Health Ranger - Mike Adams - I DEMAND INTEGRITY from others, just as I demand it of myself

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 1, 2025 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

14:15

I DEMAND INTEGRITY from others, just as I demand it of myself

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I want to be on the record explaining about how I react to other people in the independent media space.
	And I've been jumping on a few people recently, like uh Dinesh D'Souza.
	And I I won't explain where that's coming from because traditionally I'm I'm not in the business of personal attacks.
	But I I have a just some very simple principles and rules.
	Number one, I expect people to be authentic and genuine.
	And if I find out that they are paid, for example, paid by Israel, well, then that puts them in the category of shills.
	And I'm not saying that D'Souza is paid by Israel, but a lot of other people are, and they're obviously shills because they're they're kind of low IQ, low information people, like younger influencers, often in their 20s or 30s, and they're not very sophisticated, they don't know much, but they've been paid to go out and say things like, oh, APAC isn't tied to, you know, Israel or whatever.
	Uh so yeah, I'm gonna criticize those people big time.
	Uh then there are other people who have been part of the, let's say, conservative movement, and that would be people like Dinesh D'Souza or even Roseanne Barr, you know, the comedian who was canceled herself.
	And uh these people are shilling for Israel, and they are excusing genocide.
	Uh, Roseanne Barr is, you know, a really good example of that.
	And uh I I I don't I don't hate Roseanne Barr.
	I don't wish her ill in any sense whatsoever, but when she is out there saying things that excuse Israel and excuse genocide and accusing uh peace advocates of being, quote, the the woke right, well, then she's being disingenuous, and she is uh not based on on principles.
	She's she's using her mouth in a way that doesn't reflect the principles that she claims to espouse.
	Those would be principles like you know, integrity, honesty, having values and principles that are universal.
	For example, if you say you support the right to life or you are quote pro-life, then why is it that you don't support the lives of Palestinian children in Gaza?
	So I expect consistency from people as well as myself, and even if I were to ever contradict one of my core principles, then I deserve to be called out.
	And there have been times where I have done that and I've had to correct myself and I've had to issue corrections, and you know, we have to keep ourselves in check as well as just looking at other people.
	And you know, that's that's another really important principle here is that I don't come from a place of believing that I'm always 100% correct or that I have all the answers or that I'm better than anybody else.
	I hold myself to the same standard as others, and uh at first, uh like if I see somebody making a mistake, contradicting their values, my criticism of them will tend to be very gentle at first.
	And then if they continue, then my criticism will escalate.
	It's like, hey, don't you see, you know, look in the mirror.
	You're the one who's actually advocating mass death, etc.
	So I will tend to escalate over time, but I never advocate violence or stalking or trying to ruin someone's life.
	I'm just saying, why don't you think more clearly about these issues?
	Why don't like with Dinesh D'Souza, you know, you claim to understand history.
	You you're a documentary, you're a filmmaker, you're you're a bright person, you have a high IQ.
	Why don't you use it?
	Why don't you learn about the history of 1948 and the Nakba and what Israel did to the Palestinians?
	Because he intentionally leaves that as a blind spot in his knowledge of history, and that's disingenuous on his part.
	Now, if if there are people who are trying to find the truth, but I disagree with their conclusions at the moment, uh, I I don't I don't jump all over them, I don't criticize them.
	And there are a lot of people trying to find the truth about who killed Charlie Kirk.
	There's Candace Owens, there's Stu Peters, there's Dr. Chris Martin Martinson, there's uh Ryan Matta.
	Uh, you know, a lot of people trying to find the truth.
	And I may often react to what they're doing, uh, usually in a positive way, say, this is awesome, you know, great find.
	You know, keep doing this.
	I've I've said a lot of nice things about Ryan Matta, a lot of nice things about Candace Owens, a lot of nice things about Tucker Carlson.
	And I'm I may not agree with these people on every single thing, which is fine.
	But I agree with their pursuit of knowledge.
	They are trying to find the right answer.
	You know, for example, Dr. Chris Martinson.
	He's obviously uh a very bright guy, you know, he's got a PhD, he's well versed in finance and uh the sciences and sort of the the use of evidence in order to arrive at science-backed conclusions and so on.
	So his process is solid, but I completely disagree with his conclusion, where he thinks that Charlie Kirk was shot by a high-powered rifle from the front.
	And uh, as much as I admire Dr. Chris Martinson and his intelligence and his process, uh, again, I disagree with his conclusion.
	But I will say that in a respectful, polite way.
	I will say, hey, Dr. Martinson, you know, I don't think it's possible that all the energy from this rifle round could just vanish in Charlie Kirk's neck, and I don't think that it could be deflected off vertebra because we're talking about a high-powered rifle round with 3,000 foot pounds of energy that you know is used to take down grizzly bears, etc.
	Now, I think your theory that it deflected off the vertebrae and then went down into his chest cavity and then bounced around and then came back up and ended up lodged just under his skin, according to the coroner.
	I think that theory is complete bunk.
	It's not possible.
	So, but that's my assessment.
	That's my opinion.
	But I will say that to Dr. Martinson with a sense of respect out of his process and hoping that he might take a new look at his process, and maybe he would revise.
	I mean, he often revises his conclusions based on new evidence, which I do that as well, and I'm open to new evidence.
	Now, like Stu Peters believes a hundred percent it was um uh uh lavalier mic battery pack that detonated.
	And uh that's a very viable theory.
	I'm still open to that theory.
	I in fact, I I I think it's narrowed down to two theories.
	It's either he was shot from behind with one of the cameras, or something like that, uh, with a relatively low velocity projectile, or yeah, the the lav mic was like a pager explosion and and it blew up and punctured his neck and killed him.
	Uh that that's totally viable.
	So I wouldn't jump all over Stu and say, oh, that's crazy, you know, you're you're an ass or whatever.
	No, I would say, hey, that's that's a viable theory.
	You know, keep digging.
	Let's see if there's more evidence that comes out that nails down uh the theory.
	And probably, I mean, there's so much evidence coming out every day because of all these internet sleuths like Candace Owens and Ryan Matta and others.
	I I'm just I'm impressed, let me tell you.
	So we are going to find out more about what happened.
	And as we find out more, I think we're we're going to be able to nail down how Charlie Kirk was killed and who killed him.
	But anyway, uh back to Israel.
	There are so many paid shills now that and uh paid boosting of posts on X and other social media that you know they're Israel, I mean, they hired uh Brad Parscale, six million dollars to flood the zone with pro-Israel content all over social media and on YouTube and TikTok and Instagram and everywhere else.
	And you're seeing that.
	You're seeing this massive flooding of promoted paid propaganda.
	And it's it's pretty obvious when you see it, but there's a lot of it.
	Your entire feed can be filled with you know, pro-Israel propaganda.
	Uh, all of those people who do that, and a lot of times it's just bots, so it's not even real people.
	But when real people do that, they deserve to be called out and slammed over uh taking money to promote genocide.
	You know, they are sort of the modern day trainees of Joseph Goebbels, you know, the the Third Reich propagandists, but it's it's the Fourth Reich, or it's the it's the Israeli Reich at this point.
	And they're they're just propagandists, it's um it's sickening, and they've sold their souls for a little bit of money.
	And we should all call those people out.
	Uh so again, there are essentially two categories of people that that I criticize.
	It's the paid chills, and then it's the people who abandon their principles.
	And the abandonment of principles is also common among many Christians.
	Uh some of them are Christian Zionists, but they say that they are pro-life, but then they support the genocide of children in Gaza.
	You know, they say they support freedom and democracy, and then they they falsely claim Israel is a democracy.
	Uh Dinesh D'Souza said that.
	It's completely false.
	There is not equal representation on the part of Palestinians.
	The Palestinians exist as basically prisoners in a giant open air prison where everything is controlled by the Zionists, including their food, their medicine, their communications, electricity, water supplies, all of it.
	That is not a democracy.
	They do not have equal representation.
	They're not even allowed to vote in the elections.
	So, I mean, give me a break.
	So somebody like Dinesh D'Souza saying that Israel is a democracy is intellectually dishonest because he should know better.
	He should know better.
	He has the cognitive capacity to know the truth and to know that he is lying.
	So when people do that, then you know you can't trust them on any topic.
	That's different from being innocently wrong.
	Anyone can be innocently mistaken about something.
	But if you have a high IQ accomplished adult who clearly understands a tremendous amount about history and about geopolitics, and if that person says Israel is a democracy, then you know they are intentionally lying.
	Because they can't be that stupid.
	Now, yeah, a low IQ person on the street, you know, they could just say, Yeah, Israel's a democracy.
	Yeah, yeah, because you, you know, you eat at the drive-thru at McDonald's.
	I mean, you know, you're a you're a retard.
	So you would expect that from retards, but you wouldn't expect that from higher IQ individuals like Dinesh D'Souza.
	And I I really appreciate people like Roger Stone who are asking questions, and who understand that Charlie Kirk was taken out by some kind of professional organization, you know, probably a deep state organization.
	And uh Charlie Charlie's death, uh, it was not a lone shooter.
	You know, Roger understands that.
	And so does Candace Owens and many other people in this space.
	And I think it's also important to recognize those who are willing to ask the tough questions, because all the Zionists are trying to tell you, oh, don't ask any questions.
	It's anti-Semitic to ask questions, it's anti-Semitic to wonder if the FBI might be lying.
	You know, that's that's insane.
	Of course the FBI is lying.
	Of course they're fabricating evidence.
	That's all they do.
	That's not anti-Semitic.
	That's just being intelligent.
	So, you know, essentially the Zionists and the Zionist shills want to say that the only way to not be anti-Semitic is to shut down your brain and to be a stupid person and to accept the official narrative.
	That's what they're saying.
	You know, be stupid, swallow the lies.
	And that's classic Zionist propaganda.
	How dare you ask questions?
	But if you're listening to this, you're the kind of person who asks questions, and you know that we are all being lied to.
	I mean, it's abundantly obvious at this point.
	So we don't have all the answers yet, but we know the FBI story is complete nonsense.
	For example, there's not even a single video frame of Tyler Robinson anywhere on campus with a rifle, or on the roof with a rifle, or even him on the roof.
	I mean, there's not a video frame of Tyler Robinson on campus.
	Not a single frame.
	And his own family says he's innocent as well.
	So, you know, all the evidence is fabricated at this point.
	Tyler Robinson is uh is a patsy.
	He's innocent.
	So stay tuned for uh more analysis.
	You can hear my podcast, my news coverage, my interviews at Brighton.com.
	You can follow my stories at naturalnews.com and just uh just stay informed.
	Uh stay connected and you'll get some good answers and good information.
	So thank you for listening.
	I'm Mike Adams here, the Health Ranger.
	And also use our AI engine at Brighteon.ai because it's very good, it's very well trained, and I think you'll find it to be incredibly informative.
	All right, uh, thanks for listening.
	Take care now.
	Stock up on the long-term storable Ranger Bucket Set.
	536 servings of clean organic superfoods for your survival pantry.
	Certified organic and lab tested for purity.

▲