Monica Perez joins James Smith to dissect alleged CIA deep state manipulation, claiming the internet serves as a limited hangout and that the 2020 election was a tripwire for martial law scenarios involving Cyber Reason and Mossad. She details theories on manufactured candidates like Stacey Abrams and AOC, groomed by the Council on Foreign Relations to engineer a world government via USMCA trade deals. The discussion links record deficits and credit card debt to elite strategies for economic stimulation through potential conflicts with Iran or Russia, suggesting these crises facilitate a shift from geographic representation to population-based control while eroding the Bill of Rights under false flags. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Roll Back The State00:15:17
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gash Digital Network.
Here's your host, James Smith.
Hey, what's going on, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
It's the Wednesday one-on-one interview series continued.
Before we get started, don't forget Philadelphia, Frankie Bradley's on the 21st.
I'll be there live podcast and a live stand-up show with Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
It's almost sold out, both the podcast and the stand-up show.
So if you want to come, go grab tickets now, okay?
Don't be like those people in Boston who couldn't get in, who I had to tell you about, who are still crying in Boston as we speak.
Philadelphia, 21st, Frankie Bradley's, me and Robbie Bernstein live podcast, live stand-up show.
All right, today's guest, I'm very excited to have on the show.
People have been tweeting me for quite a while, saying I need to have this person on the show.
She is the host of the Monica Perez show, and she's also the host of the Propaganda Report, which you can check out at thepropreport.com.
Of course, Monica Perez, thank you so much for taking some time to join us.
Thank you so much for having me on.
I'm really excited.
Yeah, so I just, I got familiar with your work from people harassing me on Twitter, which is some of the way that I found some of the best people.
And I was, I've been listening to some of your shows.
And it's, you, you really have a very, a very interesting radio show and podcast.
You talk a lot about current events, but from a different angle than even most libertarians attack things from.
So why don't you, just for people who aren't familiar with you or your work, why don't you just tell people a little bit about your radio show, your podcast, what you do?
Okay.
I kind of fell into a terrestrial radio show about eight years ago in Atlanta.
And I was just abutting an ARCO capitalist.
Like the scales had just fallen from my eyes.
And I met some people in radio and they immediately were like, I never heard anything like this before.
Get on the radio.
And they kind of, I think, thought it was like, I'm the novelty act.
But if you really dig into ANCAP stuff, you know, like it's a very deep, it's logical, it's appealing.
It uses as a touchstone kind of our foundational principles.
So it actually works with that audience.
It's a pretty conservative audience.
And then I just had so much extra material.
And I also wanted to go a little deeper.
And I had, so I started with my producer on that show, The Propaganda Report, which is a podcast we do every few weeks that really gets deep into stuff that people are actually saying and writing and revealing about the CIA, the deep state, stuff like that.
Who are they?
In their own words, most of the time.
But there was also this real lack of kind of everyday news without all the propaganda, without all the spin.
And I just kept looking for it and looking for it.
I couldn't find it.
So finally, and I had so much extra material from all the work I did for my radio show, we decided to do a daily show.
So that comes under the propaganda report banner also, even though it's the drivetime newsblast and it's 30 minutes of trying to like kind of replace your regular radio broadcast with the news of the day.
But I try to figure out what is really going on because I'm a little deeper than most libertarians in that, not intellectually, but I really think at this point, the media doesn't report anything that doesn't serve an agenda.
It could be true, it could be false, but there's an agenda there always.
And similarly with the politicians and the politics, I really think it's all quid pro quo.
It's all bullshit.
Like there is no ideology at the top.
It's just that's all for our consumption only.
And that's the perspective I bring.
But I try to always like hit what are the big headlines so you can get that kind of every day.
Yeah, I've, I've certainly found that, at least in my experience, the, uh, if you were trying to sell people on that idea that, you know, listen, the, the corporate press is simply, they, they have an agenda and they're lying through their teeth.
Like they are not, it's not even like they have an agenda or, or that they believe something, you know, differently than we do.
It's like they know that they're full of it and they're lying through their teeth to you.
That was a, that was, even though this has been the case probably since before I was born, um, that used to be a tougher sell.
And nowadays, it just seems like people are a little bit more open to that message.
And I think a big part of that is that the wheels are kind of coming off on the whole system and it's much harder for them to hide anymore.
What do you think?
I think two things.
One is, and this may be changing.
You might be right about that in some ways.
One is I really think that people who get those positions are kind of required to not see beyond what my sister coined as the ethical glass ceiling.
So you keep asking, is this right or wrong?
Am I right or wrong?
Until you hit as far as you can allow yourself to go because of your job or whatever.
And then they just stop that.
And they're really, and actually I find that those people are the most committed because they're so busy like arguing with themselves that they will, you know, to try to make sure they stay in their box that they get really annoyed with you if you threaten that.
And I think also like the way and I see these things sometimes because I look at it from this perspective.
If I'm right, I'm kind of ahead of it.
So I see it coming a little bit in advance.
And then after the fact, it's like, it's so obvious Uber is going to go driverless.
I'm like, I figured that out, you know?
So the same thing with like the internet as a limited hangout.
Like I didn't even really put together that DARPA created the internet.
And then now you see articles like there was an article in courts about Google being created so that there would be what was called the birds of a feather kind of thing where you could isolate people from their search requests was what like provided the best profile for how to psychologically convince somebody that you were of a certain like ideological group or whatever.
But like I see that they give us these big, big limited hangouts, whether it's news or whatever.
So you're saying it's unraveling.
And I'm saying it's really they're pulling it back in and there's some fallout for that.
But when you see how like anti-vaxxers or a conspiracy theory or anything like it is people are shamed and silenced, not debated.
And there's a movement towards the only trustworthy information is authority.
Like that is the word they use.
You need authoritarian or authoritative sources rather than teaching us to discern things and evaluate them based on evidence.
Like that's going away.
So I see this as a big, like kind of seismic shift.
But in the end, I think that we're getting more in their box than outside of it.
Well, there's certainly, you know, with the control of the internet, I know you've had a few websites taken down and you've been, you know, you've been one of the people who have suffered under the kind of unpersoning reign over the last few years.
But a lot of people, you know, is a Twitter account suspended, Facebook account suspended.
There's no question that they are, they are really working to control the narrative online.
But I do think that there's at least more of, you know, like for before the internet, I mean, they basically just had the major, you know, newspapers and the TV channels, and there was nowhere else that you could go.
I mean, when they wanted to make Murray Rothbard disappear, he was basically gone.
I mean, people could, people started discovering Murray Rothbard after the internet age when people could go and like look him up.
But really at the time, you know, like in the 80s and 90s, he wasn't, he didn't exist at all.
That's an amazing example because my uncle was a Franciscan priest, like he was the last guy you would think, like a teacher.
And he used to tell me, I would ask him questions and he would say, you got to read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.
And I was like, yeah, yeah, he told me for years and years and years.
And then one, you know, when Google was around, I Googled it and I stumbled upon Hans Hermann Hoppe having an interview on Lou Rockwell.
And that was it for me.
I mean, that was it.
I was just like, oh my gosh, I can't believe I didn't think of this already.
And so that completely went away.
And I think also like a hopeful sign, I'm not hopeful.
I'm not.
I have hope.
I know it sounds really negative, but the most hopeful thing is they put so much time and effort.
And it's so important to them what we think.
It's all they care about.
And that just means that their hold on power is entirely psychological and that we really have the power to shake it off.
And they worry.
I think they do a lot of psychology and a lot of sociology that they don't share with us because I think they're always just trying to stay ahead of what would be that tipping point moment and can they control us then?
And I think that's when they start thinking about a real pandemic or a big war.
Yeah.
Well, it's interesting.
I've said for a long time, I think in many ways the propaganda demonstrates what is our best ray of hope.
And that's the fact that they feel at least that they need this big propaganda machine.
And that's in some ways it would be scarier if they felt like they didn't.
If they were like, hey, we don't need a whole year of beating the war drums before we go to Iraq.
We can just go invade Iraq.
Like they, they feel like that might actually go really bad for us.
So we better convince people that he's got these nuclear weapons that, you know, that we don't want the mushroom cloud to be the evidence or something like that.
And so, you know, there is a, you know, a silver lining to all of that that they feel they, at least they're nervous to some degree about losing their grip.
Yeah.
I mean, they took down my WordPress site.
Like they, they, YouTube struck, like took down, gave me a strike and took down a show I did on the radio about Sheriff Israel right after the Parkland shooting story.
And the fact that they had to take me off of WordPress.
I mean, yes, they took thousands of people off at that time for the same reason, I think.
But the fact that we are even in that small, that's not a lot of people, even a thousand or a couple of thousand people.
That's really not a lot of people for them to feel so threatened by that they had to set a trap.
It was this picture of Noah Posner.
Did you ever hear about this?
This picture of Noah Posner, who's a Sandy Hook victim, the same exact picture that we got from out of Sandy Hook came out of Pakistan.
Have you heard this story?
No, no, not at all.
So there's a picture of a mother in Pakistan holding a picture of Noah Posner and the BBC reporting on it and giving that Noah Posner a different name.
So I shouldn't even talk about it because this is what got me cut.
Sorry.
It's taking off of WordPress.
Anyway, so I just said, what the heck, you know?
And then it was like anybody who identified that, I didn't say anything else about it.
I didn't know what to think about it.
Anybody who like, had that picture up, didn't get like.
The picture didn't get taken down.
All of my stuff was lost.
The whole, the whole Wordpress site was taken down.
I had a business site, like.
I had a business plan with them.
They should not have yeah, whatever.
So it's a longer story, but the fact is they set a trap and anybody who made it clear that they were questioning whatever the official narrative or I don't know what had to go.
And so it's.
I think it's very interesting.
That was the trap they set and how.
You know Binkley, my producer and co-host on the podcast, says that, like he pointed out that before wars, a lot of times they have to silence the media that asks questions because of what you're saying.
Like you know, they're just gonna, you're gonna question, why are we going to this war?
And if you're somebody who asks questions, it doesn't even matter what the questions are they.
If you're asking questions, then that's enough.
Well then, that would make you more likely to be the one who might ask some of the uh inconvenient questions, you know.
And then you got to go and, of course, all you know what every single war that we've fought, you know, I mean really for the last hundred years.
Uh, what they all have in common is that they're all sold off lies, so you don't want to have anybody there, who's you know, asking too many questions about the official narrative.
Uh, because it's get and at least it seems to me like it's getting easier and easier to tell that these wars are are sold off lies, and I I do think that's another sign of hope that I it does seem to me like less people are buying it.
I think that you know the example that was coming to my mind uh, when you were talking about scrubbing the internet for for stuff was the uh, the identity of the whistleblower.
I was really surprised what, how they were able to.
First off, entire youtube channels were taken down and once the name was even revealed you had to, you actually had to search pretty hard to find it like it was they were actually pretty good at scrubbing this one name, which wasn't even a name that anyone like would have like wrung home with anyone.
It almost seemed like a test case.
See, that to me is a flag, that it.
It was a test case like that.
It is a, is a trap, is a setup like.
When I first saw that no positive picture.
I thought it was a test of like how fast misinformation could get around the world and if anybody would push back.
And I actually misinterpreted it, but I knew maybe that was part of it, but I knew it was like really too fishy for the BBC not to recognize what that was.
And similarly, if there's like a name that is the flag, it's like I always think of it as like that.
If you take, I think, some kind of like irradiated medicine to get an x-ray of a certain tumor or something, I just feel like they're pouring that into the media and where it pops up, where it glows, they're like, oh, that's a hotspot right right no, that would be.
That would be really uh uh, brilliant of yeah, like people who won't voluntarily censor themselves, right.
So that was the thing it was.
It was taboo to say this guy's name and any good virtue signaler or any good like rank and file person would, especially on the left, would refrain from saying that name.
And if you say it, you're a person who steps outside the box and that's you've you've identified yourself.
Right.
Right.
Because I think they want voluntary conformity.
They want to see who's going to chill themselves.
They don't want to have to crack down.
War As Multi-Directional Propaganda00:13:24
They can crack down in advance on those people they can profile.
Right.
Yeah, which is really freaking scary.
But that is, that does seem to be in many ways a more effective way to rule.
Now, what do you think?
Because I know you talk a lot about like politics and current events and things like that.
What have you thought with this?
The whole show of the, we now have the first two states in the Democratic primary process.
We got one caucus and one and one primary down.
I was I retweeted out earlier today.
I just, oh my God, it was so funny to me.
And I remember a lot of people, a lot of libertarians call this the Ron Paul treatment, what Bernie Sanders is getting.
But I just, you know, it's much more enjoyable when you don't particularly care about the candidate.
I was like furious when they were doing it to Ron Paul.
But when it's Bernie Sanders, I just love it.
But Reuters, like, right?
Like the serious news, Reuters tweets out and their tweet was, Buddha Judge comes in second, Klobuchore in third.
Yeah.
Like that's the news from New Hampshire right there.
Isn't that?
I mean, that's what a primary is all about, determining second and third place.
And these are the big stories.
But they really do seem to be giving Bernie Sanders this treatment.
And I don't know.
What do you make of it?
It's certainly entertaining.
Well, look, I mean, I almost get tired of my own kind of, well, peel away the first layer.
Like I'm not whatever anybody is saying on any kind of like, that's getting critical mass.
I'm just peeling that away.
So so I don't ever think of something like that as what you see is what you get.
I do.
What I do see is that they look at real things that have happened.
I mean, I, of course, you could do my treatment and peel away and peel away and peel away and say nothing is ever real.
But let's say the Tea Party was real and Ron Paul was real.
So they saw the Tea Party phenomenon and they replicated it with Indivisible and the resistance and stuff like that, which is like a supposedly grassroots stuff set up by Obama workers, congressional aides and stuff.
So it looks and they actually talk about it.
Like we need a Tea Party moment, that kind of thing.
Same thing with Ron Paul.
Like it was so perfect.
It was such a perfect way to get people to think to support Ron Paul and lose faith in the system that I think they're actually doing it on purpose with Bernie Sanders.
I think he's kind of in on it or he's just not in on it.
I don't think you have to be in on it.
But I think the big, big picture, and if I point this out to you, you might like then start seeing it.
I see it more and more as I look for it more and more, you know, confirmation bias, whatever, but that they're actually trying to undermine our faith in democracy and in the system and how the process works because they want to do obvious things like push up the election to be all popular vote, which I don't even think is really what they want.
I think what they really want is simply to control the election on the federal level to have regular, you know, have all the same voting machines, all that kind of stuff.
I think that's what they want.
And in order to get like kind of a big change like that, they need to have a crisis or make it obvious that democracy isn't working anymore, either just the process of voting or the process of legislating.
So like at the same time, on a global level, you're getting all these quote anti-government protests.
I think they want a paradigm shift in government itself to move kind of level up to the opposite of what we want.
they take the states and they're leveling up to the feds and then and then they take the nation states and they level up to world government.
I think they're looking for the kind of paradigm shift that like a war might bring and they might be looking for a war or a pandemic might bring or as Binkley found in one of the army podcasts he was listening to that the 20 if something goes really really wrong in the 2020 election we could have the kind of tripwire we're looking for to start escalating hostilities with Russia.
That's like in their own words.
And they did a scenario.
The FBI and I don't know who else was it, U.S. Army or something did a scenario with a company called Cyber Reason, which I think is like Mossad guys or ex-Mossad guys who quote scenarioed out that such a dramatic crisis in the 2020 election that it led to civil unrest and martial law.
And they actually and people died.
This is something that over the past couple of months, our government has been running scenarios on.
So I see it, I see this stuff as playing into that.
It doesn't mean that at kind of every level at the 3D chessboard, people are in on it or that there aren't real people fighting, fighting the fight against Bernie and that he's not fighting for his own self.
But I think all this stuff feeds into that.
And I think that's going to be the problem as the year drags on.
Well, it will be interesting.
You know, like there's with these like military exercises and kind of different scenarios that they run, there have been lots in the past that didn't end up, you know, coming to fruition or at least not yet.
So you never know, but it is really, really creepy when you look at some of the scenarios that they prep for.
And it's something that is well worth keeping an eye on.
Like, why exactly do we need to be training to fight our own citizens?
I wouldn't put it past them to put it in there so people like me can get distracted in the wrong direction.
I, you know, I mean, I just wouldn't, because I'm wrong about where they're headed a lot, but I almost always see when there is something up.
Right.
Like even just two mentions of something in a row, I'm like, hmm, this, well, why are they talking about this person, you know, whatever plane crashes or prison, prison deaths, for example?
Like there, I'm sure that's a big part of the Trump thing that I think is that he really is just a builder, real estate guy, construction guy, and that the immigration stuff, nobody ever talks about this.
Almost no news has come out about it, but like that triangle of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, something like that.
They signed a deal with us.
We withheld their aid until they signed a deal with us to allow us to build facilities in their countries to house immigrants.
And I just, I feel like a lot of the stuff is about like the prison thing.
It's about building new prisons.
Like a lot of this stuff is just about that.
So when I see like signals like, oh, they're trying to get us to buy in to some big funding on prisons that don't need to be built, but they want to make up reasons.
So I'm just saying, like, I just see these things and I'm not 100% sure that if it is going to turn into a tripwire, the guy at the army said that.
So maybe that in itself means that's not really their points or he wouldn't just point a finger at it.
Yeah.
No, it's, it's, it's hard to decipher all of this stuff, but it is, it is worth paying attention to and commenting on.
And as far as hostilities with Russia go, I mean, if you, if you zoom out a little bit and just look at things, say, like, which is not that long a period of time, but if you just look from the fall of the Soviet Union to now, I mean, we've ramped up hostilities with Russia tremendously.
We've moved NATO all the way to their doorstep.
We've taken out all of their allies pretty much short of like Assad and Iran in the Middle East.
We've really moved in there.
And then it's kind of interesting that, you know, after we move NATO all the way to their doorstep, after we have a coup in Ukraine and, you know, Obama sides with the Nazis in Ukraine.
I know.
And Victorian Noland.
And then all of a sudden, right at that moment, when we're right at their doorstep and we've got all of these new bases in the Middle East, that's when we decide to make this huge thing about Russia interfered in the election when there's really nothing there.
I mean, it's really, it's absolutely pathetic if you actually get to like tease out what the Russian interference was.
It comes down to like Facebook ads and WikiLeaks, which really has no connection to Russia.
Right.
And for what?
Yeah.
What did they even get?
Yeah.
And what do they count on?
I will tell you, and I've been saying this for a while that, and I would, if I had to bet right now, I would certainly bet that Donald Trump's going to get reelected, especially after the last couple of weeks.
If Donald Trump gets elected, it is going to be a very easy sell to, broadly speaking, the left half of America, that Russia interfered again.
And this is a real problem.
And, you know, if you think people went crazy in 2016, well, they just gave us two terms of Donald Trump.
And you really won't have to present much evidence.
It's just so many people have gotten it into their brain at this point that it couldn't possibly be legitimate that Donald Trump wins.
And that's going to be quite something to say.
It goes to my contrary law of democracy.
I like to coin phrases and that's a good one where you're only going to get what you hate the most from your own side.
So the anti-war left is going to be clamoring for war with Russia.
And that's that.
And this is a great way to do that.
And then the right, to the extent you have any anti-war on the right, you're going to say, hey, man, he loves Russia.
If anybody would avoid a war with Russia, if it was at all avoidable, it would be this guy.
So if he, this was a big thing with Obama dropping 20,000 bombs on Syria, they always say, well, once he got in there, I mean, if anybody didn't want to bomb brown people, it would be him.
But, you know, he, he obviously knows something we don't know, or I trust him.
And then you get it.
And, but, you know, another thing is like when this Iran thing came down, I, of course, was like, oh my gosh, I've been telling everybody since the day Trump got elected.
It's all about war with Iran.
He's going to blah, blah, blah.
And then Iran was just like, oh, oops, we totally shot down that plane.
Gosh, we have egg on our faces.
Duh.
And like stopped arguing.
You know, they were like wrong and looked stupid and it didn't go anywhere.
And now I'm thinking, just peeling that onion one more layer that even the Iran-Israel thing or Iran is the bogeyman, whatever, is just about having this facade of tension and real hostility so that we can just get in there and blanket the Middle East and all the oil fields with our troops against the people there.
But you kind of can sew up all the governments, granted, that we kill these guys, like, you know, but I think we kill allies anyway, like Hussein or whatever, like get killed.
I think you can, I'm trying to think of an example, but you can get it to where somebody's in on it and still gets killed.
Like I think like Nixon was kind of in on it and he got watergated.
Ronald Reagan was probably kind of an insider and he got shot anyway and JFK too.
And so anybody who had their own mind or just got inconvenient or played their role and was expendable after that.
But I don't think that we are in these direct, I'm not saying I don't think.
I'm beginning to think there's a possibility that these like this threat of war that I see, you know, all signs point to war is really just a bunch of like multi-directional propaganda that goes to the American people, to the Russian people, to the people in the Middle East to manipulate what policies they will support.
And maybe we don't actually really mean to get to a war at all.
Maybe they just get to the end game, which is world government where they split up all the spoils of war without even, I mean, they do want to kill people, though.
So maybe we do go to war.
Well, it is a well, certainly the Americans and the Soviets had that type of relationship where they both really benefited from the propaganda of the threat of the other.
And it was much more beneficial for both of them to avoid the war with each other that would have actually cost something and then grant an excuse to their own citizens of why we need to be adventuring all around the world.
That's a great point.
I didn't even think of that yet.
Well, it's, you know, I mean, this is, you never would have been able to sell the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam without the Soviets.
And that was the big threat that this is why we have to go fight all these other wars.
And if these weapons companies happen to rake in billions of dollars, well, you know, that's never really what this is about.
But it does seem like it's probably about that for some people.
Like those weapons companies probably, you know, I more and more think of that.
Like as I see, as I did dig into Ukraine and all that, I just started to think, is this like that?
Are they trying to tell me that there's occult stuff and ideology and all this stuff when really it's just about blowing up hospitals and rebuilding them?
Like, is that really what it's all about?
Like all of the stuff that I'm like, oh, I think I cracked the code.
It's just a huge distraction against the fact that they're simply amassing wealth and luxury and power for their kind of not even intergenerational goals.
I don't, you know, then I start bumping into the like, what is this really all about kind of thing?
But so much of it just comes down to money and power.
Money And Power Behind Stamps00:02:54
It seems like to me, it's always an element.
Yeah.
Well, it's always, I mean, look, it's like you have to balance two things, right?
Which is that you should never in the same way.
So there's kind of like this mainstream narrative that's existed in America for, you know, at least 50 years, where it's like, if you're talking about people in the government, you're not supposed to think of them the way you would think of any normal person.
It's like, these are the noble men and women.
They're public servants.
They don't wake up in the morning, you know, with the same lowly human instincts that me and you have.
They're, you know, the fine men and women.
I was making fun of Bill Maher on the last show where he was saying, you know, the deep state are just people who want to do their job and protect America.
Oh, is he saying that now?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
He's way on that.
He's definitely been on the agenda for a while.
So that's absurd.
And they obviously are people just like everybody else.
And in fact, you know, well, yes, that's right.
And in fact, it does seem that a whole lot of predators and sociopaths seem to rise up in this structure known as government.
And it's not crazy.
I mean, in the same way any criminal organization would be.
It's like, why is it you find all of these sociopaths at the top of like mob families?
It's like, well, because that's who succeeds in a mob family.
Yes, exactly.
So there's that, you know?
But then there's also the other element is that sometimes we can overexplain things where the more simple answer is often the case where it's just like, oh, look, if there's a ton of money to be made here, there doesn't need to be some deeper plan.
It could just be a bunch of killers who are, you know, looting the entire world.
And that's, and so I think there's both of those things are at work.
All right, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is stamps.com.
Stamps.com brings all of the services of the U.S. Postal Service right to your computer.
Whether you're a small business sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to buy or print official U.S. postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
It's that simple.
With stamps.com, you get five cents off every first-class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.
Not to mention, it's a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
It saves you time, it saves you money.
No wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use stamps.com.
So there's no risk.
And with my promo code problem, you get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale with no long-term commitments or contracts.
Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in problem.
That's stamps.com, promo code problem.
Stamps.com.
Never go to the post office again.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Shady Deals In Ukraine00:14:23
Now, a lot of people wanted me to ask you about Ukraine because I did find it, I always thought there was something really fishy about the way the impeachment went down.
And it seemed to me that just I thought if you had just gone with like the emoluments clause, you could have had a stronger argument to impeach Donald Trump.
And by the way, I think there are about 13 or 14 really, really good reasons to impeach Donald Trump.
Now, I understand they're not going to impeach him for starving children in Yemen to death because they want the next guy to get in and be able to do that.
And there's all of these.
I mean, look, the Solomoni thing, you could have impeached him for that.
There's lots of great things.
I understand why they're not going to do that.
But like the emoluments clause, what are the odds that there's going to be another billionaire?
I guess they're better now than before.
But, you know, like, I just thought there were other, and it was very strange that they would go with this thing that obviously any like just regular Joe Six Pack was not going to be like, you know, convince, oh my God, he thought about withholding foreign aid for a deal that never actually went through.
And this seemed like such grasping at straws that I always was speculating, you know, I think there's something going on in Ukraine that's really shady that Trump was trying to investigate.
And they are like, no, they're like smacking his hand, like, no, you're not allowed to investigate this.
And they want to scare him off of investigating it in the future.
So I don't know that much about the deeper stuff going on in Ukraine, but what was your sense from the stuff you've looked into?
So there's so I think that what it really came from, my suspicion is, or whatever,
an example I think makes some bigger picture sense is this that Biden and John Kerry went in maybe were in cahoots with this oligarch named Kolomoyski.
He is the guy who got Zelensky in.
Do you know this?
Kolomoyski is a big media guy and Zelensky was on his station and now Zelensky is the president of Ukraine.
Kind of like the way Jeff Zucker created Donald Trump.
I'm sorry to say.
And the CNN kind of got him in there.
But by whatever.
Anyway, so the, so, so, okay, it's just so complicated.
I'm going to try to make it as simple as possible.
So Kolomoyski runs Burizma, supposedly.
He has a thing called Pravat Bank, and that has a Cypress address, same address as Burizma.
So what was happening was Kolomoyski was through Provat Bank making a lot of loans that were never meant to be paid back, which supposedly is what Bill Clinton did in Arkansas to get rich.
So you make these loans that have zero interest and never meant to be paid back.
And the loans that Provat Bank was making was, I think they got some IMF money and were supposed to be making loans that had a certain purpose and were like insulated from being involved with these other people, like, you know, conflicts of interest and stuff like that.
And they violated those rules.
And they made so many of these bad loans that Pravat Bank started to go under.
Then Ukraine, the government came in and bailed out Provat Bank to the tune of like $5 billion, which is more than all the aid the U.S. and the IMF and everything have given to the whatever, to the, to Ukraine.
But Kerry and Biden put their people in on the board of Burisma, which is one of these Kolomoyski companies.
And they also did kind of the same thing in China.
And their other partners were Whitey Bulger's nephew and this guy, Devin Archer, who was on their team in their financial, like Rosemont Capital, whatever it's called, Rosemont Seneca.
He's also on the Burisma's board.
He was convicted of some massive fraud.
Then his conviction, unlike his co-fraudsters, was overturned by a judge named Ronnie Abrams, whose husband was number two on the Mueller team.
So like there's a lot of, you know, if you want to think there are two sides, Democrats, Republicans, this is all Democrat stuff.
And I think like Giuliani wanted a piece of the action because he just saw so much money going around, but I don't think the Republicans are quite as good as like the super, super high level, like billions of dollars stuff.
So the ending is Kolomoyski, he got Zelensky in.
He lost the bank because it was nationalized.
And then he won a court case in May that a judge, a court, and they're notoriously corrupt in Ukraine said, oh, Kolomoyski, you're right.
We shouldn't have nationalized your bank.
It wasn't actually bankrupt.
And we owe you two, we might owe you $2 billion.
If I understand it correctly, it was at that point that the IMF stopped, put their aid on hold because it was a huge liability at the governmental level that they are kind of not permitted to feed aid into until it's resolved, like any kind of company that like looks like it's going bankrupt or whatever.
It was around that time that we suspended aid.
You know, it was not that long after that.
So I, so that is what the pro, that's what I think the corruption is.
I think that the, that Peter Schweitzer wrote a book.
I forget what the name of it was, but it kind of hinted at this stuff on the Biden level about real serious big money stuff, naming names.
And that information came out of some corruption investigations in Ukraine.
And I think the Bidens were really looking at a potential serious investigation.
And that if I think Trump either played into their hands or did them a favor directly by inoculating the media, the politicians, the American public from demanding an investigation into Biden if that stuff were to come out.
And I think for that reason, I actually think that's why Biden ran.
I think that's why he's out now because it's over.
He doesn't have to run anymore.
And that by calling for an investigation against Biden, Trump made an investigation about Biden never going to happen.
So that's how I, because I think that the investigation against Biden would be like in the billions and it would include Kerry.
The Bulgers are so corrupt.
It's just crazy.
And Devin Archer is convicted for autstructure.
If you dig into Hunter Biden and Joe's brother Jim, now I don't know if those guys are anything except for extensions of Joe.
Like, I don't know if they're face jobs like a guy's wife would be.
I don't know, but they've been, they were implicated.
They were, they had one financial business that was a partner with the greatest financial fraud known.
And that is even bigger than Bernie Madoff.
It was with Sanford.
You didn't hear about it as much, but Adam Sanford or something like that.
Anyway, so if you look into it, they have been involved in high-level fraud in the past, and it just, it always gets buried.
But you could dig in and find a lot of that stuff if you were to investigate it.
And I just think that they're intentionally not investigating it or now get a pass on ever.
You would just seem like a Republican if you want.
It would seem partisan for but, you know, partisan retaliation.
Right.
Right.
Well, it does seem like that is ultimately what comes out of this.
It's almost like, you know, reminds me of the Epstein death where like, you know, the result of it is like, well, we were going to investigate this whole thing, but now I guess we'll just, we really won't look into that.
And it's just kind of like you can kind of, you know, wipe your hands of it.
But yeah, it is, it's been something to watch Joe Biden's campaign and just the way it's imploded over the last couple of weeks and the way he, I mean, it's like, why this guy who's so much older than people who traditionally run for president and clearly seems like, I don't know, it just seemed like if there was anybody who cared about Joe Biden, they would have been like, just don't even do this to yourself.
But now that he is collapsing, and it does seem to be that his campaign is collapsing, there won't be this, you know, people, forget like formal investigations, but there just won't be people digging into the rampant corruption of his family, particularly his brother and his son, Hunter.
And it seems like he will probably disappear into the shadows now.
And still have billions, because even though they stepped down from the board of Brieceman, I think it was a total red herring to be like, he got a $50,000 salary.
My understanding is that the big, big money is in this China deal where they said they were committing like $500,000, something like that.
I don't think Hunter said, and I don't think he ever even came up with the money.
And then he like stepped back from that board membership or whatever his involvement was there, but they didn't divest themselves of the investment.
So I believe that investment is probably going to yield them hundreds of millions of dollars.
And nobody's even talking about that.
Yeah.
That maybe was the diversion.
It is a very strange scenario, what's going on now in the Democratic race for presidency.
So it's, if you just listen to the mainstream reports on it, like I said, number two and number three in New Hampshire are kind of these ones who they're trying to talk about right now.
Amy Klobuchar got third place, and this is supposed to somehow be a big deal.
Even Mayor Pete getting second.
But what's interesting about this is if you look at it, two things you can say with a high degree of certainty is that there is no chance that Amy Klobuchar or Mayor Pete can come out of this thing.
I mean, Mayor Pete's polling at like 10% nationally.
He's got no black support, no Latino support.
There's no way you're winning the Democratic nomination like that.
Amy Klobuchar is behind him.
It's starting to seem like this is going to be a Bernie versus Michael Bloomberg race.
And now Michael Bloomberg is kind of this interesting figure who is really beloved by the establishment of both sides.
I mean, they really like this Michael Bloomberg guy.
He's worth $30 billion or something like that.
He's already spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the race.
And it's just like, I don't know.
I just wonder on the surface level, like, what, what can actually happen here?
I mean, can the Democrats support a billionaire who just bought the race?
Doesn't that seem to go against everything that the average Democratic voter wants?
And then, do you, you know, like we might really be in for some fun if this goes to like a contested convention and the Democratic establishment is just going to pick somebody to run up against Donald Trump.
What are your thoughts about that?
It does, it seems like if I wanted to put on my conspiratorial hat, I would go, it kind of seems like the Democrats might be working for Donald Trump right now.
I mean, they couldn't have mismanaged this thing any worse.
Well, I'm cautious about that because I established a very popular hashtag, hashtag lose on purpose in 2016 to describe Donald Trump.
Oh, so I was pretty shocked when he won.
And now I wonder if Hillary didn't lose on purpose.
And it looks to me like they're trying to lose on purpose.
It seemed, I saw it was written in an article in the Wall Street Journal today above the fold.
So it was for everyone to see that Bernie Sanders, like, oh, he's doing great.
He's doing great.
You know, he did have a heart attack recently, but, you know, he seems okay.
So I wonder if they're, if like maybe, I don't know, you know, he has a heart attack or something.
Like for some reason, Bloomberg gets in there and he's so unpopular because it feels so undemocratic that not only does it lose for the Democrats, but the Democrats themselves start saying louder and louder, the system is broken.
The system is broken.
And that is, see, that's the thing that I think is the real purpose of us.
I think Donald Trump is a shoe-in, but, you know, I don't, I don't know.
Like they're the scriptwriters of this stuff are usually a little bit ahead of me.
Sometimes I can see what the last episode of the season is going to be like, but sometimes I don't.
So I think that it's really about the crisis of democracy.
I really think that Trump is going to get another go at it.
I actually, today I felt like reaffirmed that belief because the coronavirus was cited by the Fed as being a potential excuse for them to stimulate.
And when you've got, I think interest rates are like down to below 2%, their rate, like the Fed funds rate.
We're 11 years or more, whatever, approaching more into an expansion, like unprecedented expansion.
Our deficits, our debt to GDP is a record in like the post-war era.
Credit card debt is at record level.
So we are really just growing on borrowed and printed money.
So to stimulate now, you know, but they're not talking about things going backwards.
Like I think they have to keep this going, they have to stimulate.
And rather than blame it on Trump or a failing economy or whatever, if they get to blame it on the coronavirus, they can really kind of pump it up till the end of the year, which I think is what Trump needs because the reason people like him, even people who don't like him like him, is they attribute to him a good economy.
And I just, so the more I hear them, the Fed saying, oh, the coronavirus is going to make us stimulate, the more I think, oh, they're going to get him in.
Right.
And then, so like, I'm predicting that he wins.
And I'm saying that one of, so I think they want him in because of stuff he does, or maybe to take the wrap for when the big, big corruption correction comes down, like the one that should have happened in 2008, but was kind of softened and kicked down the road.
Maybe he's that guy who brings that down.
I used to think it was to start a war with Iran, but now I'm like, I'm not sure they actually need a war, but they might.
So I think they want him in.
And I think they also want to take control of the electoral process to kind of limit democracy a little bit, to move more towards a popular system.
Predicting Trump's Victory00:11:24
Bloomberg and James Carville said the same thing recently.
And I was like, that raises a flag, which is they don't like that the Senate represents geography rather than population.
So that kind of thing.
Like they want fundamental changes in the system.
And in order to get that, they need to, for it to fail.
Right, right.
Yeah.
Well, it does seem like whatever the move would be, even if you're saying it would limit democracy, it would be in the name of democracy.
They would push it in the name of the need.
We need real democracy.
Well, and Stacey Abrams is an interesting, I just saw her on, she was on something the other day.
That one is a real, she talk about a manufactured representative.
Created person.
Hashtag created person.
Well, she really is though, right?
I mean, this is a woman who's what, what is her claim to fame?
AOC also.
And Mayor Pete.
Right.
Her claims to fame.
But she didn't even win her election.
I mean, at least Mayor Pete is a mayor and AOC did get into the house.
But like Abrams, it's just like, well, she should have won.
So she's our new.
How far back have you gone on her?
I don't know that much.
Oh my gosh.
You really, this is like my both Binkley, my producer on WSB and I just kind of blew the lid off of her when she was running because our show is out of Atlanta and she, it was Georgia governorship that she was running.
But we dug into her stuff.
It was like crazy.
Her parents are pretty well connected civil rights activists, but she herself went to a high school program.
This is where I get like created person.
I think they peg people like in high school who are suitable for being groomed and manufactured and looking like they have a clean slate.
Like you don't have to sheep dip a person if that person has no history, kind of like the way Obama never voted.
And she's one of those people.
So she went to this Telluride program, which is a high school program for people of color, I think.
And I used to think of those programs as like just affirmative action or whatever.
I don't care.
But now I think that what they're meant to do is indoctrinate or manufacture people who look like the communities they're trying to target.
So that's what I think she was.
And then if you, so she was kind of pegged then as being an elite, a chosen person.
And her internships since then have been, I don't have like her resume in front of me usually when I'm in my office.
Like I have her resume.
It's just like shocking.
She has had so many internships from the State Department to the Marshall Fund.
She did one with Yukos Oil, which is gone now, but it was like a Kissinger run program of this Yukos Oil in Russia where they were clearly interfering in Russian elections.
And she was one of those.
So like, I think she's running for world president.
I mean, that chick is a member of the CFR.
I think maybe, you know, she stepped out of it like Tulsi Gabbard did, but she was in there.
And her whole thing, and she does one thing that I think I suspect is a way you get people like that paid.
She writes books.
So she writes these romance novels under a different name on the side.
And I was suspecting that's how these guys got rich all along, because when you have politicians like Obama and stuff having millions and millions of dollars, you got to wonder why.
And then I got so many people told me, and I mean, I read it myself, this Baltimore mayor got kind of deposed or had to leave office and is getting investigated because she did exactly that thing that I was kind of suspecting that must be going on.
And this Stacey Abrams has those books.
I mean, I'm not accusing her of taking bribes, but I don't, you know, she might.
Well, it does.
I've always found it really interesting.
And this has been going on my whole life.
And it does seem to me that it's getting harder for them to get these people over.
That's just, that's just my observation.
But basically for all of my life and perhaps much earlier than that, but there will be these people who the corporate press just decides is the next person in line.
And it kind of seemingly comes from nowhere.
Like, where did Bill Clinton come from?
You're telling me just the governor of Arkansas was clearly.
Well, right, but he's a Rhodes scholar and then you find out he's like involved with the Reagan administration trafficking in narcotics and stuff and has this whole, and it's like, oh, so he wasn't just some random governor.
He was a guy who you guys really had your tentacles in.
And by the way, Barack Obama was a great example of that.
Barack Obama was, I believe at the time, I might be wrong about this, but I believe in 2004 was not even a senator yet.
I believe he, if he was, he had just been elected into the Senate.
Maybe a state senator.
Yeah, he might have even been a state senator.
Or if he wasn't a state senator, he was a state senator who just got into the Senate.
And in 2004, he gets this prime time speaking role at the DNC.
Now, granted, you could say he's an incredible public speaker and he gave an incredible speech there, but it just seems so strange that it's like the entire media just kind of lets you know, oh, this guy's the next guy.
Now, this doesn't come from any grassroots uprising.
It's not like, oh, people just really love this guy.
People had no idea who the hell this guy was.
They just pick him.
And then I will say this year, it seemed like they really tried to do that with Beto Aurora.
Stacey Abrams.
Well, I was going to say with Beto this year was the example where they just went like, oh, this random guy is your next guy.
But it just kind of fell flat on its face.
And even Stacey Abrams, I mean, they tried to kind of make her venue.
She can in some and not in others.
But what I think, I think the way it works is they have a bunch of people of the same profile or to perform the same tasks.
You know, maybe they have 100 different tasks that you performed and they have a bunch of people in each role.
So like with the, and then they just see what's working.
So like with Trump, with his election, one tell I found was Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton all had legitimacy issues getting teed up before the election.
So Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen, not an American citizen that was born.
Both his parents were Canadian.
Dual citizenship was illegal at the time.
And he just would have been illegitimate straight up.
No way.
It's constitutional crisis the day he gets elected.
So, and they, they, people were, Republicans were, were shushing me.
And I was like, don't be an idiot.
Like, if this guy gets in, it's over.
And it was similar with Trump.
He had the least illegitimacy because that Russian election thing.
But Hillary had a lot of illegal or undocumented or non-citizens, ineligible voters voted for.
There's no question about that.
So they set up these legitimacy things.
I feel like, so maybe that was a three-way race from the powers that be.
Like any one of those guys is fine.
We'll still get our crisis of democracy because all three of them are going to have legitimacy issues.
I think that crisis of democracy is a big recurring theme, a very important thing for the what Michael Chertoff called for a fundamental restructuring of our legal architecture.
That I think is what a lot of this stuff kind of feeds into along with other tasks.
What makes you think that that's what they're pushing for?
A fundamental restructuring of the legal architecture.
And the crisis of democracy.
Yeah, I think, well, like you could actually look at the book.
There's a book called The Crisis of Democracy, but that was a trilateral commission thing from like 1972.
Spigdev Brzezinski ran that.
And some of the people who contributed to it later were like, we did not agree with his conclusion.
He put words in our mouth, but that the words were, we need to establish and foster non-governmental organizations so that people are co-opted into supporting the institution they depend on without the kind of transparency and individual power that you get in democracy.
So you got to take a lot of governmental functions out of the government and put it.
That's why I'm not a fan of privatization or public private.
It's simply a way to take power that's been amassed and stolen and everything and put it in a room that you can't see and get people who can be outward oligarchs, outward billionaires and stuff with that kind of money.
So at least with communism, it's harder to hot, you know, to you can't just run around spending that money.
So he talked about how like you had to push people into institutions, labor unions, corporations, universities, I guess, and all that.
And I feel like when you hear people saying like Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, I think, or maybe Virginia, saying stuff like due process is killing us right now.
And all the false flags and psyops are all about taking away one by one the Bill of Rights.
And I think the Bill of Rights is the last stand against world tyranny.
Like the whole world looks at us and they need to get that away from us.
And they do it with terrorism, the drug war, mass shootings.
Like they're, I mean, these things are coming fast and furious and they're not even that good anymore.
Like you were saying, like they're not even trying that hard.
I think that that was something you were talking about earlier that like, you know, you're just like, how are it's so obvious and it is.
And they just, but they just, people aren't objecting to it in the media.
It's not a free press or anything.
So nobody's pointing it out.
And if you do point it out, you get ostracized or taken down from WordPress like I was.
And I just feel like there, there's only one reason for it.
And it's we stand in the way of what I think increasingly is a world economic government more than anything else.
I think it really is.
It's it's like a back door to regulating every part of our lives is to use, I mean, obviously like the environment and sustainability stuff, but to just regulate all our trade and commerce and our right, our property rights and all that stuff, it just ends up being a world kind of dictatorship.
And it's through these trade deals.
Yeah.
Well, there's no, look, there's no question.
I mean, there's been, and this was something that, you know, like post World War II, like the John Birch Society and a lot of the kind of like old right conservatives talked about the push toward one world government quite a bit.
And there's, look, there's no question that they're, a lot of it is based on real things.
And what you've seen since then, and that was just, you know, with the very beginning of like of NATO and the United Nations and things like that.
But, you know, we've seen all of this stuff, whether it's NAFTA, the European Union, all types of different pushes.
I mean, look, there were real plans put forth for the Amero, for the Canada-Mexico-American alliance.
I don't know when was it.
This was something that they were pushing in the early 2000s.
Now, it all collapsed.
None of it ended up coming true.
But a lot of these things.
I think it comes back.
Yeah.
Well, right.
So it's like there are people who kind of seem to want this world government or something in that direction, but it seems like they struggle very much in some ways to get it going.
And it certainly seems like something like Brexit was not a big part of the plan.
And you see the entire elites like kind of bash it.
World Government Through Trade Deals00:15:31
I don't know.
I mean, I, you know, I wonder.
You think it was?
I do.
First of all, Rupert Murdoch was behind it.
Like he endorsed it in his newspapers.
And what I think it's doing is it's getting, I think the TPP, I agree with you, like it's a struggle.
So this is what we're talking about.
Like where are the struggles?
So the TPP was a big struggle.
Obama tried to do it and he couldn't do it.
So they don't have a total grip on everything, right?
You're right.
But TPP just didn't work.
So they had them all do it without us.
So they all did it without us.
And then Trump comes in and says, oh.
Thank God I'm here.
I'm going to fix this.
All right, guys, let's take a second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Heshy Socks.
As you guys know, these are my favorite socks and they have a brand new collection that's been released.
They're incredible.
New styles, new colors, the same amazing feel.
For those of you guys who are new to the podcast, you might ask yourself, what do you love so much about these socks, Dave?
Well, if you're tired of your feet hurting after a long day in dress shoes, Heshisox.com will solve that problem for you.
Most fashion and dress socks are expensive, poorly constructed, and they provide zero protection, not Heshy socks.
Heshy socks are cushioned in the heel, foot, and toe.
They have arch support in the center so your feet don't slosh around in your shoes.
They're made with breathable Pima cotton and are antimicrobial so your feet won't stink.
So your feet are going to feel good and smell good at the end of the day.
But best of all, they're designed to stay up.
You don't have to pull at these socks.
They're not falling down.
I hate that about dress socks, and that's not the case with Heshies.
Go to Heshisocks.com.
That's H-E-S-H-I-socks.com.
And if you enter the promo code problem30, they're going to give you 30% off your entire order, fashion, basic, or ankle socks.
That's Heshisox.com.
The best thing to ever happen to you.
All right, let's get back into the show.
So he gives us, I don't know if you've heard this.
I've said it many times and maybe it's other people are saying it too, but the USMCA trade deal is actually word for word, textually more than 50% the TPP.
And chapter for chapter, it's 95% the TPT.
And article for article within those chapters, it's 72% the TPP, word for word.
So what I think they're doing, and this comes from the Trilateral Commission, the Trilateral Commission name itself is the three, you know, whatever laterals is like Europe, North America, and Asia.
So if you, if you can zip up all these different trade deals into one and the USMCA, I think, provides the platform for that, that I think next thing that's going to happen is the UK is going to zip into the USMCA because USMCA has a provision that you cannot make unilateral trade deals with other countries without getting the approval of the other two USMCA partners.
So if you make a China deal and it blows up USMCA after all your factories and everything and all your industry, your auto, everything has conformed to the USMCA, you can't go do China without giving Canada and Mexico a chance to plug into that or to approve it or to veto it.
And they're already talking about the UK joining us, giving us a trade deal, which must conform to the USMC or be approved by it by the end of the year.
Japan has already started to plug into that.
So then you've got your, you know, you've got your European Union, you've got your TPP, which is over in Asia.
China is going to plug into us, UK.
And then if you just zip up those oceans, you've got a world trade organization.
And I think the WTO will go away that's a lot, a lot more powerful.
And we're not even talking about it.
There was no debate.
Yeah.
No, well, it does seem like that that push toward globalism.
And of course, globalism is kind of a vague word, but in this context, what I mean specifically is this kind of managed trade, you know, this kind of corporate government partnership where they manage trade zones that just get bigger and bigger and bigger.
Even if, you know, whatever role Bregs it plays in that, it certainly is still going in that direction.
And, you know, what you said about Trump with the TPP, I mean, it's also true with this new NAFTA that he's bragging about so much.
It's basically just NAFTA again.
I mean, with like some very modern-day.
Yeah, the USMCA is NAFTA 2.0 and it is the TPP.
I mean, it is all the same thing.
It's all major.
And the thing is...
There was a CFR document, Council of Farm Relations document on the North American Union, which William Weld co-authored.
Heidi Cruz signed up on it and all that.
Oh, yeah.
And they talked about how they would set up, there's a CFR document.
They would set up from not that long ago, an organization like the Bilderberg Group to help the legislatures of Canada, U.S., and Mexico conform their legislation to a secret shadow body, which is totally unconstitutional, that would conform their legislation to the most restrictive labor and environmental laws existent in any of those three countries.
So the North American Union would then all of a sudden kind of overnight become use as the trade deal a source for the most intrusive bodies of law I can think of, labor and environmental.
They can justify everything with that.
And that's why I kind of say like it doesn't even have to be a world government.
They don't even have to call it that.
And it is that kind of corporate governmental thing.
If you look into the World Economic Forum, the Davos thing, their stated goal is public-private partnership.
That's their stated goal.
And to me, that's like socialism giving birth to fascism.
It's just the next step is fascism and it's this worldwide economic thing.
And we're not like, we're not going to vote because we don't want a world government.
So they're going to give it to us and we're going to have even less say over it than if we had to actually, they had to actually get our consent.
Yeah.
No, there's, there's no question about it that that is the model.
It is.
It's, it's fascism.
I mean, that's what the model is.
It's funny when they launch these words, you know, at, you know, it's like the people will call Donald Trump a fascist and it's like, oh, yeah, you know, I mean, fair enough in some ways, he certainly is.
But, you know, Obama was certainly a fascist and so was Bush and Clinton and pretty much all of them.
It's kind of the system that we have.
And that seems to be the system that the elites like.
They've pretty much abandoned traditional socialism, communism, like that type of, that type of model, I think they've found just isn't workable for lots of obvious economic reasons.
I think it's because they have to hide their money that way.
Yeah.
I think it's because they have to hide their money.
Yeah.
Well, I also think that it's just a more, it's a more economically productive and sustainable model, even for the elite.
You're right.
Communism ends up just destroying everything, whereas this kind of corporate government partnership.
And when you think about it, I mean, you look at something like the Federal Reserve, the ultimate example of the private public, you know, kind of merger.
And it's the worst of both worlds.
You have all of the power of government with all of the secrecy of a private non-government entity.
And it's just, it's a nightmare.
But it has, you know, been around for over 100 years now.
It's somewhat sustainable.
That just the Federal Reserve is longer than any experiment in communism ever, ever lasted.
So it certainly is scary.
And I agree with you that then it gets, you know, it's like libertarians, you know, will say like, oh, we want to privatize everything.
And then some corporate Republican will say, well, great, let's privatize Social Security.
And you're like, yeah, but what you're talking about is having the government steal everybody's wages and then hand it over to Wall Street so they can gamble with it.
That's not exactly the type of privatization we're looking for.
No, if the government has the mandate and can't execute the mandate, don't take the mandate away.
You know, take the mandate away from the government.
Like that's the thing that is such a scam about this privatization thing is that they, if the government, if you're defending government as being the only entity that can do this and they can't actually do it, what you're saying is, well, they're the only entity that has the guns and can steal from everyone because that's it.
That's what the mandates are if they're not actually executing.
And then I would say, don't do that.
Like you can't make that, you can't accommodate that by saying, oh, well, they can't actually do it.
So let's give it to someone who can.
It's like, no, I can.
Right.
And you can find the writings, you know, Republicans totally defend that system.
They're all socialists.
Absolutely.
So what do you think?
I mean, obviously, you know, you do a radio show and a podcast and you talk about these ideas a lot.
What do you think is the case for hope or optimism?
I mean, can we convince enough people to look into this stuff that they won't buy it?
Will that even matter?
Or is the CFR and the Trilateral Commission going to get their way as they always do?
I have a feeling.
I really work on this one, but I have a feeling that if you don't buy into how they frame everything, it doesn't really work.
Because I feel at the bottom of it all, we kind of consent from senses.
I think on the left, it's like the sense of fiscal insecurity.
And on the right, it's a sense of physical insecurity.
And so in the end, you have pretty much everybody buying into the welfare state and the warfare state because we're so afraid.
But, and that's why they care so much about the propaganda and everything.
And I feel like as I think about fighting that fight, I feel like all you really need to do is be true to your principles to free your mind, to have a liberated mind.
And they can't really control you because you can just shrug it off.
They cannot, you know, if you're willing to kind of die for your principles, they can't get you to compromise and vote, you know, for example.
And it's, it's similar to how I think about the Bill of Rights is that I think the Constitution, you know, call it one thing or the other.
It's gotten us where it's gotten us and that's not good.
But I do think it's worth preserving the Bill of Rights, which is an objectively valid position.
And when people are like, well, who do you think is running the world?
What do you think is really going on?
You're a conspiracy theorist.
That's no good.
Like, I don't believe you.
I'm like, I don't care.
Don't don't even think about that stuff.
Don't ever let them take your rights away.
Just like pull on your sword for that.
And as an individual, you can, you can do that.
And I really think that's where the hope is is just to get people to stop thinking in that lesser of two evils way.
It's pretty simple.
Yeah.
Well, one thing.
Because then you're playing their game.
Yeah.
I will say that I do.
I am somewhat optimistic, cautiously optimistic about the fact that so many people seem to be in this moment in American history not buying the establishment narrative.
And they might be following people like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, who, you know, are not exactly the best leaders.
But it does seem like there's a whole lot of people who are like, whoever the establishment tells me I'm supposed to support, I'm not supporting that guy.
I think this whole thing is a scheme.
And maybe some of that energy can be channeled in a good direction at some point.
But certainly, I think it's better that people be skeptical of the establishment than like all about endorsing them.
But that's they had to give us Donald Trump.
You know, if they had to give you Obama, if they had to give you Donald Trump, if, you know, if they had to take Ron Paul away from you, obviously the zeitgeist is there.
Right.
You know what I'm saying?
Like they had to, like, they were going to lose black America because they are not buying it.
You know, they're like, yeah, tell that, tell that story to somebody who hasn't seen that it's a lie.
So they had to buy them off for a while.
And then we had Ron Paul and they're like, we have to buy them off.
So like, let's bait and switch them with a Donald Trump who we can still control, but they won't know it.
So you're right.
Like that, the end of that story has not been written.
Yeah.
And certainly whether or not, you know, I don't know.
Like Donald Trump certainly is a guy who, whether like to what end he's participating in all of this, I really don't know.
It's, it does seem to me that he, I think he did scare a lot of people with some of the things that he says.
And I think that Donald Trump concerns a lot of people because there's certain things about him that are difficult to control.
But at the same time, I think Donald Trump also always had a ceiling of how much he could mobilize people.
Like there's so many people who are so turned off by him and that he's probably got all of these things that they could use to kind of like box him in.
And like, I don't know.
I don't know how serious Donald Trump was about wanting to talk with Vladimir Putin and work out a deal with them.
But they certainly, if he was ever serious about it, they certainly got that idea out of his head.
Oh, that's a great point.
Well, I think that's, to me, that was a big part of what the whole Trump-Russia collusion narrative was, was that they were making it possible, impossible for him to actually work out a deal with Vladimir Putin.
And that to me indicates that they were worried that he might, that he might actually want.
Yeah.
And I don't like attribute to him some geopolitical genius that he was like, I'm going to, you know, save the world, but why not make a deal, right?
But I was in Moscow by just like a coincidence, a couple of times I traveled there, once recently for the World Cup a couple of years ago, and then 10 years prior to that.
And the growth, the economic prosperity, even despite the fact that oil prices have been suppressed is scary.
Like you could definitely think they would be an economic like a rival to if they weren't fully aligned with the West.
And that I do think is like an alignment between Germany and Russia.
It was probably the real source of the two world wars because that does pose a threat to like the English empire and all that, whatever.
But that's a very interesting point.
And, you know, you get so caught up in all the minutiae and like the daily changing stuff, which is such a distraction.
But that, in my opinion, keeping Russia outside of Europe is probably the most important goal of kind of the, you know, UK, US world, you know, the hub of the world government as they wish it to be.
Well, yeah, I mean, I think it's, it seems to me that it's, you know, like the countries that are not within the control of the American empire, which, you know, like, look, there are different power sources.
Like I know people always talk about, you know, like, well, there's the, you know, like the Israeli influence or the Saudi influence.
And all of these people, I think, have their own interests.
But let's get real.
It's the American empire.
I mean, America is the force, the real force behind all of this, at least as of right now.
But everybody, you know, if I don't know, for example, but if Saudi Arabia is doing something horrible to their own citizens or if Israel's doing something horrible to the people of Gaza, it doesn't get nearly the public outcry that Iran doing something will get or Russia, you know, whatever they do.
Pull Yourself Up By Bootstraps00:11:25
So it does show you, it's like, you know, you have like Russia, China, and in the Middle East, it's really Iran and Syria who are outside of the empire's control.
And those are the ones that seem to get demonized the most.
And, you know, everything is kind of organized around boxing them in.
At least that's what it seems like to me, North Korea.
And it doesn't change from president to president.
I mean, that's the thing.
It's really all about the foreign policy.
It's really not about what's happening here.
So, in my opinion, that that's how you know that the two-party system is ridiculous.
That's why Bernie Sanders, like he's not coming out.
He's not saying what Ron Paul said.
He might be treated like Ron Paul, but in the end, they are happy to have him because he is not telling us to march all the troops home from around the world.
He is not doing that.
No, that's for sure.
There's no, there's no question about that.
And he's also, you know, the thing that really the reason why I don't, you know, even if he was a socialist or something like that, the thing that's so like shallow about the Bernie Sanders movement is that he does nothing to better the young people that he's speaking to.
And I remember saying this back in 2016 when the Sanders movement first came about.
And it was, I got to say, it was kind of surprising to me.
I'm sure it was surprising to some people who knew Ron Paul before 2008.
But I knew who Bernie Sanders was for a long time.
I mean, I've been, you know, following politics for, you know, like around a decade before his 2016 movement.
But, you know, it's like you go when there was Ron Paul would be speaking to college kids and drawing these huge crowds and they're chanting and the Fed.
It's like this is a burning dollar bills.
Yeah.
This is a group of people who have been inspired to read and think about things.
You don't just start chanting end the Fed without having done any research, but to just chant everyone should have medical care or free college.
This is just, you're just catering to what they already wanted to hear.
Ron Paul supporters, almost all of them, I mean, like probably 80, 90% had had their entire worldviews challenged and destroyed.
You know, like they were like, wow, I've completely thrown out all of my preconceived notions about X, Y, and Z.
And I just don't see that from Bernie Sanders.
I would see something of value if he was at least getting them to read and think about the world in different ways.
But I really just don't see him doing a lot of that.
But you are right.
And I've also thought about the idea that in many ways he did kind of mimic the aesthetics of the Ron Paul campaigns.
I wonder about that.
I do actually feel like that message, not only, you know, the socialist message, but of like free college from every head, but also the identity message from the left.
That stuff is very disempowering, very disempowering.
And in two ways, one is like you can say Ron Paul say, okay, or Murray Rothbard might say Milton Friedman, even if you want to go there, despite his monetarist tendencies, that like if you have a problem with racism or prejudice, economic, whatever, I don't know, if you have an internet, if you have free markets and an internet, nobody knows what you look like.
If you build a better shoe, no one could discriminate against you on the basis of anything.
Like liberty, technology aids liberty in finally destroying racism.
And women, if women are getting paid less in a truly free market for labor, like I said, me and a bunch of girls got fired from an investment bank by a total sexist.
And it was in a smaller city and we were like, hey, let's start ChickBank.
We work harder for less, but we couldn't because him and his buddies at the golf course had all the bank charters.
You know, you couldn't do it.
But in a free society, you don't have any of those problems.
And I, so it's very disempowering to feel like you have to beg for it all the time and you beg for it because you've given that power up.
And the example I'm thinking of is when I, the only, you said you were involved, you politically savvy, aware, awake, whatever for 10 years before then before Bernie's first run.
But for me, I really got off the couch to fight Obamacare.
And we went up every time there was a rally in DC, we went up from Atlanta to fight against Obamacare because I felt like I don't, I don't think we have any hope here, but I'm not, I'm not allowing the government to go over that tipping point of 50% of the economy from which there is, it's the point of no return and not telling my kids.
I tried hard to get it to stop it.
But I remember being in the subway there and some Europeans asked us what, what the, what the fight was about, why we were all there, hundreds of thousands of people.
And it's at the same time that like in Spain and all around Europe, they were having these anti-austerity rallies of the students taking to the street.
And I said, oh, we're fighting for the government not to give us healthcare.
And I said, because, and I said, the reason is you guys have to beg for everything.
You guys have to beg for it.
Every time you want something, you have to go beg for it on the street like this.
But we want to be able to just work and buy it so that we don't have to beg anybody.
We can just make our choice.
And that's the difference between you and us for now until we lose this fight.
Yeah.
And then it's over.
And that's why we're all here.
And unfortunately, we did lose that one.
But, you know, that's very disempowering because now I don't have the power to make that choice for myself.
And that's what Bernie wants.
He wants us to beg all the time for everything.
It's just demand.
It's so unbelievably destructive.
And look, like I've said this before on the show, but I think even if you were to grant that, okay, there's somewhat like there are these obstacles of racism or sexism that are out there.
And to be completely honest, I mean, I also think particularly in today's 2020 culture, there are now some obstacles culturally about straight white men doing things because that's been completely accepted to demonize, you know, that group of people.
But regardless, look, maybe there are some obstacles out there for lots of different groups of people.
And maybe there is some truth to the argument, hey, there are all these obstacles we live in in this horrible society.
And maybe there's some truth to the argument of like, well, hey, forget all of those and go pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make something of yourself.
There might be truth to both of those arguments, but there's no question which one of those arguments is more damaging.
And everybody knows this.
It's like everybody's had a moment in their life where they've been caught feeling sorry for themselves.
And sometimes you deserve to feel sorry for yourself.
But even if you deserve to feel sorry for yourself, if you want to be successful, at some point you have to go, okay, enough of that.
I'm done feeling sorry for myself.
I'm going to go achieve something.
There is no message I would be more furious if anyone was ever beating into my daughter's head than that you should feel like a victim or you should, there are all these obstacles against you.
I don't care.
I mean, even if there are some, you know, I saw Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the genius of our time the other day.
She was mocking.
I don't know if you saw this.
This video went viral of her mocking the idea of telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
And she had some little thing where she's like, oh, that's, she goes, well, if you don't have boots to begin with, how are you going to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and all this stuff?
And you're sitting there and you're like, your story, at least the story, your purported story, which is bullshit.
I know it's not true, but she's not.
No, I think the bar.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, I think she worked at a bar.
But she was like...
That did not exist at the time that she said she worked there.
Oh, that, see, that I didn't even know.
I just assumed she was.
I mean, I did a lot of research.
I'd actually put it in front of you.
Like, I did the research.
Like, when did that bar open?
I know that her whole impoverished childhood story was kind of bullshit, but she's claiming to be this like person who came up from nothing to being a congresswoman.
And yet she's going to look back at the minority community and tell them, oh, you can't do this.
She is, I think, just turned 30 and is like wildly successful.
So, you know, in a terrible way in politics, but whatever.
But so, so you're even telling me you can't look back at like Latino women and say, hey, look at me.
Anything's possible.
You can rise up in this society.
You look back at them and go, this whole society is pitted against you.
Like, what a, what a damning message.
And I think far too often right-wing people or libertarian, just non-left-wing people, they look at like people who are preaching that message to minorities and get annoyed at it without realizing that that's actually the most damning thing.
Like, I actually really feel bad for the women and people of color who are looking up and hearing people who they think are leaders say things.
It's meant to disempower them so that they remain dependent on this group that wants to give them stuff.
And I, but in my own experience, I dropped out of high school.
I went to community, I ultimately went to community college and I transferred to Harvard.
And my lowest point, like that point that you were talking about, like where you feel sorry for yourself, everybody was like junior year to senior year.
It was, I was only there for two years and there was one summer to get a job.
And everybody was kind of getting the job that their best friend, father, best friend's father had at the investment bank.
So like I was not getting that job.
And I felt bad for myself.
And there was some European chick or whatever, somebody from a kind of more socialist where everybody thought the same way, you know, and she was just like, it's because of your economic origin and you're a woman.
And I mean, literally, I had just gone to my, this guy really liked.
He was so cute.
I wanted to go out with him.
And I, and to go to his club, you had, as a female, had to go through the back door, like the entry, the servant's entrance.
Women were not allowed in the front door of this place.
It was called a like a finals club or whatever.
It was at Harvard.
So, I mean, like everything.
And I would hear them all talking about like, so he didn't even buy a suit for the interviews that I like, you know, had to put money on my credit card to buy a suit to go to an interview.
I was never going to get the job because he was getting it because his friend's father was given to him.
And I, and when she like kind of felt bad for me, I felt that.
I was like, oh, it's hopeless.
Fuck it.
You know, like, I'm just going to go home.
And then I woke up the next day and I was like, I can't, I can't do that.
I have to figure this out.
Like, how do you write a resume?
Like, I'm wearing the wrong kind of stockings.
Like, somebody, please give me some real help here, you know?
And it did.
And it did work out.
But I think of that moment as a like a pivotal moment.
Like, you know, if you're reading a book, like a pivotal moment in this character development is like when she didn't go that path, you know, when she was just like, where are those bootstraps?
I don't have any boots.
Let's get some boots, you know, like that was it.
Responsibility Over Rights00:06:28
And I just, I feel like I find that her story, the reason she acts like her story is told her official story, which is bullshit, is bullshit, is totally implausible by her own words, is that that is the message from the left.
It comes from a very elitist point of view where they think there are two kinds of people, people who can take care of themselves and make decisions and people who are hopeless losers who can't.
And as a person who might be classified as a hopeless loser in my status and I have two siblings who died of drug abuse, you can't, you can't, I would be the one.
And I know it's ridiculous and it's stupid.
And it's so, and the dependence, it's not, I don't object to like taxes and welfare and all that stuff so much for the people who pay the taxes.
They'll be okay.
It's for the people who's who are oppressed by having to thinking they need that.
It's even, and I'll go back to an anarcho-capitalist kind of gateway book, Our Enemy, the State.
And it took me a really long time to understand the importance of this one line from Albert J. Knock, which was, we'll always have this problem as long as there's a big part of the population who believes a job is something to be given.
And I was like, what?
What the hell is he talking about?
And you've probably gone through that mental journey, but like for me, I just didn't even understand it.
And now I'm like, oh, yes.
And the pro, I think, and I think Ron Paul has hit on this a little bit.
I think that the real system is set up and all the socialism, all that kind of stuff is set up so labor does not have power.
Because in the end, labor, if unfettered, would drive all profits to zero.
People would enter.
There would be like a much more level playing field of wealth and opportunity.
And that it's really set up to keep the hierarchy in place, which people like her underneath the world know is true, even though she knew she had to invent this dumb story so that people would believe that she was could relate to them.
Yeah, there's something.
I remember particularly, there was this one moment at like one of the, it was when I can't remember, it was 2008 or 2012.
It was one of Ron Paul's presidential runs.
And he, he took a question from some, it was like a town hall event or something like that.
And he took a question from some black kid in the audience, maybe like 19, 20 year old kid or something like that.
And he said, he said, you know, sir, part of your platform is that you wanted to abolish subsidies for college.
And he goes, you know, I never would have been able to go to college if it wasn't for subsidies.
And I remember Ron Paul's answer really stuck with me.
And he was just in that very kind of somber Ron Paul voice.
He goes, I just can't tell you how sad it makes me to hear some kid tell me they think they wouldn't be able to go to college if it wasn't for the government.
And it was something like, there was something about that.
And I was thinking about this recently when it was coming up.
And we talked about this on the show, but the policy, which now, of course, even the Republicans embrace.
Like even, it's funny because you were just talking about, and it's just a few years ago, going up for these anti-Obamacare rallies.
And now if you listen to the Republicans, it's like, well, we want to repeal Obamacare.
But of course, we want to keep.
Repeal and replace.
But even when they say repeal and replace, it's now become, we want to repeal the bad parts of Obamacare.
But of course, they want to keep all the stuff that they've given you.
So we want to keep pre-existing conditions and we want to keep that you can stay on your parents' health plan until you're 26.
And so now this has become just accepted by everyone that stay on your parents' plan until you're 26.
And I was saying, you know, I was thinking about this Ron Paul moment and you're like, how sad is it that we're just going to accept as a society that a 26 year old, I mean, a 26 year old, my grandfather, when he was 26 had already fought in a war, immigrated to a new country, gotten married and owned a home.
And by the time you're that age, you can't even get your health care like together.
Like what is a sad thing?
It's a trap.
Like I, I, what kind of health care do you really need?
And why?
Yeah.
That's another whole bad thing.
But yeah, it's, it is, it's really sad.
It's very disempowering.
And I, I, I'm really struck by Ron Paul saying that because I actually, he said that he's worked his way through.
And I totally agree that I don't, I don't want any, I don't want college subsidies at all.
What I really want is for there to be no corporate taxes for anyone and no college subsidies.
And this is why, because then you have to, the corporations would come in from all over the world and they would educate people for the jobs that are needed.
And you could, people get those kind of scholarships, everything.
And that would completely solve the student debt crisis.
The student debt crisis is a function of indiscriminate subsidies.
Yeah.
Because it gets people, these idiot kids who don't realize how devastating debt is and how limiting it is right into the system.
They're absolute indebted servants from the moment they graduate from high school, sometimes even before if their parents went into debt to get them through high school.
Yeah.
It's just a messed up system.
Yeah, it's messed up and it's very, very sad.
And these kids really do get trapped in this stuff.
And it's nice to hear from somebody else who's kind of spreading this message of, and this is, by the way, the thing I also try to target people who are more in like have gone in the alt right direction or in the new right direction, where it's like, look,
well, I agree with you, but it's also that you go, look, I certainly understand when you look around our society and feel like, oh, there's like this kind of like degeneracy and nihilism and there's no kind of like, you know, people taking responsibility, but this is also, you know, like big government has such a role to play in all of this stuff.
It's like the flip side of rights is responsibility.
And by its very nature, when the government gets involved, it's taking, you know, you're taxing some people and subsidizing the lack of productivity, the lack of taking responsibility for your life.
And the best thing you can do is to get government out of the way and pitch people on this idea of like, you need to take responsibility for your life.
Transforming The Right00:01:37
It's the best way to promote, you know, kind of like positive social values without the authoritarianism of the state, which always ends up, you know, imploding anyway.
So anyway, so we're there's a book I have to highly recommend is this autobiography, Conservatism, the Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol, who basically moved Republicans from traditional conservatism to neoconservatism.
And he lays out stuff like he wants socialized medicine.
He want, he said, don't have small government because then you have no power.
And that was kind of the foreshadowing of the transformation of the right.
And I just feel like it would enlighten people if they realized that it was a plot and a trick.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
And also understand that even all the good, I say this before, even all the good old paleoconservatives, the good ones, you know, who may not be perfect on everything, but Pat Buchanan and people like that, they all realized this trick.
And they knew that even if you want a more socially conservative society, what you're going to have to do first is smash the managerial state.
It's the only way that you're ever going to achieve a family values society.
It's not going to happen with a giant bureaucracy.
But we are up against time.
We got another show coming in, but I really enjoyed this.
Thank you so much for taking the time out.
Of course, if people want to check out your podcast, they can go to thepropreport.com.
And the Monica Perez show is your terrestrial radio show.
So Ms. Perez, thank you so much for coming on the show.