IS IT ONE BIG PSYOP? questions why Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance dominates media while other missing children get little coverage, then interviews Peter McAlvana on UK grooming gangs—Muslim Pakistani men preying on girls as young as five—highlighting destroyed records and alleged political cover-ups. The episode critiques the SAVE Act’s opposition by figures like Durbin and Schumer, exposing redactions in Epstein files (e.g., Victoria’s Secret ties) and a $10M+ congressional slush fund for assault victims, revealing systemic hypocrisy where partisan loyalty overrides justice. [Automatically generated summary]
Hot takes, cold facts, and zero respect for the official narrative.
Sit back, roll your eyes, and let's recap.
Rogue stuff.
What's up, guys?
It is Tuesday, February 10th, and the news cycle is just unfathomable right now.
We are hyper-focused in the mainstream media on this missing person's case with Nancy Guthrie, which is Savannah Guthrie of the Today Show's mom.
And while I'm really sorry and sad and all the things that her mom is missing, this wall-to-wall coverage is frightening.
Number one, so many people go missing every single day.
You know, children, babies, moms, dads, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, dogs, you name it, just taken off the street by horrible people and we never see them again.
You know, I remember growing up and seeing kids on the sides of milk cartons, like that's a real thing.
And they give you those projections of what the kids, you know, might look like because they've been looking for them for 10 years and they never get any help.
They never get any coverage.
They never get anything.
You know, it's, they just become a part of the missing person search and never to be heard from again.
And it's terrifying.
You know, it's the reason why when my kids were little, you know, I was such a lunatic when we would go out.
I still am pretty much.
I mean, I'm eyes open because I just don't trust anybody or anything.
But I really struggle with this coverage.
Like, I'm really sorry that this happened to your mom, but I don't know why the whole world has to watch it.
And I think what's even more frightening is that people are watching it.
They're glued to it like it's a show.
Like you're watching this show and there's, I mean, it's every channel.
It's the liberal channels.
It's the Republican channels.
It's, it's the podcasts and the social media.
And it's just like minute to minute.
I mean, every single news outlet online has an updated blog that has minute to minute updates, but there's nothing to update.
There's nothing to say.
And I'm just like, okay, well, there's kids missing in that same town that haven't gotten a lika coverage.
And I get it.
You know, she's a celebrity's mother, but I don't know.
This just feels like too far for me.
Like, you know, I pray for anybody who loses a loved one and is on a search to recover them and find them.
I can't even imagine what that feels like, but this wall-to-wall coverage is weird.
I don't know.
That's just my humble opinion.
And in other news, and it's not going to be a long one tonight, guys.
I just, I just wanted to touch base on a couple of things.
Last night we did the half hour show with Peter McElvana.
We've got part two of that tomorrow.
And the reason that I bring that up is, number one, it was a fantastic interview.
Peter McElvana, if you're not familiar with him, hosts the Hearts of Oak podcast and worked with Lord Pearson, who's a member of the UK Parliament.
Just an incredible human being, very versed and living in the UK, truly understands what it is to be in sort of this big brother utopia they got going on over there.
It is scary.
They are arresting people for social media posts.
They're putting them in jail for two and three and four and five years.
And then they have these Pakistani grooming gangs running around raping little girls.
And you got Keir Starmer now officially tonight just gave the okay for them to destroy all of the records because in discovery and in talking to the victims during the rape inquiry, which is currently being held by the member of parliament by the name of Rupert Lowe, it's all these Muslim Pakistani guys.
So they're like, oh, it's Islamophobia.
I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
Just because the guys that rape them are Muslim doesn't mean that you as the victim have Islamophobia because you tell the court that the guy who raped you is a Pakistani Muslim.
I'm like, how is that Islamophobia?
These are just the facts of the case.
If you're being attacked by somebody and you describe them, because that's typically what they say when you go into the police, I need a description of the assailant.
I need a description of the perp so that we can go out and look for them, right?
And that's what's happening right now in this wall-to-wall coverage of Nancy Guthrie.
Nobody knows who the hell he is.
But in the UK right now, they're saying, absolutely not.
We don't want that.
That's wrong.
And we're going to stop it right now.
And this just feeds into Islamophobia.
It's not Islamophobia.
It's called reality.
Young girls, as young, some of them as five, six, and seven, have been horrifically raped.
Even the singer Duffy came out and said that she was kidnapped and held against her will and raped by, you know, a group, a grooming gang.
I mean, it's not like people of some sort of, you know, they're noteworthy and they're telling you that it's happening.
You're talking to families on the street and they can't even keep these animals out of their houses.
They're climbing into the windows.
And you have a, unfortunately, a demographic in the UK now where members of parliament sitting on their local legislative councils, et cetera, are Muslims.
And so they are siding with the Pakistanis, even if they're guilty, because they have an agenda.
It's very similar to what's happening in America right now.
We have this effort with the SAVE Act that we've talked about a bunch of times.
And it looks like Thuon might actually be trying to nuke the filibuster and get rid of the zombie filibuster.
And I mean, it would be amazing if it actually happened.
But then you have people like Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer and Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who are saying no.
Why are you saying no?
What part of you need to show ID to get in?
You mean, literally, you need to show ID to get into some of these assholes and their campaign financing events.
They make you sign away your life before you go in there.
But they want you to vote in the elections without ID.
I mean, it's our most sacred right as citizens.
It's such common sense.
And I think that's the theme of the show tonight, right?
We're looking at things and they don't make sense anymore.
It's like one giant psyop of bullshit where you're trying to make heads and tails of something and then you realize I can't because it doesn't work.
The math ain't mathing, as my kids would say.
And so when we're looking at people that are going up against the SAVE Act and you say to them, why don't you want the SAVE Act?
Don't you think that people who are coming to vote should show ID and should say who they are so that we can protect our voting rights and protect and make sure we have a fair election?
Well, no, because it's really hard for people to get ID.
What?
Okay, well, then I guess all of you guys are prejudiced and racist and you don't want people to come to your campaign events because all of those things require ID.
All of the people that are going to the bars, you know, you guys are racist against all the other people who can't get into the bar because they don't know how to get an ID.
And all you people who drive cars.
I mean, do you get what I'm saying?
Like you start to get down this slippery slope.
And I'm wondering why when people ask the question of those individuals that are in opposition to things like the SAVE Act, they don't say things like that.
Well, are you saying that people that are black, are you saying that women?
Are you saying people that come here as legal immigrants and go through our citizen process are unable to get an ID?
Is that what you're saying?
Are you saying they're less than us, that they can't figure that out?
I guarantee you, they're not going to have an answer.
Just like we don't have an answer right now to why we're still redacting things in the Epstein files.
Why are we redacting things in the Epstein files?
If we're releasing 3 million documents, which is, I mean, the fact that there's even that many files in there is really shocking.
And I have definitely read some things in the past week.
I know you guys have too.
And I'm like, you got to be kidding me.
I mean, there was one thing today where, you know, Epstein is going back and forth with this guy and he actually wrote, where do you take your victims?
Not the young girls, not women, nothing.
Like he didn't use any code words.
He literally said, where do you take your victims for an OBGYN visit?
And they were going back and forth about the OBGYN that Jeffrey Epstein used and how he used to keep them in business.
I'm like, guys, and the name of the person, we don't know who it is.
There's all kinds of redactions.
What are we redacting?
Do we really need to protect somebody who's using the word victim?
You know, they released today this guy who heads up Victoria's Secret.
I guess that shouldn't be a shock, but he's like the one name they released, you know, and that he was part of it.
And so all of these people are stepping down from their positions.
You know, you have the royal family now finally acknowledging the Prince Andrew scandal and distancing themselves from that.
You have various CEOs and people that sit on boards as chairmen and members and such stepping down, but nobody's going to jail.
I'm like, this is the common sense part of what's happening that makes me go, hmm.
So the Department of Justice releases all these files, but then we don't release the names of people who we know have raped children on an island where they were drugged and abducted and held against their will.
This is, I mean, I can't even make heads or tails of it.
It's so odd that we're still protecting them.
Even in the release, we're still protecting them.
And that to me is the point that we need to be raising.
That to me is the question we need to be asking.
What do we have to do to get the redactions?
It's kind of like when we were talking about the slush fund in Congress and we never got the answers.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been used to pay off victims of sexual assault at the hands of elected members of the House and Senate.
So these people who have assaulted people that either worked for them, staffers, people that worked on the Hill, whatever it is, and then they came after these members.
And instead of making it right and coming forward and putting them in jail, they got a payoff because they want to keep their seat.
So people that are there to enact, enforce, and legislate on our behalf and make sure that the laws are upheld are currently part of a payoff scheme.
I would think that anybody who knows that they're one of the people that had to take some money from taxpayers and use it for, you know, hush money, if you will, are probably pretty easy to sway to get people to do things, which would definitely explain a lot of the non-common sense things we're seeing loud and clear all the time on Capitol Hill.
When you see a Republican member and you're going, what are you doing?
Why are you there?
If you want to be a Democrat, please go be one, but get the hell out of our party.
It is so toxic to me to see people call themselves Republican and do the most Democrat type things.
If you want to be on the left side of the aisle, please go there.
Payoff Scheme Exposed00:01:59
We're fine.
We don't mind.
We would rather be able to look ourselves in the mirror and know that we have honest people representing us than deal with the constant lies and the two-facedness.
At least that's how I feel.
But I am really at my end with things that just don't make sense.
Whether it's protecting pedophiles, whether it's lying about Islamophobia to cover up Pakistani men that are raping thousands of young British white women all over that country, or we're talking about what's happening with the SAVE Act and why people would vote against having a fair and free election that is protected by ID.
All these things sound so simple, and yet we just can't get the right things done.
And we can't get the right people in the right place at the right time to make sure that all of these things are being done properly.
So tomorrow we're going to have part two of Peter McAlvana.
He's going to be on.
And we're going to wrap up our segment on the rape inquiry, which is actually wrapping up in the UK this week, and talk a little bit more about the trial and these brave individuals who are coming forward who have zero, zero support from parliament, and just hear a little bit more about what's going on there.
We hope that you will check us out at Rogue Recap at Lyndon Mick, roguerecap.com.