All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2025 - Owen Shroyer Live
37:19
Owen Shroyer Interviews - Quantum Mechanics Expert Ashton Forbes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Tuesday evening here on this October 21st, 2025, Owen Schroyer interviews edition.
And we are with Ashton Forbes now, who really is his main topic of discussion is really going mainstream.
He's gained a lot of traction in this realm of social media covering UAPs, UFOs, quantum mechanics, and some of the stuff that's starting to come out of Congress now.
But Ashton and I had actually been speaking about foreign policy, geopolitics, specifically on the big debate on Israel and their involvement in our foreign policy.
Is it good?
Is it bad?
We've been having a good debate on that.
And I do think it's important to have these debates and maintain good relations.
It's something that's very important to me, and it's hard.
It's hard specifically.
It seems like it's hard on this issue the most.
It seems like, Ashton, this is the hardest issue.
And I've even had it out with Dinesh D'Souza on this, who I have a good relationship with.
Why is it that this is the hardest issue to have good, passionate debate and not drive this wedge of hatred between the two sides?
Why do you suppose that's so hard?
An easy question to lead it.
That's what I wanted to come on and try to figure out, actually, because I think that personally, I'm curious as what your thought is.
But, you know, and I, I, you know, people have now said that I'm like Israel, shill, what have you.
I think that there's emotions run really high on this topic.
I mean, we're talking about a holy war that's probably lasted well beyond generations, if not hundreds of years.
So I think that people are generally, it's hard for people to separate themselves from the emotions that go along with it.
You know, on, I think both sides argue that, you know, that other sides have committed atrocities.
My perspective, where I come in, I guess, is that I think of like the technology and the things that I've been exposing and what those impacts of those are on the geopolitical landscape.
And so one thing that I've kind of concluded myself is that, you know, the United States has really advanced military weaponry that we have been kind of hiding from the public.
You could call it UFO technology, what have you.
But that also means that our allies also have it.
So, you know, people can are free to criticize any country they want.
For me, though, I think that what we have to realize is that we're tied to some of our allies in a way where we can't really just be like, oh, okay, see you now.
Well, we're going to part our separate ways.
You can have this version of the thermonuclear weapons and we'll take this version and the divorce and what have you.
So I think that's what really challenges or complexifies things, but also it tells anybody that's going against our allies, they don't have any chance whatsoever.
Like, for example, the Hamas versus Israel conflict in Palestine, Hamas never really had any chance of like winning that war.
And so that's what I would try to kind of impose upon people.
What are your thoughts on why you think that it's all so controversial and what's going on over there?
I think it's this phenomenon we have of this existential crisis.
And I feel that there's a lot of people on the right, whether they're right or wrong, but they believe that for the existence of the United States, or at least the existence that they desire, the United States has to decouple from the Middle East.
I think generally speaking, I think most Americans would agree.
It seems the polling would indicate most Americans, and I would say election results indicate most Americans agree that the foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster.
And then they, I think rightfully so, point the finger at Israel because Israel has been guiding that foreign policy again, for bad or for good.
But I think that I think that they look at it at an existential crisis.
And then you have the Israeli lobby or American Jews that hold Israel near and dear to their heart, specifically somebody with the power and influence of Miriam Adelson now, and they look at as an existential crisis for Israel.
I think that the Israel, I think the Israel mindset for a lot of the right-wing Israelis is that it's a constant existential crisis.
They are in a constant fight for their survival.
And I think that their actions would indicate so.
And I think that's the psychological phenomenon that is leading this to be such a passionate issue is that Americans believe it's an existential crisis to decouple from Israel or at large the Middle East.
And I think the Israeli lobbyists and the Israeli loyalists in America, I think that they view it as it's an existential crisis for Israel that without the U.S.'s support or without maintaining this ideological divide or even hatred towards Muslims, that it is an existential crisis for Israel.
So I think it's this, I look at it, and maybe it's fair to point at both sides that this is a psychological phenomenon, but I think it's like it's really, there's a lot of paranoid schizophrenia, I think, on this topic from all sides.
I think there's a lot of paranoid schizophrenia.
But I do think at the end of the day, we can have the debate.
And I think that where the rub is, it's going to be impossible, maybe hard, maybe impossible to convince somebody now on the American right that's really now more America only than America first, that somehow being so involved or having such influence from Israel is beneficial towards America.
I would fall in the end of, I don't think it's beneficial.
I'd love to see that divorce.
It's interesting.
You make that metaphorical comparison to having like an actual divorce and a marriage.
I've never viewed it that way.
It is an interesting thought process to look at it like that, but I'm more cold-hearted.
I'm like, just cut and run.
I don't really care.
Take the dog, take the house.
I just want nothing to do with you anymore.
So that's kind of where it's like, yeah, you know what?
It probably would be messy.
I think it would be one thing, though, because this is the conclusion that I've reached.
I don't think there's fair coverage.
I don't think there's fair coverage on any side of this.
And the people that try to do fair coverage kind of get lost in translation.
To me, I wouldn't even really be talking about it.
I wouldn't be complaining about it.
I wouldn't be spending time on it if we weren't giving them all the foreign aid.
And if they weren't one of the client states of the military-industrial complex, those are two big issues to me, cutting foreign aid, stopping the power of the military-industrial complex.
And so that's why for me, Israel's become such a big issue is because it's at the center of both of those things.
Yeah.
And the military aid in the military-industrial complex is definitely an issue close to my heart.
And I've just kind of concluded that there's no, there's no, I mean, Pandora's box is very open.
There's no putting the thing back into the box at this point.
I guess I'm gathering from your opinion that, you know, you would say that we should stop supporting the Middle East in general and just let them kind of sort it out themselves, which, you know, certainly a valid viewpoint to say that, oh, let's decouple ourselves to the Middle East.
I'm not sure I totally agree that Israel is directing all the conflicts over there.
I think that our goals are somewhat aligned in a lot of situations and various countries that we've annihilated the Middle East, which we definitely have.
But pulling out from Israel, I think, is where it gets to be challenging, which is where it's saying like, okay, first of all, why Israel, not other countries?
Like we give a lot of foreign aid.
I think Israel is like, well, they're pretty far up there.
I think like 3 billion per year or something like that.
Mostly military means we're giving them weapons, what have you.
But what would happen if we actually pulled out?
Like I'm of the opinion, I think a lot of people would be of the opinion on either side that if we were to pull out and stop protecting Israel, stop supporting them, that the other countries would wipe them out.
And I think that that's probably what would happen.
I mean, if they have super weapons, it might be difficult.
But is there really a scenario in which we cut cold turkey?
And then the last thing I would say is I would challenge this idea that people are fed up with Israel support in general.
I think that if you're on the internet, for sure, you get that impression.
But if you actually look at the politicians, I would say the vast majority of the politicians support Israel.
And you may say, oh, well, that's because of, you know, why.
Come on.
You know why that is.
That's no surprise.
Yeah.
I mean, we definitely, they definitely lobby, but I would say that they don't, I haven't seen evidence or proof that they lobby more than other countries do.
I mean, when it comes to actually spending, lobbying money, like they're not even.
I got to push back.
Let me ask you this question.
Let me ask you, what foreign flags do you see in our Congress?
Probably Ukraine flags.
So I don't know.
When we were all waving flags for Ukraine to support Ukraine, did that mean that we were supposed to cut out of Ukraine as well?
I mean, you might say yes.
Yes, we should have never been involved in Ukraine, but that's not the only one.
In fact, I don't think I've seen a Ukraine flag in people's offices.
There's one flag that flies in their offices.
You know what it is.
You know what flag that is.
It's not Ukraine.
It's Israel.
Yeah, there's a lot of people that are dual, either dual citizen or they're Jewish and they're Jewish American.
So they have a huge love of Israel and their people.
And I guess the pushback on that front that I would say there's twofold.
But one is that I've read, I don't know how many scientific papers now.
There's a lot of Bergsteins in those scientific papers and in the Nobel Prizes that have been won over the last, you know, let's just go since the atom bomb a lot.
Not a lot of Mohammeds in there or other people from various other countries as well.
So from one perspective, if you look at where the technological developments come, a lot of it has come disproportionately from Jewish people.
Now, the other side of it, I would say, is what exactly has, what policy are you against from Israel?
Are people really against?
Because I actually asked this on social media yesterday.
Said, like, well, what is the policy of Israel that people are so far against?
And people didn't really put any policy decisions.
And most people in replies stuff about like the liberty or other historical events that they've considered to be traitorous or that put Israel at fault.
But like, what is it exactly that Israel has done to harm American people?
This is what I don't really understand.
Like, I get the existential crisis of, oh, they're keeping us in these wars in the Middle East or, you know, there's undue influence in our country.
But I guess to be play devil's advocate, it's like, okay, well, somebody is going to control the world.
If Jewish people just happen to be smarter than other people, if you believe that people aren't different, are all different or something, somebody's going to be the person that figures out the technology for people that profits off of it.
And to give a real life example of this, it's currently happening right now is that is it Jewish people's fault that they're smart enough to see that fusion energy is taken off and now they're all investing in it?
They're like early adopters in this and they're all going to become extremely wealthy in the next 20, 30 years.
Is it those people's fault that they end up controlling the world because they foresaw all these things that were going to happen?
Well, now you're getting into the territory of foresight versus control and access, which I'm not going to push back too much on that.
We'll let people in the chat have that conversation.
But I can't answer the issue of maybe policy-wise.
I think generally speaking, I don't think Islam is a threat to America.
I think that the only reason why radical jihadis hate our country is because we back Israel.
And Israel has attacked probably at least 10.
They've attacked seven countries in the last year.
They've bombed seven countries.
They've attacked at least 10 countries in the 21st century.
And they do all of this with our backing and they do all of this with our aid.
Now, I don't know if it's true to say that Israel would be wiped off the map if the United States of America didn't back them.
I think it's a fair conversation.
I don't think that that's necessarily true, but I do think it's a fair conversation to have.
So when I look at it from that perspective, I think the only reason why we have a threat of radical Islam or people wanting to come here and do damage, it's because of our support for Israel.
And so if it's true that Israel would be wiped off the map without our support, well, then doesn't that say something about Israel that they can't get along with our neighbors or their neighbors rather?
So if Israel can't get along with their neighbors, then why do we have to be the ones to come in here and make sure that their neighbors are behaving?
So I don't like that concept.
And whether it's true or not that they need us, that's open for interpretation, I suppose.
But it is true that their neighbors don't like them.
And I think in turn, they see that we're funding them and providing them with the military equipment.
And so there, in turn, they don't like us.
And so that's kind of how I see it.
Now, there's no doubt there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to the foreign aid.
I'm against all foreign aid.
I've always been against all foreign aid.
I don't care if it's Qatar, Israel, Ukraine, anybody.
I'm against all of it.
There's no doubt there was that double standard.
But what I see is when I see people complaining now that Qatar is getting access to F-16s, I believe it was that they just purchased.
They're getting trained on a base in Montana, I believe it is, or it's Idaho or Montana, I can't remember.
And I see people complaining and I'm saying, well, hold on a second.
You've supported, you've been a vocal advocate of all the foreign aid and the relationships we have with Israel, but now you don't like Qatar.
So to me, that's the double standard.
So it exists on both ends.
I don't want any of it.
But you know what I see happening is I think a lot of these foreign countries or let's say ideologues like Muslims now, they see that our politicians are whores.
They see that our politicians have a price tag.
They see that our government is easily bought and paid for an influence.
And so they're just saying, I'm getting in on the game.
Qatar has more money than Israel.
So Qatar is just saying, hey, if Israel can come in here and buy your politicians, why aren't we?
We got more money than Israel.
Let's come in and buy their politicians.
I think the Chinese do it a little bit differently.
They use kind of corporate, the corporate angle and cheap labor and the other issues to kind of bring production and manufacturing to China.
So they do it a little differently.
But our politicians signed off on all of that too.
Our politicians created the environment for all that too.
So that's kind of how I see it.
I just think these other countries and these other foreign ideologues are saying American politicians are whores.
They all have a price tag.
And this one lobby over here has been dominating the game.
And now others are moving in.
And the people that have been in proud support of the Israeli lobby doing it, all of a sudden they don't like it when it's a Qatar lobby or some other country.
But I don't have that double standard here.
I don't like any of it.
Yeah, I don't have that double standard either.
I'm actually against all foreign influence.
I just see it as it's not a reality that we're just going to cut all foreign influence.
And this is where I would ask people that generally the people that think we should cut ties with Israel.
I mean, how do we even do that?
What does that actually look like in terms of doing it?
A lot of people say, okay, we're just going to cut all ties with that.
We're going to cut all ties with foreign influence in general, but it's a lot more difficult a situation than just saying it and saying, okay, we're going to do this.
It's like, what?
Would you be against cutting all foreign aid to Israel and making APAC a foreign lobby?
Would you be against those actions?
I wouldn't.
No, I wouldn't be against any of those.
I mean, as long as we cut all aid equally, I mean, to me, it's just a matter of, you know, doing something equivalent to, you know, treating everybody the same, essentially.
So if we're going to get rid of all lobbying in general, foreign lobbying, and make sure that all, you know, any lobbying organizations have to be registered as foreign agents, then I'm down with it no matter who it impacts.
And if that comes from this Israel discussion that's been growing, then I think that's great in general.
I just worry that it's going to be, it's not going to be applied equally, that people are just going to say, okay, yes, we've decided that Israel's a problem.
We need to remove all of our, you know, the influence that's coming from them independently.
And with respect to like radical Islam, because I know that's been the hot topic now recently with like the Dearborn, Michigan stuff.
I, you know, it's a fine line there.
It's a fine line between, you know, the Constitution and freedom from freedom of expression, freedom from religion, freedom of religion at the same time, versus like, you know, banning, people want to ban Sharia law.
For me, I do think that Islam is inherently dangerous.
I think that the way that they teach people to not value life the way that their religious texts speak of essentially you're a blasphemer if you're not somebody that supports Islam.
I think the best example is that people literally will go and kill someone for blaspheming Muhammad, right?
We've seen this happen.
Charlie Hebdo, for example, like people will commit terrorist attacks if you insult their prophet.
I think that perspective, that point of view is not compatible with Western civilization at all.
In fact, I would go so far as to say, if I'm right about these super weapons that the military has, they could be looking in the future and that could be the bigger reason why we wiped out Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, because those cultures can never be allowed to have this weaponry.
They would absolutely blow us all up if they got a bomb that could, you know, a bomb the size of like a Coke bottle that could destroy a whole city or destroy the planet.
They would do it.
They would do it.
So that's what I think scares me.
The double standard of a Qatar, last point I want to make quick is that Qatar, like I agree too with the whole, like anybody that's saying we shouldn't have these Qatari military bases in our country, they should also be against foreign influence from Israel, et cetera.
So I think that it goes both ways where either you're against that kind of stuff in general or you're fine with it in general.
As long as people are consistent, I have no problem.
But there was a clip of Candace Owens talking to Harvey Weinstein, which I thought was really interesting from when she was interviewing him.
And she tries to ask him like, who owns these media companies?
Right.
And I think she was obviously trying to get the answer of like the Jews own them.
But it turned out he said that it was like Saudi or Qatari money that actually owned these studios now.
So I think there is a little bit of a misconception over like other foreign countries influence us.
Go ahead.
No, I'm just saying that's a tough sell.
I don't know how many people are buying that from Harvey Weinstein.
Yeah, I mean, you know, he's not exactly a reliable narrator.
Harvey Abdul Weinstein Muhammad.
That's actually his real name.
That's what it is.
I guess to shoot it back to you, though, I didn't really hear a lot of like what policy decisions are against Israel.
And I'll just, I'll be upfront.
I don't think that Israel is doing a lot of stuff that is actually not aligned with the common American citizen.
You know, you may say, oh, well, they're doing this influence and they're in these wars.
No, those wars in the Middle East, they don't impact me as an American.
I don't really care.
I think that on the internet, we all get super excited about it.
If you go ask the random American at Walmart, what do you think about the genocide in Palestine?
They're going to probably look at you like, dude, what?
I'm trying to pay the bills, man.
Like, I'm trying to live my day.
The problem is that we're continuing to financially support these wars and Americans can't pay their bills.
I think that's the problem.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, at a high level, absolutely.
And that's why in general, I'm America first.
I'm not America first in the way that like people in the Groiper community are, but I'm happy to be the token non-racist, non-anti-Semitic person if you want to be, because absolutely.
The biggest problem is we have 700,000 homeless people.
That's just the documented ones in the United States.
700,000.
It's a lot.
And we're doing nothing for them.
Poverty is through the roof.
I'm watching video clips of people talking about they're not going to get their food stamps next month because the government's shut down.
Meanwhile, you know, we're sending money to foreign countries for military, for other aid purposes.
We're sending $3 billion or something like that, $2,3 billion, Nigeria, where they're just executing Christians in general.
So to me, it's like, yeah, we should be taking care of ourselves first.
And this is where it bleeds back into the technology side, which I tell people, like we have at a bare minimum, weapons that mean that the United States has no equal on this planet.
Shouldn't we be flexing that military might?
Like we kind of are a Venezuela to flexing that military might to get the best deals, best trade deals, so that our people in our country shouldn't have to be poor.
To me, that's the biggest crime is that if we've got this advanced technology, the biggest crime is that we've basically just been letting every other country just run roughshod on us when we could be directing the terms all the time.
I wish that we could somehow leapfrog, you know, leapfrog these issues in front of us and get to the topics that you just brought up because when you, when we are allowed to actually harness the resources and the energy that I think we probably could, I don't know.
That's more your field than mine, but I feel like it's, and this is going to sound crazy, but I mean, I feel like in my soul, in my heart, even like humanity, it's just, we feel like we're being held back.
We feel like we're not getting it.
And when you dig into, when you dig into human anthropology, the hidden human anthropology, you realize that past civilizations had advanced technology.
I don't know what it was.
I don't know if it's possible to recreate it, but they obviously had it.
It obviously existed.
You can see it in some of this stuff.
And so it's like, how can we be more advanced, but then we can't figure some of this stuff out?
Is it really lost technology?
Is it hidden technology?
Is there a reason we don't get access to free energy?
Is there a reason America's not embracing nuclear?
And these are the things that I think would free up a lot of the hardship that Americans are going through right now.
And then maybe you can get away with funding every country on the earth.
And I think that maybe that's what's happened is Americans were doing well.
You know, the average American, by the time they were 30, they could afford to have a house.
They could afford to have a family.
They could afford to live the lifestyle that you want, a vacation every year.
You own a car that's going to start every day.
Well, that America's gone.
That is a very rare America.
Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
They're wondering how they might pay an emergency bill.
So it's harder to get away with sending hundreds of billions overseas annually as foreign aid when Americans are struggling.
And when you have energy prices, grocery bill prices as high as they've ever been, you know, the issue doesn't just solve itself.
So naturally, people are going to look for something.
They're going to look for either somebody to blame.
They're going to look for somewhere to cut costs.
And they naturally look at foreign aid.
They naturally look at, I mean, they look at how much money is spent to support Israel in elections.
And so they naturally kind of gravitate towards those issues.
I just look at it and I say we spent $20 trillion in these Middle East wars.
We spent hundreds of billions of dollars annually on foreign aid.
And I'm just saying, I can't even imagine what our country would look like if instead of that.
Imagine if we spent $20 trillion to build America instead of $20 trillion to destroy the Middle East.
I mean, I think we'd be looking like these new cities in China.
We'd be looking like these new cities in the Gulf states.
We wouldn't be decaying with hundreds of thousands of homeless.
We'd be up and coming in the metropolitan squares where right now I think America is suffering badly.
I mean, you live in Austin.
You know what it's like down here.
You've seen what's happened.
Oh, actually, I live in Minnesota, but I saw geopolitical in terms of politics.
It's pretty rough.
I've lived in the enemy territory pretty deep.
Yeah, the Twin Cities, the Twin Cities aren't much better, I'm sure.
No, it's been a struggle.
And we have like one of the biggest homeless shelters here out of anywhere.
I think that you bring up a good point, though, which is that when people are struggling, when people can't pay bills, can't put food on the table, they look for causes in their life, things that are causing this problem, right?
And obviously us giving money to foreign countries when we could be helping our own people.
It's pretty high up on the list.
It's pretty high up on the list.
People wonder, why is my money, my taxpayer dollars, going to help foreign countries when it could be here locally helping me?
I totally agree with all of that.
I agree with all that.
And I would say that the only thing I would say is that we have to have some perspective.
Like we look at these billions of dollars that we send for foreign aid.
It's a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount of money that we're spending.
If you just look number one and two are like healthcare is number one, number two is military industrial complex.
I mean, for example, even just over the Schumer shutdown right now, I think that the Democrats are trying to fund not saying it's illegal aliens because they've given them sanctuary status or asylum status, but I think it's like $200 billion just so that they can fund healthcare for asylum seekers.
And you'll get that $200 billion is basically more than vastly more than all of the aid that we're giving out.
I think at least combined, if you include the top 10 or top 20 countries.
So we have plenty of money that we are wasting that could be helping Americans out.
And the worst part of it is going to, I don't even think free energy is the way to put it, but going to having an unlimited abundance of energy, which is nuclear.
Nuclear is just referring to atoms.
We're talking about fission and fusion.
That if people want to rally around something, rally around fusion energy, which is nuclear power, because it has the capability of completely ending our dependence on the entire on every single form of energy production today, every single form.
And whichever country has the comparative advantage in nuclear and fusion energy, they're going to run the world for the next thousand years.
Can you imagine?
Wouldn't we have to have it too?
The amount of processing that we're looking at in 10 to 20 years, if we want to be the AI center of the world, I mean, now open AI and everybody's going to follow.
They're saying, we're going to open this up for exotic adult entertainment.
It's like, so we're going to use our freshwater resource and our energy resources to fund your AI pornography.
I'm sorry, this is a bad idea.
We don't have the energy.
The bills are too high already.
Isn't it?
Wouldn't would you say it's a necessity to begin this transition to nuclear fusion, nuclear energy now?
Because if they want to do all this data processing and all these AI plants, we're going to have, I mean, I don't know if I water shortages.
I mean, who knows?
But it's going to use up tons of our fresh water supply and it's going to drain our energy grid.
And if they're not using nuclear to power these things, it's almost like you need to have your own nuclear reactor on every single site.
What happens if we don't do that?
Well, they literally are planning on doing that.
But I think this kind of speaks to the cycles thing that you mentioned.
Is what if previous civilization had this advanced technology?
We look at the pyramids and all these other ancient sites and we're like, how did they move these huge rocks around?
Here's another thing that I want people to consider, especially from the Israel-Palestine conflict perspective.
I think it's very likely that we've been through cataclysms before.
In fact, they're very likely were self-produced.
Like we are the ones that wiped ourselves out past civilizations and we could be what was left.
And this is part of the reason why I think we might be going through these cycles of technology where we've intentionally forgotten these extreme levels of technology because of how dangerous it is, because how easy it is for a single person, a malaligned individual, to wipe us all out.
With respect to AI stuff, I think there's two things that you need to consider.
One is we need to not be training AI off of Reddit and woke crap.
There's literally laws already on some states that say that you have to have DEI in your output of your AI audit, which makes you wonder, like, you're literally telling it's got to lie to people.
You're forcing the AI to lie to people.
I think it might have been in Europe.
It might have been here.
I can't remember.
I came across my newsfeed.
They were making somebody was trying to build, I think they were trying to build a nuclear plant and they were making them cross off all of these different woke crap before they could even lay the groundwork.
And I'm sitting here, I'm like, and apparently it's been a two-year process.
It might have been Europe and it's been a two-year process where they're trying, because France is all about nuclear.
And it was this two-year process.
And they're going through all the woke ideology, like, oh, are you going to have a diverse staff?
Are you going to be actively fighting racism?
All this stuff.
And it's been a two-year process for them to even lay the groundwork on this power plant.
And I'm like, that's two years of energy.
That's two years of energy that who knows?
Who knows how that could have changed the world?
And you're sitting here playing tiddlywinks with the liberal, progressive, leftist ideologies instead of just building the power plant.
This is the kind of crap that's like, it'll drive you nuts, especially when you're somebody for you.
You're more of like, okay, you're, you, uh, you, you focus on these things, UAPs, quantum mechanics.
This is, this is the future of technology.
And I'm more of like, I'm like a potential guy.
Like, I can see potential.
I'm not the most scientifically chemistry, mechanics, engineering stuff.
I have a general, but that's not my expertise.
I see a potential and I see the potential for these things.
And I'm like, dude, you're sitting here for two years making somebody check boxes to make sure they're diverse and not racist.
That's two years of energy that could have literally changed the world.
And you're holding us back.
Yeah.
And we're probably 100 years behind on energy anyway.
And you're right.
I mean, we need a new source of energy in order to power all these data centers.
Anybody can look at the trends and go, we need double the amount of energy in like the next 10 years.
Where's that going to come from?
We're not going to get that from oil.
We need a new source.
And they already know what it is.
It's inertial confinement fusion.
I mean, and I think they've had it for 80 years or more, ever since the H-bomb.
They figured out how inertial confinement fusion works.
And inertial confinement fusion is a secret to unlimited clean energy for the world.
The downside is they figured it out with nukes.
So because it was connected to nukes, it's been classified.
In fact, I have absolute proof.
You can read the critical thermonuclear weapon classifications, Sigma 11.
They count them from Sigma 1.
Now they're up to like Sigma 20 or something like that.
Sigma 11 is inertial confinement fusion.
That's the main form of fusion that basically every fusion company is doing.
So I think what you're seeing now is that as these requirements are coming out, they have to allow fusion to go public because we need it in order to power these data centers, which I don't know what's going to happen with AI.
I just know for sure if we keep training off Reddit, we keep putting in these weird rules to have it lie to us, we are definitely, definitely going to destroy ourselves.
But I guess my final thought on the whole conflict situation is that there are bigger concerns in the world.
I know it doesn't seem like there should be a bigger concern than like a holy war that's been raging for generations, but we kind of have to look at it bigger.
We have to look at it from the perspective of our future as Americans, but as human beings on this planet, and what is, what's going to be the ultimate outcome of that, of if one side wins or the other side wins.
And what does our civilization, how long does our civilization last if we have, for example, unlimited energy?
Well, I feel that these conversations are being, they're all derivative of where the administration is at.
I mean, I don't really hear the Trump administration talking about energy, but Netanyahu's been to the White House, I think, four times.
J.D. Vance was just in Israel.
Trump was just in Israel.
So it's just like, this is all deriving from what's coming out of the administration, I think.
And then, you know, obviously it's always a hot topic, but I think the reason why it's reached this precipice now is because of the priority that the administration has added.
And I think for Trump, you know, I'm assuming this.
I think Trump really, in fact, I think every president, even Bill Clinton talked about it, but it's like every president kind of gets in there and they see the Middle East and it's like, they're going to be the one.
It's like, I'm going to be the one that solves this.
Like nobody else in the history of the world can solve.
I'm going to be the one.
So it's kind of this ego trip.
And maybe it's this dream of being that guy, that president that finally has that legacy of solving the crisis.
And it just never works.
I don't think Trump's going to be the one either.
He might be the closest.
He might have the best chance.
I don't think he's the one that solves it either.
And I do want to just ask you one question before I let you go here because I said 30 minutes, but I will just say this to the people listening.
And I see people, you know, obviously you deal with the attacks all day long.
Folks, we have to be able to disagree and debate and not hate each other.
Seriously, like it's so, it's very important to me.
I'm lucky enough that I've been able to maintain good relationships with people, even people I disagree with over the years.
It's very important.
In fact, I'm thinking about, I'm thinking about maybe entering this new phase of trying to be a peacemaker.
These are some of the toughest deals.
It might be tougher than the Middle East.
I'm going to bring Ashton together with Peyton Kelly.
We're going to have a peace negotiation between you two.
I'm going to bring Adam King and Andrew Meyer to the negotiating table.
We're going to work out a deal.
Maybe even Ayol Yacobi and Myron Gaines.
I mean, we're talking about some of the most biggest personality conflicts.
I'm going to try to work out peace deals here.
I think I might enter a new phase of my political commentary, try to work out peace deals, bring everybody together for debate and disagreement.
And then we break bread and we clink glasses because we all got to share this planet at the end of the day anyway.
And life is good overall.
I want to ask you this one question before I let you go.
So, you know, you cover aerial phenomenons and mysteries, quantum mechanics, hidden energy, stuff like that.
From somebody like me that just does news consumption, I'm just like a mass like trash compactor of news.
I just give me all your news and I just compact it.
Why do you think the whole UFO, aliens, aerial phenomenon, why do you think this stuff is going mainstream?
Because for the longest time, it was considered, it was considered out there, taboo.
You know, nobody, that's not real stuff.
Nobody's talking about now.
It's like they're trying to force it mainstream.
They want us to accept that there's hidden technology or even UFOs or aliens, all this new stuff in the sky that they're mainstreaming that used to just be, if you didn't follow those news wires, you weren't seeing it.
Why do you think that is?
Is there something there?
Or is there a reason they're pushing everybody to this information now?
Probably both.
Probably both is my opinion.
And I come from it from a perspective of I thought there was aliens before I dug into all this, before I dug into the science, the physics, et cetera.
And I was like, yeah, there's got to be aliens out there somewhere.
They just must be, you know, doing something we don't understand.
Actually, the more I've dug into, the more I've dug into science, the less convinced I am of aliens.
At this point, the only way I believe aliens exist is if they wheel out the bodies and I get an independent third-party evaluation of the work.
Yeah, like they can make some clone and like drop him off in the woods and it like just some weird clone, some messed up pig human hybrid.
And they're like, it's an alien.
It's like, no, you probably made that in a Bill Gates lab in Zorro and released it.
And they could.
And the problem, here's the problem I have is that I think they're using the alien topic to distract from real technology that we've got classified at the nuclear level or even higher potentially that is shielded from Congress.
When Congress says they don't know about this UFO stuff, they're being serious.
They're being truthful.
They don't know.
It's above Congress.
Congress has no oversight whatsoever.
I think they're doing it because it distracts from us using this technology in covert operations.
It's a lot easier to be like, oh, we saw something glowing energy orb in the sky.
Oh, yeah, this is aliens.
Yeah, don't worry about it.
It's definitely not a thermonuclear weapon.
And from what I've concluded, at least especially the triangle formation that's like really popular, this like black triangle or triangle of lights that people are seeing, I'm convinced that that is a thermonuclear weapon design that kind of went kind of a branch of a thermonuclear weapon design.
Because in thermonuclear weapons, what they try to do is have the waves collapse onto the target like perfectly equal.
And that's what these balls of energy seem to be is like a non-fission trigger of a thermonuclear device, except for not the kind that we would think of, like a big boom, just like a release of energy, like almost like a pure EMP that's out there.
So I think that I wouldn't be surprised to find that, you know, there was either a previous civilization or crashed alien ship and we figured out this technology, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find that like there's been a branch of physics since Tesla that has basically been ignored, that the military defense contractors know all about, and that there's a group called the JSON group that meets in the summer with the CIA.
They're basically a bunch of like physics professors and engineers, and they determine basically the course of human civilization and what technologies are kept secret for national security and what things aren't.
So take your pick.
It's a fun, that's a fun rabbit hole.
That's the type of conspiracy theory talk that we all love right there.
The secret groups behind the scenes controlling humanity.
We all have this weird inclination.
It's going on, but it seems untouchable.
Ashton Forbes, my guest tonight, follow him on X at just X Ashton.
He's no stranger to a heated debate, folks.
So if you do come after him on there, expect a little retort.
Ashton, thanks for your time tonight.
I'm glad we can finally make it happen.
For the record, people, I was delaying this.
So people saying Ashton was running for me, it was me.
I delayed it for a week.
I did that, not him.
Just for the record.
All right, Owen.
Appreciate you, brother.
This fun conversation.
And yeah, let's do it again sometime.
We will.
▲
Export Selection