0:24

Welcome to the Last American Vagabond. Joining me

0:26

again today is Derek Brose to discuss some

0:28

of his recent work, some of his upcoming

0:31

projects that we're currently fundraising for and some

0:33

other really interesting overlaps that we've been talking

0:35

about a lot over the last couple of

0:37

years. Always pleasure to have you on, Derek.

0:39

How are you, brother? I'm doing great, man. Thanks for

0:41

having me back on. Yeah, you've been

0:43

doing some really excellent work, some really important

0:46

kind of peripheral, like as audience well knows,

0:48

I've been very nosed down in the

0:51

Israel-Gaza conflict, but there's so

0:53

much else going on. There always really is. And

0:55

what I keep trying to highlight, I mean,

0:58

pretty much in every topic I cover, but

1:00

in particular with this one is how much

1:02

these seem to overlap and intertwine, whether it's

1:05

just simply what that kind of a war

1:07

situation will do to other circumstances, what happens

1:09

beneath them, around them that no one's paying attention

1:11

to, but more so just the connections

1:13

of these governments and what they've been doing

1:15

and how interconnected all of this is. So

1:17

it's just really fascinating. And so let's start

1:19

with one of these, I think, that really

1:21

does kind of talk about the global, like

1:23

where a lot of these agendas are leading,

1:25

might be leading, or might be used to

1:27

accomplish something around this. And you recently

1:30

discussed this is called COP 28 comes to an end. What

1:34

does 2024 hold for the globalist

1:36

gatherings? So first of all, just

1:38

how are you, what's going on, start wherever you want.

1:40

But I think this is such an interesting global

1:43

conversation. I may ask you that

1:45

right out of the gate. Do you think that

1:47

these conversations, whether it's Gaza or even

1:49

the smaller things, people talk about the

1:52

burning of larger food processing plants or

1:54

Lahaina or East Palestine. Do you think

1:56

these things all interconnect in some way

1:58

to the larger agenda? reset climate

2:01

change? I do

2:03

I mean I don't currently have the evidence for

2:05

every one of those different situations you mentioned there

2:07

I know that yourself and some others have spent

2:09

more time on it like for example the Hina

2:11

thing I really didn't dive into it I saw

2:13

some things on the periphery and I've been gathering

2:16

my research on the Israel-Gaza situation obviously you've been

2:18

doing great work on that every day I do

2:21

think though it's the way

2:23

I tend to think about these things is like

2:25

for example when COVID started when the COVID you

2:27

know announcement of we have this new alleged

2:29

virus and people are getting locked down and

2:32

all this stuff my immediate skeptical

2:34

mind was just like okay this could be

2:36

a real event I'm not one of the

2:38

people that think that everything in the world

2:40

is staged everything's a false flag or everything's

2:42

crisis actors I do think say those things

2:44

do happen but you know I'm not just

2:46

somebody that's like immediately fake fake I like

2:48

to sit back and kind of watch but

2:50

with COVID it became more and more apparent

2:52

that if this was a

2:55

random event a natural whatever you know

2:57

just kind of spontaneous of life spontaneous

3:00

of life happening then these people being

3:02

the predator class world economic forum UN

3:04

etc just must be the luckiest people

3:06

in the world right because this random

3:09

event allegedly just you know they had

3:11

no planning forget event 201 just

3:14

happened to check off all the boxes for these agendas

3:16

that they have like digital IDs being

3:18

able to restrict travel being able to gain more control

3:20

for governments all those different things so I kind of

3:22

use that as a filter when I'm looking at any

3:25

situation I might not have the document that says we're

3:27

doing this to fulfill our plans for agenda 2030 or

3:29

the great reset but when

3:31

you can look at the way events are unfolding and you

3:33

can see like wow this clearly serves their

3:36

agendas like this clearly is pushing

3:38

climate change narrative or pushing us further into

3:41

digital world or digital identities or internet IDs

3:43

or and and whether that's like the

3:45

cyber attack claims or all this other stuff like that's kind

3:47

of the way I look at it when

3:49

you see a situation even if it

3:52

seems skeptical you might not have the evidence to say

3:54

hey this is fake this is engineered this is a

3:56

false flag whatever but when you can

3:58

see that whatever incident it is is

4:00

helping progress their agendas. It's at least a

4:02

reason to remain skeptical. In

4:04

the old school, 9-11 Truth

4:07

community, people would argue about whether it

4:09

was my hop or my hop. My

4:11

hop means made it happen on purpose

4:13

or let it happen on purpose. I

4:15

put a lot of things that we

4:17

see unfolding, including the Israel situation recently

4:20

in one of those categories. They

4:23

don't have control of everything. There is spontaneity

4:25

in our world that does exist. There are

4:27

natural folding events, and yet we

4:29

know with the Israel situation alone,

4:32

they have one of the biggest apparatus

4:35

of multiple intelligence networks in the world. So

4:37

they definitely have a bit more information than

4:39

the average person. And if they knew certain

4:41

things were gonna happen and they decide, hey,

4:43

let's never let a good crisis go to

4:45

waste or let's engineer a crisis so it

4:47

helps us progress our goals, then

4:49

they're going to take those opportunities. So we

4:52

don't necessarily need all the hard evidence to

4:54

be able to know for certain, but

4:57

yeah, I try to approach it from that point

4:59

to you point. Is this situation, is this new

5:01

crisis that they're telling us, is it advancing their

5:03

agenda? Well, then we should probably be skeptical of

5:05

it. Right, right, exactly. But at

5:07

the same time, not assume because of that that

5:10

it's the opposite, right? Or like, this is the

5:12

thing that I really keep, I'm

5:15

seeing really pronounced right now, which is

5:17

whatever your topic you're discussing, it's that

5:19

kind of like old dynamic that if

5:21

the media says it, the opposite's true.

5:23

And it's like maybe at

5:25

one point, and still even today,

5:27

there's some times that lines up, but it's amazing

5:30

to me that the average person who pushes that

5:32

can't step back and go like, don't you think

5:34

they're aware of that dynamic and

5:36

they can't just play the reverse against

5:38

us? I think that's very shallow thinking

5:40

sometimes. Yeah. I know we've had this

5:42

conversation before over the years, but especially in the online

5:45

internet freedom, truth, whatever you want to say, community,

5:47

I see that a lot. And I think I

5:49

kind of placed the blame on the shoulders of

5:52

Donald Trump for that, because for whatever credit

5:54

people want to give Trump for quote unquote, exposing

5:56

the corporate media as if some of us weren't

5:59

around doing that before. But in

6:01

reality, when Trump came along and he started

6:03

attacking the media, which is, I think, ultimately

6:06

a positive thing, but he did it

6:08

in a way of like attacking the fake

6:10

news, attacking the fake news and really

6:12

convincing a large portion of the population that

6:14

anything that comes out of CNN, Fox, MSNBC,

6:16

etc. is absolutely fake, absolutely lies. And

6:19

that's just not true. I mean, we can

6:21

find stories that are on those mainstream

6:23

corporate websites, and we can verify them

6:25

in other places. And we can

6:28

choose whether or not you share a Washington Post

6:30

link or some other outlet. But absolutely, there is

6:32

now a portion of the population that assumes everything

6:34

that comes out of mainstream must be lies, especially

6:36

if it is bad about Trump. And then

6:39

the opposite must be true that everything comes from,

6:41

you know, QAnon channels or whatever

6:43

must be must be fact, right? And neither one

6:45

of those things are accurate 100% of the time.

6:49

The mainstream doesn't always just outright lie.

6:51

Sometimes they leave out important details. They

6:53

obfuscate in very tricky ways. And sometimes

6:55

the alternative media is just flat out

6:57

wrong and incorrect or people making up

6:59

things. And other times, we're

7:01

ahead of the curve, and we are reporting on things

7:03

before the mainstream even acknowledge them. So

7:05

it's just – it has to come back to

7:08

rooting yourself and a foundation of critical thinking. Well,

7:11

I think what everything you said there all happens

7:13

all the time, right? There's almost always somebody in

7:15

the independent field that's usually – almost all the

7:17

way to the head in some way. There's almost

7:19

always people in that field that are making up

7:21

things because it worked, you know, whether they believe

7:23

it or not. It all happens simultaneously. It's so

7:25

interesting. It's almost like getting ahead of the Twitter

7:27

files in that regard where the earliest

7:29

example was that kind of dynamic

7:32

where you're supposed to assume based

7:34

on these binary dynamics. What

7:37

I keep seeing happen in this specific discussion around – any

7:39

of these really – I guess

7:41

specifically from Gaza's perspective in

7:44

that conversation is that we're being led

7:46

into World War III, which is obviously

7:48

– we definitely should be

7:50

asking this. But even in that part

7:52

of it, that could be

7:54

for other reasons because they're taking advantage or that might

7:56

have always been the plan, but even then, that doesn't mean that

7:58

we're not going to be able to do that. what's being exposed

8:01

to that Israel right now, which is almost

8:03

unprecedented in the corporate media. How everyone's going.

8:05

Yeah. I mean, Joe Biden is now saying

8:07

you're a bombing indiscriminately. Like it's very, CNN

8:09

goes in and starts calling out how they're

8:12

killing children. It's like, yeah, trust

8:14

me. I'm like, what the hell is happening right now? But

8:16

it is a weird thing, but I still

8:18

acknowledge the point that what I think they're highlighting is

8:20

true. And back to your point is that the

8:23

most important manipulations in history

8:25

and always the ones that are most effective

8:27

are usually the 90% truth, 10% live that

8:29

most important life. And that's the bigger point

8:32

right there, I think. And so bringing this

8:34

back to the cop 28 point, right? And

8:36

so whether or not this is

8:39

all of this was executed to achieve X,

8:41

Y and Z that we still have to

8:43

acknowledge what's happening, but I don't think that's what's happening. So I

8:45

think a lot of these independent things are happening. They're all being

8:48

used to drive us to this larger agenda, right?

8:50

So how do you see that going out in

8:53

its own sense? So obviously, if you

8:55

want to pull in the larger agendas of the world, but

8:58

going back to your article, top 28, yeah, where's this going?

9:00

And how does it connect in your mind? Yeah,

9:02

so I wanted to, I'm glad we started

9:04

out where we did, because I haven't really publicly made

9:06

a lot of comments on Israel. So I appreciate just

9:09

the opportunity to share some of my thoughts. But

9:11

I wanted to put this article together. Because for

9:14

those who don't know, we just wrapped up last

9:16

week, I think it was last Wednesday, the COP

9:18

28, which is stands for the Conference of the

9:20

Parties, the 28th meeting, they started this in 1992,

9:22

when there was the infamous

9:25

Rio Brazil meeting, where we really

9:28

first saw the kind of mainstream

9:30

public unveiling of the environmental movement

9:32

and talk of climate change and things like that.

9:34

So here we are for the 28th meeting, they

9:37

met for I think it's a 30 day meeting,

9:39

at least two weeks, no, actually, it was two

9:41

weeks, November 30, to think December 12 or 13.

9:44

And so you had more almost

9:46

200 officials from different nations

9:48

and different, you

9:50

know, just well, for one, I want to say this,

9:52

I didn't get into this in the article, but James

9:54

Corbett made this really good point recently in one of

9:57

his sub stacks that, for one, when you understand the

9:59

language COP 28. conference of the parties,

10:01

right? So they're not saying the conference of

10:03

the nations, the conference of the states. They're

10:05

kind of using some legalese and word magic

10:07

here to refer to the nations

10:10

that are signing on board for these agreements. They

10:12

are parties, right? So they're not even saying like

10:14

the United States as a nation has agreed to

10:16

this. They're just saying, oh, the

10:18

parties, the parties who are party to this

10:20

agreement, right? And there's definitely some

10:22

kind of legalese happening there,

10:25

which I think is setting up a bigger picture, which I'll

10:27

talk about in just a moment. But I just want to

10:29

make that clear. So when they talk about conference of the

10:31

parties, they mean the United States, Brazil,

10:33

India, etc, etc, etc. They're just

10:35

not saying it in those words,

10:37

the signatories of the agreements, the

10:39

parties, the conference of the parties, like this is the way

10:41

they like to play those kind of word games. But

10:44

nonetheless, they had this big meeting. And

10:46

the reason this one was particularly important

10:49

compared to previous years, those

10:51

who've been following my reporting or our previous interviews, Ryan,

10:54

remember that back in, I think it was April or

10:56

May, I wrote an article highlighting the

10:58

fact that you and Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez

11:00

had put out a statement kind of basically

11:02

complaining, saying we're falling behind on the SDGs,

11:04

we're only going to achieve 12% of them

11:06

at the rate we're going now. And we

11:09

need, they call for two things, an

11:12

SDG stimulus where all the nations need to

11:14

commit billions of dollars more to achieving the

11:16

SDG Sustainable Development Goals Agenda 2030. And then

11:19

he also called for the

11:21

SDG Summit, which took place in New York

11:23

City this September. So just a couple months

11:25

ago, they got together. And again, they brought

11:28

together hundreds of representatives from different nations to

11:30

recommit and say like, okay, we're

11:33

at the halfway point now, we launched Agenda

11:35

2030 in 2015. Here we are in

11:37

2023. We've only got seven years left, like

11:39

we need the world to recommit. And

11:41

so they're kind of, they're

11:43

playing up this language. And on one hand, as

11:46

I write in this article that we're looking at

11:48

here, you know, there might be some temptation to

11:50

kind of like celebrate like, ah, God, the UN's

11:52

crying because they're falling behind. I

11:54

actually think this might be some form of this 40

11:57

chess that everybody always talks about. Where they're

11:59

coming. of publicly lamenting like, hey, we're

12:01

falling behind, we're not going to reach our

12:03

goals. But in fact, that might be just

12:06

another ploy to get sympathy from the public,

12:08

to get the public, who does believe in

12:10

the climate change narrative, or let's say the

12:12

younger generations who feel so strongly about this,

12:14

because they've been told by Greta and others

12:16

that the world's about to end in the

12:18

next couple of years, that, oh

12:20

my God, the United Nations is even complaining,

12:22

we're not going to achieve the goals, guys,

12:24

we're falling behind. And then my expectation will

12:26

be in the coming years, when they want

12:29

to do more extreme measures and tighter restrictions,

12:31

well, they're going to have already kind of

12:33

laid the foundation to get the public to

12:35

be receptive to this, you know what I

12:37

mean? Like if the public's already believing like,

12:39

we're not going to achieve these goals, well,

12:41

okay, maybe we shouldn't drive anymore, maybe I shouldn't

12:43

eat any more meat, like, the public will kind of

12:46

be primed for the more, you know, because we've heard

12:48

it from officials, they said this net

12:50

zero green transition is going to

12:52

be painful, but it's necessary, right? So

12:55

I think that by kind of building

12:57

this public narrative of, oh my God, we're

12:59

falling behind, we need the whole world to

13:01

recommit, they had the SDG summit in September,

13:03

now they've had COP 28. And

13:06

of course, and I said this in another

13:08

previous article, they hold these events, this one

13:10

is in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, not necessarily

13:12

a place known for human rights or anything

13:14

like that. But of course, they

13:17

need the oil producing nations to come on board

13:19

for whatever they've got planned. And I didn't put

13:21

this in the article, but it's also interesting that

13:23

COP 28 was held at

13:25

a place that's called Expo City in

13:27

Dubai. And Expo City is a 15 minute city,

13:29

it's slated to be a 15 minute city that

13:32

is being built there. So you kind of got

13:34

that connection in there as well. But

13:36

overall, this article, I wanted to do a

13:38

recap of COP 28, and then to kind of

13:40

preview for everybody what's coming in 2024. Because I

13:42

do think 2024 is going to be a really

13:44

instrumental year. I'll talk more about that in a

13:47

second. But as far as what they concluded with

13:49

COP 28, you know, they

13:51

probably wanted it to go even further. But what

13:53

they got these nearly 200 nations to agree with,

13:55

and this is the UN zone words, you can

13:57

find the links I shared in the article, they

13:59

said This

14:01

is the beginning of the end of the fossil

14:03

fuel era. So they got all the nations to

14:05

agree to that simple statement. And it's interesting the

14:07

way that the UN wrote it. I noticed that

14:10

they didn't just write it like you would write a normal sentence where the

14:13

first letters capitalized and the rest are lowercase.

14:15

They capitalize beginning and they capitalize end as

14:17

if it's like a specific phrase. Like this

14:20

is the beginning of the end of the

14:22

fossil fuel era. And that was on

14:24

the UN's website. So I thought even

14:26

simple things like that are really telling because it lets

14:29

you know that that might be a phrase we start

14:31

to hear more often. The beginning of the end of

14:33

the fossil fuel era, the beginning of the end. I

14:35

wouldn't be surprised if that terminology starts popping up. So

14:38

they got nearly 200 nations to

14:41

recommit billions and more dollars to

14:43

accelerating the net zero, sustainable transition,

14:45

etc. And basically they just

14:48

moving the ball forward a little bit. Like that's

14:50

all what I think we're witnessing and what we

14:52

have been witnessing for decades now but especially at

14:54

this crucial moment. Six years we're on the,

14:56

you know, about to hit 2024, six years away from 2030. These

15:00

people have set 2030 as their goal and in a

15:02

bigger goal of 2050. But

15:05

so they're really pumping this up. And

15:07

COP 28 ended with that strong agreement at

15:10

the end of the fossil fuel era. And

15:12

now we're looking forward to the World Economic

15:14

Forum in January. You got the World Bank

15:16

meeting, I think in February or March or

15:18

April. You got the World Health Organization meeting

15:21

for their pandemic agreement that's supposed to be

15:23

renewed in May. And then in

15:25

September of next year, you've got the Summit of the

15:27

Future where they're talking about they're going to have all the

15:29

world leaders sign the path of the future. Like I

15:31

don't think these are small agreements that are taking place. I

15:33

really believe that they are prepping us for

15:36

plans for what they have, for what they're calling a

15:38

planetary emergency. And I can talk more about that. I

15:41

agree. I mean, this is such

15:43

a concerning, I'm just looking for the

15:45

World Government Summit, kind of just page

15:48

so people can see that. It's so

15:50

interesting how, let me just look up for

15:52

WF, how they can have these statements like this. The

15:54

world – you pointed this out in one of your

15:56

articles, how the World Economic Forum can – how they

15:58

can have these meetings. literally says the

16:00

World Government Summit at the meeting point

16:02

and we don't, and people dismiss that's

16:05

even possible or even what they're discussing.

16:07

One thing I want to include in this is that it's

16:10

so interesting how the

16:12

whole point, like the good example is how

16:15

they'll all fly their jets to these locations

16:17

and then criticize everybody else for using fossil

16:19

fuels, is we already have examples. This

16:23

was on February 2022 and the whole

16:25

point to this article, you can read

16:27

it, I've covered it in the past,

16:29

was that they were rationalizing the use

16:31

of oil, nuclear weapons and

16:33

what else was it, fossil fuels in general,

16:35

as long as you're using it in the

16:37

interest of fighting for freedom, then it's ESG

16:39

compliance. That's literally what the article discusses.

16:42

We have to use oil and weapons because while we

16:44

fight for freedom and in doing so, we make the

16:46

world better in that way. It's

16:48

like, my God, it's just such a blatant

16:50

ploy. The bigger point for

16:52

me, the thought process and all this is I'm

16:55

of the mind that going back to that article you

16:57

mentioned, this one here, in regard to them

17:00

worrying, like saying, okay, we haven't met it. I

17:02

actually, my gut tells me this is probably more

17:05

real than it's not, that they're

17:07

at a point where, I mean, it's obvious you

17:09

can look at China, for example, or other countries that

17:11

aren't even remotely going in that direction.

17:15

You can tell that it's going to become, even

17:17

if everyone they agree with or is in their

17:19

plan goes along with it, it's still going to

17:21

end up becoming like this world war scenario where

17:23

they have to feel the argument is they have

17:25

to force China's hand, otherwise we're all going to

17:27

die. Like you can see where that goes. So

17:29

my thought is that this is sort of like,

17:31

we're not doing it. People aren't meeting

17:34

their obligations, almost like a scare tactic

17:36

to drive people into doing it.

17:38

And I really think that it's not ever

17:40

really about meeting these goals. You

17:43

know what I mean? I agree. At

17:45

the top level, I think they know this is

17:47

not really about saving the planet. And so really,

17:49

it's just about driving action in this sense. So

17:52

that brings it back to the whole larger point

17:54

about the climate change central role in all this,

17:56

which is an illusion. Like

17:59

I don't even know how we're not. Really engaging with that

18:01

honestly, I guess it's just like with the COVID-19

18:03

game where the evidence has been there It's

18:05

staggeringly obvious and we all just kind of

18:07

argue with these screamers online about it But

18:10

the reality of the carbon I mean

18:12

if we're still allowing them to use these things as

18:14

the largest polluters And we're the ones being carbon tax

18:16

booth put gas in our car. It's obvious. It's not

18:19

gonna make any effect on it You know, so

18:21

how good good, you know, I was gonna say like

18:23

I mean Well, I think I think you're correct that

18:25

the this is probably there is some reality that they

18:27

are not achieving their goals I definitely think that that's

18:29

true you know what I was saying earlier and I

18:31

think you're kind of adding to it as

18:33

well as I that They're they're not meeting

18:35

their goals and they know that and there's there is truth

18:38

to that and at the same time They're gonna use

18:40

that to scare up and drum up as much like we're

18:42

falling behind me This is why we need to go more

18:44

fast And we need to do extreme governments need to

18:46

do, you know green new deal Whatever and we already know

18:48

that there's a portion of the population Who

18:51

has accepted fully all of the things that they're

18:53

told about climate change like and kind of like

18:56

you were saying a moment ago Too this is one of the issues

18:58

I have with even writing about climate

19:00

change because similar to kovat You know, it's

19:02

like do I want to spend every article

19:04

every time I mentioned kovat saying by the

19:06

way guys Here's all the reasons you shouldn't

19:08

trust kovat You know It becomes an exercise

19:10

of its own just to communicate these

19:12

things and every single means and obviously our work

19:14

reaches a lot of people So that it might

19:16

find a person who's like fully on board with

19:18

the climate change narrative I have a

19:20

lot of friends who who listen to what

19:23

we're saying and who see the scary parts They're afraid

19:25

of the UN now. They're afraid of agenda 2030, but

19:27

they also do care about the environment They also and

19:29

so they kind of have like they're like, I'm not

19:31

sure what to believe I see what you guys are

19:33

saying I do think this is going bad places But

19:35

they also don't want to just throw the baby out

19:37

the bathwater and just say hey Let's just pollute the

19:39

environment and destroy it and I don't think that's what

19:41

any of us are saying But the problem is and

19:43

this is I touch on some of this towards the

19:46

end of the article But this is what's important understand

19:48

those the roots of the modern

19:50

environmental movement and the climate change narrative the

19:52

World Economic Forum the United

19:54

Nations and their connection to groups

19:57

like the Bilderberg group and the Club of Rome

19:59

going back to the 50s, the 60s, and even

20:01

earlier, Klaus Schwab and his connection to Henry Kissinger,

20:03

Henry Kissinger and his connection to the Bilderberg Group

20:06

and to all these folks. We're dealing with the

20:08

same agenda. And it was the Club of Rome,

20:10

who, by the way, were some of the first

20:12

people back in 2019 to start

20:14

saying it's time to declare a planetary emergency. It was

20:16

the Club of Rome and their paper, Limits to Growth,

20:18

that came out in the early 70s, which

20:21

was presented at the third annual World Economic

20:23

Forum meeting, where they specifically said, we've come

20:25

to the conclusion that humanity is the enemy,

20:27

that we have to convince people that it

20:30

is humanity that is the driving force behind all

20:32

these ills and all these negative things. That

20:34

was in the 1970s. So here we are 50 years

20:37

later, and they've made some pretty good

20:39

progress by pushing this narrative. And they've

20:41

gotten us to the point where even

20:43

trying to have a conversation with somebody

20:45

about anything skeptical of the climate change

20:47

narrative will immediately get you dismissed, shut

20:49

down, anti-science, et cetera, et cetera. So

20:51

in some ways, they've kind of won

20:54

that battle. I think that as far

20:56

as the mainstream narrative, maybe not everybody

20:58

fully buys into the extreme version of

21:00

Greta, like we're going to be underwater in five

21:02

years or whatever. But generally speaking, if we were

21:04

to go around and kind of do a public

21:06

poll and ask people, do you believe in climate

21:08

change? I would think most people unquestionably would say

21:10

yes, even if they don't really know what that

21:12

quite means. And they've never looked at the science

21:14

and this and that, how it is with a

21:17

lot of things. So in some ways, the World

21:19

Economic Forum, the Club of Rome, this whole cabal

21:21

of people have been very successful in advancing their

21:23

narrative. Well, let

21:25

me ask you this is interesting is what

21:27

I keep seeing is in any agenda

21:29

we're discussing where these entities, these

21:31

elitists will use the idea. It's

21:34

sort of like the point they make all the time where

21:36

they're not just murderers, they're murderers who act like they're saving

21:38

the lives of the people that they're killing. Right. It's

21:41

like this almost like second, I don't know how you describe that. And

21:43

so in this case, it's like

21:45

I think what is happening is almost

21:48

what their actions are in fact, literally

21:50

creating the environmental damage that they point

21:52

at to justify the actions they're taking,

21:54

which in fact, don't solve the problem.

21:57

So it's like this, you know, and so it ends up being this.

22:00

It's not as if we're not hurting the

22:02

planet. So their agenda is achieving two different

22:04

things. In one sense, it's creating a

22:06

mindset of people that think they have to, like, within

22:10

30 seconds save the planet or we're all gonna

22:12

die, but then the actions they're convincing them

22:14

to take are in fact making it worse. You

22:16

see what I'm saying? So people then- No, absolutely.

22:19

People then ignore this as if, well, we

22:21

don't, like, how do I describe this

22:24

the best? It's that we're like, okay, climate change

22:26

is, like to your point, climate changes. So

22:28

it's the illusion of what they claim that means in

22:30

regard to carbon and how we have to remove the

22:32

carbon, but we are destroying the planet

22:34

as a human species, but their solution is

22:36

not the solution. Their solution is adding to

22:39

the problem. But what it effectively creates is

22:41

a world where people, like, in the right

22:43

wing of the conversation, I would argue, address

22:45

this as if there is nothing to be

22:47

solved. Exactly. Do you see what

22:49

I'm going with this? I mean, what are your thoughts

22:51

on it? How in the hell do you get past

22:53

that? That's a funny illusion right there. We are in

22:55

a weird feedback loop, and this is really some brilliance.

22:57

And the way you mentioned there too, it's like, not

23:00

only are these people pretending

23:02

to save the world, but they're actually

23:04

people who are screwing up the world.

23:06

It's some real psychopathy. It's like some

23:08

real narcissistic thinking of not

23:11

only promoting themselves as the heroes, kind of give

23:13

us all this praise and look at us, like

23:15

we're the important people. And

23:17

meanwhile, they're supporting narratives and actions

23:19

that are destructive to the environment to speak

23:21

of war and to speak of other real,

23:23

actual environmental degradation. I mean, that's kind of

23:26

the thing too. We might get into this

23:28

in the show, but one of the articles

23:30

I wrote previously was about pesticides, just as

23:32

an example. Well, guess what? The Biden administration

23:35

expanded the rules, which are allowing more pesticides

23:37

into the food supply and affecting male sperm

23:39

count, but also the Trump administration did it,

23:41

right? So that's an example of a real

23:44

environmental problem that, hey, there's poison in the

23:46

environment, and it's causing men to have

23:48

lower sperm count. And that was helped

23:50

by both administrations, left, right, Republican, Democrat,

23:52

right? That to me is like, if

23:54

we could get people fighting over the

23:56

free, stop them fighting over the kind

23:58

of surface level stuff. Or arguing

24:01

over just climate change is not true the way

24:03

they're telling me. So I don't care about the

24:05

environment at all Screw them. I'm gonna eat

24:07

what I want I'm gonna pollute like I want I'm gonna

24:09

do whatever because there are definitely some people who take that

24:11

and buy that path You know, we got to get past

24:13

that and be able to say hey they are lying and

24:16

There are still things we can do to help

24:19

the planet and to maybe leave the next generations

24:21

with a livable planet That don't have to involve

24:23

giving up your your liberty and your privacy Yeah,

24:26

and and in my opinion think of that

24:28

as if they're doing that in order to

24:30

get you not take action, right? Like it's

24:32

like they're this is the real 40 chests like this

24:36

This is the point we're making in the beginning

24:39

It's like they they they they understand that people

24:41

in the two-party paradigm have this binary thinking that

24:43

if it's the reverse of what they're doing You

24:45

know and this is exactly the game that's played

24:47

where you know that all of a sudden the

24:49

word sustainability is bad And so you need to

24:51

fight what they're doing and inadvertently are doing exactly

24:53

what they want you to do You know, it's

24:55

it's it's infuriating because it's

24:58

I quite frankly think a lot of people play

25:00

into that game because it's profitable Because it gets

25:02

them attention. They don't really care But there's a

25:04

lot I think the majority Who fall

25:07

prey to those people the tuckers and the elons

25:09

of the world or you know examples on all

25:11

sides I just think the right's playing a prominent

25:13

role right now in the conversation But yeah,

25:15

it's it's it is unnerving Do you want to get into the

25:17

pesticide article now? Do you have any more points to go over

25:19

on the the cop 28? Since you brought

25:21

me just hit a couple more on the cop 28 and then let's

25:23

get it out because I do think it's worth mentioning Um,

25:26

I just want to for one, of course always as always read

25:28

the article. Please yourself. I put a lot of time There's about

25:30

2,000 words. It won't take you more

25:32

than half an hour But the reason i'm like

25:34

emphasizing that and more than maybe some

25:36

of my other articles is because for whatever Good

25:39

it can do For you who are hearing this and

25:41

listening to this to be a little bit more aware

25:43

than the average person You might as well have that

25:45

awareness, right? I don't know what I mean I don't

25:47

know what to say like let's go protest the summit

25:49

of the future. Let's Protest the web like

25:51

we can't all just fly all around the planet and keep

25:54

chasing these people around and I don't really think that's the

25:56

answer But I would hope that

25:58

if you whoever hearing this If

26:00

you keep it in the back of your mind,

26:02

okay, there's some globalist meetings happening this year, there's

26:04

going to be some important things. And use that

26:07

knowledge to the best of your ability, however you

26:09

think is appropriate. I would say maybe start thinking

26:11

more about, you know, what were you doing during

26:13

COVID where you felt insecure and you thought, you

26:15

know what, I wish I would have been better

26:18

prepared and had some food in my house. Or

26:20

I wish I wouldn't have been dependent on the

26:22

grocery stores. Whatever the case may be, because we

26:24

will see climate lockdowns. We will see lockdowns again,

26:26

whether it's because of some new mysterious illness, white

26:29

lung, blah, blah, whatever they come up with, or

26:31

the climate crisis, or let's imagine

26:33

the Ukraine conflict continues to expand.

26:36

Israel is obviously big. We're waking up this morning

26:38

and CNN's telling me that North Korea just tested

26:40

some missile that could reach the US. Like, there's

26:42

a lot of stuff out there,

26:44

whether any of it's real or propaganda, or going

26:47

to be used for real consequences, you know, add

26:49

on top of that cyber attacks and all this

26:51

stuff. My point is, they, and as I

26:53

talked about in the article, let's start

26:55

with the World Economic Forum meeting. The last

26:57

two years, they've been talking about the poly

27:00

crisis. We're moving into the poly crisis, combination

27:02

of environmental degradation, war, COVID-19, etc. Well,

27:05

in their 2024 meeting, which is happening in

27:07

January, it's all about rebuilding trust. Of course,

27:09

they're still focused on trust. They recognize that

27:11

the people do not trust them. And one

27:14

of the questions they asked, they said, will

27:16

this be the year where we solve

27:19

the poly crisis, or is this going to

27:21

be the era of perma crisis? So this

27:23

is like their new terminology they're using now.

27:25

So now we're going to be in just

27:27

this permanent state of war and the environment's

27:29

falling. Like, I think that they have to

27:32

ramp up the conflict, the fear porn in

27:34

order to go back to the UN thing

27:36

to get people to accept these really extreme,

27:38

painful measures that they are promising we're going

27:40

to have to do to save the planet.

27:42

Like, we're going to get to a time

27:45

where push comes to shove, and they actually,

27:47

government starts implementing some

27:49

radical changes to meet these Paris

27:52

agreements, agenda 2030. So

27:54

the World Economic Forum is a big part of that.

27:56

They're focused on rebuilding trust. They're talking about perma crisis.

28:00

who's coming yet or any of that stuff, I'm

28:02

sure we will. I'm sure I'll write an article

28:04

about it next month, but I'm also focused, I'll

28:06

just throw a shout out. I'm also focused on

28:08

the greater reset, thegreaterreset.org. We're still focused on trying

28:10

to, we're gonna be meeting again for the fifth

28:12

year in Mexico at the same time as they're

28:15

meeting in Davos, Switzerland, but I encourage anybody, I'll

28:17

write an article, I'll catch you up on what

28:19

they talk about, but instead of obsessing over them

28:21

for five days, tune into the greater reset, you

28:23

can actually hear some solutions, and that might be

28:25

more valuable than just sitting around in us obsessing

28:28

over what they're doing. I write these articles because

28:30

I want you, the public to be aware of

28:32

what's coming up and what's going on, but I

28:34

also would hate for you to just be living

28:36

in fear, like, oh no, Klaus is meeting today,

28:39

we're screwed or whatever. We're not screwed, there's

28:41

so much potential, there's so much opportunity, so

28:43

check out the greater reset. That's in January.

28:46

I don't have a lot of details about the IMF World Bank

28:48

meeting, but I'm sure I will as we get closer. The

28:51

only thing I will say about that is, the

28:53

Antonio Guterres, who's Secretary General

28:55

of the UN, as well

28:57

as, what's her name?

28:59

Kristalina Georgieva, the woman of the IMF, I

29:01

can't remember her full name, but they have

29:03

been saying that it's time for a new

29:05

Bretton Woods movement, it's time for a new

29:07

financial moment. For

29:10

those who know, the Bretton Woods meeting took

29:12

place, I think it was 1944, it established

29:14

the IMF, it established the World Bank, and

29:16

it basically established the modern financial system as

29:18

we know it. Well, I also

29:20

reported last year that in France, none of

29:22

the American media reported on this, but Macron

29:25

gathered 50 different heads of state for what

29:27

they call the summit for the financing pact

29:29

of the future. Again, they're putting all the

29:31

pieces in place to establish a

29:33

new financial system, which will be a

29:35

quote unquote nature-based economy, which

29:37

is basically just gonna be them monetizing

29:40

and further raping natural resources, as

29:42

far as I'm concerned. So I'd expect that there

29:45

will be big news at that IMF World Bank

29:47

meeting happening in April. And

29:49

then of course, most people are familiar

29:51

with the World Health Organization the last

29:53

couple of years, this pandemic treaty. And

29:55

as Corbett reported recently, it's now been

29:57

officially renamed the pandemic agreement for whatever.

30:00

that matters. But so the pandemic agreement will

30:02

they will be meeting in May and this

30:04

is going to be when they actually approve

30:06

it. You know, all the meetings that you've

30:08

been hearing about in the last year have

30:10

just been kind of procedural meetings, draft agreements,

30:12

etc. But May, May 2024 is when they

30:15

are set to either, you know, block it

30:17

or to actually approve it and

30:19

make whatever changes, you know, so we should

30:21

be paying attention to that because again, that

30:23

is dealing with the biomedical state, this is

30:25

going to be the World Health Organization, which

30:27

we just saw played a major role during

30:29

COVID-1984, essentially putting all their

30:31

ducks in a row to say, Hey,

30:34

if there's ever a new pandemic or

30:36

a claimed pandemic, these are the steps

30:38

that all of the signatories of this

30:40

agreement will be required to do if

30:42

the World Health Organization declares a pandemic.

30:44

So that really is a big step

30:46

towards eroding national sovereignty. I mean, we

30:48

could end up in a 2025, 2026,

30:50

whatever situation, and they tell us there's

30:53

a new pandemic, and all of the

30:55

people, all the nations, the parties who

30:57

signed on to this agreement would then

30:59

be, you know, bound, legally required, even though

31:01

they never were voted on, even though we never voted

31:03

on them, to take whatever steps

31:05

the World Health Organization says necessary. And

31:08

we know the World Health Organization very

31:10

much likes China's approach of lockdowns, you

31:12

know, zero COVID policies. So we

31:15

can see that there's some dangerous implications from that.

31:18

And then after the summer in September of 2024,

31:21

that is when I believe it's taking place in New

31:23

York, they're going to have this summit for the future.

31:25

And again, the summit of the future is building on

31:27

the SDG summit this year, it's building on COP 28.

31:31

But the big thing is, they're saying at that

31:33

agreement, all the world leaders are going to sign

31:35

what they're calling the pact of the future. And

31:37

the pact of the future is, as it sounds,

31:39

it's going to be like a global, I think

31:41

this is going to be one of the biggest

31:43

public steps towards global government, if not like

31:46

the final step, I mean, like

31:48

where they literally say, we are now united in

31:50

this new pact. And then again, we're bound by

31:52

all these different agreements. And so you got the

31:55

financing pact of the future, the pact of the

31:57

future, the summit of the future, the World Health

31:59

Organization. All of that happened in

32:01

2024, not even to mention

32:03

the US election in November 2024. You

32:07

see, and to me, all this, these are

32:10

obviously, I definitely feel the same

32:12

sense there that this is going to be the

32:14

culminating moment of the initiation of how all of

32:16

these things converge to make a kind of ubiquitous

32:18

control structure in every possible way. And of course,

32:21

you're going to have all the lackeys like usual

32:23

going, this is no different than any other international

32:25

agreement in the past of NATO and this and

32:27

that and, you know, whatever else, even though we

32:29

had ever reason to be just as concerned about

32:32

those at that time too. It's

32:34

just, I already hear it happening. You know, all the

32:36

ones shouting you down for not understanding what you

32:38

don't. The reality here is that this

32:40

is a power grab. Even if you

32:42

think this is in the best interest

32:44

of society or humanity, it's still a

32:46

centralization of control to a degree we've

32:48

never seen in human history. This

32:51

is and that's terrifying to me. And I think

32:53

that the the like

32:55

you're describing the financial egg, you've got the health

32:57

side of it. You've got all these different angles

32:59

that once they converge will I mean, how do

33:01

you come back from that? Like

33:04

take a stop, take a second for the listening to

33:06

this and think about that. Let's just say you agree

33:08

with that. Let's say you take all these steps. You

33:10

sign this over whether it's a health thing only or

33:13

all encompassing sovereignty kind of, you

33:15

know, circumventing sovereignty concept. How

33:17

do you then let's say you wake up a year from

33:19

now and go, nevermind. I think this is wrong. What

33:21

do you do? Who do you call on? Who do you vote with?

33:24

Like you really believe they're just going to sub

33:26

world centralized power is going to be like, oh,

33:28

you voted your way out of it again. That

33:30

doesn't happen. Maybe in the past of like the

33:32

time Matt Eric writes about where people like what

33:36

the point of it, there was a time when we

33:38

were living under such kinds of control, but it wasn't

33:40

worldwide control that they were king or things like that.

33:42

The point was there was a reason for whatever that

33:44

I think we were allowed to think that we were

33:47

in a different control structure. We've always been in the

33:49

same thing. I think this is the time

33:51

when they're going to seize that control again as Matt

33:53

kind of writes. But yeah, that's a terrifying thing to

33:55

me. I'd like to ask you a

33:57

question really quickly on your thoughts around the perma crisis.

34:00

crisis. I mean, just the idea that

34:02

you're even floating something of a

34:05

permanent crisis. Like, it

34:07

just, what an interesting, like they really are planting the idea

34:09

very clumsily, I would argue that this is

34:11

just the forever crisis. So we're always a

34:14

crisis where we always need emergency. That's exactly

34:16

what's already happening. So what do you think

34:18

about that? Or explain for me, the poly

34:20

crisis would mean what, like multiple crises at

34:22

the same time? Is that what that openly

34:24

means? Yeah. So when they started

34:26

floating this idea of the poly crisis, I think

34:28

it was during the middle of COVID. It was

34:31

probably after the first year, after they announced the

34:33

great reset. And that's when I started to see

34:35

articles and Klaus Schwab mentioning it. And I think

34:37

it was even the theme for one of their

34:39

years. And that was just, as I mentioned earlier,

34:41

like, we're facing climate crisis, we're facing wars,

34:44

because they're talking about Ukraine and then economic

34:46

downturns, and then, you know, new pandemics. And

34:48

obviously, we know each of those different situations,

34:50

we're not being given the full truth, right?

34:52

But if you're just some, you know,

34:54

NPC, normie, Joe, whatever normal

34:56

person out there, all you're

34:58

hearing on the media is, oh my God,

35:01

Ukraine conflict and new COVID variants and the

35:03

virus, the forest is on fire, and Hawaii

35:05

is burning, you know, all these things, it's

35:08

definitely going to create that illusion, or at least

35:10

that perception in your mind of like, Oh my

35:12

God, we really are in a state of multiple

35:15

crises going on. So that's what they mean with

35:17

the poly crisis. And this, this is the first

35:19

time I'm hearing them float this idea of a

35:21

perma crisis. So it'll be interesting to hear what

35:23

that looks like in January when we get to

35:25

it. But I do think that this is, like

35:27

you said, we've already kind of seen this but

35:30

on the national level. So for example, look at

35:32

the post 9-11 world, right? Once 9-11 happened, the

35:34

US government declared a state of emergency, they essentially

35:36

suspended the Constitution and every single US president, both

35:39

parties, for the last 20 plus

35:41

years, has reinstated that state

35:44

of emergency every single year without a doubt, it's like

35:46

an unquestioned thing. No, we're still in a state of

35:48

emergency, still in a state of emergency. And that gives

35:50

the government powers that they didn't have before 9-11. Now,

35:53

of course, for everybody growing up after 9-11, they never

35:55

knew anything different. So it's normal that the TSA makes

35:57

you take off your shoes at the airport. It's normal

35:59

that They can spy on all your stuff

36:01

because they gave themselves the powers before you

36:03

were even born So I kind of imagine

36:06

a situation like that but

36:08

on an international worldwide scale where we are in

36:10

a Quote-unquote permanent crisis and

36:12

then as I mentioned earlier the Club of

36:14

Rome and the United Nations are more

36:16

and more Encourage everybody just and

36:18

I'll be writing about this soon look up

36:20

planetary emergency UN planetary emergency I believe whether

36:22

they declare the planetary emergency when they sign

36:24

the pact of the future. That's where this

36:26

is all going Maybe they won't declare it

36:28

till you know 20 25 or something But

36:32

they the Club of Rome who again are

36:34

the people who first started saying this we

36:36

need to make humanity be the enemy and

36:38

Convinced people that bear the problem They're

36:40

saying they're calling on the United Nations and

36:42

the world governments to declare a planetary emergency

36:44

and this planetary emergency Would like

36:47

a sort of post 9-11 state of emergency

36:49

Give all the global governments the UN

36:52

the world health organization even more powers

36:54

like where they could I

36:56

don't know what they'll do with It exactly, but we

36:58

can imagine some of the worst things And so I

37:00

think that that's what all this stuff is about like

37:02

hey, we're falling behind on the agreements We're not gonna

37:04

reach the SDGs. So we got to push even faster.

37:07

We got an invest more money We got to do

37:09

more extreme things and then you know the cop 28

37:11

like they said this is the beginning of the end

37:13

of the fossil fuel era and even the the

37:17

Like where they call him his Highness or whatever

37:19

the guy at the Sultan who got a lot

37:21

of crap from people because the First couple days

37:23

of cop he said there's no science behind climate

37:26

change Right got you but then by the end

37:28

of the the two-week meeting He's saying this is

37:30

the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel

37:32

era and we need to make sure countries are

37:34

ready to make Changes and not just talk about

37:37

it So I think they're at the point where

37:39

they're ready to push for action Like they've been

37:41

talking for 50 years and they've convinced themselves in

37:43

the world that this is what's next So they

37:45

might not declare a planetary emergency in 2024

37:47

when they sign the pack for the future But

37:49

by that point they'll have a pack to the

37:51

future a financing pack to the future a world

37:53

health organization Treaty and then if they

37:56

were to declare a planetary emergency Those

37:59

agreements will take tell them what rights

38:01

they believe they have and what actions they can

38:03

take. And yeah, I mean, it's gonna be a

38:05

lot harder to kind of

38:07

fight the power if it's not your council member

38:09

down the street or your state representative. We already

38:12

know we really don't get any response from a

38:14

president. There's no real kind of accountability there, much

38:16

less if this is some international diplomat,

38:19

unelected that's going to the United Nations,

38:21

quote unquote, on our behalf. How do

38:23

you even try to find a remedy

38:25

for that, right? It's like the EU

38:27

over the European nation's kind of a

38:29

thing. You're not really in control. Well,

38:31

what I think is interesting is that

38:33

what appears to me is that the

38:35

health side of this, the COVID-19 illusion

38:37

was an attempt at that control from

38:40

one angle, right? You talked about

38:42

parasite stress theory. They've done their research on

38:44

this, right? They very clearly realized that it's

38:47

one of the easiest ways to drive

38:49

people to accept clearly the kind of

38:51

authoritarian one world government they're trying and

38:53

have been trying to achieve is through

38:55

the threat of a pathogen, right? You

38:57

covered this well. And obviously it does

38:59

have a very strong effect. I

39:02

think they realized through that agenda that we

39:04

weren't all going to let that happen. And

39:06

it didn't work. People like us pushed back,

39:08

it clearly fell apart. This feels

39:10

like an attempt to go from every

39:12

possible angle, right? I mean, I think

39:14

it's obvious in a dystopian conversation throughout

39:16

history or any movies or literature that

39:18

the idea is that in a situation

39:20

where everybody's at threat, well,

39:23

government becomes authoritarian. It's almost

39:25

been drilled into our minds that that's what you

39:27

have to do. Well, we need to lock down.

39:29

We need to have military. We need to make

39:31

sure that you're protected in your homes. It's like,

39:33

so they go, well, let's create the multi-pointed poly

39:35

problem. And then, you know, perm a situation forever.

39:37

Then we have complete control. I mean, this of

39:39

course sounds conspiratorial to people, but it's

39:41

exactly what these governments have been outlining in their

39:43

plans, their discussions. And I think, and I'll use

39:45

this moment again to point out and then we'll

39:47

jump to the next conversation about what

39:49

I think this embodies. And I think what's

39:51

obvious, now even their

39:53

actions in the world government stage seemed in

39:56

aligned with what I keep thinking makes the

39:58

most sense. combination

40:01

of all of these things and then an

40:03

event that pulls them all together. Right? So

40:06

right now we're at the poly crisis. Well

40:08

what event will bring you into the perma

40:10

crisis? Right? The constant forever and my thought

40:12

is always, I'm sure you've heard me say

40:14

before, is the idea that right now we've

40:17

got all these multifaceted overlapping agendas, you know,

40:19

the war front, the kinetic wars, you've got

40:21

the biological pathogen issue, you've got the cyber

40:23

attacks and the technology. Well obviously I think

40:25

it makes sense that we're going to see

40:27

these converge. Where it would be a, you

40:30

know, Republican white vanilla

40:32

ISIS kind of overlap with a foreign entity

40:34

that carries out a cyber

40:36

type attack in some kind of violent

40:38

way, like a violent action coupled

40:41

with a cyber attack that releases some kind

40:43

of biological agent. Now it just, I've

40:45

said this many times, you know what I mean?

40:47

But I feel like that just is too obvious,

40:49

like lately we keep seeing them do the things

40:51

that's like, well that's exactly on the nose. Like

40:53

exactly, like the one perfectly still, a little too

40:55

obvious, but exactly. So I have any thoughts on

40:57

that being like a lot, you think it's too

40:59

much on the nose or how do you see

41:01

that playing out? I do think

41:03

you're correct that, I mean, this is the purpose that

41:05

the false flag tool has played in the predator

41:08

class, you know, toolbox for decades

41:10

now. If not longer than that, we know that

41:13

this is how they use fear to get the

41:15

population to submit to or to just cower in

41:17

fear and let them do whatever they want. Like

41:19

help me feel safe again, whatever, I don't care.

41:21

Go after the bad guys, fix the thing, you

41:23

know, lock me in my homes as long as

41:26

you know, everybody's safe. I absolutely think

41:28

we are going to be, you

41:30

know, I don't like to make predictions of any kind, but I

41:32

mean, we, I think we called it to some degree when it

41:34

came to 2020. I wrote articles

41:36

warning people not to fall for the trap of what

41:38

was coming in election 20, after the election 2024, that

41:41

they were going to use the sort of division between

41:43

Trump and Biden and the fact that Trump's people have

41:45

been convinced that, you know, he's going to be screwed

41:47

one way or the other and the other side's been

41:50

convinced that Trump's literally Hitler. And I do think he's

41:52

a dangerous person personally, I want to say, but I

41:54

think he's more dangerous than Biden. Biden's

41:56

just a puppet, but I mean, they're both both me

41:58

puppets, but nonetheless, like. I

42:00

expect something like

42:02

we have not seen before in terms of division.

42:04

I think we're going to see fighting in the

42:07

streets again, the closer we get to the 2024

42:09

election, like we saw back a few years ago,

42:11

it's kind of cooled down or calmed down, but

42:13

Trump is going to increase his rhetoric. So that's

42:15

just on the election side, not to mention all

42:17

these other meetings and things going on and then

42:19

talk of new variants or this or that or

42:21

whatever. I absolutely believe we are going to see

42:23

another false flag type of event.

42:25

I don't want to speculate what we've been hearing

42:27

about cyber attacks for years now, cyber polygon. And,

42:30

you know, of course I mentioned just this morning,

42:32

they're talking about, oh, North Korea can hit the

42:34

U.S. with a missile. So there's there's a number

42:36

of different false flag ways. They

42:38

get there's so many different things that they're kind

42:40

of amping up and talking about again. I don't

42:42

know what is going to be the quote unquote

42:45

one crisis. And I think maybe it won't be

42:47

anything, right? That's the whole point of the poly

42:49

crisis. There's too many things going on. And then

42:51

I did want to say what you reminded me

42:53

or what make me think of like when we're

42:55

talking about permanent crisis and just keeping people in

42:57

that it honestly brings up kind of thoughts of

42:59

1984 and you know, the role of Winston, the

43:04

main character in 1984 was to

43:06

like change the newspapers or whatever to make it

43:08

like we're always at war with East Asia. No,

43:11

we've always been at war with West Asia and

43:13

whatever. But what you kind of gather from just

43:15

the bits and pieces that we we learn about

43:17

the bigger world is that there is permanent crisis

43:19

going on. We're always at war. There's

43:22

always like, you know, we got to make

43:24

sure all the workers are outputting more, whatever

43:26

to make sure we meet the quota. Like

43:28

it's kind of the story is being told

43:30

from a place, maybe our potential future, where

43:32

the masses already believe we're always at war.

43:34

You know, we're always in some economic shortage.

43:36

You got to keep working. You got to end. And so you

43:38

just keep people in that rat race and sort of believing

43:41

in whatever crises you tell them are going on and

43:43

you tell them, hey, the good guys are out there

43:45

fixing it. Just let us keep taxing you and just

43:47

shut up and follow the rules. Exactly. Isn't

43:50

that already what's happening? I think

43:52

we're literally argue that's what we're literally living

43:54

through right now. I

43:56

think so. I think we're definitely and all of this

43:58

stuff that we're describing here. what's coming in 2024. I

44:02

think we'll just further solidify that. And in some ways,

44:04

it'll probably be good because those of us who can

44:06

see through it. Hopefully it'll be even

44:08

more obvious. But those who are indoctrinated,

44:10

I think are going to be even further pulled

44:12

in or those who are just living in the

44:15

fear mindset, like we saw with COVID, there was

44:17

some people that no matter what you said to

44:19

them, know how much documentation, science, etc, like they

44:21

had already been traumatized the point where they couldn't

44:23

even hear you. And what happens

44:25

if you traumatize the heck out of people

44:27

about war about the climate, the plan is

44:29

about to end. And the money is running

44:32

out. And of course, when people really feel

44:34

that, they can ignore like, whatever climate change,

44:36

war in Israel doesn't affect me. But when

44:38

it's their dollars and their money in their

44:40

pocket, that's when things really get spicy because

44:43

people feel that more than anything. Yeah,

44:45

I mean, I think that's literally happening

44:47

right now in every possible angle, you

44:49

know, they're, they're, they're desensitizing, dehumanizing, in

44:52

a very disjointed, jarring, shuffled way where it

44:54

ships this one, then that one in Russia,

44:56

then you know, and you know, it's happening

44:58

in an expedited fashion. You know, as much

45:00

as it's not day to day, it never

45:02

used to be like this month here, that

45:04

month there, like, it's really even even the

45:06

COVID-19 conversation. It's just really aggressive

45:09

and rapid, you know, and to be clear. ends.

45:41

I certainly hope it doesn't happen. But

45:44

we could go into so many different angles on this. I'm

45:46

going to be taught, I think I'm going to look more

45:48

into that general overlap discussion. But one of the angles that

45:50

I think is very obvious that very clearly

45:53

drives us in this direction, since you mentioned it,

45:55

let's fit, we can finish with the fluoride point

45:57

is this conversation about the the

45:59

pesticides. and the different ways that our

46:01

health is, I mean, I don't

46:04

even know if there's a bomb bar that's not good enough. You

46:06

know what I mean? Like it's like, I think the term you

46:09

used before is that we're drenched, right? That we have just been

46:11

dripped, dipped in some like chemical bath

46:14

that is just never, it's just amazing

46:16

to me how many provable ways you can

46:18

show that what they're using is not just

46:20

dangerous, but that they know it's dangerous and

46:22

that they've known it's dangerous for a long

46:24

time. And you'll find it in your children's

46:28

toys right now. You know, like it's just crazy

46:30

to me. So how do you see

46:32

the pesticide part of this playing in larger than just,

46:34

you know, the fact that it's dangerous for you? So

46:38

I mean, I do think that just we're

46:40

talking poly crisis, right? We don't even have

46:42

to look as big as war and the

46:44

climate crisis and all that. But

46:47

you know, we were saying this before we

46:49

started recording, Ryan, that I've just been really

46:51

reflecting on how like, you know,

46:53

as any of the parents out there, anybody

46:55

who's got young kids, like you're bringing the

46:57

children into a world where there's probably no

46:59

way to 100% guarantee they won't

47:01

be exposed to toxic chemicals. Like just because

47:03

of the state of the world, literally, when

47:05

you bring a child and or just as

47:07

a human being, when you walk outside, there

47:09

is no way to guarantee you

47:12

won't be exposed to carcinogenic pesticides

47:14

of a variety of kinds. It's

47:16

not just one single pesticide. It's like

47:19

Monsanto, you know, Roundup is the organophosphates.

47:21

It's the nicotine

47:23

based ones. There's so many out there that

47:25

you're being exposed to. And that's just things

47:27

that people are spraying allegedly to

47:30

help, you know, help their grass out

47:32

or whatever. That's not mentioning if

47:34

you live near a chemical plant or a concrete

47:36

plant, you know, the additional toxins and things that

47:38

might be in the air you

47:40

breathe and stuff like that, especially for people in

47:43

industrial areas. And then

47:45

on top of that, whatever the heck they're

47:47

spraying above in the skies, like, you know,

47:49

we should have mentioned that earlier, like any

47:51

conversation about climate change that doesn't mention geoengineering

47:53

is completely insufficient or irrelevant. Like if you

47:55

don't bring that into the conversation. And

47:57

then of course, we're going to end with fluoride. And

48:00

we focus on just those four things, the spraying in

48:02

the sky, the pesticides, sort of pollution,

48:05

you know, broader toxins in the

48:07

air, and fluoride in the

48:09

water, which obviously not everybody in the world is

48:11

exposed to fluoride in the water, but the US,

48:13

Western world definitely is. Just those things

48:16

alone, not adding, you know, even your diet to

48:18

the equation and what you might be consuming there.

48:21

That alone is causing, you

48:23

know, everything from hyperthyroidism to

48:26

hypothyroidism to knee problems, kidney

48:28

liver issues, IQ problems. I

48:31

mean, it's just such a mountain of

48:33

things. And this article is just focused on how

48:36

we now have more evidence. And of course, I've written quite

48:38

a few articles over the years. So this is just, that's

48:41

why I titled it yet another study because it's like, hey,

48:43

we can do this. It's like, hey, we got mountains of

48:45

evidence. What is it going to take for somebody to do

48:47

something about this? You would assume something would be done. But

48:50

just more evidence that pesticides

48:52

that are widely used, and in this

48:55

case, they're organophosphates, the ones I'm

48:57

focused on here, and also known

48:59

as NMC insecticides, that these are

49:02

widely used. And they're

49:04

showing adult populations, male populations

49:06

have lower sperm concentrations. And

49:09

not only just kind of like, hey, there's a lower

49:11

sperm concentration, but the researchers themselves

49:13

were kind of almost unusually

49:17

pointed in their warnings. You know, because sometimes

49:19

scientists tend to be more conservative. They don't

49:22

want to come out and like make a

49:24

big broad statement. These scientists were very clear,

49:26

like, hey, we have overwhelming evidence. There's clear,

49:28

like they said, reproductive toxicants in the environment.

49:30

They also mentioned endocrine disrupting chemicals, you know,

49:33

and this can, as I mentioned, it can

49:35

affect your age or nutrition, your lifestyle. There's so many

49:37

different things here. And the big point, I

49:39

guess I want to really just kind of make

49:42

sure everybody's close home with the second half of

49:44

the article. I just titled Trump and Biden exacerbated

49:46

this problem. And this is an important point for

49:48

anybody who's still stuck in the left right paradigm,

49:50

or maybe the last few years because of the

49:52

Trump deception have been pulled back into the left

49:54

right paradigm. And you think it's only the leftist,

49:57

only the Democrats who are the bad guys and,

49:59

you know, Trump and Biden. the Republicans can do

50:01

no wrong. But in fact, guys, when you look

50:03

at this back in Trump,

50:05

during Trump's administration, uh, during the

50:07

2017s, you had the EPA talking

50:10

about the same pesticides, particularly one

50:12

known as malathian and malathian

50:16

has basically harmed

50:20

over 1800 animals and plants, which are supposed

50:22

to be protected by the endangered species act.

50:24

And this was in part done through the

50:26

Trump administration. When Trump was a

50:29

president, he was getting sued

50:31

for this, for changing the rules, allowing the

50:33

EPA to increase the amount of this particular

50:35

pesticide that was being used. He

50:38

still beat the U S government's now being sued.

50:40

Obviously Trump's gone now, but the point

50:42

is Trump implemented policies that

50:44

directly empowered the pesticide industry. So

50:46

that's not, that's not freedom. That's

50:48

not Liberty. That's corporatism. That's, you

50:51

know, statism. That's I don't think

50:53

that's anything to be proud of.

50:55

And so he's getting sued for

50:57

it. And at the time

50:59

we had, I'll just quote this one,

51:01

you had the director of Californians for

51:03

pesticide reform say, quote, it is unacceptable

51:05

to ignore the range of well-documented dangers

51:07

with this outdated class of organophosphate pesticides.

51:10

Malathian is one of the most dangerous

51:12

pesticides still available on the market. But

51:15

it continues. You know, we go further into 2021,

51:17

Biden's president now, right? Maybe by, he cares about

51:19

the environment. He's going to fix it, right? He's

51:22

going to reverse it. No, in

51:24

fact, like the Biden administration under the

51:26

Biden administration, the U S Fish and

51:28

Wildlife Service basically squashed even the

51:30

little bit of things that Trump had done.

51:32

Trump had taken some very dangerous steps, but

51:34

there was still some level of like protections

51:36

in these areas. Trump, the Biden

51:39

administration came in and basically got rid of

51:41

all that previous analysis and said, no, there's

51:43

no evidence that this is causing any harm

51:45

at all. So they're like not even willing

51:47

to acknowledge that there's any, anything going on.

51:49

And so you got this quote from the

51:52

environmental health director at the center for biological

51:54

diversity. Well, we need to impose common sense

51:56

restrictions on pesticide use. If we want to

51:58

dodge mass extinctions in this. country, and this

52:00

is our moment to do that for a

52:02

Malathean. But that won't happen unless the Biden

52:05

administration grows the spine and stands up to

52:07

the powerful pesticide industry. And this analysis suggests

52:09

that they would rather not do that. And

52:11

then as I mentioned, by 2022, they totally

52:13

reversed it and said that, no, Malathean doesn't

52:15

pose a risk to any, any protected animal

52:18

or plant. Whereas at least during the Trump

52:20

administration, they acknowledge that there was some danger,

52:22

they didn't do anything about it, but the

52:24

Biden administration comes in and just totally reverses

52:26

that and says, no, there's no evidence that

52:28

this thing is harming anything, any

52:31

protected animal, wildlife. So, I

52:33

mean, it's just like, this is on top of

52:35

all the bigger things, Israel, everything else, but these

52:37

are all happening in the background. These are things

52:39

that we're probably being exposed to one degree or

52:41

another on a daily basis because they're that widely

52:43

used. Well, this is what,

52:45

I mean, God, it's just, this

52:47

topic for me really

52:50

brings out the most egregiously

52:52

obvious example that they

52:54

don't, not that they don't care

52:56

about you almost to the sense where we,

52:58

this is the con, these are conversations that

53:00

start making me genuinely go, okay, do, are

53:02

they really just trying to kill everybody? Like,

53:05

you know, at that point at the very

53:07

least malfeasance, like just for those that are watching,

53:09

I mean, I just pulled up the quick

53:11

MSDS sheet, right? Material safety data sheet may

53:13

cause cancer, very toxic to aquatic life, very

53:16

toxic to aquatic life with long lasting

53:19

effects. They're spraying this in the environment.

53:21

Like, I just think that's it's mind

53:24

blowing. And that's just the first couple of examples.

53:26

I'm sure we can go through this in depth

53:28

and find all sorts of allergic reactions may cause

53:30

cancer, you know, like just horrifying. I

53:33

can take more time on it. My point is that, you

53:36

know, these, this is one example and it's not only,

53:38

and they know, so what we were going to discuss

53:40

as well as, you know, we've talked about, oh, this

53:43

was one I covered the, where they were spraying the

53:45

New York pesticides down the streets. Remember that recently happened.

53:47

It's an, it's a common thing, but then I go

53:49

in to find out the ones they're spraying are provably

53:52

dangerous to children, to animals,

53:54

to all sorts of stuff,

53:57

or there's the general discussion of endocrine

53:59

disrupting chemicals. I simply asked the

54:01

question during the trans conversation, are these

54:03

causing gender dysphoria? And you'd be shocked probably to find

54:05

out that there's like 15 different studies

54:07

that find 100% they can. Not

54:10

that they always will, but yes, they absolutely

54:12

can create the very thing that they're now

54:14

pointing at in our society. Or Dr.

54:17

Peter McCullough discusses how their injections

54:19

they're using are endocrine disrupting chemicals

54:21

or glyphosate or any number of

54:23

things. It's just so unnerving to

54:25

think about the fact that this

54:27

is ubiquitous. Glyphosate

54:30

was something that I've been screaming about for a

54:32

decade and we've lost that battle. I mean, I

54:34

make this point every time. It's in the air

54:37

you're breathing right now. It's in the clothes you're

54:39

wearing. It is in the water you're drinking. That's

54:41

not hyperbole. It is everywhere. I make the point

54:43

about in the UK, they did a test where

54:45

they basically, the parliament was like, I think it

54:48

was about trying to challenge that it wasn't that

54:50

bad. They took a urine test and every single

54:52

one of the members of parliament had glyphosate in

54:54

their urine. Like try and disprove

54:56

it. Every organic wine. I've gone over this so

54:58

many times. These things are deadly dangerous.

55:01

They're causing all sorts of many different problems

55:03

and that's just one of them. With

55:05

East Polestin, we talked about dioxins or

55:08

PFAS or benzene and all

55:10

of a sudden we're like, wow, benzene is super

55:12

dangerous. We can prove it. It turns out it's

55:14

in your children's toys and sunscreen. Oops.

55:16

You know what I mean? Like how do we not recognize?

55:18

Go ahead. I'm just getting ready

55:20

for that. No, I mean, I think that the

55:22

outrage is well placed here and in fact, I

55:24

wish we had more people who are outraged and

55:27

not casually going about their lives. I mean, I

55:29

hope that people with that outrage, we got to

55:31

find ways to push back and look,

55:33

I'm not a government guy per se

55:35

here in terms of thinking government's the answer, but I

55:37

do think that there are certain situations like this that

55:39

it's like these things should just be

55:41

outright banned. I hate to

55:43

even say like, let's give the government power to ban anything,

55:45

but when we have the evidence, like even just the simple

55:48

things we went over here, we could go,

55:50

we could do a whole show just going

55:52

into Malathian or just organic phosphates or neonicotinoids,

55:56

glyphosate, et cetera. We have lost that

55:58

battle. And when you recognize

56:01

how pervasive these various chemicals are, we're just

56:03

talking about pesticides right now. We're not even

56:06

getting any other classes of chemicals. And

56:10

it really is, it makes me sad. It

56:12

blows my mind that, you mentioned the forever

56:14

chemicals. Another thing I've been getting

56:16

into recently, trying to understand is like the

56:19

lead in the water, realizing that most major

56:21

cities in the US still have lead pipes

56:23

that are hundreds of years old that are

56:25

actively leaching lead into the water. And that's

56:27

something that in the mainstream, they'll admit lead

56:29

lowers your IQ. So let's say you got

56:31

lead pipes bringing water to your house that

56:33

you're showering with, you're cleaning, you're eating with,

56:35

and you got fluoride in the water, and

56:37

you got pesticides being sprayed around. The kids are

56:39

going to school. You know, the

56:41

guy who won the billion dollar lawsuit against

56:44

Monsanto was a school groundskeeper who'd been spraying

56:46

glyphosate his whole life, and he got cancer.

56:49

But I'm sure those kids got exposed to that

56:51

same glyphosate as well. So it

56:53

really is just, I don't

56:55

know. It's an overwhelming topic that that's

56:57

why I wrote about it. Because when I see those

56:59

things, I'm just like, why is this not front page?

57:01

Why are we not like, why is there not just

57:03

like an alert goes out to all the schools, hey,

57:05

parents, new study comes out, we want to do everything

57:07

we can to make sure your kids are not being

57:10

exposed to this, because we've got hard evidence showing that

57:12

it's going to lower your children's sperm count or lower,

57:14

you know, IQ or whatever the case, like

57:16

if people care so much about the kids as they like

57:18

to claim, why is there not more

57:21

effort to protect them and just everybody, but

57:23

especially the kids, because we know that they're

57:25

growing up being exposed to

57:27

this toxic soup. It's

57:30

really it is mind boggling. It's frustrating. And I

57:32

hope people will at least share the information out

57:35

so that more people can try to be adequately

57:37

prepared however they can. Yeah, I

57:39

agree, man. You know, I think the problem is

57:41

that so many people like the average person wants

57:43

to believe that if it's not being discussed, and

57:45

I hope to God, and I really do believe

57:47

that that's a dwindling number, quite frankly, not the

57:49

majority anymore. But that thinks that if they're not

57:51

talking about it, if it's not on CNN or

57:53

Fox News, then there must not be a problem

57:55

because they wouldn't just not talk about it. Like

57:57

that's a problem that people think like that. But

57:59

the idea of being that it's, it's

58:01

so obvious that so you have these things

58:03

that are dangerous, that we can prove are

58:06

dangerous. And it's not just some like lack

58:08

of understanding. Like it's a conscious choice because

58:10

of corporate interest because of lobbying, like it's,

58:13

this is not even getting into like the

58:15

real conspiratorial aspects, just simple money playing a

58:17

role in the minds of these people that

58:19

are acting like they fight for you who

58:21

end up leaning in the direction of the

58:23

corporate interest because they end up on the

58:25

boards of these companies. And like, that's just

58:28

the basic broken, corrupt, decrepit reality of our

58:30

system. Then you add on the darker

58:32

and out, you know, aspects of this and what

58:34

that means, but you don't even need those to

58:36

prove the average person that they don't, they don't

58:38

care about your safety. It really does make me

58:40

mad. You know, I was trying to find your,

58:43

you wrote an article in the past, I'll try

58:45

to find it included about that exact point that

58:47

I think most states in this country are, you

58:49

know, not just Flint, I think is something like

58:51

that, you titled it, but it's

58:53

so, it's an older article, right? It's a couple

58:56

years old. Oh yeah, there's definitely,

58:58

I mean, we've been, I've been trying to raise

59:00

awareness about the water crisis for some time here

59:02

and I kind of like I mentioned, I've been doing

59:04

some research on

59:06

it here in Houston because of the fluoride situation,

59:08

but also just recognizing, wow, like, I mean, I

59:10

want to get rid of fluoride, of course, because

59:13

it's being, people are paying their money, their tax

59:15

dollars to add it to the water, but then

59:17

that's just the start. You got lead pipes with

59:19

lead in the water, you got chlorine and chloramine.

59:21

I mean, it's just, I don't

59:23

know how, I don't know how like this is

59:25

like, I guess what I'll say

59:28

is I don't know how the city

59:30

of Houston is continuing to operate the city of Flint,

59:32

the city of New York, because it's every major

59:34

city that has these aging infrastructure aging pipes that

59:36

are leaching. Like why is it, why is this not

59:38

the crisis that we're all hearing about? You know

59:40

what I mean? Like if we're going to talk

59:42

about climate crisis, environmental crisis, like we

59:44

should be like, there should not

59:46

be a day that passes in my mind

59:49

where the media and the government is saying,

59:51

hey, we're working on getting the pipes, we're

59:53

putting, we're getting these pipes because that we're

59:55

literally using infrastructure that we know is putting

59:57

chemicals into the bodies in the minds. of

1:00:00

everyone, but young kids especially, that we

1:00:02

know leads to lower IQ. And that's

1:00:05

before you even get into fluoride. So

1:00:08

it's frustrating. But nevertheless, this is where we're at and this is

1:00:10

why we do this work. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

1:00:13

And I was just going to grab an article

1:00:15

about the piping side of it too. And all

1:00:17

these different things you forget about, but I covered

1:00:19

that recently where one of

1:00:21

their solutions to this very thing. So this is the way this

1:00:23

works, is they have the piping that they've known has been a

1:00:26

problem forever. And whether it's that they just

1:00:28

don't care enough that they're worried about their wars more so

1:00:30

than infrastructure or that they just

1:00:32

can't feasibly do it. Who knows what the reality

1:00:34

is, but they know it's dangerous, but they just

1:00:36

let it go. Now at the point where they're

1:00:38

finally seeing a way that they can use that

1:00:40

problem to get to gain something to go, oh, okay,

1:00:42

well, now we care about the lead problem. Let's start

1:00:45

dealing with it. But instead of actually just fixing

1:00:47

the problem, one of the things they're doing

1:00:49

is this, what is it called? They,

1:00:52

or they basically insert this pliable

1:00:54

piping that they then heat and heat.

1:00:56

It's the ceramic thing they heat after

1:00:59

it gets inserted through the piping,

1:01:01

right? It's wildly toxic. Their

1:01:03

argument is that once they heat it, that's when

1:01:05

all the bad stuff happens. But I proved in

1:01:07

my coverage of this that once it's even, it's

1:01:09

heated and set, it still has all sorts of

1:01:11

chemicals bleeding. But the craziest part

1:01:14

was this where I caught wind of the story.

1:01:16

They pumped this stuff in and

1:01:18

there was a school, you know,

1:01:21

200 yards away from where they were doing

1:01:23

this. They literally had to evacuate

1:01:25

the school because kids across the school

1:01:27

started vomiting violently. You know, you

1:01:29

know, didn't you know how serious that is

1:01:31

when something that dangerous, all those, they start

1:01:34

vomiting reactively. Like that's crazy. And the point

1:01:36

was they, they, it turns out that's happened

1:01:38

like three or four times. Like think

1:01:40

about how crazy that is, you know, I'll find

1:01:42

that included as well. But so they, again, no

1:01:44

fixing it. It's because that's probably more profitable, easier,

1:01:47

quick to do. But so

1:01:49

let's, let's finish with the discussion of fluoride because I

1:01:51

obviously, let me, let me add one thing to that real

1:01:53

quick. I know it was right in the floor, but

1:01:55

just the only thing that this has come to my mind

1:01:57

recently too. Like you said, like they either allowed the

1:01:59

infrastructure to. get so bad or they just ignored or whatever.

1:02:01

I also have, you know, back

1:02:03

to our conversation earlier, like does everything happen

1:02:05

randomly? Is this benefiting them, etc. There's a

1:02:08

part of my mind that is like, hmm,

1:02:10

if you let the infrastructure get so

1:02:12

bad, that it's leaking lead into

1:02:15

the water and people are being negatively impacted, of

1:02:17

course, the people are going to want something new.

1:02:19

And this might be the perfect time to bring

1:02:21

in more smart city infrastructure with sensors and this

1:02:23

and that, you know, you might, we're going to

1:02:25

fix the lead problem and bring in all the

1:02:27

smart city tech. So I just right,

1:02:30

right. Well, I mean, that's manufacturing consent. I mean,

1:02:32

that's, that's a very common tactic to, you know,

1:02:34

make I mean, that's one of the things we've

1:02:36

been talking about in the great reset in general,

1:02:38

you know, you let it you let it get bad to

1:02:41

the points where it can rationalize the fact that you can't

1:02:43

just fix it, you have to destroy it and

1:02:46

rebuild it. And of course, well, now that we're doing it,

1:02:48

well, let's make it the best, you know, and that's when

1:02:50

all the overlap of the technology comes into it. But

1:02:52

yeah, it's a it's a disconcerting reality. And one

1:02:54

of the most obvious,

1:02:57

and really, really one of the most painfully obvious

1:02:59

parts of this, if this bit that talked about

1:03:01

first, as long as I've ever been doing this

1:03:04

work, and I think it's

1:03:06

been provable that long, that fluoride is

1:03:08

one, a dangerous

1:03:10

byproduct that has no real benefit at all for

1:03:12

anybody consuming it. But on top of that, that

1:03:14

they know that that they've been pushed don't be,

1:03:16

I mean, we can get into the wise, but

1:03:18

at the very least, because they'd otherwise have to

1:03:20

pay to dispose of it, we're now they're making

1:03:22

you pay to put it in your water. So

1:03:24

give us a quick background on this work, you

1:03:26

know, why that's important. And then let's talk about

1:03:28

what you're trying to do with the trial. Yeah,

1:03:31

absolutely. So I mean, as you said, like, we've

1:03:33

had evidence, I've been researching for it since 2010,

1:03:35

the evidence was there then.

1:03:37

And honestly, I've learned quite a bit in my

1:03:39

research just this year of doing,

1:03:42

you know, work preparing for this trial to resume

1:03:44

and stuff. And the fact is that there

1:03:46

have been scientists warning about fluoride lowering

1:03:49

IQ since at least the 1950s

1:03:51

pretty much right when it began. And thankfully,

1:03:54

we got to a point in 2016, where the Floyd

1:03:57

Action Network and the food

1:04:00

in Water Watch and several mothers as

1:04:02

plaintiffs decided to sue the EPA, Environmental

1:04:04

Protection Agency, because the EPA denied their

1:04:07

petition. They basically filed a petition under

1:04:09

the Toxic Substance Control Act, which was

1:04:11

passed in 2016, and allows citizens to

1:04:13

go to the government and say, hey,

1:04:15

we believe this substance is toxic, you

1:04:17

need to regulate it or ban it.

1:04:20

So the Floyd Action Network filed a petition, the

1:04:22

EPA denied it, ignored it. So then they filed

1:04:24

a lawsuit. That was back in 2016. Here we

1:04:26

are 2023 going on 2024. And we're still not

1:04:28

done with this trial yet.

1:04:33

But in the summer of 2020, it

1:04:35

actually began. And of course, everything was locked down

1:04:37

then. So I started reporting on it for TLAB

1:04:39

in June, and then it wrapped up in August.

1:04:42

And it was taking place in

1:04:44

San Francisco, but everybody was on zoom. And

1:04:47

I just followed the, you know, I've done quite a

1:04:49

bit of court reporting. It's kind of a different specific

1:04:51

type of reporting, because you got to be just ready

1:04:53

to like catch as many things, especially when you're not

1:04:55

sitting there, listening to zoom, where you can screen record

1:04:57

and listen to later, like if you're there in person,

1:04:59

you just got to be writing as fast as you

1:05:01

can get in all the notes. And if

1:05:04

there's a lot to it, but I really I do

1:05:06

enjoy doing it because and I think it's important work,

1:05:08

because whether we're talking about the fluoride trial, or

1:05:10

any other trial, you're not going to get the full

1:05:13

picture if you're not there in person, or if somebody's

1:05:15

not reporting live in person, because the mainstream is just

1:05:17

going to give you the top headline of the day,

1:05:19

you know, there as we've seen with

1:05:21

this fluoride lawsuit, this fluoride trial, there has

1:05:23

been no mainstream reporting at all. The only

1:05:26

reporting we've found from anything that could be

1:05:29

slightly considered mainstream would be Bloomberg law,

1:05:31

which is not really even mainstream. It's

1:05:33

like a division of Bloomberg that focuses

1:05:35

on legal cases and stuff. And it's

1:05:37

like subscription only. So it's not like

1:05:39

being seen by that many people, there

1:05:41

has been no major reporting

1:05:43

by any of the corporate media outlets acknowledging like,

1:05:45

hey, the facts, which is like you don't have

1:05:47

to necessarily say fluoride is going to kill people,

1:05:50

even though we have the evidence for the IQ

1:05:52

harm and all that. But at least

1:05:54

to acknowledge, this is a historic trial, the thing

1:05:56

that the CDC claims one of the things that

1:05:58

the CDC claims is the top health

1:06:01

achievement of the 20th century, along with

1:06:03

vaccines and everything else is

1:06:05

now on trial. And there

1:06:07

are Harvard scientists and, you

1:06:10

know, some of the most credentialed professionals when

1:06:12

it comes to this science warning

1:06:14

and talking about the data they found. And

1:06:16

even just in the first, that

1:06:18

first year of the trial, my reporting

1:06:20

show that, that we know it

1:06:23

lowers IQ, that Harvard scientist Philip Grandjean

1:06:25

said that he was threatened for his

1:06:27

conclusions about fluoride. He said that the

1:06:30

fluoride lobby has taken over the World Health Organization.

1:06:32

I mean, there's so many little bits and pieces

1:06:34

of nuggets that came out because

1:06:36

I was following this, this case. And

1:06:39

essentially what happened is at the end of 2020, it got

1:06:42

delayed. They said they wanted to wait for some

1:06:44

more studies to come out, including that study there.

1:06:47

They were waiting for them, the National Toxicology Program.

1:06:49

But as we've learned since then, the

1:06:51

National Toxicology Program, they still have not publicly

1:06:53

officially released their report on fluoride, but we

1:06:55

have two draft versions of it from May

1:06:57

2022, in September 2022, where these scientists at

1:06:59

the National Toxicology

1:07:03

Program in their own words say that

1:07:05

the study was done, it was ready

1:07:08

for public release. And their conclusions were

1:07:10

that fluoride does cause lower IQ in

1:07:12

children, in addition to many other problems.

1:07:15

So that we have that information, the

1:07:17

government's just refusing to make it official

1:07:19

by releasing it. And then we also

1:07:21

have, through emails that were released

1:07:23

through the trial, we saw that the

1:07:26

head of the Health and Human

1:07:28

Services, Rachel Levine, was

1:07:30

involved as well as some other officials

1:07:33

was involved with blocking the release of

1:07:35

this data and this information. So we

1:07:37

have clear examples here that this chemical

1:07:40

is a toxin, as we've known before, but now

1:07:42

it's in court records. Now it's in federal court

1:07:44

records, we've got federal government

1:07:46

scientists fighting to get their science to

1:07:48

the people, and we've got different US

1:07:50

government officials doing everything they can to

1:07:52

block the release of that data. And

1:07:55

so that's all been going on in the

1:07:57

background. And now where we're at, the judge

1:08:00

Edward Chin has, they're finally gonna have

1:08:02

the second phase of the trial. You

1:08:05

know, basically that since that study never came

1:08:07

out, the NTP study, we have the draft

1:08:09

versions. The judge said, okay, we'll look at

1:08:11

the draft version. You can bring back some

1:08:13

witnesses. We'll look at any new studies that

1:08:15

have been done since 2020. And

1:08:18

it's starting again January 30th in San Francisco.

1:08:20

It'll now be in person. And it's gonna

1:08:22

run for two weeks, January 30th

1:08:24

to February 14th. And

1:08:26

since we're gonna be in person now, and they're not

1:08:28

even doing Zoom anymore, so there's not even an option

1:08:30

for me to do it remotely. I am

1:08:33

gonna be going in person to San Francisco. You

1:08:35

know, it might not last the whole two weeks, but that's

1:08:37

what the court has kind of slated for that time. So

1:08:39

that's kind of where we're at now. And the goal with

1:08:41

this article is just to remind everybody like, hey, this is

1:08:43

still going on in case you forgot. And,

1:08:46

you know, I kind of list just a little

1:08:48

four summary points, which I just kind of covered

1:08:50

of some of the past reporting, because I do

1:08:52

think there's just like

1:08:54

everything we've covered here today, like, you know, why are

1:08:56

more people not talking about the pesticide issue? Why is

1:08:59

this fluoride trial not front and center? I mean, besides

1:09:01

us, and I got to go on the high wire

1:09:03

with Del Big Tree, a few other outlets, there really

1:09:05

has not been any coverage, of

1:09:08

course, from the corporate media, as I mentioned, but

1:09:10

even very little coverage from the alternative independent media,

1:09:12

when this could be I know there's a lot

1:09:14

going on, but this could be a victory for

1:09:17

us. If this trial goes the way that it

1:09:19

should, this could spell the end of

1:09:21

water fluoridation in the United States. Now, it's very

1:09:23

difficult to even imagine something good like that happening,

1:09:25

because there's a lot of forces going up against,

1:09:28

you know, the people trying to wake people up to this.

1:09:31

But there's some potential here to

1:09:33

start 2024 out on a good

1:09:35

foot. Now, of course, even if the judge did rule that

1:09:37

Florida is a toxin, we probably will be

1:09:40

locked in legal battles for years. I mean, there's

1:09:42

going to be appeals. There's going to be, you

1:09:44

know, so and who knows what the CDC even

1:09:46

act if the judge says, hey, you know what,

1:09:48

the evidence we know for it,

1:09:50

it's a toxin, it violates the TSCA, and

1:09:53

you know, action needs to be taken. But we know how the

1:09:55

government works that that could be a

1:09:57

year of legal blah, blah, whatever.

1:09:59

And in the meantime, people are still being

1:10:01

exposed to this toxin. I mean, I hope that's

1:10:04

not what happens, but it's possible. Yeah.

1:10:06

Think about this, guys. They're literally going to

1:10:08

be using, if that's the case, your tax

1:10:10

dollars to fight to keep

1:10:12

you unhealthy. Like, really think about

1:10:14

how that looks. This whole

1:10:16

time, they know this is dangerous and

1:10:18

they have a vested interest in keeping

1:10:20

this in your water. Like, it's

1:10:23

just, this is, these are these examples that

1:10:25

really highlight what the

1:10:27

real structure is. Not every individual with

1:10:29

their individual actions, but what the government

1:10:31

as an entity is, it is not

1:10:34

about your safety or your interest. I

1:10:36

mean, at one point, Navy, it's

1:10:38

just, it's so blatantly obvious with stuff

1:10:41

just like this. And that's

1:10:43

the craziest thing to me as Derek just outlined,

1:10:45

right? What we're talking about here is that the

1:10:47

information has already been revealed. It's

1:10:49

been leaked. We already know what they're fighting

1:10:51

for you not to see. And so that means that

1:10:54

Derek can see it. If we can publish it

1:10:56

on TLAB, if others, and Dell and others, David

1:10:58

Knight, for example, gave TLAB and you a shout

1:11:00

out, was talking about the work recently. David Knight

1:11:02

who left InfoWars, you know, they had kind of

1:11:04

a riff. But so the idea being is that

1:11:06

it's all there. So ask yourself

1:11:08

if it is there and we can prove it's real,

1:11:11

and it is, it's not debatable. Where are the bigger

1:11:13

names? Where are the corporate media?

1:11:15

Like this is something that should matter to

1:11:17

anybody who genuinely is interested in exposing this

1:11:19

truth. But of course, this is how this

1:11:21

tends to go, the flow of information, right?

1:11:23

This won't matter for people in those fields

1:11:25

until it's something that they could probably benefit

1:11:28

from, or that it's something that they're allowed

1:11:30

to look into. The point is just again,

1:11:32

demonstrating our value, demonstrating Derek's excellent work and

1:11:35

being ahead of this story so far that

1:11:37

you'll realize that he was years ahead. And

1:11:39

this is not about like Derek's

1:11:41

opinion on what floor it is. We're talking

1:11:43

again about information coming from a government report

1:11:45

that proves all the things he's been saying,

1:11:47

the IQ issues and even worse than the

1:11:49

toxicity in general. And it just doesn't do

1:11:51

anything. In fact, again, they fight to keep

1:11:54

it in your water. I mean, it just

1:11:56

so mind blowing to me and I'm willing

1:11:58

to bet. you as soon as this becomes

1:12:00

something prominent, if hopefully it does, either way,

1:12:02

that's a win, but mark my word. It's

1:12:04

going to be something that Tucker Carlson or

1:12:06

somebody like that briefly points to, gives you

1:12:08

half the story, and then probably fights for

1:12:10

some other angle for why it still should

1:12:12

be used from some Republican reason. Like that's

1:12:14

what I keep seeing, like the AI conversation,

1:12:16

and maybe we can finish on this if

1:12:18

you'd like to comment. Now

1:12:20

the Republican side, Alex Jones just had natural

1:12:22

news, Mike Adams on, and they were literally

1:12:24

arguing about how this AI is bad, but

1:12:26

here's how we can use AI to fight

1:12:28

back. And again, I'm never one to dismiss

1:12:30

that conversation using the kind of tech, but

1:12:33

it's interesting for me. AI of all things, I think,

1:12:37

I'll use some tech to fight back, but that

1:12:39

kind of concept, I'm completely on an absolute no-go

1:12:42

kind of mentality, but I think that's an interesting

1:12:44

step and to show you how it all of a sudden becomes a

1:12:47

thing that was absolutely not possible is now, well,

1:12:49

because the right-wing people say we might consider it

1:12:51

from this angle, now suddenly it works, and the

1:12:53

same in the left. Anyway, back to the

1:12:55

fluoride. Go ahead. Well, if you want to comment on that, I'll be all

1:12:57

over the place. Yeah, that's good. I mean,

1:13:00

I definitely could foresee something like what you were describing

1:13:02

there where we get to a point of, I mean,

1:13:04

because the thing is even people like Alex Jones, he

1:13:06

was one of the first person that I heard talking

1:13:09

about this back in 2010. I don't hear

1:13:11

him talk so much about fluoride anymore, and

1:13:13

obviously his views and his approach have changed

1:13:15

quite a bit. He went from being the

1:13:17

person warning everybody about the left-right paradigm to

1:13:19

telling everybody to stay in the left-right paradigm,

1:13:22

but nonetheless, I think that funky

1:13:25

stuff like that could happen, but at the end of the

1:13:27

day, we have the truth. We have the information. I hope

1:13:29

we get some more coverage. I didn't see

1:13:32

the David Knight coverage, so shout out to him. He does

1:13:34

good work. I hope we get more people. I don't

1:13:36

even really care about the credit at the end of the

1:13:38

day if the information gets out there. Yes, it's nice when

1:13:40

people show us some love because they know that we've

1:13:42

been putting in the work, and I have sat through hours

1:13:44

and hours of court proceedings to get

1:13:47

this information to everybody, and that is tedious

1:13:49

and sometimes mind-numbing, but I'm prepared to do

1:13:51

it again. I want to make it clear

1:13:53

to everybody, I am going to

1:13:55

San Francisco. I will be representing TLav. I'll be

1:13:57

going every day to the trial. which

1:14:00

is, as I said, it's eight till five, pretty much

1:14:02

depending on how long it goes. So I'll be in

1:14:04

there taking notes. If they'll allow me

1:14:06

to bring in my computer, I'll try to live tweet

1:14:08

things like I did before. And we

1:14:10

are raising money for that. I'm grateful to see Ryan was

1:14:13

showing me we're almost to $1,000. We're

1:14:15

aiming for about $6,000 and that's just kind

1:14:17

of we're going big for it. To let

1:14:19

everybody know, I've already bought my flight from

1:14:21

Mexico where I live to San Francisco. It

1:14:23

cost me about $900. So

1:14:26

the money there, that reimburses me for the flight's cost.

1:14:28

That's great. If we could raise even more money, we

1:14:31

would like to get a hotel or something so I can be comfortable

1:14:33

and safe and do the work I need to do for the potentially

1:14:35

two weeks that we're going to be out there. And

1:14:39

then it would be nice to be able to eat a little bit every

1:14:41

day as well. So I mean, this isn't going to buy me a new

1:14:43

car or buy me some new shoes or anything like this. This

1:14:47

is all straight going into the project

1:14:49

so that I can be there in San Francisco,

1:14:52

in court every day. And then

1:14:54

we'll probably be doing, if not daily, at

1:14:56

least maybe probably weekly, biweekly conversations between me

1:14:58

and Ryan to

1:15:01

keep you guys informed, especially as we get the

1:15:03

bombshells, which I expect they are going to

1:15:05

have all six witnesses from

1:15:08

the plaintiffs, the Floyd Action Network. All the scientists

1:15:10

are going to be there in person and

1:15:12

the government scientists, the sort of what they call the rent-a-coats,

1:15:14

are going to be there in person too. So

1:15:17

this opens up even more opportunities for potentially interviewing

1:15:19

some of these scientists directly. So you don't even

1:15:21

have to hear it directly from me or from

1:15:24

Ryan. We'll talk to the scientists right after they

1:15:26

testify in court and say, hey, can you tell

1:15:28

the people what you just said in court and why they should

1:15:30

be concerned about this? So there's

1:15:32

a lot of potential here for getting

1:15:35

some good content, producing, you know, obviously,

1:15:37

I'm going to be producing a number of written articles. We'll

1:15:40

be producing video reports, interviews, articles, maybe

1:15:43

it'll turn into a little mini-documentary depending

1:15:45

on how things go. Because

1:15:48

as I said, this could be the end of

1:15:50

water fluoridation or at least a major step towards

1:15:52

ending water fluoridation in the U.S. So

1:15:55

anybody who's got five bucks extra, we appreciate it.

1:15:57

I appreciate it. Like I said, it's all going

1:15:59

in. to our fund here so we can make

1:16:01

sure to give you guys the best coverage. Right.

1:16:04

Well, in general, I would like to

1:16:06

add point though, and this always

1:16:08

ends up being the con... It's so interesting that we even

1:16:10

have to have the conversation about credit. It's

1:16:13

to be clear, obviously,

1:16:15

everybody wants credit for their work. I think

1:16:17

it's interesting that we're even at a point

1:16:19

where people... It's almost like a naughty

1:16:22

word to act like you want credit for your work. It's

1:16:24

so interesting. But to be clear, my

1:16:26

point was not about the credit. It's about

1:16:28

the fact that in... Like for instance, we

1:16:30

do a cover... Cover something, whatever

1:16:33

that may be a topic, and we explicitly...

1:16:35

All the source material, we break it all

1:16:37

down, we give you all the tools to

1:16:39

be able to dive through yourself. And then

1:16:42

it gets covered by somebody else in a

1:16:44

gigantic platform with a brief left right wing

1:16:46

angle with no source material. To

1:16:48

me, it's predominantly important that we have...

1:16:52

So the tools to be able to understand things

1:16:54

for yourself. My point being is that with the

1:16:56

work you've been doing and the information that you've

1:16:58

compiled, like going back to just this in general

1:17:02

about this, the overarching... All the amount of

1:17:04

work you've done on this thread, like all

1:17:06

these different things, all have source material, all

1:17:08

have things you can prove for yourself, as

1:17:10

opposed to one stop, kind of like here's

1:17:12

the story of fluoride and how it worked

1:17:15

from a larger platform. That's my concern. Obviously,

1:17:17

you deserve credit for your work. That's a

1:17:19

given. The fact that that's even debated is

1:17:21

ridiculous to me, not that that's

1:17:23

what you were saying. I appreciate that. Yeah, I

1:17:25

like credit as much as anybody else, but I

1:17:28

hear it's your service. But again, it's so important

1:17:30

that we don't come at this from a left

1:17:32

or right limited hangout type of view.

1:17:34

And that's always why I think it's important that

1:17:36

we focus on that as opposed to waiting for

1:17:38

them to wait till it's safe. Like we all

1:17:41

saw how COVID-19 went. There's thousands

1:17:43

of these large people that waited until it was safe

1:17:45

to jump in, said all the things that were needed

1:17:47

to be said. They got all this

1:17:49

attention from people that were still afraid to even

1:17:51

look at our work until they can, that's how

1:17:54

that works. And they got limited information and they're

1:17:56

operating on limited, in general understanding.

1:17:58

I agree. In general. But anyway, that's that's. That's where

1:18:00

I think you gotta get going. I, yeah, so

1:18:02

sorry. I just want to say

1:18:05

that that is problematic. I'll just wrap up with

1:18:07

this because this isn't the first time and it

1:18:09

won't be the last time we have this conversation.

1:18:11

I would point to another example, which particularly annoys

1:18:13

me still to this day. And that

1:18:15

is the spars pandemic and end fours reporting on

1:18:17

it and claiming that they broke the story. And

1:18:19

you know, again, it's the internet, right? People we

1:18:21

borrow and take things, but I very much

1:18:23

just as a journalist who takes themselves seriously,

1:18:25

if I am sourcing Whitney Webb's research or

1:18:27

somebody else's research, I'm at least going to

1:18:30

mention them and link to their article, even

1:18:32

if I'm building off it, to make sure

1:18:34

people know, hey, I didn't find this out

1:18:36

of nowhere. This isn't my original reporting. I

1:18:38

might be building on it, adding some context,

1:18:40

but here's where I found that piece of

1:18:42

nugget. You know, so those things are nice.

1:18:44

I think it's a courtesy that not everybody

1:18:46

in the independent media understands or cares about.

1:18:48

But I know that we

1:18:50

have been ahead of the curve, you particularly with

1:18:53

your reporting on COVID and now with Israel. And

1:18:55

I've done my best to continue to be a

1:18:58

credible deep dive journalist who brings people stories.

1:19:00

You know, especially the things that I talk

1:19:02

about, this is November 2020, pretty early on

1:19:05

in the COVID stuff. I strive to

1:19:07

write about things that not everybody is going to

1:19:09

be talking about. That's why I look for the

1:19:11

stories like the pesticide one or the fluoride one,

1:19:13

the Utah ritual abuse. You know,

1:19:16

there's been so many things that we've broken over the

1:19:18

last couple of years, and maybe with time, credit will

1:19:20

come. Maybe it won't. But at the end of

1:19:22

the day, if you guys are getting the information and you're helping

1:19:24

us out by sharing this information, that's what

1:19:26

really matters to me. You know, we can argue about

1:19:28

credit once we beat these people. How about that? Yeah.

1:19:31

Well, again, and I would say that's not even the

1:19:33

argument for me. It's all this, all

1:19:35

the source material, all the links, all

1:19:37

the data that you don't get on

1:19:40

a video conversation alluding to

1:19:42

things and yelling you right wing talking points.

1:19:44

It's not the same thing as being able

1:19:46

to understand and research and quite frankly, even

1:19:48

go, oh, OK, I actually disagree with Eric

1:19:51

here and here and here, right? As

1:19:53

opposed to just going, tell me what I'm supposed

1:19:55

to hear about this story. Like that's, I mean,

1:19:58

our audience knows. I do agree. That's the. The

1:20:00

biggest thing too is that, like you said, you're going to

1:20:02

get a sort of five-minute, watered-down version

1:20:04

of the story, not even what you would

1:20:06

be getting from somebody like us where you're

1:20:08

going to get all those links and all

1:20:11

those references. So anyway, those people are just

1:20:13

borrowing from our work anyways, whether

1:20:15

they realize it or not. So I am

1:20:17

grateful though for everybody who shares all my articles. I

1:20:20

know some of them can be long and some of you

1:20:23

enjoy long articles, some of you don't. But to every one

1:20:25

of you who takes the time to read my words and

1:20:27

to share it, I just want you to know that I

1:20:29

do greatly appreciate that. And we see the number of views,

1:20:31

we see the number of shares, and every single one of

1:20:33

them is appreciated. Oh yeah, man, exactly. A

1:20:36

good note to end on. We are reaching

1:20:38

people. And again, honestly, the last thing

1:20:40

I truly care about is some... I

1:20:43

don't think I would do very well with fame, quite frankly. I

1:20:47

think I would probably be very unhappy. So

1:20:49

I'm happy to be the person that's doing

1:20:52

the work that is important and the peripheral,

1:20:54

to be quite frank. I don't

1:20:56

think I would do too well with overwhelming attention.

1:20:59

I think it's not in me. But I

1:21:01

think this is important because

1:21:03

it's honest and the work behind it comes

1:21:05

from a place of integrity. And I'm speaking about

1:21:07

you in particular, Derek, and I think what you

1:21:10

do, it is an obvious shining through

1:21:12

reality that you care about what you're doing. And so

1:21:14

I hope to see more coming in that regard. And

1:21:17

I'm looking forward to the fluoride trial itself. I'm

1:21:19

actually really excited to see what comes out of

1:21:21

that in the real time information. And hopefully we

1:21:23

see a win here, man. I mean, genuinely see

1:21:26

some kind of positive step to make

1:21:28

sure people realize that there are good people fighting for good things

1:21:30

and you're one of them, brother. So thank you for your work.

1:21:33

Thank you so much. Appreciate you, brother. Yeah. And

1:21:35

as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come

1:21:38

to your own conclusions. Thank

1:21:55

you. www.mytrendyphone.co.uk