All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2025 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
59:46
Patrick Byrne Reveals the Coup Architects: Bribes, Manipulation & the Deep Machinery
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm quite worried about AI.
I think it's going to bring about changes far faster than we as humans have ever had a chance to adapt to technological change.
So I think Elon is quite correct to be worried about it.
I agree.
You don't want to be second, though.
So we have to invest in it.
We have to do it.
What is that true?
What we know we can't have is the Bolsheviks running things as this new dawn breaks because we now know their business model is to set up authoritarian power structures and starve off or get rid of 95% of us as useless eagers.
Welcome to today's interview here on Brighteon.com.
We are back with Patrick Byrne, who's got just an extraordinary, well, extraordinary life and extraordinary book called Danger Close and also a film that's called The Enemy Within that was created or produced with General Michael Flynn as the key creator of it.
And Patrick joins us in studio to talk about the book and the film.
Thank you again, sir.
Thank you, Michael.
It's great to be back.
It's great to have you here.
Now, in our last interview, I asked, we were talking about your working with essentially the FBI at the time to set up Hillary Clinton to be bribed.
And the question I didn't ask you then, but it's been on my mind is why did you say yes?
Well, this is where it gets really crazy.
So first of all, I said yes because I'm a patriotic American.
And when Uncle Sam asked me to do things to help him, I almost always have tried to oblige him.
Never again.
Never.
We have too much history between us.
But there's eight plot twists in the book.
And one of them is, unbeknownst to them, I had been sent to investigate them.
So if I had literally been sent to investigate the deep state.
And so if you're sent to investigate a mafia, you have to kind of do some unsavory things.
And eventually you're getting asked to do unsavory things that you're going along with and doing to because your job is to be inside the mafia.
And if you read the book, you'll discover who was it.
And the only reason I'm not prosecuted today or haven't been prosecuted since I came out with everything is I had actually been sent and been given immunity to penetrate the deep state and do whatever I, I was, the language in the document is I get extraordinary latitude under the laws of the United States.
Extraordinary latitude, right?
And did the U.S. Senate had to approve that?
Was that?
Senate Judiciary.
And they showed you the letter, but you weren't allowed to have a copy.
Correct.
They showed me the letter.
I've seen it.
They have confirmed to other people that there's, they call such a letter an extraordinary latitude letter.
It's normally written, if somebody comes from the Department of Agriculture to the Senate Judiciary, who really are the ultimate thing on corruption in America, if they come and they say, I'm a Department of Agriculture employee and there's something fishy going on, they get given a letter, an extraordinary latitude letter that says, so really it's so they can go into their office at the Department of Agriculture and steal a bunch of government documents and take it over to the Senate Judiciary.
And they're not committing a felony because they've been, I was given this letter that or shown this letter that I was told had not been done since World War II and that it was to a civilian, not the federal employee.
And it was a lifelong thing.
I was commissioned by these senators who are still alive that now they're with, it's kind of funny.
They wrote, I wish they had included in the letter in the movie the letter that they wrote back.
They wrote back a letter saying the senators will neither confirm nor deny that there was such a meeting.
And if there was a meeting, they will not confirm it or deny if they were there.
And if there was a meeting and they were there, they will neither confirm nor deny if they gave a letter.
It's the craziest letter.
But so you saw this letter, but surely you must have realized at the time that they could disown you and claim they never wrote a letter and there's no way you could prove that it's not a good idea.
Too many people know about it, too many staffers.
There's staffers who've confirmed the existence of this letter to reporters and such.
I see.
So I don't worry about that.
And that would be a take back.
As I told them, I asked them one question, and it's in the movie when they asked me to do this.
I said, and they let me read this extraordinary letter.
They said, you're never going to see a letter like this again in all your life, Patrick.
I read this letter and I said, no takebacks.
And they said, no take back.
So I would consider it a take back.
No takebacks.
That's all I had to.
And then when they said no take backs, I said, I thought for a few seconds, I said, gentlemen, I won't let you down.
Okay, next question.
And I don't mean any offense by this, but it needs to be asked.
How does our audience know that you're not still working for the intelligence community?
And that's why you're here.
That's why you went on with Alex Jones or others that you're running something.
Oh, you just don't know about it yet.
Well, honest question.
No, it's a fair question.
It's a fair question.
And I would describe my relationship as: well, I always, I never was what people think an informant, an asset, any of this stuff.
I was frequently told, Patrick, you just have a unique relationship with the U.S. government.
I've been invited in.
A lot of it was academic, being invited into big settings and giving talks, organized PowerPoints on subjects that I had been speaking about publicly.
Uncle Sam would want me to come in and talk to 50 people in some organization to tell them what my thoughts are about, you know, why.
So some of it was that.
Oh, why am I not doing it?
Well, you can't know.
And I don't even know how I would describe my relationship as you ever have, you probably didn't.
You seem like a nice clear, but there was like a girlfriend once in my life, years and years, decades ago.
And we went our different ways.
But we always had this relationship that I know she could call me, or I call her after not talking to each other for four years.
And she'd say, listen, I have this little thing.
I need the care.
And of course, I would help her.
And we were just like that with each other for decades.
I would say that's more like Uncle Sam and me, where he's not going to throw me in prison.
He's not going to put a medal on me.
There are people who are furious at me.
Well, one thing you can, but how can you know I'm not here?
I don't know.
What have I done in the last five years?
You know, I blew my whole fortune.
No one can believe this.
I blew really since the Senate asked me, $150 million, since the fake election of 2020, I blew $80 million, both in the stuff you saw through we supporting that $45 million, supporting all these groups standing up, all these groups, the mothers standing up to fight against LGBT ideology being shoved down their kids' throats, the sheriffs who stood the constitutional sheriffs.
You know, 100 or 200 of these little groups, we were the venture money America Project was, and I was 90% of that.
So why would I do that?
And then, wait, wait, you were taking the fortune you had earned from the sale of the founded.
It's all.
And you mostly donated it out to groups that were on the cultural front lines?
$45 million I spent through the America Project.
Out of, I think, about 50 million went through there.
And what we did was every little group starting in 2020, 2021 that was fighting back from the election integrity groups, and it's 25 grand to one and 200 to another, and a million dollars to the moms for something or other who are going to do this in the election.
So it was getting this money out so this movement could stand up very quickly.
And that's a full-time job, by the way, just vetting groups, making sure your money's going where you want it to go.
Right.
And that's a huge job.
Yeah.
Although this was such an extreme moment in American history, it was pretty easy to tell who was in it because they were in it and who was in it just because they're lazy.
I see.
So that was 45.
Then I did another 25 on Venezuela.
What we did that is coming out, that has come out because there's a CIA guy I've been working with the last three or four years who probably is a little more vocal than he should be.
His name's Gary Bernson.
But have you seen any of Gary's, he's been coming out leaking stuff.
Doesn't ring a bell.
Anyway, there was a three-man effort to penetrate the government of Venezuela and steal its secrets.
And it was a former CIA spy, very, I mean, great guy.
We spent, we got on each other's nerves.
We spent months living on top of each other in a best western in Acregana.
So we're not friends, really, but the country would have died had he not been involved.
Another spy who's like a very key Latin American and myself behind the scenes and paying for everything, but actually being on the front lines.
I actually probably spent more than anyway, more on the front lines than, well, I finally left America the last two and a half years of the Biden administration.
I essentially was gone from America.
So I did all that.
I wouldn't have done all that.
I blew my whole fortune.
I kept enough that I can live in a nice little retirement.
I wouldn't have done that if it weren't for a reason.
Well, I mean, that's remarkable and also brings up the question, what do you hope to achieve with your book, the film, these interviews?
You know, time is precious.
You could be hanging out on your ranch somewhere just having a great walk or whatever, but you're here instead.
You're working.
What are you working toward?
The U.S. almost did not make its 250th anniversary, which is coming up next summer.
We almost did not make it to it.
And if we had not acted, I think all of us collectively in this family that we're all sort of in in the last five years, we would not have made it.
I don't think we were even supposed to make it to the 2024 election.
So I'm trying to derail that.
And we're not out of the woods.
And I'm just sticking around long enough until I can derail that.
And then I hate politics.
I hate politics.
I don't like the people I meet in politics.
I don't like anything about politics.
I'm just here long enough until I'm sure it's derailed.
And I thought Trump would come in, frankly.
To be honest, I thought President Trump would come in and this would be all over in a month.
I had no idea that he thought he was going to still play in these nice, nice roles.
He should take the 3,000 positions he needs to fill in the federal government and fill them all with retired military who understand the Constitution and start there.
So from what you're saying, it sounds like if I could paraphrase Trump's this term of Trump is the most important pivotal term in the history of our nation as far as we know.
Or maybe you could argue the Civil War era might be close or greater.
But if Trump doesn't do this correctly, we could still lose our nation is what it sounds like you're.
Well, we'll be at war because now we know what we're up against.
Now we know.
They thought they had all the power from 2020 forward and they took off their masks.
Now they know what their plans are.
First, they hate whites.
Remember that all this stuff came out about eliminating whiteness, eliminating, we've got to abolish whiteness, whiteness, white, all that came out.
They hate whites.
They were using all the language of genocide.
It's coming.
They hate Christians.
And I'm not any big Bible thumper.
I'm a, you know, I was raised Catholic and I sort of walked away from all that when I was about 16.
It's not, it's not, you know, I think that they hate Christians.
That became clear over the last, look at what happened during COVID in California.
You could go to a massage parlor.
You could go to a bar.
You could go to a tattoo shop.
You could go to a cat house probably in LA or San Francisco.
But you couldn't go to a Catholic or a Christian church.
So Christians, they reached out to me, frankly, after 2020 and asked me to do this.
They were the 75 million people who understood what was happening in this country.
But what's going to happen is we're not, I think that people, I was the one, actually, the FBI told me in early 2022, you know, they knew that the only reason we didn't get violent, they said, was because of me.
I'd been out there preaching, keeping it peaceful.
And they told me, Patrick, the enemies had a plan for everything you were going to do, every way you could have responded, except that you guys were going to keep it peaceful.
They had no, these were some good people in the patriots within the FBI, say they had no plan for what to do if you kept it peaceful.
They never thought it was going to happen.
But next time, it's not going to happen.
Next time, and it shouldn't happen.
We're prepared this time.
People should be prepared.
We should never let a Bolshevik coup be completed in our country, no matter what has to be done.
But Democrats right now today are talking as if they want to launch an uprising, another kind of Marxist revolution.
We just saw the election of Mamdani in New York City, and a lot of that seems to be a backlash against the establishment.
And we just saw also, notably, again, this is going to get political, but we just saw Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, on a video in Israel saying that as mayor of New York City, I served Israel.
And that quote got a lot of strange reactions.
But we have the left-wing revolt potential, and then we have kind of what some people are describing as a civil war inside the conservative movement right now.
You see that with Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massey, Rand Paul all being criticized by President Trump.
How does the GOP get on the same page and defeat the Bolshevik effort here moving forward, given the current situation?
That is what's most important.
But we're never going to, you know, we're never going to, we don't need a party where everybody's in lockstep NPCs like the Democrats.
There's for healthy debate.
Trump does have a way of using judo to get himself out of different, like, you know, they were coming at him on this, as this Epstein stuff.
So now he has said, I guess, I don't know why he's, he flipped, but he said, fine, go ahead, release it.
And now there's already stuff about Hakeem Jeffries.
Oh, yeah.
Did you see that?
No, I haven't seen that.
Oh, he was in touch with Epstein.
There's another woman, I think she's a Florida Democratic Congresswoman, who turns out was asking for money.
They were much closer to Epstein than Trump was.
Yeah, no, I never thought Trump was a purveyor of Epstein's trafficking or any of that stuff.
That just never made sense to me.
But his handling of it was infuriating.
It's like, why can't you just release it?
Especially if there's a lot of Democrats that are named in the files.
What if he was using that material to himself blackmail our opponents now?
Well, good point.
But couldn't he just say that?
Say, no, no.
I can't release it because we're going to prosecute people that are named in it.
I don't know.
I haven't been.
I have some words.
I'm closer to the Epstein stuff and have than so I've kind of stayed out of this hole.
But he tried, I actually just told this story on Alex Jones.
He tried very hard in the month or two before he got arrested in 2019 to get me to come to his island.
He sent people to.
Oh, Epstein did.
Epstein did.
Oh, my.
And I knew that was because I had a bunch of secrets and there were people who didn't want me to tell the secrets.
They were trying to compromise me so they could blackmail me.
So I did not go.
You knew that.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I know.
I thought about going.
I thought it the right, ethically the right thing to do.
You're a Christian.
Yes.
You tell me if this was the right ethical analysis.
The right ethical analysis, I thought, would be to accept the invitation and go out and find a way to murder Jeffrey Epstein.
But I heard that the CIA would be really angry if I did that.
Sorry to put it on.
That's what I, that's, but he, he, I know what that was about.
It's not quite, I think, what people are imagining it was about, but he's, he was not supposed to be going underage.
He, that was on his own, but he was working for somebody, but he was not supposed to be going underage.
Yeah.
After 2007, I tell me if I could be incorrect.
I think the evidence is after 2007, he did not go back underage.
But I don't know.
I don't know how to detail.
But I did want to ask you then, what was the point of Pam Bondi rolling out the binders with all the influencers and saying the Epstein files?
And then she was saying the files are on my desk and all of this.
And then it all got swept under the rug after that.
Did you see not long ago, somebody put a picture up of Pam Bondi's desk?
And I think it was somebody who had access in the DOJ and took the real picture or something.
There's a picture up of her desk, and it's just buried under a mound of documents.
It's just buried.
It was purporting to be her actual desk that somebody got a picture of.
If that's the case, it would explain.
She's months behind.
She's coming out and saying, we just discovered this.
And other people are saying, wait, that was announced six months ago.
She's really not in touch.
She's a nice woman.
She's a nice woman.
She's not a bad woman.
She's done some good things in her life.
But she's a television person.
You or I could go in with a scanner and some AI engines and knock that thing out in a weekend.
Do you think they know how to do that?
I know somebody who worked at the Federal Reserve in maybe 07, 08, really smart woman.
My woman I met dancing in a club, got talking to that was so smart.
She turned out to be working in the Federal Reserve.
So I knew her girlfriends and we were talking and hired her.
And she told me that the Federal Reserve in like 08, it was being run on, no, it was probably 05.
They were FedExing the DC Federal Reserve every day floppy disks from like 1988 kind of big five and a quarter floppy disks.
And that's how things were getting reported.
And then those were getting fed into machines there and were being read.
And then people were doing like copy-paste of Excel spreadsheets from here to here and writing macros.
They didn't have what you would consider, this is the government in 2005.
It was so archaic.
It was running like a 1978, you know, wow, legacy systems galore, huh?
Yeah.
So they didn't have a database.
Nothing was modernized.
And so it's quite possible the government, you'd be shocked at how slow it is to do basic things.
I'm dying.
I mean, I couldn't work from government at this point, but if I did, I think it would take about a week.
I think it would take Flynn about 24 hours to fix the military.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
But that's the thing.
I mean, people like you and I and Flynn, we are used to taking executive charge of our organizations and getting things done.
Trump must be really frustrated, but his problem is he appoints people.
He has these people who they face no punishment for slow walking him.
And even when they're trying to do the right thing, they're not people.
So I like Kash Patel.
I met him.
I met him, talked to him in one of the Revolution stuff, think he's an American hero.
Poor fellow, I don't think he's ever run anything larger than three people.
He's now got 42,000 people reporting to him.
An organization can slow walk and defeat its CEO if they want to.
Absolutely.
And that's what I think they're doing with him.
They've seduced him.
They're flying him around in the FBI jet and letting him wear a flack vest and go bust down doors.
And he's been seduced by all that stuff.
But more importantly, he has no idea how to defeat how to do quick change in a 43,000 person organization.
That's a really good point.
So that leads me to another topic I want to ask you about.
You're a high IQ individual pioneering in many areas of technology, including crypto with your former company, innovated a lot of things in that space.
What do you make of the rollout of AI tech right now, which is machine cognition that's become increasingly capable and very low cost?
The trend for cost reduction is remarkable, like 40X per year reduction in cognitive costs.
What do you think this is going to do to our civilization?
I think it's at risk of being extraordinarily dangerous.
We certainly, the changes it's going to bring about are going to are happening so quickly.
It's far beyond the ability of our normal political processes to engage with it and shape it and us to discuss what.
So, you know, for example, I don't think jobs as we know them are going to exist over the next 10 years.
I feel so bad for youngsters I see getting out of college.
I remember, and I'm sure it was the same for you.
Senior year in college, you go over to the student hall and there's all these companies lining up for interviews.
You sign up for four or five, you get four or five job offers.
Everybody, it was the simplest thing in the world.
Now kids get out of college or high school and they work for years for no money praying for it.
It's so tough.
And so many jobs are going to be eliminated that I think people should be thinking, rethinking their life plans around that fact.
People get out with a graphic arts degree.
I kind of wish I were still running Overstock because you could AI 95% of the jobs and do better.
That's true.
Yeah.
We've incorporated AI augmentation in all our jobs.
We haven't fired any people, but we've trained them all on AI.
So almost all the research for our articles is, of course, AI conducted.
AI does all the editing.
AI does the citations, everything.
We've been able to increase productivity by 10X.
But my question for you about the economy, though, see, during the Trump administration here, and he's got three years or more, you know, more than three years remaining, right?
So this ramp up of AI is going to hit right smack during his administration with pretty extraordinary economic consequences in terms of job replacements.
We've already seen announcements from Amazon, some letters leaked that said they're going to replace ultimately 600,000 jobs with automation.
That's robots, not just the agents on the software side.
But we've also seen massive layoffs in companies like UPS, 48,000 this year, et cetera.
And most of these companies are saying we're replacing people with AI because the investors like to hear that also.
And then the stock goes up because they're like, oh, they're more efficient now, right?
But what do you think this means for Trump in terms of the loss of human jobs?
And GDP will fall because of the increased efficiency of machine cognition, producing more output for less pay, so to speak.
I'm not sure GDP falls.
Well, I don't mean in the aggregate, but maybe it's going to be, well, I think it's going to create a headwind for him that makes it harder for standard economic reporting to look good as more and more jobs get wiped out.
There's a solution, and Milton Friedman laid it out in 1965, and it seems especially apt today.
The solution to everything is you do two things together, and one of them is anathema to the right, and one of them is anathema to the left.
But you do the two of them together, and something magic happens.
You do a flat tax coupled to a UBI, and our current financial system is going to Chernobyl.
Our current dollar, everything's going to Chernobyl.
What they should be doing is designing this for the new world, a flat tax with a UBI.
And the magic of that is you can reduce 68,000 pages of tax code and this huge Labyrinthian social safety net to you can largely reduce it to two numbers.
Everyone gets $20,000 of UBI and we're going to tax you at 20%.
Capital gains, income, corporate income, or whatever.
Two very simple numbers let you together dial in any degree of progressivity you want and you can reduce, you know, we lose 2% of GDP just preparing our taxes.
It's a $400 billion industry.
So you can actually free up.
But anyway, and then that's the right thing to have done anyway.
And we ought to get that in place and introduce a second currency.
So we run like Europe did when there was the EU and the French franc, for example, and everything was priced for a year or two in both currencies if you were in France.
Something like that will come.
And the new currency is designed on a sustainable platform, which is that your social safety net and your income taxes are a flat tax with a UBI.
And you actually, you have to do, there was all this argument for it earlier.
Now you have to do it because the benefits that are going to be brought about by AI and automation are so enormous for the labor market.
There's no possible way we can contain with normal new rules.
You have to share the benefits.
And, you know, the only way to do that is to have an UBI.
You don't want a bunch of, you don't want the current social safety net where you have government bureaucrats trying to fine-tune favored groups to get what they want.
You want a nice flat UBI and a nice flat tax.
Yeah, the rise of AI threatens to destroy the middle class and to increase the chasm between the wealthy and the poor to concentrate all financial resources in the hands of very few individuals.
Flat tax, I think, would be welcome.
But why do I would even argue, why do we need any federal income tax at the personal level?
Because they're going to print money anyway, right?
Yeah, well, if they believe in this modern monetary theory.
That's my answer when I talk to the lefty believers of MMT.
If you believe this stuff, why do we have any tax?
Exactly.
But at the same time, then, if you're going to offer a UBI that's meaningful, and I've also heard it described as a universal high income, where you give people enough that they never have to work.
They can pay rent, buy food, et cetera.
And I've also heard some maximalists from the AI space argue that robots and AI agents will produce so much abundance that the government will be able to give everybody a universal high income.
But then my question is, why does the government need anybody around at all if you're just costing the government revenue and you're not paying taxes effectively because you're not working and contributing to GDP?
Well, I think you've put your finger on the mystery at the heart of what we've just experienced in this world for the last five years.
There is now a business model that has emerged where basically 5% of humanity can escape with all the learnings and benefits of 3,000 years of civilization.
They can escape with that and they don't need the other 95%.
And I don't think GDP even has to go down.
But it takes AI and robotics.
But to make that happen, they realize somewhere along the way, you have to shift to an authoritarian world before then, because as you starve off those 95% of useless eaters, as Yuval Harari calls, that they can't do anything about it.
So you have to get to an authoritarian system so then you can then hunger games and them and starve them off.
And then 5% of the world inherits a great place with so that's that's a real viable business model.
In fact, I think that's what we just lived through.
I think that's what 2020, 2020, the WF, that's what it's all about.
By 2030, they want 95% of us gone, or they were going to get rid of 95% of us.
And they know the whole world between AI and robotics can go on without us.
So the trick is going to be have a political system that does not get captured by elites who are, of course, going to favor that outcome.
And instead says, let's take these technological advances and construct things so that the people, that everybody gets a good uplift from it.
I think you're spot on with that analysis, by the way.
And I've spent a lot of time pondering this issue.
But the assumption that everybody makes, or most people make, is that government wants people to be around and to stay alive.
And I'd like your reaction to this argument.
I've argued that government never valued humanity for humanity's sake, but rather valued the product of humans, which is the cognitive output and the labor output.
And that was it.
That's the only reason they ever valued human beings.
And if both of those two outputs can be replaced by machines, then the value of humans goes to zero in the minds of the government, which is pretty much what you just said.
Yes.
Well, I'd say it really comes down to the most fundamental philosophical question at the core of the American experiment.
The thing that is so unique that Frederick Douglass, I always like to quote how he pointed to certain phrases.
And the big revolutionary thought in our founding is until now, until then, governments are rulers of the principles and humans are the agents.
In other words, even when Machiavelli talks about a free state or a free city, he doesn't mean that the people are free.
He means that the ruler does not report to someone else.
It's just taken for granted that the ruler of any city-state, his ends are what matters.
And the people, their existence is just as means for him to use as means to his end.
The U.S. Constitution says we're going to have a system where we, the people, are the principles.
Like when you sell your house, you're the principal.
The guy you hire is the agent, the real estate agent.
The principal is like the boss.
So we're the principles, and we formed this government to just do some things we can't do ourselves.
And there's a nice list of them in Article 1, Section 8, that we can't do as individuals or as states.
And it's a real inversion for that corporation that we form to ever put itself in the position that it's thinking, well, what do I need you folks for?
It's just like a plumber.
That's why Milton Friedman critiqued that inauguration speech of John F. Kennedy, where he quoted the line about ask not what you can do, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
He says that would be rejected in any society, which I understood what freedom is about.
Imagine you hired a plumber who came over and did shoddy work and asked for a lot of money for it, and you complained and your plumber said, hey, don't ask what I can do for you.
Ask what you can do for me.
You'd say that plumber has got everything inverted in his mind.
If the U.S. government is not inverted and our Constitution holds, the analysis you just described where the government says, well, what do I need these citizens for can never occur because we're always the principles and we're making the decisions about the agent.
However, that means we have to be very muscular on these philosophical concepts.
And all that happened under Biden, I mean, it's been happening for decades under the assault from the left, but they've been chipping away at these very fundamental philosophical concepts.
Look at, and you know, right down to look at how Joe Biden was just dying to sign U.S. sovereignty over to the WHO.
He was trying to find some way to sign it over.
I hope Brecker.
But I would argue that that social contract between government and its people has already, the government's defaulted on that already.
And I think, for example, the recent lapse in the government operating with 42 million Americans needing food stamps in order to feed themselves, most of the arguments about that were we need to get the government operating again quickly so people can have food.
It wasn't, let's teach people how to be more self-reliant.
Let's teach people how to grow more food or be to depend on themselves.
It's always an argument now about government has to provide us health care, government, health insurance, government, air traffic controllers.
Government is the savior in the minds of most Americans.
Like we've lost that idea that we are the masters of the government.
Even 10th Amendment has been, you know, just even Trump, you know, and the way he wields the powers of the federal government, clearly, you know, threatening universities with lack of funding if they don't do what he wants, et cetera.
These are overarching demonstrations of the power of central government.
Yeah, except we're in a unique historical moment.
We're facing a Bolshevik revolution, and Trump has to be as muscular.
I think Trump should be as muscular as he has to be to stop that, to defeat that Bolshevik revolution.
And that's the fixed point.
Now, we can debate about how muscular that should be, but the thing that's fixed is he should be as absolutely muscular.
If it means hanging people from Golden Gate Bridge who took part in censoring American people, that's what it means.
I would support that.
Yeah.
Did you know during that whole message?
The censorship regime.
And you know who played a key role in it?
And this makes me so sorry.
Stanford.
Stanford, I have a PhD from Stanford.
And a bunch of Stanford, I even know some of the professors behind this.
They set up something called the Stanford Internet Observatory.
120 FBI and CIA officers left government and went out and staffed it.
And they were the part of this censorship industrial complex.
So they got direction from Biden to suppress this narrative.
They figured out, it turns out that for any given narrative, you only have to really censor a couple dozen people.
And you can, on any given narrative, you can just find those dozen people and stamp them out.
And then laundered it through NGOs and whitewashed it over into tech.
They gave the instructions to Google and Twitter, and they just followed.
There was a woman at Google, four-year immigrant from India, Venjya or something, not a U.S. citizen.
She ran the control panel on what 300 million Americans could say to each other.
So I think every Indian involved with this stuff should be sent home.
Even if they lose their passport, they get told, you failed your American experiment.
Go home and have a good life.
And anyone who ever swore an oath to the Constitution, that means every one of those federal officers who went out to Stanford Internet Observatory, not some silly professor who reads too much Herbert Marcuse about, you know, but the people who ever swore an oath to the Constitution and took part in that on a clear day, hang them from the Golden Gate, take their bodies out and dump them in the Pacific because we shouldn't pollute American soil with the corpses of those people.
That's how I feel about it.
And that's what I would have been doing.
But Trump is, but I'm trying to get through without something like that.
But for anybody who swore an oath to the Constitution at any point in their lives and then who took part in this misinformation, disinformation theory that emerged, we're going to censor people.
Anybody who took part in the medical malfeasance that happened, all the people at the top of that, they should all be.
So here's, that's a great lead up to this danger point, which is the fact that Google, for example, a corporation that I consider to be the most evil corporation in American history, just announced Gemini 3, which is being described as the most advanced AI engine that's been produced by any U.S. company, although there's a very strong competition, obviously, from China, Alibaba, DeepSeek, et cetera, Quinn, you name it.
But this system, which has agentic, it's able to pursue long-term goal-oriented behavior through a breakdown of a number of steps and to pursue them in a redundant or robust way using agentic reasoning.
This is a company that censored people like you and I.
This is a company that pushed vaccine jabs that killed well over a million Americans.
This is a company that rigged elections by selectively influencing get out to vote messages.
This is a company that is incredibly evil to anti-American.
And yet, Trump invited the CEO to the White House for dinner.
Yeah, okay.
I agree with you on everything about how evil they are.
And I don't use Google.
I have nothing to do with that.
I don't either.
But Trump is a wily guy.
And just because he invites someone to the White House, you know, he may see someone as his enemy and still have them.
I mean, there's examples, if you go back to 2017, where Trump was plotting to do bad things to people at the same time, he has them into the White House.
So you can't read into the fact that he's invited these people, that he's got bad intentions.
But certainly his coddling of Pfizer and these guys.
What's the guy?
Borla, who's the Borla, yes.
This is really hard to.
Yeah, I'm afraid that the president has people within his circle who are there are Republicans who are not with us, as you may know.
And they're not just rhinos, but they're establishment.
And there are people around him who are more concerned about establishment.
They're more concerned about where their job is in three years.
They're literally being hearing that if they help him, they're going to be hung under the next when a Democrat wins.
So he doesn't, that's why I think he needs some people around him who didn't let this back pressure get him down.
I feel like he needs a tech advisor close to him.
Someone like you, actually.
I know someone he could, I would not advise me.
I'd advise, I can get him the woman at Google who's the top of AI.
And I know her.
Well, so, and the reason I mentioned this is because I think that the rise of AI through companies like Google is actually going to make a government more and more obsolete.
See, even you were describing how obsolete the government is in terms of its technology just a few years ago using ancient tech.
But what's happening inside the labs in companies like Google is years ahead of anything that Trump has ever seen or could even possibly understand because that's not his focus.
He's not a tech guy, right?
But what's going to happen is with the rise of agentic intelligence, which again, Google is demonstrating very competently right now, you're going to have corporations that simply take over the infrastructure more and more, that are able to influence and lobby and own all the government decisions.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
No, no, no, I'm listening to you.
Well, I feel like we're moving into a corporatocracy rather than an authoritarian, quote, democracy, constitutional republic.
But the corporatocracy is going to be even more powerful because of the concentration of power due to AI.
Could be, could be.
I don't know who his science advisor is.
I'm quite worried about AI.
I think it's going to bring about changes far faster than we as humans have ever had a chance to adapt to technological change.
So I think Elon is quite correct to be worried about it.
I agree.
And, you know, it's one of these things where you don't want to be second, though.
So we have to invest in it.
We have to do it.
Isn't that true?
It could make life so much better.
Life, you know, Trump may not be, Trump may be John the Baptist.
Maybe there's someone else who's going to come and lead us to, there's a whole new age.
What we know we can't have is the Bolsheviks running things as this new dawn breaks because we now know their business model is to set up authoritarian power structures and starve off or get rid of 95% of us as useless edos.
Yes.
And to my point, Google was happy to play along with the Bolsheviks until Trump got elected.
And they will turn back to the Bolsheviks if they get back into power.
Yeah.
They're just tolerating Trump now.
They're all still Bolsheviks.
They're terrible people.
I used to really like them.
I had great relations with engineers at Google.
Oh, Google.
I did a lot.
I was their biggest overstock was their eighth biggest customer.
I spent hundreds of millions of dollars with Google.
I had a great relationship with the engineers.
They turned into something.
I would say by Google as a company around 2015 is when it started getting like to be an evil company to deal with.
And I guess that's that may be, I think that's when they changed their motto from don't be evil to whatever it became.
That's, you know, be as evil as possible.
Yeah, well, but what I see with companies like Google is just a complete lack of value for human life and human sovereignty or knowledge.
You know, I think that the way to save human civilization is to decentralize knowledge, empower individuals with knowledge so they can make better choices and then things improve from the ground up.
But companies like Google believe that the way to achieve massive power is to restrict access to knowledge and control from the top down.
Right.
It reminds me a whole lot of them went to Stanford.
I hate to go back to this, but I saw this develop.
When I first was at Stanford in the late 80s, there was a program like in the great books, people, everyone learned the history, the history of our belief system of what we would call political liberalism, you know, in the sense of we're both liberals.
This whole, you know, the Western history, people learned.
In the late 80s, some activists on campus in the professor class got all that junk.
And those people, I don't want to name any names, they became very, one in particular, a woman who fought very much against me getting my doctorate because she hated what I had to say.
She that she became a very important figure at Stanford and she turned it woke.
And they set up, there's a center at Stanford on ethics called the McCoy Family Center on Ethics or something like this.
And I think I was even a guest member of the board for a year.
I went to two or three board meetings, say 2003, 2004.
And I can tell you all they were teaching was, students, if you want to be ethical, you have to be a hard left socialist.
That's all they have, every single question.
Well, if you want to be ethical, when you're a CEO someday, you have to be a hard-left socialist.
That's what they think teaching ethics is.
And they have ruined the campus with a bunch of woke nonsense that does not stand any scrutiny, which is why they have to suppress dissent and why they have to, even in their own campus.
I was invited to speak at Stanford last year and the higher same woman, I believe it was the same, well, I don't know that for sure, but the higher-ups canceled.
I could not speak at Stanford.
Stanford PhD.
I was literally the DHS domestic extremist number one.
So that may have been their hesitation.
But you bring up a really important point in all of this, which is the radical left pushes and believes things that are provably false about the world, things that are incredibly destructive.
For example, they always talk about decarbonization of the atmosphere, which would destroy all life on our planet.
Yeah, you're the carbon they want to reduce.
Well, yeah.
You were the carbon.
But I mean, all plants use carbon for photosynthesis, right?
So if you end carbon, you end all crops.
And that's probably bad for humanity.
And all the animals.
Well, there were crops before we were spitting out carbon.
Well, no, but if they succeed in decarbonizing the atmosphere, if they take all the carbon out.
Yeah, they mean they want to stop us adding carbon.
Yeah, they're not saying let's get all the carbon out.
Yeah, they're very unscientific.
Their science is junk science.
So much has been revealed over and over.
If you go back to the 19, sort of 1995 or so, the UN came out with the International Panel on Climate Change.
And you look at that original document that set the whole thing going.
They have a whole bunch of predictions about how the future was going to warm.
And then you look at what happened.
It's the most conservative 5% of their predictions is what actually happened.
They have missed their estimates over and over and over.
Yes.
But it shows you, but climate science became one of the pillars of government grants through various government science programs.
Even NIH was giving grants for climate change research.
And all the scientists in America at the universities realized if they were going to get funded, they had to go into pro-climate change narratives.
So we actually have years of science.
And I know this firsthand because I have scoured the entire history of all science papers ever published in any language as part of our AI training.
We have hundreds of terabytes of data.
The top human thinking was in the 1970s.
After the 1970s, the IQs dropped.
And when it got into the loony left of climate change, science became retarded.
Literally, cognitively negative.
Philosophy.
Like the left-wing scientists was a penalty on cognition versus reality.
And it's been that way for 15 years.
It's funny you say that.
I think of this one friend I had, a young lady I was seeing some years ago, and she was all caught up in global warming.
And she went off, though, for a master's degree in global warming science, or so I thought.
I thought, well, at least environmental science.
Great.
We'll be able to have more interesting discussions when she's done.
A year later, 18 months later, I see her again.
It turns out it was a degree in how to convince people about global warming.
There's no science in it at all.
It's a mass persuasion degree, huh?
And it was basically you learn to say what?
You think it's a, but 97% of scientists agree.
And what?
Do you think it's a conspiracy theory?
And she spent 18 months learning to say those two things.
Wow.
It's fake science.
And, you know, there was a basically, I think elites figured out around the time of the Club of Rome that if you want a one-world government, you have to scare everybody.
And there's the things you can use to scare them as a pandemic or a global climate catastrophe or UFOs.
I think there's even some evidence that somebody, like somebody like the Club of Rome or somebody, actually came to that conclusion way decades ago.
Yeah.
Well, maybe they're going to have climate aliens crawl out of that new three eye Atlas asteroid or something, or tell us that that's what's happening because it's hard for people to confirm reality due to all the deep fakes and AI and government narratives and so on.
I think that this three, if three Ajax does end up becoming part of taking a turn, you know, it's on the other side of the sun from us now.
And we expect it as we come out to just sort of drift off and go.
But if, for example, it takes a turn our way, be open to the possibility that we're going to be told they're evil and they're actually the good guys.
Be open to that possibility that that's what is that.
Hopefully we get on January, we emerge from the other side of the sun and we see it just cross, it's go on its way.
But there's, it is pretty crazy to think, you know, there's so many strange things about this comment.
There are very strange things happening.
In the interest of time, also, I just want to mention your book, and I'd like you to tell our audience: What is the most surprising thing, or you could tease it, that they're going to find in your book, Danger Close, which is out now.
And I, I mean, I actually, I took the whole transcript of your book and I put it into my AI engine.
Oh, and I told it to find the 20 most intriguing things.
Oh.
And it's quite a list, let me tell you.
And then I read.
It must have gone to the rape and murder.
Did you get to the rape and drug?
Well, actually, that was not at the top of it.
Like the Hunter Biden laptop and many other things here.
And, you know, Boutina and the relationship and things like that.
But what can people find out about you and America through your book?
You can find out that what you're living through, if my story is true, is the facts of it, you will see that what we're living through is a scheme started by John Brennan, Barack Obama.
I think James Comey is a flunky who went along that to hijack the United States of America.
There are people who believe our constitutional system has run its course and that we need some strong muscular government that we're in a post-constitutional era.
Mike Pompeo has come out and said not a single person on the seventh floor of the CIA believes in the Constitution.
I would probably limp him with that.
Does he believe in the Constitution?
No.
He's a bad guy.
But there is among our educated elite this, they almost pay lip service.
Guys, you should see how bad law professors are, how they give lip service to the Constitution, but they basically, their attitudes, we're much smarter than that now.
We moderns are so much smarter.
We've really figured out how to do things.
So this is just this historical relic is more or less how they treat it.
And we're in real danger of losing everything.
But if we make it through the next couple of years and especially the 28 election, I think we have a rebirth for the next 250 years.
And what we just experienced was the great vaccination against tyranny, socialist tyranny.
That what we experienced in the last five years will go down in American history as an underhanded attempt for tyranny to overthrow the United States.
And it may end up being a vaccine for us, a good vaccine.
Well, I would hope that as part of that vaccine, that Trump would put a lot more pressure for freedom of speech to be allowed among all the tech platforms.
We talked about censorship, and censorship is still very much in place.
Right.
And remember, these guys, Section 230 of that, you know, 25 years ago, they all got exempt from laws on libel on the grounds that, well, we don't control the message.
We're just like in the town square, there's a tree with a bulletin board.
That's all Twitter is.
So you can't sue us for libel.
So they got that in the code.
Well, that means you can't go out by going out and saying who can publish and who can't, unless you're just talking about like decency standards, you are becoming a publisher.
You have effectively become a publisher by their algorithm.
And courts have misinterpreted Section 230 in favor of allowing censorship.
Yeah.
So it's a huge, you know, this, what we need is a Republican out of the mold of Teddy Roosevelt, the great trustbuster, because Teddy understood that the risk of giant corporations was that they could gobble up the freedoms of America just like a tyrant could, a different kind of tyranny.
Yes.
That's what we need.
I think Trump's there.
I think he's moving slower.
Sometimes I get so frustrated that, but the people he relies on, because I feel like I could do some of these things in about eight days.
I know the feeling.
But I think he's actually there.
And I think he thinks exactly like us.
I think he really does.
Well, I hope so.
I mean, I've been critical of Trump on certain areas, but I always say that I hope he succeeds.
I want Trump to succeed because I want America to succeed.
I don't want to live under a socialist hellhole.
He's got people pulling him in different directions.
Who knows what?
He has pressures that people put on him.
But I think intellectually he's with us and fighting as hard as he can.
That's good to hear.
Last question, the film.
The enemy within, the enemy within.
Michael Flynn.
Tell our audience about the film and where they can find it.
It's some of the more important stories out of the book that Mike has been talking about.
You can turn into a movie.
General Flynn made it into the movie.
It's the key points about involving Barack Obama and John Brennan and Comey and what I did for them.
And it documents, which my story, by the way, if I'm lying, they could prove it in 24 hours.
They can also, they know they all know that.
So that's the, he made it into this movie that takes those, takes that section of the book.
It focuses on it.
You can find it on enemywithindocu series.com.
It's three parts of 45 minutes.
And everybody who sees it says the great, you see all in all the reviews.
It's like, wow, it fits the pieces together of the last 10 years in a way I had never gotten.
Okay, okay.
Then last question based on what you just said.
You're hopeful for the future of our republic?
Oh, yeah, much more.
I mean, I'm very hopeful.
I wouldn't say it's ours to lose now, but we're so much better off than we were five years ago.
Five years ago, General Flynn and I thought we had maybe a 5% chance of surviving as a nation.
No kidding.
After January 20th, 2021, he thought we wouldn't make it to 2024, might not make it to 2022 as an election, given what they were doing.
That was a complete authoritarian takeover.
And they were hoping that we would get violent.
And again, some senior and 06-level person at the FBI told me in early 2022, the only reason they did not win yet is because you guys kept it peaceful.
They had no expectation you were going to keep it peaceful.
So that was a good move on the part of your viewers because I know that we were always out pounding on that.
Yeah, we're calling for peace.
But if it happens, be prepared.
And I do not, I don't want to say I rescind that advice.
I want to keep everything as peaceful as possible, but we cannot lose this republic and any more Bolshevism.
And that's what when these judges do this crazy stuff that we're seeing, I mean, that's a pure, people have no allegiance to the Constitution.
Yeah, clearly.
All right.
Well, I'm glad you have a positive outlook on our republic.
And there are times where I share that.
And other times I'm not so sure because of, you know, like currency collapse or what's happening internationally or the threat of war, you know, nuclear war, things like that.
Do you want to comment on any of that?
Well, we've never been closer to nuclear war in history.
The Ukrainian war is the most undeserved war of my lifetime that I can think of off the top of my head.
It's the most avoidable war.
We should not start World War III over our right to pull Ukraine into NATO.
Ukraine should be a neutral, independent company.
NATO started this war.
NATO started this war effectively.
And we should be happy to get peace on any terms that, you know, if we can get Trump to, I mean, if we can get Putin to just be happy with the 20% he already took and not take the whole 80%, he wants 85%, which is the Russian Orthodox, the Orthodox.
He doesn't care about the Polish part, which is Odessa.
He wants Odessa.
Clearly.
Yeah.
And Kiev, which is the birthplace of the Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Church.
So, but I think he would have been happy.
I mean, shit, pardon me, he would have not done the war if we had just agreed on neutrality.
Neutrality.
So we got to get out of that.
We're not going to win that.
We're not going to go to World War III over it.
Declare victory and quit the field.
Agreed.
That makes perfect sense.
But he's got to do, and he's got to do Venezuela.
Venezuela is a cancer on this hemisphere.
And they committed not just an act of war against the U.S., they overthrew the U.S. Conquered the U.S. Why doesn't he just tell us that and instead of making up the story about the drugs?
This is like, you know, I think the American people would understand the story that you've told us.
If he came out and did that, you know, the New York Times would be saying, ah, Donald Trump has been seduced by a bunch of crazy, wacky, disproven conspiracy theories.
I think he ought to have a press conference.
Who cares what the New York Times says?
I agree.
Does anyone want to read that anymore?
I think I'd have a press conference and march out about five people I know with Menezwell and passports.
Exactly.
Who are sitting somewhere, maybe not even so far from us, right here in Austin, Texas.
And march them out and they can sit and tell their story and there won't be a disbeliever.
They can prove it.
I've seen them demonstrate this stuff.
They can prove how it all works.
Well, I think Trump would get a lot of support, a lot of leeway from the American people if they simply knew what he was up against and what he was doing.
And I think people don't like to be kept in the dark.
They don't like to be told fairy tales about what's happening when there's actually something much deeper taking place.
But then again, maybe, you know, you and I, we're the more sophisticated, you know, we have more knowledge than a typical just mainstream consumer who isn't tuned into any of this stuff.
So maybe they need simpler stories.
I don't know.
The truth, what I learned from Flynn is the truth is the best weapon.
Truth is a wonderful weapon.
I agree.
So it's more powerful than Army divisions, the truth.
Yeah.
Well, thank you, Patrick.
It's an honor to have you here.
Thank you, Michael.
And congratulations on your great success with Braitheon.
Well, thank you so much.
We're certainly working hard for all the right reasons.
And look, we're operating in good faith for America as well.
We love America and I want it to succeed.
And we appreciate you and everything that you've done.
You've contributed enormously to our freedom.
So thank you so much.
Thank you, sir.
All right, folks, there you go.
Patrick Byrne, be sure to check out his book, Danger Close, and then the film, which is called The Enemy Within.
And that's at, is it the, is the word the in the domain name?
No, it's just enemy within docu series.
Enemy within docu series.
Okay, we'll put it on the screen for everybody.
But folks, be sure to check out that film created by Michael Flynn also.
And thank you for watching.
And feel free to repost this interview on other channels and platforms.
And if you want to get a strike on YouTube, just post it on YouTube.
They'll give you that strike in no time.
But thank you for watching today.
God bless America.
Take care.
Take care.
We've got turmeric root powder back in stock at healthrangerstore.com.
And the reason you want to get turmeric root powder from us is because, of course, turmeric is very frequently contaminated with lead.
But we do all of our own testing.
We've got an ISO accredited laboratory with multiple mass spec instruments, and we test for lead and mercury, arsenic, and cadmium as well, plus glyphosate.
And for some of our products, we test for atrazine.
For everything, including turmeric, we test for E. coli, salmonella.
We test for yeast and mold, total plate count, and listeria, and many other things.
So we test in-house to make sure that you get the cleanest foods and superfoods, nutritional supplements, and personal care products imaginable.
And that's why people love us.
And thank you for all your support.
But go to our website.
Here it is, HealthRangerStore.com.
And right here, you can just search for turmeric.
Or you can shop any of the other categories that we have and some of our sales and so on.
But here's our turmeric root powder.
It's back in stock right now.
This is something that's very difficult for us to keep in stock.
And of course, it's organic and it's lab tested on top of that.
But we also have, and I'm showing it on my desk, we also have the turmeric tinctures available.
We have our regular tincture and then our plus version, which has black pepper and ginger in it as well.
And these products are incredibly popular.
They're very delicious.
People love them.
And also they are lab tested like our turmeric powder.
So if you want to learn about turmeric and why it's so beneficial, you can go to, well, any AI engine or use our AI, which is trained on nutrition.
That's at brightion.ai.
And you can ask it, hey, how can I use turmeric?
Give me some recipe ideas or what nutrients are found in turmeric and how might those benefit my health or support my natural health.
You can ask it questions like that and you'll get very good informative answers.
So use our store, healthrangerstore.com, to acquire these products that give you outstanding nutrition and use our AI engines at brighteon.ai to learn about how they benefit you and how you can use them.
So thank you for your support.
I'm Mike Adams, The HealthRanger.
▲
Export Selection