one representative for every, say, 5,000 or 6,000 people in the United States.
So you roughly need tens of thousands of representatives up there, if you were just going to have the so-called representation that existed back when the Constitution was ratified.
See, that's the fundamental problem is even if you want to say the system is good, which it isn't, but even if you wanted to say the system is good, the system doesn't scale.
See, it doesn't scale.
Lots of great ideas, they don't scale.
There's lots of great things that don't scale.
There's only so large you can make an animal before the bones and stuff just start breaking.
It doesn't work.
There's no structural way for it to grow that large.
It'll just start having problems.
Well, when you go from what is in effect about a 300 Times, 350 times larger model that you're trying to work with.
It's not possible to work.
But if you just think about it, if it was only one in 5,000, you wouldn't have all these problems with these issues of money being such a big deal.
I could just go around, anybody could run.
It'd just be in your neighborhood, 5,000 people, that's nothing.
And you could also never have any kind of debate.
How would you have debate?
How much time is each person going to be given to speak?
Inside the Congress.
Five minutes?
Ten minutes?
It's going to take years, years just to go over one single thing.
And so it doesn't scale.
Okay, so there's no point discussing representative government in any form or fashion without even getting into all the problems with so-called representation, of which there are endless.
But There's no point getting into what its actual authority would be because there's no way to get representatives in there in any form or fashion in any kind of reasonable number like they claimed.
They almost put in the United States Constitution a requirement that the number of representatives could never have more than one per 30,000 people.
That was almost put in there, but they decided they didn't need it.
Uh-huh.
They decided.
Who knows?
Who knows what went on there, okay?
We didn't get the notes for 30 years and all such other stuff.
But, as I said, with that 30,000, you'd have to keep constantly going back.
Take out the slaves, take out the women, take out all the other stuff.
So they're really sitting around saying, we need one representative for every, like, 3,000 or 4,000 people.
That's the most it can ever get to.
If you just look at that right there, you can just see that these guys weren't anticipating a governmental structure that in any way relates to ours, because ours is now 1 in 750,000 people.
If I told you you're going to get one in 3,000 and then I turn around and give you one in 750,000, that's a slam dunk winner in any court.
You don't even have to go to trial.
You're going to get summary judgment.
Obviously that is a scam.
So just, it doesn't work.
It doesn't scale.
That's the number one problem with it.
It doesn't scale.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I get that.
So do you think the founding fathers, I mean, were they goodies or badies?
I think that it's a Barnum statement when people say the Founding Fathers.
This was a group of men.
They disagreed about all sorts of things.
There's a bunch of individuals.
Additionally, the so-called Founding Fathers, which is the way they teach it, is they teach them as though the Founding Fathers are the same guys that kind of fought in the Revolutionary War.
Not true.
The group that was at the Constitutional Convention is a very different group than the people who fought in the Revolutionary War and signed the Declaration of Independence.
I think most of those guys They were pretty damn legit.
You know, they were willing to put something on the line.
But Patrick Henry, that everybody loves, right?
He smelled a rat in Philadelphia and refused to go to the Constitutional Convention.
It's very clear the Constitutional Convention had absolutely no legal authority, and everybody knew it.
In fact, large amounts of the representatives walked out.
The Constitutional Convention is not something where you can say, do you think that the elite in this country are good men?
Well, I mean, they're all just individuals.
Who knows, right?
I mean, tons of them are all self-interested, but The people who were so-called founding fathers vastly disagreed about a huge number of very fundamental issues.
And if you look at the Articles of Confederation, which is what we got after the American Revolution, we got the Articles of Confederation.
That stuff is always just simply pushed aside and forgotten about.
People act as though we fought the Revolutionary War to get the Constitution.
Well, first of all, there was no plan about what to do.
The plan was get rid of this tyranny, so-called, with phony baloney things like the T. It was always a land scam from the beginning, but we're told it was this tax thing and everything else.
It's nonsense, but we didn't get the Constitution.
They didn't fight for the Constitution.
They got the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles of Confederation are very, very different.
They're fundamentally different in very important ways.
And if we had the Articles of Confederation still in place, the federal government would not be what you see.
And I've showed, explained it to people over and over, but that's all swept away.
Because they have to get you to focus on Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence, fantastic Constitution that brings a freedom machine.
And that's just a complete and total lie of a narrative.
So that's the problem is when you try to generalize these ideas about the so-called founding fathers.
Well, Patrick Henry, he's a founding father.
He didn't agree.
He wouldn't sign it.
He wouldn't go there.
He knew there were rats.
Okay, George Washington, what was his real motivation?
What was it?
We're told he could have been king at the end of the war.
He was so incredibly popular.
It's like saying Joe Biden is so incredibly popular.
He got 80 million votes.
There's no evidence at all to support the concept that people would have agreed to put George Washington In his king.
It's just a lie.
They build up like it's safe and effective.
Take the jab.
Why?
It's safe and effective.
It's saving lives.
How do I know?
Because I'm being told.
It's just lies.
Yeah.
The George Washington is a rabbit hole, isn't it?
I mean, on your principle that anything we're told, because we know that George Washington was a great guy.
I mean, he was one of the greatest Americans ever.
Yes.
How do we know?
Because we're told, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, he was also known in the French and Indian Wars as the Town Destroyer.
That was his nickname.
That's what everybody referred to him as.
Why?
Because he would go into towns, he would lure the Indian warriors out of the town, then he'd swoop in there and kill the women and children, burn the place.
That's what he did.
He went in and killed women and children.
That was the fantasticness.
That's a wonderful history we have.
Wow, what a great thing to be proud of.
Yeah, but to save the city you had to destroy it.
There you go.
It takes a village to destroy a village.
Yeah.
It's just as silly.
Yeah, yeah.
You know what Winston Churchill was known as in Parliament by his parliamentary colleagues?
No.
His nickname was Shit House.
There you go!
Because WC, I don't know whether you have the same, WC in England is a toilet.
Yeah, the water closet.
So WC, it's hilarious.
So he was called Shit House.
I'm sure you've been on this journey as well.
Once you start questioning everything, you realize that everything is up for grabs.
Yes.
In fact, the things that you are most taught are probably the ones that are least likely to be true.
100%.
I've asked for years and years and years, years and years, because I get so much grief about how negative I am.
You don't believe anything.
I'm like, dude, please tell me one single official narrative.
They push on me.
Not that just happens to be out there that, like, the sun rises in the east.
Okay, that's not a narrative they push on me.
Tell me one single narrative they push on me in any field you want that's true.
Show me one.
I've researched hundreds.
I've never found one that was true.
Ever.
People don't believe that.
They think it's an exaggeration.
It's not.
I wish I could find stuff that they pushed on me that was true.
I'd love to.
I hate having to live in this world like this.
Yes.
Well, okay, I'm going to ask you to focus on something.
I know you're going to tear it apart.
But but so I mean, at the moment, the kind of the kind of Old-fashioned conservative who still believes in the system, yada, yada, yada.
They are now focused on the next presidency and they're saying things like, ooh, do you fancy... What do you think about Ron DeSantis?
What are his chances against Trump?
Just give me your take on all that.
All this stuff is just so massively controlled.
I don't follow DeSantis.
I did quite a few podcasts during the so-called COVID lockdown and showed people that the new legislation they passed in Florida was complete crap, that they're basically setting up the system in order to bring in the next pandemic and centralize all these control systems, that they did the same thing in Texas, that they did the same thing in a lot of places, that under the cover of protecting people and cleaning it up, that what they actually passed is terrible.
He's a classic example to me of controlled opposition.
He talks about school choice.
School choice, that's one of his big platforms now.
Why doesn't he just come out and say there's absolutely no basis for the government to be involved in any kind of education, and anytime you do that it's going to be wrecked, and that there's no business doing that, and that the federal government has no constitutional authority to, and the state has no business And not the answer isn't to go down and fight your school board, have to spend extra money in school choice.
No, the answer is to close all of them down.
And that's it.
If people really care about their education of their children.
Just like they really care about getting food.
You don't need government food distribution.
You don't need government education.
And it's always going to be abused.
And so people like him, even though he's better than a lot of places, I consider him to be a classic example of the better prison argument.
We have the bestest best prison.
We have a better prison.
Our warden's the best warden.
Dude, you didn't commit a crime.
Why are you defending your warden in prison?
This is asinine.
It makes no sense.
But this is what people do.
They tell me about how he's better than Trump.
in these different ways.
And they get people arguing about these things that don't make any difference.
If you give somebody the authority to do what these men purport to have the authority to do when they're in office, you're going to lose every time.
There's no way around it.
You will lose every single time.
People can't believe it.
They can't believe it.
And that's why I can't stand constitutional conservatives and media.
That's why I consider them to be the biggest problem.
Constitutional conservatives and media and academia.
Because they drain off everybody we need who wants the right things.
They want freedom.
They want liberty.
They want a small, tiny, tiny government that can control it.
They want to live their lives.
They want to be left alone.
That's what they want.
Those are the people who gravitate toward constitutional conservatism.
And those constitutional conservatives take those people and they drive them into a ditch.
And then they leave them there.
And that's what happens every single time.
That's why they're the big threat.
Not the liberals.
They tell you who they are.
They are a bunch of commies who want to run your life.
And they have a huge cadre of useless losers who want to use the government to take all your stuff from the people who produce.
Okay, well, they're terrible people, but they're honest about what they want to do.
The constitutional conservatives pretend to be for something that they're not in favor of.
Yes, yes.
I used to be, for much of my career actually, I used to be one of those conservative commentators who would... I didn't realise at the time that I was playing out a role which had been allocated for me.
Bingo!
To promote the illusion that there is another way and that if only we push hard enough we can get there and look at this guy, you know, there's a guy called in UK politics called Jacob Rees-Mogg, for example, and he knows how to talk the talk about limited government.
Yes.
Yes, Jacob's our man.
If only we can get him into a position of, and as soon as they get in a position of power, they just shit the bed.
And this is a, I think that's, see that right there is a perfect example of what I give to people whenever they tell me it.
And it varies each time.
People ask, well, how can I do it?
Are lawyers in on it?
Were you in on it?
No, you weren't in on it, but you did it.
And that's the same way that the law continues.
It's the same way that these doctors continue.
It's the same way that every one of these scams they've set up, continues and works and that once you get it rolling, once you have the people being taught this and the professors and the so-called scholars and the top guys in the field, once they believe it, once they're taught that and they teach the next group, people don't see it until something very, very fundamental happens in their life.
It's different for everybody.
And then they wake up and then they start looking around like you did.
And that's the problem is that until you see it, you don't realize what you don't know.
That's the problem is that you're inside of this Overton window and you imagine that the fight is between the left and the right.
You don't understand that that entire construct is false and there are no answers within it.
I would have been appalled in those days had you said to me that I was just a creature of the system, because I would have said, hang on a second, there is nowhere I won't go.
There is no question I will not ask.
And you know, you've got me wrong.
I'm not one of those other guys.
And that, of course, makes me More, made me more dangerous, I think.
Absolutely, because you're a true believer, and this is why, and this is the whole thing people ask me all the time, because I explain to people that, look, government loves to put this concept out there that it's incompetent, and not only is the evidence clearly the opposite, in that if government's so incompetent, why is it in charge of everything?
How did it manage to get control of everything?
How can this incompetent industry just grow and grow and grow?
It doesn't make any sense.
And the reality is that once you open your eyes to the fact that, oh, okay, well, people don't even know the questions to ask.
If you don't know the questions to ask, you don't have to be incompetent.
You don't have to be corrupt.
You're on board.
You will defend the system.
You're no danger to the system.
They're happy to let you rise up in the system because you're a true believer.
The vast majority of people who are in all these systems, they are true believers.
They believe in the narratives because the narratives sound like they make sense.
And people are busy.
They've got other lives.
They're being rewarded for what they do.
They make a living.
They look around, how could this possibly be?
Because they've never had their mind open to something else.
And that's why the people I don't like are those constitutional conservatives in media who I know 100% they have been approached with the concepts that I discussed.
It's true most of the time they shut them down, call them kooks, etc.
But they have been approached.
They get people out in public who come up to them, try to have conversations with them.
They take calls, they get letters, they get emails and they ignore them.
I have, those are the people I have a problem with, the people who have had it brought to their attention and continue to ignore it, deny it and call it conspiracy.
People like you are very different.
When you're approached by something like, that doesn't make sense, like questions truly fundamentally questions your thing, you'll consider it as, well, is that possible?
If I told you, if all I said was an attack against you, you're just a mouthpiece and you're a corrupt.
If I did, that's not going to work with someone like that.
But I don't do that to people because it doesn't work.
I ask people questions.
I propose things to them like, well, what do you think about this?
You know, how is it possible to hold a voluntary union together with a war?
How is that possible?
It's not possible.
See, it's not possible.
And so once you can see that, hey, he's got a point, then you look into it.
Those are the people we can reach.
Those are the people we can reach.
I tell you what, looking back on my old career, I would say that a particularly malign influence are the US, and UK to a lesser extent, the think tanks.
Things like the Heritage Foundation and stuff.
Right.
Tavistock Institute, all driven by that.
They've got the Aspen Institute in the United States.
It's just another wing of the same thing.
Because obviously they're very well funded, these institutions, and they have ritzy conferences.
And as a journalist, particularly on the right, where you sort of, if you believe in the right-left, which I don't anymore, but at the time you see this kind of leftist system arrayed against you.
The establishment seems to be completely leftist.
And here at Manor from Heaven are these organizations which seem to talk the values that you believe in and maybe will give you a nice flight over to attend one of their conferences or invite you as a speaker and stuff.
And you think, yeah!
And they're containment pens, aren't they?
They're corralling potential opposition into these kind of containment pens.
100%.
That's the Overton window.
That's what they do.
They drive everybody into this Overton window.
And once you have people in this Overton window, they can't see outside of it.
And of course, conservatism, constitutional conservatism.
It sounds great.
Uh, compared to liberalism and that's who they fight.
Well, liberals are obviously either corrupt or lying.
That's it.
So, or beyond stupid.
So, conservatism sounds right because it talks about liberty and shrinking government and rights and reads these platitudes off and things like that, but It doesn't actually do any of it.
And when you're sophisticated like I have been over many, many decades and look into actually what the legal positions are, you see that the legal positions are actually where the capitulation occurs.
And then they pretend to be on your side.
No different than the NRA.
Everyone runs around, talks about some kind of big problem.
That's the biggest advantage they have for gun grabbing, is organizations like the NRA.
They're fake opposition.
They're not real opposition, they're fake opposition.
And they give on every point that matters.
Every point that actually matters, they've conceded.
And so their arguments are irrelevant, because you're arguing about stuff that doesn't make any difference, as the old saying goes.
If you get people asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what the answers are.
And that's the way the entire system runs, is they have everybody asking the wrong questions and arguing about things that make no difference.
And they don't care one bit about the outcome of those so-called arguments, because every answer is wrong.
So the NRA, for example, which presumably, did it ever have integrity?
Did it ever start out as... No.
No, I don't believe any of these things.
I don't believe you can get any organization going that won't be instantaneously infiltrated.
As soon as you move beyond somebody you've known basically your whole life or for decades, Uh, as somebody you're talking to, and you know they're truly, like, I consider myself to be cyanide-pilled, as I joke about.
I'm way beyond black-pilled.
Cyanide-pilled, 100%.
And once I move beyond that, if we bring some other person in, the likelihood it's been infiltrated is 95%.
You bring one other person in that you also don't know, and it's infiltrated now.
So, they're inside.
Now, maybe they don't control it, but the thing in all likelihood goes nowhere.
If the thing starts picking up steam, if it starts picking up steam, there's only two things that will happen.
It's picking up steam because they want it to pick up steam and it's being financed and funded and pushed behind the scenes because they know the people who run it are idiots and they're useful idiots and they will push something that they love or it's legitimate and when it gets enough traction it will be completely taken over and steered in a different direction.
That's it!
Because there's nothing that's going to be allowed to gain the traction that the NRA has or anything else that you and I might be talking about as a public organization or institution that's not fully controlled.
There's nothing out there that's not fully controlled.
And people don't believe that, but it's true.
That's the reality.
And it happens because some of the people in there are exactly what we described earlier.
They're true believers.
They actually believe this absurd crap they're talking about.
And I think that things like Judicial Watch are a great example.
I'm very, very curious about those people, but I've had a lot of people who know the people in there and they say that they're believers.
They can't see that they don't actually accomplish anything.
What they're actually accomplishing is making sure that the illusion that this kind of nonsense can work.
That's the great thing that they do.
They create an illusion that the people can make a difference through these preposterous things of giving money, and filing lawsuits, and getting organized, and marching around with signs, and that there's going to be accountability, and none of that's true.
Yeah.
Yeah, you've got me thinking actually about, I don't know whether you know, about 2009, I think, I sort of became one of the big hate figures in the... I fought the environmental scam.
And I helped break the historical climate gate, which sort of exposed the machinations of the hockey stick.
Yeah yeah and all that and I used to I used to go to conferences occasionally there was there was one there's a big big big think tank in America I'm not going to mention his name right uh which was was really had had had a sort of conference uh attended by all the skeptical professors and you know many and they know their stuff and they're they're great guys and you'd have uh
session after session in which in which these experts in their fields of geography, atmospherics, physics would go on.
And they would explain in in very convincing detail why the science, the alleged science that being pushed by the IPCC and so on was was absolute.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I love these.
I love these guys.
But I always felt slightly that I was never getting the love from this think tank that I should have been because I was really kind of feisty and out there and stuff.
And I've come to realise that they were very, very, very happy having scientists speaking these arguments into for a sort of minority audience and not really getting very widely reported in the media, because that's okay.
What they didn't want really was somebody saying, the whole thing is a scam.
There is no point even talking about forcings versus feedbacks and all the kind of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin stuff.
These debates are designed to focus people's attention when the bigger picture is this.
Climate change is a scam.
The people running it are evil Malthusians.
They want to control the world, they want to use environmentalism as an excuse for world domination, for the New World Order, they're completely open about it.
And this was a step too far, because that's not what they really wanted to put out.
I would take it even a step further, and not only are most of those organizations staffed with the vast majority of people believers.
So you can't have All these so-called evil people in every place.
They're not.
They're believers.
They believe in this stuff they're doing, but there's always infiltrated in those organizations people who know, and they're watching, and they do assessments, and they're impossible to tell the difference, as I've told people countless times.
You cannot tell the difference between corruption and incompetence.
It's totally impossible from the outside.
They look exactly the same.
Unless you get a confession, you're never going to know.
But with regards to something like the climate scam, I would say that the answer to that one, the reason I can be 100% sure that every side of it's lying, is that neither side of them discusses the spraying.
Neither side of them brings up the spraying.
It's like, well, I don't understand.
How can you possibly talk about doing science of any sort in the atmosphere if you're not even going to acknowledge that they're spraying?
They're spraying for some reason.
Someone's spraying.
They deny it's costing billions of dollars.
How do they hide it?
If you wanted to blow up the so-called climate scam narrative, which is certainly a scam, the problem I have with it is that both sides are a scam.
Something's happening, otherwise they wouldn't be spraying and lying about it.
So, are they causing it?
Are they not causing it?
Is it preventing it?
Is it increasing it?
Is it whatever, but that issue has to be discussed.
And of course, that's no part of the discussion.
They never bring it up.
Nobody on any side of that so-called issue ever brings it up.
And therefore, I can know that they are controlled opposition in one form or another.
Either ignorant fools are completely in on it.
You make a very good point, that.
There's that old saying, isn't there, that if you want to know who really runs the world, look at who you cannot criticize.
There you go.
But that applies Very much to chemtrails or whatever.
It's one of those no-go areas.
I mean, even people who would consider themselves red-pilled.
Bingo!
They're fine on 9-11.
They know that man's never been to the moon.
Yada, yada, yada.
But, they talk to them about contrails.
They don't want to go there.
Everyone knows they're contrails.
They'd be spraying themselves.
It's because, again, the entire movement discussing contrails is completely infiltrated by controlled opposition who get in there and spread these laughable, scammy lies.
They're poisoning us, intentionally poisoning us, spraying poison on us.
Look, the chemicals they're spraying may or may not be harmful.
I assume they are harmful because barium and these other things, they're not natural.
Aluminum, there's no free floating aluminum.
It doesn't work.
It's horrible for you.
The rise in Alzheimer's alone tells you that.
They try to claim it's from your antiperspirant.
It's just idiotic.
They're spraying it all over the place.
The very fact that the people won't believe that, they can't accept that, that's what they say right away.
Well, there's no evidence.
I don't believe for one second they're spraying us in order to try to poison us.
But it doesn't matter what it is they're spraying.
It doesn't matter why they're spraying.
The way you blow up the spraying issue is that you say, anybody can look up and see they are spraying.
Because they are spraying.
Clearly, you can see them spraying, and so somebody's paying for it.
The very fact that they deny that it's happening, and you can't find out who's paying for it, and this is a multi-multi-billions and billions and billions of dollar operation.
Well, how can it be hidden?
Who can afford to spray for no reason into the sky and spend billions and billions and billions of dollars every year and hide it?
Who's producing the chemicals?
Who's leasing the planes?
Who's flying the planes?
Where is it showing up?
It doesn't show up on any corporate bank accounts.
It doesn't show on any of their corporate records.
It doesn't show up in any governmental records.
Where is it?
How is it being hidden?
What's going on?
Obviously it's happening.
You can't fly planes around in the sky unless the FAA knows about it.
You can't just fly planes around.
And so, obviously, it's happening.
They want it to happen.
And when you look at the phony baloney climate debate, you see that it's no part of the debate.
On any side!
And so I can know that those people are not legitimate scientists and they're complete frauds because anybody who's interested in the atmosphere will simply look up and see that they're being sprayed and they'll start asking questions.
It's not like they don't know about it.
And it's something that if you look into even the slightest bit with an objective frame of mind, you'll see that it's clearly true they're spraying.
We can argue about what it is they're spraying, why they're spraying, who would spray, how they could keep it secret and all this other crap, but you can't deny that they're spraying and that they lie about the fact that they're spraying.
You can know those two things with an absolute certainty with no additional information and that really tells you everything you need to know.
It really does!
You mentioned earlier on an argument which I hear a lot from normies, which is this line that, why would they do this when they'd be harming themselves just as much as us?
Sure, right.
And of course, because they love playing the amateur psychoanalysis game, whereby if you cannot understand the motivation, therefore it can't be happening.
Yes.
Preposterous.
I give the people examples all the time.
Do you doubt that there's people who torture animals?
Do you doubt that there's people who torture puppies and kittens and stuff?
No!
They catch them all the time.
No one has a problem believing that.
Can you explain why somebody would torture a cat or a puppy?
Why?
There's no explanation for that that makes any sense, except they have some kind of problem.
Okay, they're mentally deranged people, all right?
All right, so you know that why they're doing it is not relevant to whether they're doing it.
I always tell people, well, first determine whether it's happening, and then whether or not you can ever know why.
You can't know why even if somebody comes forward and tells you why.
How do you know they're telling the truth?
They could just be lying to you!
You can never know somebody's motivation.
Lots of people don't even know their own motivation.
Most people don't even know themselves.
You ask them why they did something, they give you an answer that doesn't even make any damn sense.
They're being driven by subconscious drivers that were put into them, you know, when they're little kids, and they don't even know why they're doing it.
They'll give you an explanation that sounds so-called rational, but it's like most everything else.
It's just reverse engineered.
They see themselves doing it, they reverse engineer a so-called explanation, and that's what they have.
Okay, well, Does it matter why they're doing it if they're doing it?
Does it make any one tiny bit of difference why they're doing it?
Let's just say they have the best intentions in the world.
Okay?
Let's just say that.
If they have the best intentions in the world, why don't they come out and tell us?
Why wouldn't they come out and tell us?
We're doing this for you.
We're helping.
Let everybody examine it.
I don't understand.
See, so those are always just, I get that every single time on every kind of topic.
You could never keep it secret.
Everybody would know.
Why would they do it?
I guess everybody's in on it.
All these absurd things that are just pushbacks because the cognitive distance is too painful to face.
And that's all it all comes down to.
Yeah.
They are.
You're right.
They're coping mechanisms.
Yes.
That's all they are.
They're just, they don't want to have to face this world they may actually live in.
And then they have to face all the stupid crap that they supported and ran around defended and posted on social media.
People don't understand the psychological strength of getting people to post on social media.
This is why.
They control the narrative early because they get people to commit very, very early.
And anybody who's interested in this kind of thing needs to research guys like Cialdini, who's a marketing expert, and he explains all this stuff.
There's endless amounts of research about it.
If you can get somebody to commit in a very, very small way to a position, very small, the chance that they're going to change their opinion later is very, very low.
Because now they kind of start adopting that that's me and they don't want to lose face.
Well, you get people posting on social media.
You get people posting on things like LinkedIn, where they have professional connections.
They're never going to withdraw that and change their mind.
And so that's why they locked that narrative in early.
And that's why they don't care that 48 hours later, 72 hours later, the truth actually comes out.
And it's all, it's just a load of shit.
And everything they said was nonsense, but they've already gotten the vast majority of people to jump on board with a heart emoji and the, you know, prayers and all this stupid crap.
That's not true.
And they're never going to back it out because of that psychological locking in that gets done.
Yes, I don't know whether you were aware of during the lockdown in the UK, I'm sure you had similar brainwashing exercises in the US, there was this thing where every Thursday night people were encouraged to stand on the doorstep.
We saw this!
Bang pots and pans for the National Health Service.
We saw that.
I laughed a lot about that.
That was really funny.
Well I mean I never did it obviously but I just imagine had I been living in the London street and it had been not later on when it when clearly one had time to kind of go hang on a second but had it been that first evening would I have done it?
Would I have thrown the stone at the house with the Star of David on it you know?
It's just This is the thing, and that's why I really encourage ... I've done a bunch of shows inside my Patreon.
I don't put them out in public, because it's hard to take so much grief for what I do, because this isn't technically a legal topic.
I don't do much of it in public because everyone's like, well, you're not an expert.
You gotta be an expert.
All that stupid crap.
I don't want to hear that.
I am an expert in the law.
I am.
And no one can pull that crap on me with the law, but the law involves convincing people of things.
That's my job as a trial lawyer.
So the job is, as most people actually are in some form of sales, they may or may not know it, but most things is about convincing people Of your idea and whether or not you're doing a good job and whether or not the finances are right.
It doesn't matter if it's technically sales.
And that's why I encourage people to go do this research into this area because it's the research is fascinating.
It blew me away when I realized how small the movement is.
That's why, and I used to do a lot of sales before I became a lawyer, and I sold all sorts of crap to people, and I could sell anything to people, and you use these systems where you force them into small positions, you make sure that their family's present, definitely want the kids in the room, you get them definitely agreeing to certain kinds of things early, and you build it up, and then they have a very, very difficult time backing out because they lose face, and
That's just something I kind of already knew but the research shows that if they'll get somebody to come to your door and I'll ask you to simply put a little teeny tiny sticker like a one or two inch sticker on your door like on your glass door for the front That says something like, I support the environment or going, you know, trees, more trees for, you know, for better air.
It's just some little teeny tiny thing.
You know, bring out attractive woman or good looking young guy or something so that you're happy to approach them and they feel if you'll put that on your door.
Okay, they can come back six months later and ask you to plant a tree in your yard and the likelihood that you'll say yes to that It just goes up exponentially if they first Then it is when they first go around if they just ask you with the same kind of techniques To go plant a tree in your yard.
People just tell them to get lost.
This is preposterous I'm not gonna go plant a damn tree in my yard in a spot but if you get them to commit to the little teeny tiny sticker And it's on there for months.
It becomes part of them.
And they have a much more difficult time because they become identified that they're this kind of person.
They're the kind of person who supports the environment.
They're the kind of person, and they don't want to become a hypocrite.
And that's why social media is so powerful.
And that's why the thing has completely run off a cliff since 2007 when the smartphone came out.
And social media exploded because the ability to control the population by getting to make these little tiny commitments of sending a stupid heart emoji, hearts and prayers go out, oh so terrible, this kind of thing, comment on somebody's thing, that's always done initially and it's always done with the official narrative.
And once those people are locked in, The chance they're going to withdraw that in front of friends, family, colleagues, work, it's almost nothing.
And so even if they kind of know, shit, I never should have said that.
This is probably crap.
They're never going to go there.
They're never going to go there publicly and pull it back because of this psychological control.
Yeah.
It's better than sort of blackmail.
It's way better.
Because you don't even know what's happening.
Because you don't know what's happening.
You did it to yourself and you don't really know what's happening.
And it's so fantastically powerful.
People don't understand.
And this is just the little teeny tiny bit.
I don't purport to be an expert in this stuff.
And the likelihood that we have access To all of the billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars in dark research they've done around these areas is zero.
And so this is just the little tiny amount that they put out to the public to let the public see how powerful it is.
Imagine what they have in these dark agencies and under all this private research.
It's so incredibly powerful.
What did you say the name of the guy was?
Cialdini.
Cialdini.
C-I-A-L-D-I-N-I.
I think his name is John, but he's a famous marketing guy.
Anybody can just go on to YouTube and put in Cialdini.
C-I-A-L-D-I-N-I.
And it'll start coming up.
Marketing and boom, guys everywhere.
And he's very mainstream and he doesn't use this stuff to show you how they brainwash people into believing all these official narratives.
It's about how to sell your product and how to sell people and market and convince people.
And it's all about this very, very elaborate brainwashing process that's extremely well worked out.
Extremely well worked out.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I get it.
And it's frightening.
So I've got to ask you, who do you think is running the world?
I don't know.
You know, I hear these theories.
I've read the Committee of 300 many, many years ago, and you know, they got the 13 council and all this crap.
I don't know.
To me, it's a question that's very similar to Are these aliens, are these even humans at the top of this food chain here on this planet?
And to me, the answer is that I can never know.
I will never ever get the answer.
I will never ever be able to get proof because I've asked people again and again, tell me what for you would be evidence that you consider to be so-called proof?
What would it be?
If they revealed their lizard head and took a bite of your arm.
Okay, and that would prove that they run the world?
It would prove that they bite their arm?
No, no, no.
They're aliens.
It would prove that they're not altogether human.
Okay, I agree.
Theoretically, if I could see them in person, maybe.
If it was on television, I wouldn't believe it.
Anything could be faked.
Okay, I mean, anyone who's watched a movie can see that you can watch somebody take a bite out of an arm right now.
And that's with the low-level kind of stuff that they release to the public.
Anybody can watch those 3D holograms that they can just project into the stadiums and outside, and it looks completely real.
Well, again, that's just this low-level crap they produce to the population.
So I would just say that the proof that they're running the world A confession?
How would I know that would be any?
People can falsely confess.
They can falsely confess!
That could be the people behind who are running it having trotting these people out to have them confess so that you can be thrown off the track again.
So I can never find out.
That's why I thought your answer to the Albert Pike question was a very good one because I'm now at that stage where like you just You just don't know exactly what's going on.
For example, I'm really quite well informed now on the JFK killing theories.
I was listening to a thing on RFK, on Bobby Kennedy, which was really interesting.
And then you will come across a conspiracy theorist so-called like Miles Mathis.
Oh he's great!
He's great but and he will tell you that none of these people will believe that it was all fate.
Right.
And then and then I mean so I don't know if you've ever come across Olly Damagard.
He's Danish, Norwegian, I always get him confused.
But he's very, very good.
He's particularly good on false flags.
And he did a brilliant analysis once on the killing of, do you remember Olof Palme, the Swedish politician who was killed?
And I think he presents a very, very convincing case, but it's incredibly convoluted that Olive Palmer's death was faked and the elaborate measures they took to fake this assassination.
So I don't blame you for not wanting to take a position on A, who these guys are, whether they're reptilians or not.
All one can know is that they are there.
Somebody's doing it.
It's obvious.
Yes, you can observe that it's all moving in one direction all over the place and it's very consistent and so you can draw a deducting from that that somebody is controlling it because otherwise it'd be random and things would go in the wrong direction all the time.
But they don't.
They always just happen coincidentally to benefit the same group in the same kind of manner over time.
Always happens like that.
So you are cyanide-pilled rather than red-pilled.
Yes.
Do you have any hope to offer other than just take the cyanide pill and go away?
You know, it's really a question of what people want.
For me, I don't think it's a choice for someone like me.
I go where the truth leads, and I wish the truth would lead someplace great, but it hasn't so far, and I'd rather live with the reality of what we're dealing with because I'm a big believer that there are no answers whatsoever unless you deal with reality.
If you don't deal with reality, you're not going to get an answer.
It's not going to work.
Whatever you're going to try to do isn't going to work.
And I've given people jury nullification.
In this country, that would work.
It wouldn't clean it up, but it would buy us enough time.
Because if you just use jury nullification with the way it's supposed to work, Then it wouldn't matter what kind of insane nonsense they were up there passing as laws.
The people could just ignore them all.
And if the laws can't be enforced because they can't get convictions, then it really doesn't matter what the law is.
It's called dead law.
It's no different than if they don't bring a prosecution against Hillary.
Does it really matter whether she's guilty?
No, it doesn't matter because she is not going to get tried.
She's not going to get charged.
So it really doesn't matter what law she supposedly violated.
It's the same thing with everything.
If people could use it, Then we can buy enough time to educate some people about other systems and start to decentralize.
But is any of that going to happen?
In all likelihood, it's not going to happen.
But that's not my fault.
That's the fault of people who won't pick it up.
It's not my fault.
It's not that my message has no hope.
The problem is that we're dealing with people.
And most people kind of suck.
And most people are pretty damn lazy.
And that's just something I can't do one damn thing about.
And nobody can do anything about.
And so I've provided people with a solution that only requires us to reach about 5 or 10% of the people.
I don't know anybody who has a solution that requires such a small amount.
Most people require that we get some kind of vote and get the majority and wake all these people.
I've got a solution that you only need 5-10% of the people.
If we can't even get that, how's that my fault?
It's not my fault if you don't want to face the fact that that is very depressing.
That's fine.
Continue to live in your fantasy world.
And I have one other thing I say to people that they can't even accept that.
I say, well, if you live in a neighborhood, and it's completely controlled by a gang, and you don't know that the cops are all in on it.
They're all in on it.
You don't know that.
And you have a problem with the gang, and you go to the cops.
Have you helped yourself?
No, you've screwed yourself.
You've screwed yourself.
Now, if you knew the cops were in on it, and you knew that the whole thing was controlled, would you be in a better position or a worse position, even if you live in the same neighborhood controlled by the same gangs and the same corrupt cops?
You're in a much better position.
You're much safer.
Why?
Has your position actually improved?
Do we now live in a neighborhood that's not run by gangs and has honest cops?
No, you don't.
But you're still better off because you're not screwing yourself when you know the way the system works.
You don't waste time sending checks and getting organized and making phone calls doing all stupid crap they say about voting.
You know how it works.
You don't go to HR and make certain types of complaints.
You don't file lawsuits and make yourself known and start causing problems that you're going to lose.
You know how to operate within the system that actually exists, and then you have this ability through jury nullification to try to explain to people who might be able to catch on, and maybe you can get a little protection.
See, jury nullification works even in a small area.
If you just got your one city, you don't have to get the whole country.
You don't need the whole country.
I don't have to convince everybody in the country.
I don't have to convince all the jokers in California.
I need to find a place and convince those people in that area that this is the way it's going to be and every single jury that comes up, well, that's it.
You're going to get not guilty.
And if there's a federal court, district court located in that venue, well, and the people, the jury pool gets pulled out of there too.
Well, the Feds can't get you either.
They can't get you either because it's always going to be not guilty.
Yes.
I have heard a similar argument being made in England, that ultimately the power lies with juries.
Yes.
And jury identification is essentially always finding a not guilty verdict, or is it a specific verdict you need to find?
What people, what jury nullification is, it's a shorthand term for the fact that the purpose of juries has been massively distorted.
The purpose of a jury, the reason that juries were a big deal and that they supposedly held, you know, John at sword point and got the Magna Carta, even though the thing was immediately ignored, everybody knows it, it was, it still is in effect a nice recording of what the people understood.
And that is that the law That's the purpose of a jury.
But what they've twisted in the United States, and I don't know what they do in the UK, but in the United States, the courts have dreamed up this concept that the court tells you the law and the jury rules on the facts, and the court tells the jury what facts it can rule on.
That's not the way it's supposed to work.
The entire purpose of juries is so that the validity of the law, the legitimacy of the law, the law in this case gets decided as well.
And if the people think that law is crap, it doesn't matter that there's a violation.
It's not guilty.
And so it's not a matter of just saying no.
If you think that people have violated some kind of law, that's great.
But all statutory law is made up.
In all statutory law is fake.
The only law that's actually enforceable is natural law.
Because if you didn't already have in your mind an idea of whether somebody was guilty and what they did was wrong, okay, well then you'd have no way of making an assessment anyway.
It'd be totally impossible.
And so that's built into us.
And is it wrong to steal from people?
Of course it is.
Are you going to convict somebody of stealing bread if they're actually starving to death?
Probably not.
If you convicted them, even if you did convict them, you give them a small sentence.
See, in the United States, again, the jury has to choose within this absurd Penalty phase where it's like, oh, two to five years.
That's all you can do.
Well, maybe the guy was guilty.
You find him guilty, but you know what?
He's already been harassed.
He's already spent a bunch of time in jail ahead of time.
Guilty, but he's free to go.
He's already served time.
That's supposed to be left up to the citizens themselves to decide whether or not We put people in prison for having a mushroom.
We put people in prison for having a joint.
We put people in prison for what?
Name anything!
We don't do it, or we do do it.
That's up to the individual jurors, and that's why there have to be unanimous.
That's why the jury matters.
That's when your vote matters.
It's not the voting at the election.
The way you get a vote, the way the people are polled, is by having trials day and night.
It's a political institution.
It's not just a justice institution.
It's a political institution.
If the people go in there, and you can't get unanimous consent to the laws that are on the books, Well, there you go!
That's when you get a veto that the law they passed is crap and you don't agree to it.
And your voice matters at that point, as opposed to casting a vote for some minority candidate who has no chance in which your vote and the value of it is tossed into the trash.
When you sit on the jury, it matters.
And everybody would have that same situation.
Yes, yes.
No, I agree with that.
I think it is absolutely the best solution.
I don't know whether you've got any thoughts on this one, which is, I think, quite similar.
A friend of mine called Clive Decarle mentioned this to me the other day, that if you don't like what your local council is doing, if, for example, you don't like the concept of 15-minute cities where you're kept imprisoned in these ghettos where you can't drive your car more than 500 yards, Then what you do is you call a meeting of sort of 500 people and say, right, this is
This is not our council anymore.
We're not going to be part of their system.
We're going to have a new jurisdiction and we now represent the area.
Is that workable?
I'm all in favour of anything people want to try.
The problem is where the rubber meets the road.
I get people all the time, oh citizens arrest!
It's true.
All the states recognize citizen's arrest in this country too.
Just like you could set up a council.
But ultimately, everything is run ultimately by the leg breakers, as I call them.
The people with the guns.
And the state has these men with guns that they bring in.
And if you want to have a citizen's arrest and a trial of somebody, where's that going to occur?
How's that going to happen?
It doesn't work in the United States.
And same with you actually have some counsel.
Okay, well you pass something.
And the other counsel that has the men with the guns who take their orders from them, who are going to get their pension from them, who are getting their paycheck from them, there's going to be a clash when you try to do it.
And That's where it all gets decided.
See, that's where it actually all gets decided.
People imagine this whole thing is all moved on and now we're voting, we're much more civilized.
As Spooner says, the vote is nothing but a substitute for the ballot, it's just a substitute for the bullet.
That's all it is.
And if you can supposedly get more people to cast more ballots, well then they'll bring the men with guns and enforce it.
And so, if you don't have the men with the guns to enforce it, then it doesn't matter what the law is.
It makes no difference at all what the law is if they don't have men to enforce it.
And if they do, it doesn't matter what kind of structure you've got in place that they're in so-called violation of.
They got men with guns.
If you don't have people who are going to go out there and confront the men with the guns, well, then you're going to be caved.
You're going to get controlled by the men with the guns because it's always been that way.
And it still is.
I wish I'd left it on your point about the jurors, because that was optimistic.
No, because they're not going to use the men with the guns.
See, if the juries are doing stuff, they're saying not guilty, they're not going to bring the men with the guns in and clear those courts out.
They're locked on those.
They're stuck with it.
In this country, the amount of propaganda around the justice system and the holy juries and all this other nonsense that they spew, they're locked into that.
They can never backtrack on that.
And so if the jury starts saying not guilty, They're not going to be able to bring the men with the guns in and override that without everybody losing faith in the system.
And then they have a problem.
And so that's the thing is you've got to work within the system we have.
And the system we have is they're totally 100% irrevocably locked into that this is the greatest justice system.
And your jury trial is so fantastic and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And that's why you have that's why that's the weak point.
You can turn and use it on them because there's impossible For them to say, well, we're just going to ignore juries and get rid of them.
That's not going to work with people.
That's not part of the long, lifelong, endless running narrative.
They've locked themselves.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yeah, I get it.
I get it.
Right.
I like that a lot.
And thank you.
Thank you.
Lee, it's been great.
It's been great chatting to you.
Tell us where we can find your staff.
Well, to the extent that my stuff's even out there at this point, they suppress a lot of it, but the easiest place to find me is on Twitter.
I'm legalman at U.S.
Crime Review.
It used to be Law Review, but I had to get rid of that one because they were going to suspend me.
I have my podcast, which is called The Quash.
It's everywhere.
Any kind of podcast player, you look up, it's there, and you can find it.
And, you know, I put fewer and fewer shows out in public just because it's problematic.
Plenty of stuff out there for anybody who wants to catch on.
Plenty of stuff for anybody who wants to catch on to the way the scam works.
That's the best way to get to it.
And we do have a movie coming out, The Jones Plantation, which I played Mr. Jones in.
And it's a story by Larkin Rose.
I think everybody in the freedom movement probably knows Larkin.
And it's coming out soon.
And I hope people support that movie because movies are a great way to reach people.
You know, there's a lot of people that won't read a podcast, won't read a blog, they won't watch or listen to a podcast, but a movie, a movie, that's a sneaky system, and so I hope people support that.
What's it about, briefly?
It's an allegory of going, basically, of taking you from chattel slavery to debt slavery, and it's set in the 1848 South, I run a plantation.
I'm a real piece of crap, kind of drunk.
And our slaves were concerned our slaves are going to revolt and kill us.
And we bring a helper in to fix it.
And then we use that platform to expose the phony baloniness of how you're supposedly free and you get to vote for your master.
And we run in the fake money system with Jones Plantation credits.
And we show the fakery of the vote and the fakery of politics.
And we show the way the entire system works, and it's not a standard Plantation movie, but anybody who's ever seen the short that's on the internet by Larkin called Jones Plantation would see it.
It's about a 12-minute animated short, and it's been turned into a full-length motion picture, and it's, like I said, it starts privately screening on June 3rd in Phoenix, and then we're going to be at Porkfest On June 21st and then we're going to be in Dallas in July and it's going to be digitally released between now and those times and I hope people watch it.
So people will be able to see it eventually on the internet?
Yeah, they'll just be able to turn on the TV and watch it.
I hope people support it because if we make money with that movie, that movie can make money.
It's not like I have much of a financial interest in it.
But if you make money with it, the only thing people care about who finance movies and stuff is that it makes money.
That's it.
There's a lot of people who believe in liberty and they're undercover, deep undercover, because you can't really make movies like that.
There are people who can do it, and if you can make movies people like, and our movie is packed with very memeable stuff, we put a ton of great lines in there and stuff, then people will finance those movies and you can make movies about things that would matter.
Like, we really want to make a movie about jury nullification.
Yeah!
That would be a great entertaining movie that people could then learn about the way jury nullification really works in a form of a movie where you don't really realize that you're getting it.
I think that's a really good idea.
I think of all the solutions I've heard, jury nullification seems to be the simplest and best.
Because as you say, they can't suddenly say, no, the jury system doesn't work.
Everyone's locked in.
Yeah.
Totally locked in.
And the other huge advantage of it is you don't need a large number of people, 5-10% of the population, and it doesn't have to be dispersed all over the country.
It only has to be dispersed in the area where they're pulling the jury pool you live in.
That's it!
So if you live in a county or two and that's where they pull the jurors, you need to convince the people in those counties.
That's it!
I don't have to go down and convince the people in some major metro area that's an hour away that's full of a bunch of liberal psychopaths that are never going to be on board.
That's fine!
Instead of going out and becoming a prepper and trying to do it, go out to an area that's relatively conservative and educate the people in the area about what jury nullification is, and you'll have a massive amount of defense.
Maybe it's not perfect, but it will grow, and when people see how effective it is, believe me, it'll be incredibly effective.
It'll be super effective.
It works because of those things.
It's a very decentralized solution to the problem, and they can't get around it.
They cannot get around it.
Lee, whatever your real name is, or maybe it is your real name, Lee Gorman, thank you so much for a great podcast.
Listen everyone, if you've enjoyed this podcast, as I'm sure you must have done, I really appreciate your support and you can get to see my shows early if you subscribe at Locals, that's a particularly good one I think, Patreon, Subscribestar, Thanks so much.
▲
Export Selection