Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein critique the State Department's lack of transparency regarding Russia's alleged false-flag plans, contrasting it with a Johns Hopkins study showing lockdowns saved only 0.2% of lives. They analyze Pat Buchanan's arguments that NATO expansion and US regime changes in Ukraine triggered the conflict, dismissing Putin as a minor threat compared to America's $30 trillion debt. Ultimately, the hosts argue that geopolitical instability stems from post-WWII betrayals and unnecessary alliances rather than Russian aggression, urging skepticism toward official narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Conventions and State Rollbacks00:02:22
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.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith, the most consistent motherfucker you know, and he is Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the caulks and the Jesus of COVID.
What's up, my brother?
How you feeling?
I'm doing good, Mr. Smith.
How about you?
Doing good, doing good.
Happy to be back.
Right back at it, doing another podcast.
Our schedule got a little messed up this week, but then we're doing some back-to-back ones.
So now, you know, we make it all up.
And yeah, that's life.
How's everything?
What's happened in your life since the last time we talked a few hours ago?
Not that much happens in my life, buddy.
Well, you're putting out these videos every day now, so that's cool.
I didn't do one this morning.
I'm really trying here, Rob.
Yeah, most mornings.
It was a big night in the shed, and I got the party coming up in Gene Epstein's.
So tickets for that.
And then I don't know.
What else you got going on?
No, I don't know.
That was a setup for you, bro.
Yeah, I got conventions coming up, man.
I'm going to be at the California convention and the Florida convention this month.
And then I'm going to be a whole bunch of the LP state conventions coming up.
Colorado, Minnesota, Texas.
There's some more in there.
Yeah, there you go.
There's some more in there.
I just can't remember.
But yeah, should be a lot of fun.
And I got this month in particular some big podcasts that I'm going to be doing, several that I think you guys are really going to enjoy.
So look forward to all of that.
All right.
So we just spoke recently, but there's some more stuff that I really want to talk about.
Lockdowns and Freedom Choices00:08:17
And let's open with this because it kind of relates to what was the main subject of our last podcast, which was the John Hopkins study that came to the conclusions that lockdowns, turns out, shocker, were not a great idea.
I will take a step back and say it is pretty funny.
I've seen there's been some pushback against the study now because people are, you know, a lot of people in the establishment are freaking out about it.
And then some other people who are just good people are like kind of like, well, you know, did we really need a study to prove this?
You know, are we the people who like go like, oh, these studies are scientific?
Like we pretend that they're doing like physics or chemistry or something like this.
Bob Murphy, who I love, was making this point on Twitter today.
And he's right in a sense, like that, you know, there's a lot of these times where there are these scientific studies and they act as if they're doing like chemistry.
You know, like they act as if it's like, well, we mix these two chemicals together and it turns out that this is what happens.
So that's the study.
We know it for sure.
When really these things are very flawed and in some ways subjective.
And the only way you could ever really have a true perfect study of how effective lockdowns were were if you had a time machine and you could run a scenario with the lockdowns, then go back in time and run a scenario without the lockdowns and then compare and contrast.
So what they try to do with these things is look at areas that didn't lock down versus areas that did lock down and then try to control for like population density and age and all of these things.
But there's so many variables that it's hard to control for everything.
But that's not really what the point of what we were kind of acknowledging last episode was.
The point is that for lockdowns to be justified, there would have to be overwhelming evidence that they saved an enormous amount of lives.
And even then, I wouldn't think they were justified because I believe in freedom.
But if you believe lockdowns are justified, certainly the onus must be on you to believe that this is, it's so necessary because this is going to do so much.
And we've known for quite a while that they certainly didn't meet that threshold.
And so anyway, the thing that's actually interesting about it is that all of the people on the other side are like, you know, follow the science and these authoritative figures and doctors and scientists.
And so it's just kind of great to have a John Hopkins study being like, nope, actually you're wrong.
So anyway, so that this has been, for that reason, this has been sending some waves throughout the ruling elite, which I always like.
Hmm?
Anything, Rob?
I like that I saw Dr. Murphy's tweets just before the podcast, and I like that he was kicking at us a little bit.
I'm going to have to actually sit down and read.
He always does.
Usually he's on board.
No, he likes to razz.
He likes to razz us a little bit.
I thought it was an interesting criticism to say that we're not like if they put out a study the other way, we wouldn't have acknowledged it or we just went, hey, there's more propaganda.
So why is it that if they put out something that is more representative of our opinion, will we accept it?
To me, it's more like, look, even the people that are taking the opposite perspective, even they are forced to acknowledge this.
So to me, it's more, that's kind of more my logic.
Like, look, even the mainstream's forced to, like, that's how blatantly obvious this is.
But I have to actually read the whole thing.
I only read the Fox News article kind of summarizing it.
So I have to actually sit down and read that whole, you know, the whole thing.
Sure.
Well, look, I get the point that he's making, but I also feel like it's like, look, if there, if he says, like, well, hey, if someone put out a study saying lockdowns are really effective, would that change your mind on everything?
And it's like, I don't know.
Actually, yes.
I mean, if the evidence was good enough, potentially.
Well, the thing is, to me, I go, honestly, my answer to that would be no.
And that I think that even if the, because I believe in freedom, even if they were like, hey, this saved like so many lives, I would still go, well, those people had the right to choose to lock themselves down, you know?
And as long, like, I would say, as long as you gave people the information or whatever, I'd say what I would want would be for you to give people the information.
And then they can choose to lock themselves down.
But if other people chose to roll the dice, then they have the right to do that, you know?
And that's kind of how I look at it.
Like, I just don't, you know, as we've talked about many times on the show, if there is like, you know, whatever, if there, if there's an 87 year old grandmother who's like no, screw it, i'm gonna, I want to see my grandkids, that's how I want to die.
You know if if, or or that's, i'd rather risk dying than not see them, and she goes and dies six months earlier than she would have, and that happens a lot.
To the point that you show that lockdowns would have saved all those lives, i'd still rather it be that that grandma's choice.
You know, like I, I believe in freedom, but If there was a study that was very conclusive that this did save lives, I would be open to the possibility that maybe it did.
Now, I still wouldn't support the lockdowns, but it could potentially make me believe that, yes, it did save lives.
Does that make sense?
Like, it could convince me that, yes, it saved lives.
I still wouldn't support it.
You know, there's so many things like, so I talked to this one guy in Arizona when I was out there recently.
And his, I believe it was his grandparents who were in their 90s.
I don't want to get this story wrong, but this was the gist of it.
That they, because of the lockdowns, they the grandfather and grandmother couldn't see each other because she was like, she was in the hospital or something like that.
I forget the exact details, but she was in a hospital and he couldn't come visit her.
And she had dementia.
And she was like every day freaking out about where he was and was like worried that he had left her.
He was cheating on her.
Like, what happened?
Is he dead?
Like, she's like dementia.
I had no idea every day.
And it was like four months like that until she died.
You know?
And you hear this story, you're like, man, that is just so tragic.
And okay, even if theoretically the lockdowns and the restrictions prevented her from dying four months earlier, isn't it that family's choice to choose whether they'd prefer that or prefer her to have her husband of 50 years by her side while they, you know what I mean?
Like, so I'd believe in freedom for philosophical reasons, aside from what the results of these studies are.
But if there were studies that show, I don't know, I'd be open to them.
But also, I could look at a study and think that I think that's bullshit.
And the truth is that I do look at areas like, you know, as we've talked about many times on the show, the places that didn't lock down or the places that ended lockdowns and had no worse, you know, outcomes.
And it just, it seemed obvious to me.
So I just, I also do, on top of that, I also do have a feeling that like this study seems more right to me than a study that was showing something else.
Anyway, regardless, the point is that John Hopkins has this study that just came out.
Meepod Vape Pen Review00:02:06
And this is a thorn in the side of the bad guys.
So that's kind of good.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show.
This is for fans over the age of 21.
I want to tell you about our newest favorite vape pen from mepod.com.
Now, as a warning, these products do contain nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
I am not recommending you go try it.
But if you are addicted to nicotine, as I am, go check out mepod.com.
I love these vapes.
They have a great pull, great flavor, and a great feel of the device.
More convenient than smoking.
I love vaping.
I loved switching over to vaping.
You don't stink anymore.
It's easier to use indoors.
It's easier to vape in areas where you can't smoke.
So for all you vapors out there, I want to tell you about the products available at MePod because if you're a smoker or a vapor, you're going to love these.
The new Mipod 2.0 is the best refillable vape on the market.
Vapors can refill with any vape juice flavor that they prefer.
It's got a long-lasting battery and a small, sleek design.
Meepod has a wide variety of disposable vapes available on mepod.com, including top-selling brands like Vaporlax, Draco, Hyde, and AirBar.
I think fans of disposables will particularly love the Draco disposable vape, which lasts for 6,500 puffs.
For those of you that like flavors, Meepod has a wide variety of vape juice options and flavored disposables.
Meepod also has a wide variety of vaping options for the 420 consumers.
Lastly, Mipod has fast shipping with most orders shipped out the same day.
So if you're a vapor or a smoker, you'll love Mipod and support the sponsor that supports our show by going to meepod.com.
And if you use the promo code problem, you're going to get 20% off.
Government Actions Explained00:13:50
One more time.
That's mepod.com, M-I-P-O-D.com.
The promo code is problem for 20% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Anyway, Jen Saki, who is the Biden's official liar, she was asked about this and responded, let's roll the tape and enjoy this moment together.
Taking every step we can to lower gas prices for the American people.
And then real quick on the Johns Hopkins study on the lockdowns, there was this meta-analysis that came out of several studies, lockdown during the first wave of COVID in spring of 2020, found that it only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% in the U.S. and Europe and suggested they have little to no public health benefit, but severe consequences for the economy.
And it suggests that lockdowns shouldn't be a part of a future pandemic response.
Is that the shared view of the administration looking in the rearview mirror?
Well, I would say I would first, of course, point you to our health and medical experts for specifics on this specific scientific study.
I would note that the president has been clear.
We're not pushing lockdowns.
We've not been pro-lockdown.
That has not been his agenda.
Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president.
What our objective has been is to convey that we have the tools we need to keep our country open thanks to the president's leadership and focus on fighting the virus.
And that's reflected in the fact that 98% of schools are open.
Over 210 million Americans are fully vaccinated.
We have the tools to avoid lockdowns, and we're not moving back.
And that's our intention at this point.
You guys do believe that lockdowns were more harmful than helpful.
Again, I would point you to our scientific experts on the specifics of a study, but the president's agenda, the president's approach, has not been lockdowns.
It has been using the tools we have to prevent that.
All right.
So I thought that was a kind of interesting exchange for several reasons.
Any takeaways from that, Rob?
Well, I love it.
It's a slick maneuver with, yeah, well, we're not going to do lockdowns because that's not what we're about.
So you're saying lockdowns aren't good?
Well, I can't say that.
Well, you can't, it's one or the other.
You're either saying that lockdowns are not a good thing.
Well, yeah, why wouldn't you do them?
Right.
Or you're then what?
There's a life-saving measure that the White House doesn't want to engage in.
And then also the fact that you're in the job of answering these quite well, I would refer you to the other.
Well, you're here as the representative.
Which agency?
So who makes this determination?
What exactly is the chain of command here?
Who's the individual who makes this decision?
And then how do we have a conversation with that guy to see if he's got a different perspective than the study that just came out?
Yeah, I mean, it's really something when you look back or you think back on the lockdowns that this was the most drastic thing that our government has done in our lifetimes.
I don't think there could be really any argument against that.
I mean, sure, there's like a lot of crazy shit that the government's done to individuals or groups or countries.
You know, you could think about like Waco or you could think about the war in Iraq or things like that.
But to the entire country, like to deem tens of millions of Americans non-essential and have governors appoint themselves as mini dictators and say, I'm just going to decide what we can do.
Like I declare, you know, no, no, no, you know, state legislators have given me this authority, but I'm going to declare under emergency status that I can decide exactly how many people you can be around, whether you can, you know, have a funeral for a loved one, whether you can, you know, whatever.
I'm going to decide how far away from another human being you must be.
You know, people were arrested for going to work, for opening their business.
People were arrested for going to church, going to synagogue.
I mean, this is like the most major thing ever that our government has done.
And to then say, well, there's this study that says that it was really awful, cost way more than it helped, and we should never do it again.
And to go, yeah, well, that's not even like our position.
It's like, well, we're not even pushing to do more of that.
But so do you agree that this was a horrible thing?
Well, I refer you to the experts.
Like, it's so incredible to just go.
So you don't have an opinion.
Like, you, you can't just say what the opinion of the administration is on that.
That alone is really something.
It's just really something to witness.
Like.
On a massive issue.
The most massive issue.
So in other words, the administration at this time doesn't have an opinion on whether or not lockdowns are a good idea.
How is that possible?
Yeah.
Now, the other thing.
She's also lying in that I understand politically why since mandates have become like no one likes mandates.
That's really unpopular.
And people, yeah.
If they were popular, you wouldn't have to mandate them.
Yeah.
Right.
Fauci was still kind of warning people against holiday travel.
I'm still not allowed into bars and restaurants in New York City.
People aren't allowed to go to their jobs unless they're testing or being vaccinated.
I think there's still some jobs like that.
So for her to pretend like the government's just, hey, we're just trying to get everything open.
That's what we're looking for.
I mean, that's just, that's bullshit.
Those are all solid points.
And here's another thing that what really jumped out to me, this is probably the biggest thing that jumped out to me.
Is you go, okay, look, it is not entirely unfair for her to say that was the last president that this happened under.
It hasn't happened under our administration.
That might burn a little bit for some Trump supporters, but it is true, right?
We have not had the lockdowns that we had of early, you know, spring of 2020 under Biden.
Those were happening under Trump.
It sounded like Biden was pushing to get out there.
True, but like if you want to make a buck stops here argument, Donald Trump was the president of the United States and Joe Biden was not.
Now, you could also make an argument that that was governors, but you know, I know that, look, to challenge the Republicans, I know a lot of them like to say, well, that was the Democratic governors.
You're like, actually, it was Democratic and Republican governors, except with like one exception and then two exceptions pretty quickly after.
But regardless, that's fair.
And that is a fair indictment of Donald Trump.
However, you know, there's this guy.
His name is Tony Fauci.
He's still around.
And he was the leading expert who was pushing the lockdowns the whole time.
And so it's just interesting to kind of like, this is why a lot of people are reading this as them throwing Fauci under the bus.
That you go, well, I mean, your guy, who you're saying is your head epidemiologist, the voice of science who we must listen to, he was the guy pushing this.
So just by the fact that you still have this guy employed as the head of COVID everything, doesn't that mean that you kind of would have to stand by his policies on the issue?
You know what I mean?
Like that, so that to me was just kind of interesting.
It's like, I mean, I guess, yeah, you can technically say that it wasn't you guys, but I don't know, it's your guy right here.
So I don't know.
It seems like you have to stand by.
You're not completely disconnected to it.
And then, of course, it's also like Joe Biden was praising Cuomo and praising Gavin Newsom and praising all the Democratic governors at the time.
Occasionally, when he came out of his basement or when he did an interview from his basement, he had nothing but great things to say about them.
So come on.
Like, again, as I said, this was the biggest thing that the government's done to the people of the United States of America in my lifetime.
You have to, you have to, like, at least own, like, yeah, no, that was wrong, or no, we still think that was right.
This is bullshit.
And then to that, like, if you're going to acknowledge that they were wrong, how do you not say we're going to do an immediate review as to how we made a decision that bad to ensure that we don't make decisions that bad moving forward?
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
And there's just none of that.
None of that.
So I guess, you know, one of the major themes of this show is that these people are all a bunch of liars.
And this is what we kind of try to talk about all the time.
And I think we do a pretty good job of building our case.
That is, in fact, the truth.
So there's been this exchange that's gone crazy viral.
Everyone's talking about it.
And of course, the exchange is between Ned Price, who is the State Department spokesman.
I don't know exactly what his title is, but he's a State Department spokesman and a CIA guy who worked for the CIA for many years.
And he really got humiliated the other day.
This was pretty great, Rob.
I know you saw this.
You sent this to me, and I had seen it online already.
A lot of people are enjoying this.
So another great little example of, you know, just what liars the representatives for our government are and how transparent it is when they get caught in their bullshit.
So let's go through this.
I know everyone wanted us.
So every now and then our government will do things and it's almost as if they're saying to us, like they're like, hey, buddy.
You guys having trouble figuring out what to talk about on today's podcast?
Well, here, I got this for you.
And so this was one of those moments.
So let's play Ned Price getting eviscerated by some rare actual journalism, some actual journalistic questions coming his way.
Let's enjoy.
Thanks.
Okay, well, that's quite a mouthful there.
So you said actions such as these suggest otherwise, suggest, meaning they suggest they're not interested in talks and they're going to go ahead with some kind of what action are you talking about?
One, the actions I've just pointed to.
What action?
The fact that Russia continues to engage in disinformation.
You made an allegation that they might do that.
Have they actually done it?
What we know, Matt, is what I have just said, that they have engaged in this activity, in this planning activity.
But let me know.
Because obviously this is not the first time we've made these reports public.
You'll remember that just a few weeks ago.
Sorry.
Made what report public?
If you'll let me finish, I will tell you what report we made public.
We told you a few weeks ago that we have information indicating Russia also has already pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine.
So that, Matt, to your question, is an action that Russia has already taken.
It's an action that you say that they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that.
And I'm going to get to the next question here, which is, what is the evidence that they plan?
I mean, this is like crisis actors, really.
This is like Alex Jones territory.
You're getting all right.
Pause already.
Did you see the big gulp that he took in his throat?
It's literally, this is what's so amazing about these things.
And sometimes I've noticed that at these State Department press, you know, core, you know, press conferences or whatever, you actually get much better pushback than you do at like the White House press corps from some of these guys, which is very interesting.
But this is like, look, I don't want to give this guy, I'm sorry, I'm blanking on his name, but I'll pull it up in a second.
But I don't want to give this guy too much credit because this is the most basic thing that you would do as a journalist is answer.
They have basically been put this guy put out this idea that we have evidence that the Russians are planning a false flag attack involving crisis actors to frame Ukraine for aggression so that they can respond.
And the question, the follow-up question is, well, what evidence do you have?
Truebill Subscription Scams00:03:28
What are you talking about?
This seems kind of far-fetched.
And right away, his response is like, gulp?
Like, well, I don't really have any answers for that.
It's pretty incredible.
I find it they clearly take the same classes because his tonality is very similar to Jen Psaki.
But I love that they're always cross-referencing to a different agency.
So Saki, like she pulled the move where she goes, you'd have to check with the health people.
So his move over here is, well, as the evidence that we did before, as what I'm going to like, he keeps referencing something that he's not going to do.
Well, it was the thing that we published before.
Cool.
What did you publish before?
Who published it?
Yeah.
What did it say?
Well, as I just said, what did you just say?
Well, what I'm about to, I'm about to tell you if you let me finish it.
All right.
Finish it.
Well, you didn't say anything.
No, because I just told you the evidence.
Well, you didn't.
That's why it's like watching Monty Python, where it's like.
No, no, it really is.
It's like a who's on first type sketch.
Yeah.
Well, I just showed you the evidence.
You go, no, you didn't.
You just told me you showed me the evidence.
You go, that was the evidence.
But what's the evidence?
What I just showed you.
You know, it's like, really?
And it's enough to make you pull your hair out.
But I mean, it's anyone who's interested enough to follow this back and forth.
You know, you're not following like the celebrity or the president or even the White House press corps or anything like that.
You got to see.
I mean, come on, man.
Come the fuck on.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, brand new sponsor, thrilled to have on board, which is Truebill.
Do you know why free trials renew without your consent?
It's a business scam out to get you.
Don't let greedy corporations pocket your money.
Download Truebill to take control of your subscriptions.
I will tell you personally, I know that anything I've ever subscribed to, I've never unsubscribed to.
It's not until I like lose my fucking debit card or credit card, and then I have to get a new one.
And then I realize that there were a whole bunch of things that I didn't even want.
And Truebill will help you with this.
True Bill is the new app that helps you identify and stop paying for subscriptions you don't need, want, or simply forgot about.
On average, people save up to $720 a year with TrueBill.
Because companies make subscriptions hard to cancel, TrueBill makes it incredibly simple.
Just link your account and TrueBill will cancel your unwanted subscriptions in one tap.
And your TrueBill concierge is there when you need them to cancel unwanted subscriptions so you don't have to.
True Bill has over 2 million users and helped save them over $100 million.
Like Matthew B., who says, in a matter of seconds, I saved $660 for the year on my Direct TV bill, saved $120 for the year on my SiriusXM bill, saved $840 a year on car insurance.
Go check out TrueBill.
Don't fall for subscription scams.
Start canceling today at truebill.com slash P-O-T-P.
Go right now.
TrueBill.com slash P-O-T-P.
It could save you thousands a year.
TrueBill.com slash P-O-T-P.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, let's keep playing.
This is great.
Declassified Evidence Debate00:15:17
They have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that.
And I'm going to get to the next question here, which is, what is the evidence that they play?
I mean, this is like crisis actors, really.
This is like Alex Jones territory you're getting into now.
What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?
Matt, this is derived from information known to the U.S. government, intelligence information that we have declassified.
I think you have...
Okay, well, where is it?
Where is this information?
It is intelligence information that we have declassified.
Well, where is it?
Where's the declassified information?
I just delivered it.
No, you made a series of allegations.
Would you like us to print it out the topper?
Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Just pause it.
How incredible is that?
He goes, this is information known to the U.S. government.
It's known.
So obviously you should like he is frustrated that journalists aren't taking that at face value.
But we just said we know it.
And he goes, well, where's the evidence?
He goes, well, I just told you it's been declassified.
And he's like, can we see it?
And he goes, sure, I'll show you a transcript of me saying it's been declassified.
I mean, come on.
Are we living in a fucking simulation or what?
Like, what type of shit is that?
No, I'll show you.
Yeah, here, it's been declassified.
Do you need me here?
Hold on.
What's your phone number?
Give me your cell.
I'll text you.
Me saying it's been declassified.
There you go.
There's a transcript.
Evidence.
Are we being suckered at all here that maybe something happened just before this video starts that could be showcased as evidence?
Like, it's always annoying when you don't have to.
No, I saw the beginning part.
No, it's nothing.
It's just them saying that they have found evidence that Russia is planning a false flag attack.
This is like when Biden's like, nobody's saying it.
No, I literally just asked you the question, and I'm asking the question because everyone's saying it.
No one says that.
So many people are saying it.
Like, Biden, everyone's saying it.
This is the same thing where the guy's like, no, no, no, it's the what evidence?
What I just told you.
You didn't tell me anything.
Can I, are you going to give like, well, I'll give you the transcript.
What, the transcript of you.
Yes.
It was like, no, I heard what you just said, but that's nothing.
Oh, all right.
Let's keep playing.
Dang it.
That's not evidence.
I'm sorry.
What would you like, Matt?
I would like to see some proof that you, that, you can show that that shows that that that shows that the Russians are doing this.
Ned, I've been doing this for a while.
I know.
That was my point.
You have been doing this for quite a while.
You know that when we declassify intelligence information, we do so in a means.
We do so.
We do so with an eye to protecting sources and methods.
It's not going to fall.
Okay.
I remember a lot of people.
Pause it right there.
So what's really amazing?
I don't know.
Did you catch what he said there?
Yeah, now he's pivoting to I can't actually give you the evidence.
No, but did you hear what Matt the reporter said?
Oh, yeah, he said, I was here when you guys lied about Iraq.
Yeah, that was pretty amazing.
He goes, I was here when you guys said WMDs.
I was here when you guys said Kabul will not fall.
I was here when you got like, he started bringing up some shit that's like, oh, yeah, no, I know.
He's like, I've been down this.
Trust me, this is known by the government type shit before.
And it's not always right.
So do you have any evidence?
And especially, you know, this thing with Ukraine and Russia, I mean, this should not that the standard shouldn't have been high in Iraq or in Egypt or in any of these other places, but the idea that, you know, you're talking about like a military confrontation with a nuclear armed power.
This is, you would think, like, no, now we really need evidence.
We really need to know what's going on here.
And so, yeah, so that moment I thought was pretty great.
Was it something else you wanted to say?
No, is there more to the video?
Because I think it kind of warrior.
It goes on a bit more.
Yeah, let's keep playing.
Where is the declassified information other than you coming out here and saying?
Matt, I'm sorry you don't like the format, but we have declassified.
It's the content.
I'm sorry you don't like the content.
I'm sorry you are doubting the information that is in the possession of the U.S. government.
What I'm telling you is that this is information that's available to us.
We are making it available to you in order for a couple of reasons.
One, You're not making it available.
You've claimed that it is available.
And so he asked you, so where can I see this available information?
Well, it's declassified, Rob.
Yeah, so where is it?
Well, we're going to make it available to you.
It's known to the government.
What's your problem?
It's declares.
Like, yeah, to me, declassified always meant like it's out and it's public.
But you're like, okay, so can I see it?
And he goes, yeah, it's declassified.
Okay, but where is it?
It's known to the government.
I mean, this is literally like, if me and you were trying to script a government press conference to prove our point, we couldn't do a better job than this.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's known to us.
It's declassified to us.
We declassified it so that we could look at it.
Okay.
All right, let's keep playing.
Is to attempt to deter the Russians from going ahead with this activity.
Two, in the event we're not able to do that, in the event the Russians do go ahead with this, to make it clear as day, to lay bare the fact that this has always been an attempt on the part of the Russian Federation to fabricate a pretext.
Yeah, but you don't have any evidence to back it up other than what you're saying.
It's like you're saying, we think we have information the Russians may do this, but you won't tell us what the information is.
And then when you're in the middle of the day, that is the idea behind deterrence.
That is the idea behind deterrence.
And when you're in the middle of the hope that the Russians don't go forward with this, you say, I just gave you.
Pause again.
But that's not what.
That's another beautiful government one.
You know how much terrorism we'd have right now if we didn't go into Iraq?
Do you know how much worse the corona would have been if we hadn't shut down?
Well, I guess that's what the John Hopkins study with.
That's the deterrence.
So you just have to trust us.
We had information that something terrible was going to happen, but because of all the money we spent and all the actions we took, that horrible thing didn't happen.
Yeah.
And it's like, I, you know, I maybe I'd believe you if you hadn't been full of shit on everything else always, but I've been paying attention for a little bit too long, man.
And so I just, I don't believe you.
Hey, Ralph, I need a million dollars to keep a monster out of gas digital.
I've already protected us from monsters and I know that the new one's coming.
Well, do you have any evidence of it?
Ralph, you're just going to have to give me the money.
You got to trust me on this because it's a deterrent and you don't want monsters in gas digital, do you?
And it's even worse than that.
You're like, hey, Ralph, I got to keep monsters out of the gas digital studio and I'm going to need a lot of money to keep those monsters out.
And you're like, do you have any evidence that there's monsters?
And you're like, yeah.
Did you not hear what I just said?
Like, do you need me to print out a copy of the transcript of me telling you that there's monsters?
And by the way, the evidence is out there.
And he goes, can I see the evidence?
And you go, yeah.
It's the transcript of me telling you there's evidence.
Like, I mean, it's just that.
And then they go, well, what if I give you this money and no monsters ever appear?
You go, yeah, that's the goal.
We're trying to make sure there's no monsters in the gas digital studio.
So if you give me the money and there's no monsters, then I'd appreciate like an attaboy because, you know, I did a great job of keeping monsters out.
I mean, it's on that level.
It's on that level.
And this is what the United States of America's government is telling the fucking, you know, one journalist who's actually asking some valid questions.
All right, let's wrap this up.
Keep playing.
Gave it to you.
But that's not what.
You seem not to understand.
You seem not to understand the idea of deterrence.
We are trying to deter the Russians from moving forward with this type of activity.
That is why we're making it public today.
If the Russians don't go forward with this, that is not ipso facto an indication that they never had plans to do so.
But then it's unprovable.
My God, what is the evidence that you have that suggests that the Russians are even planning this?
I mean, I'm not saying that they're not, but you just come out and say this and expect us just to believe it without you showing a shred of evidence that it's actually true.
Other than when I ask, or what anyone else asks, what's the information?
You said, well, I just gave it to you, which was just you making a statement.
Matt, you said yourself, you've been in this business for quite a long time.
You know that when we make information, intelligence information public, we do so in a way that protects sensitive sources and methods.
You also know that we do so, we declassify information only when we're confident in that information.
If you doubt, if you doubt that credibility.
Wait, so one of the reasons you're not giving us the information is because you're not confident in it.
So it sounds to me like you don't have good information.
No, well, he's saying they only give you this information if they're confident in it.
So he would only tell you this if we knew this was saying we have to protect sources and methods, you know, so like they have to, we have to really, you know, we declassify it, but it'll take a while before you get your hands on this information.
So just trust us.
Just trust me that this is what's going on.
And then at some point down the line, you'll see this information and it'll be true.
Or not, and we'll be on to the next thing by then, you know?
Or if it doesn't happen at all, then we'll claim we deterred it.
Pull it back a few seconds, Brian, and just play the very end of this because it's a great line that he closes on.
In a way that protects sensitive sources and methods.
You also know that we do so, we declassify information only when we're confident in that information.
If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments, and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.
I'm not asking what the Russian government is putting out.
I mean, what is it supposed to be?
Okay, so that's the end of it right there.
And I love this false binary bullshit that if you, I mean, if you question the U.S. government and the UK government, I guess you find solace in what the Russian government's putting out.
And it's like, well, that's not really the only choice.
Let me explain this to you, Mr. CIA man.
I don't believe shit that the U.S. government says.
I don't believe shit that the UK government says.
And I also don't believe shit that the Russian government says.
That's possible.
I can have no faith in any of these governments and believe they're all full of shit.
So it doesn't have to be that I love the Russians if I just go, hey, if you're going to make a claim, I'd like to see some evidence.
I'd like to see some evidence that actually backs that up.
And what do you have?
Nothing.
Okay.
So anyway, that's the end of that exchange, but it's pretty incredible.
Pretty incredible to see just the slightest pushback.
And so often I feel like government officials will go up to in front of a podium and talk into a microphone and say, we have this evidence.
And they won't just get that.
It's not like this guy did anything heroic.
He just did what a journalist should do and asked, what's the evidence?
And all of this follows from that.
What do you think is going on here that the U.S. government's trying to sell us on the idea that Russia is about to invade Ukraine?
Okay, so more or less big picture what's going on.
And you got to, sometimes for these things, you have to zoom out.
You can't just look at the last month or the last week or the last year.
You have to think about what's actually happening here.
And so the big picture is this, right?
Okay, after...
All right, here's me zooming out on what the Russia conflict is.
So after World War II, in World War II, it was the Russians and the Americans and the British all uniting to defeat the Nazis.
And the Nazis and the fucking Italian fascists and the Japanese imperialists and all that, right?
And the Nazis had taken over a good chunk of Europe, like in the middle.
I mean, they had taken over from France to Poland, right?
I think that's as far east and west as they got.
And so there's this huge war, the biggest war in the history of the world.
And the two dominant winners were the Russians and the Americans.
I mean, the British won, but they didn't have fucking, you know, like the population size that the Russians or the Americans had.
And so that leads to the Cold War, where basically Europe gets divided between the Western countries and the Soviet countries.
And the line is down the middle of Germany, right?
Like East Berlin, West Berlin.
That's the line.
Anything to the west is the Western half.
Anything to the east is the Soviet bloc.
That's the new world order at the time.
And then you have the Cold War.
And as many people will say, I don't know if this is 100% true, but I do kind of believe it, that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really to send a message to the Russians.
Because if you think about it, the war in Europe was already over.
The Nazis had already lost.
The reason why we dropped those nukes, these new weapons that we had, wasn't that it was necessary.
It was to send a message to the Russians that, hey, we got these nukes.
Cold War and NATO Critique00:05:13
So watch out, motherfucker.
So, okay.
So the Cold War goes on from, I mean, you know, whatever, from 1946 to 1989, something like that.
And in 1991, the Soviet Union collapses.
And, you know, for many reasons, but primarily because they were communists.
And their economy was shit.
And the fucking liberal democracies like the United States of America and Western Europe, you know, okay, they're not exactly what we would want for economic prosperity.
They're not pure, you know, free market capitalist countries.
But man, it's still a lot better than being under the fucking the communist bloc.
I mean, man, at least you got prices.
You know what I mean?
Like, in the same way that we might really, sometimes me and you probably might think we have more in common with like a hard left winger than like a neoliberal.
You know what I mean?
Like, so like some hard left winger might be like, ah, the wars are terrible and the cops are terrible.
And, you know, they might be good on like some issues that we kind of care about.
But like, if a real hard left winger gets control of your Department of Agriculture, watch out.
You're in trouble.
Like, at least Hillary Clinton will let you have prices.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, at least, at least, like, you know, okay, just to make the point I'm making, would you rather Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton as president?
You might go, eh, I don't know.
I mean, Bernie Sanders will probably end the war in Yemen and he'll probably, you know.
And push people here.
Right, but I'm saying he'll probably push to like decriminalize marijuana and like some other shit.
But then you're like, okay, but would you rather Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton be the head of the Department of Agriculture?
You got no question there, right?
Like as much as you hate her, you'd rather Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders, you know?
And so anyway, whatever.
That's a little bit aside.
But so, you know, capitalism, even crony corporatist capitalism, produces a lot more wealth than true state socialism.
And so that's kind of the story of the Cold War with a lot of foreign policy and, you know, wars mixed in and all that shit.
So the Soviet Union collapses and George H.W. Bush is president.
And he promises, both verbally and in writing, that NATO will not move into any of the former Soviet countries.
That's his promise.
And then Bill Clinton brings in a bunch more of the Soviet countries into NATO.
And then by the time it's George W. Bush, he's bringing seven more countries that used to be under the Soviet bloc into NATO.
And then to, you know, Obama into Trump.
Why do we even want to bring all these people into NATO?
Like, what's the appeal?
Well, here's the thing, right?
A lot of people think of NATO as like a fun social club or something that's like, oh, you know, it's like, these are all the countries that we like hanging out together.
But what NATO really is, is a military alliance.
That's what it is.
It's a guarantee to anyone who's in NATO that if you're attacked, we go to war for you.
Isn't that how World War I started?
Yeah, that's exactly how it started.
And how World War II started, right?
Which, by the way, I recommend people read Pat Buchanan's book, The Unnecessary War.
I don't want to go to war over Italy.
Hitler, Churchill, and The Unnecessary War.
A great book.
Talking about how all these war pacts are what really led to a war that could have not happened.
And Pat Buchanan's thesis is that the whole Holocaust could have never happened, the whole Second World War could have never happened if we had played it a different way, which is very contrary to the popular opinion, which is like the problem is like Chamberlain.
And the problem is that we didn't go to war earlier.
It's like, no, actually, there probably were a million different ways to look at this.
And of course, what I subscribe to much more than that is the Ron Paul doctrine that we never should have gone into World War I.
We never should have enforced the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans.
And that would have avoided all of this nonsense.
We also, we sound like the suckers.
Terrific nonsense.
Nader, we sound like the suckers of NATO because like, I mean, if someone went to war with us, is Italy really going to be able to help us out all that much?
BetterHelp Therapy Promotion00:02:41
Like, you know what I mean?
Well, that's right.
That's the point that Trump made a lot.
He was like, why do we even have NATO?
The whole point of NATO was to stop the Soviet Union from encroaching on these countries.
And he's like, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.
And now we're just subsidizing the defense of all of these rich countries.
This makes no sense.
That was Trump's point.
A very fair point.
Trump wasn't right about everything, but he made a very fair point about that.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is BetterHelp.
That's B-E-T-T-E-R-H-E-L-P.
BetterHelp offers professional counseling done securely online.
So, if you feel like there's something interfering with your happiness or preventing you from achieving your goals, definitely check out BetterHelp.
Whatever you're dealing with, BetterHelp has a wide range of counselors available for you.
Plus, BetterHelp is more affordable than traditional offline counseling.
Financial aid is available and it's easy to get started.
I highly recommend this.
The last two years have been insane.
If you are not a crazy person, they've probably been making you feel crazy, and all of us could use a little bit of help to try to get ourselves in a better mental state.
So, go check out BetterHelp.
Once you sign up, BetterHelp will match you with your own licensed professional therapist who will be able to communicate with you in under 48 hours.
It's not a crisis line, it's not self-help, it's professional counseling done securely online.
BetterHelp is committed to facilitating great therapeutic matches.
So, it's easy and free to switch counselors if needed.
You can send a message to your counselor at any time, and you'll get a timely and thoughtful response.
Plus, you can schedule weekly video or phone sessions, so it's the perfect way to do therapy these days.
You can do it from home, you don't have to go sit in some uncomfortable waiting room.
You know, just switch to BetterHelp.
This is the way to do therapy in 2022.
Go to betterhelp.com/slash problem.
Again, B-E-T-T-E-R-H-E-L-P dot com/slash problem.
Join the over 1 million people who have taken charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional.
New testimonials from users are posted daily.
In fact, so many people have been using BetterHelp that they are recruiting additional counselors in all 50 states.
Betterhelp.com/slash problem.
Betterhelp.com/slash problem.
That'll get you 10% off your first month.
One more time, that's betterhelp.com/slash problem for 10% off your first month.
Ukraine, Nazis, and Putin00:13:14
All right, let's get back into the show.
So, since George H.W. Bush says we're not going to move on, we're not, NATO isn't going to move one inch east.
And by the time George W. Bush is the president, we've already taken over, I think, seven or eight of the Soviet countries.
We're moving all the way over, you know, from like, you know, all of these countries, you know, Poland and Estonia and all of these countries are now in NATO.
And now, the talk is Ukraine coming into NATO.
We're going all the way up to Russia's border.
And Russia sees this as a threat.
Understandably so.
You know, it's kind of the way I'd look at the Russia-Ukraine conflict is like, look, if you think about the Cuban missile crisis, and not even what really happened there, because there's a lot of interesting details, but just kind of the official story that everyone thinks they know about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
When there were nuclear missiles in Cuba pointed at the United States of America, we said that's a red line for us, right?
Like, no, we can't have that.
And everyone in the United States of America goes, We completely get that.
Of course.
Of course.
You can't have fucking nuclear war hawks a few miles off of your shores pointed at you.
That's insane.
That's old Monroe doctrine, right?
Stay the fuck out of like North America and we'll stay the fuck out of Europe.
Like that's completely reasonable.
And that's basically the position that Russia's in now.
Hillary Clinton once said that Vladimir Putin has moved his military right up to NATO's doorstep.
And by that, they meant, by that, she meant within Russia.
You know?
She meant within the Russian borders.
But you're like, yes, right up to NATO's doorstep, right?
So this is what's going on here.
Now, if Vladimir Putin really had some wild conspiracy to bring Ukraine, to take over Ukraine, they were going to invade Ukraine and take them over.
I'll tell you, he had a real opportunity to do it.
And this was right after.
So in 2014, Barack Obama led a regime change in Ukraine.
He sided with literal neo-Nazis to do it.
And there's, by the way, the U.S. government is still siding with the neo-Nazis there.
And let me just make this clear.
When I say neo-Nazis, I don't mean like, you know how the term neo-Nazi gets used sometimes in America in 2022?
And you're like, you just mean someone who you think's racist.
You know?
Like, sometimes like neo-Nazi and racist are almost like synonymous, interchangeable terms in America today.
Like if someone was like, hey, I don't like blacks and Jews, you'd be like, well, you're a neo-Nazi.
But really what you mean by that is you're a racist.
But no, when I'm talking in Ukraine, I'm talking neo-Nazi means neo-Nazi.
This means the grandsons of Nazis.
Like, you know, Ukraine was taken over by the Nazis at one point.
Oh, did I say before that?
Yeah, I said Poland was the furthest.
I guess Ukraine is really the answer.
But so the Nazis invaded Ukraine.
And Ukraine was like, we don't want to be no Nazis.
Like, wait, wait, you're killing Jews?
Count us in.
Let's do it.
Well, think about it like this, Rob, right?
There's probably, if you were in Ukraine at the time and you were on.
They had no Netflix.
There wasn't much to do.
Someone's out there killing Jews.
They did.
They were the firsts.
They had Netflix.
But right.
So imagine you're in Ukraine and you're suffering under Stalin.
I'm sure some people looked at the Nazis like, oh, these are these liberators.
And then the Nazis got in there and a lot of them pretty quickly were like, ooh, man, they ain't really liberating shit.
Now, if you were a Jew in Ukraine, you were probably like, fuck, the Nazis are here.
This is really, really bad.
And it was.
For you, it was really, really bad for you.
For us, Rob.
For our people there.
It was really bad.
But there were some other people who really got on board.
And they were ultimately defeated by the Russians.
But some of those people still exist.
And there's like direct ties.
Like the neo-Nazis there used to call themselves the social nationalists.
I mean, they were like really on board with the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Like they, you know, there's like direct lineage and ties.
Anyway, so in 2014, Obama, with Joe Biden right at the point as the point man on it, led this coup.
And so, you know, they have this coup.
They overthrow the government.
They side with the neo-Nazis.
And in 2015, the eastern, the most eastern part of Ukraine, the man, the Dumas province, I think it's called.
I have to look this up.
Sorry.
I'm going off the top and it's late at night.
But they had a referendum of whether they wanted to be a part of Russia or Ukraine.
And super majorities voted for Russia.
Like they wanted to be a part of Russia.
And Vladimir Putin said no.
He was like, I don't want it.
I don't want to take it.
I think he realized it would be too much.
It would just, it would be more of a net liability than an asset for him.
You know what I mean?
So he was like, the world will see this.
The American press will spin this as I took over part of Ukraine.
I'm not even going to fucking take it.
So they didn't.
Now, again, this doesn't make me like a fucking, you know, somebody who's an ally of the Russian government or anything.
I'm just saying that's the facts.
Those are what happened.
That's what happened.
And so I don't really buy the idea that Russia is trying to take over Ukraine.
That doesn't really make sense to me.
I think that the truth is that Russia wants Ukraine to not be a part of NATO.
They want America to not be doing their war games right on Russia's doorstep.
I think that's their motivation.
That's how it seems to me.
But it seems like they don't want to invade.
It seems like the American war machine here is trying to make it seem like Putin's going in, and it seems like he doesn't really want to.
It doesn't seem like Putin's looking to invade Ukraine.
Yes.
No, I completely agree with that.
It doesn't seem that way.
I also think that, yes, you're completely right about that.
And in addition to that, they're like, why do we care?
Like, why is it so obvious that a country with a whole bunch of ethnic Russians shouldn't be a part of Russia, but should be its own separate country?
I mean, I personally would like them to be their own separate country.
I'd like every little area to be their own separate country.
That's how I feel personally.
I mean, ultimately, I'm an ANCAP, so I'd like every individual to be their own country, right?
That's kind of my goal.
Hey, man, neo-Nazis should have their own place too.
Everyone should have their own little slice.
The Jews can have Israel, their own little slice.
Well, but isn't that a lot of people?
I'm not telling them to be their own little slice and live freely amongst the other people like you.
But you know what, Rob?
You're saying this kind of sarcastically, but isn't that ultimately what we believe?
I'm okay.
Because isn't that ultimately the idea of private property?
You should be able to have your own little slice.
You know, as long as you don't take it from anyone else and you don't fucking rob them?
Sure.
Yeah.
I have no problem with that.
But I will say, dealing with the world as we have it right now, it's like, what?
So Khrushchev gave Ukraine the right to be its own separate country.
So that's just a fact?
Or Bill Clinton decided that fucking part of the Balkans had to be a part of NATO.
So that's just a fact?
We just have to say that's just the way it is.
We must defend it.
Must defend national sovereignty, you know, because Bill Clinton said so.
Because, you know, the fucking rapist who was friends with, you know, Jeffrey Epstein, the child rapist, said so.
We must defend this.
And because Khrushchev is, because some fucking commie said so, we must defend that.
Like, this is all so ridiculous.
The bottom line is that if there was a dispute in, like, over San Antonio or Mexico City or something like that, and there was a dispute over where exactly the lines of America start and Mexico begin.
You know, like, let's just say hypothetically, there was some dispute about that.
And they were like, no, no, no.
I know whatever we've accepted, the lines are where they are.
But we're like, well, we think it should be a little bit over here, or they think it should be a little bit over here.
And there's some dispute.
And then Russia came in and said, no, Here's where the line should be.
Wouldn't we all be like, Russia?
The fuck do you have to do with this dispute?
Get the fuck out of here.
Like, you know what I mean?
And that's what America's doing.
So I don't, it's not that I have, as Ned Price suggested, it's not that I have some bias toward Russia or anything like that.
It's like, I hate all governments, but I could look at this situation and go, you know what?
I don't see how it's like, I don't see how the country in the middle of North America has anything to say about what a border dispute going on over there is.
And I also think that like it's very clear who the aggressors are.
And it's not, you know, it's, I mean, dude, if you look at a fucking, if you look at the map and you go, okay, it's split right down the middle of Germany.
And now it's at the border between Russia and Ukraine.
And you're trying to go, Russia's the aggressor?
No, I'm sorry.
They're not.
Russia is no threat to the world.
Russia has a GDP of substantially under $2 trillion a year.
They have a small, they're a smaller economy.
We print that every month of a pandemic.
Yes, yes.
That's one bailout.
That's not literally, literally, Donald Trump signed a bill that was bigger than Russia's GDP.
Okay?
They have a smaller, they have a smaller economy than Italy, than Brazil, than like, you know, they are not a threat to take over the world.
We have the biggest GDP in the world, and we can't even afford to take over the world.
We're fucking $30 trillion in debt just trying to maintain the empire we have.
They're no threat.
So this whole thing is complete bullshit.
And this latest thing about a false flag that they're planning, yeah, I treat this about the same way I treat weapons of mass destruction or fucking, you know, Gaddafi's about to go genocidal or Assad gassed his own people or Putin put bounties on fucking, you know, the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan or any of this shit.
Or Joe Rogan took horse paste.
You know, any of the bullshit lies that the corporate press has told, that's about where I put this.